# Statement on OGL from WotC



## darjr

@Morrus reading it now.


----------



## darjr

Saw it first on Sadie’s Hive post


----------



## BookTenTiger

Here's the statement:



> "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."


----------



## Deset Gled

BookTenTiger said:


> Here's the statement:




That's a lot of words to say very little.


----------



## darjr

Deset Gled said:


> That's a lot of words to say very little.



The key bits being supporting 3rd parties with the release of OneD&D.


----------



## Oofta

Deset Gled said:


> That's a lot of words to say very little.



And ... as predicted they commented and already people are complaining.


----------



## Lidgar

BookTenTiger said:


> "While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has  since its inception..."



I'm curious how the OGL has "evolved." Hasn't the document itself remained pretty much the same since release?


----------



## J.Quondam

So pretty much right where everything was before the "leak"?


----------



## John Lloyd1

It could be: "We haven't really thought about it (as a group)".


----------



## Deset Gled

John Lloyd1 said:


> It could be: "We haven't really thought about it (as a group)".




Isn't that kind of a problem? I would have expected a corporation like Hasbro to be dealing with IP legalities/questions in the very early phases of a project.


----------



## darjr

Deset Gled said:


> Isn't that kind of a problem? I would have expected a corporation like Hasbro to be dealing with IP legalities/questions in the very early phases of a project.



Not if they intended to go OGL already, anyway. It might have been considered a dealt with question.

So dealing with the devilish details, like actually making the SRD, might just be on the back burner.

Maybe.


----------



## Retreater

They at least took enough notice of the concern to make a statement.


----------



## darjr

I gotta admit seems like a lot of folks think it leaves too much wiggle room.

I dint agree but that may not matter.


----------



## Scribe

darjr said:


> I gotta admit seems like a lot of folks think it leaves too much wiggle room.
> 
> I dint agree but that may not matter.



Considering the erosion of trust Wizards is generating right now in the extremely online segment of the mtg community I'm not surprised.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Could the hesitation be about the digital interface?  Surely not just modules.  That train left the station in terms of community expectations.


----------



## darjr

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Could the hesitation be about the digital interface?  Surely not just modules.  That train left the station in terms of community expectations.



I’m guessing, that and they probably want to wait till onednd is closer to dine.

I do believe the original 5e OGL/SRD delay was in part because of DMSGuild.


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> The key bits being supporting 3rd parties with the release of OneD&D.



Sure, but there's support and then there's SUPPORT.  No way to tell which it is yet.  Still, it's nice that they jumped on this to at least try to reassure people.


----------



## Dausuul

Big corporation not willing to make definitive statements about what they will do two years from now. Film at 11.


----------



## Remathilis

Lidgar said:


> I'm curious how the OGL has "evolved." Hasn't the document itself remained pretty much the same since release?



There is the 1.0 and 1.0a, if I'm not mistaken. 

That being said, it's pretty much a caveat for "we reserve the right to fix loopholes, but the plan is to keep things running as normal."


----------



## see

The decisions as to what to release in the 3rd edition, 3.5, and 5th edition SRDs were not finalized until months after those editions were already in stores. I expect that WotC won't really decide what to release in the next SRD until after the next edition is released either.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

see said:


> The decisions as to what to release in the 3rd edition, 3.5, and 5th edition SRDs were not finalized until months after those editions were already in stores. I expect that WotC won't really decide what to release in the next SRD until after the next edition is released either.




Because you can't give permission of something that is not finalized...

the rumor is baseless. I was really excited about OneD&D, but right now, I fear youtubers are just killing it... I really can't believe how upset someone can be that a system you like gets a long needed upgrade. Nothing is taken away. And if wotc does not upgrade, it has to just lower the support, because at some point people are bored with the old game with unfixed holes in it.


----------



## dave2008

Lidgar said:


> I'm curious how the OGL has "evolved." Hasn't the document itself remained pretty much the same since release?



Very little change to the actual OGL, but the OGC included the 3e SRD, then the 3.5e SRD, then the 5e SRD, and then an updated to the 5e SRD.


see said:


> The decisions as to what to release in the 3rd edition, 3.5, and 5th edition SRDs were not finalized until months after those editions were already in stores. I expect that WotC won't really decide what to release in the next SRD until after the next edition is released either.



IIRC correctly the 5e SRD came out more than a year after the 5e PHB came out.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Here's the exact statement:



			
				Wizards of the Coast said:
			
		

> 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.




Now personally, I don't find that any more reassuring that not saying anything, because that's all they're doing here. Indeed the disastrous 4E GSL was promoted as essentially an "evolution" or development of the OGL, for example. Even after people saw it, for a brief period WotC tried that "it's just a few necessary changes, there's still an SRD!" messaging for the GSL before it became clear it wasn't going to work.

On the other hand, there's nothing particularly alarming about saying nothing from a company as deeply corporate as modern WotC.

If the WotC of say, 2007 (or 2015, even) had said this, I'd be a little concerned. If Paizo or the like was saying it re: their OGL/SRD I'd be pretty concerned. But that's because both those companies were more communicative and fan-oriented (which isn't always a good thing - the whole Mearls idiocy stemmed entirely from him acting like he was running a small company and was in charge of it and had no legal or PR departments).


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Yeah that's...a non-statement.

Which means it should have a non-impact. Whatever concerns I had before aren't changed by this lack-of-a-statement. The only thing communicated here is that WotC wants us to know that _they_ know people are concerned. That's it. That's the sum total of the content here.


----------



## carmachu

Not sure how to take it. It’s not exactly reassuring there.

Nice to say you will still support 3rd party creators. But the last sentence it’s too early to in development to talk about OGL and SRD specifics has echos of the 4th edition GSL delay and that fiasco.

So coin flip


----------



## Staffan

see said:


> The decisions as to what to release in the 3rd edition, 3.5, and 5th edition SRDs were not finalized until months after those editions were already in stores. I expect that WotC won't really decide what to release in the next SRD until after the next edition is released either.



As I recall, the 3.5e SRD was released nigh-simultaneously with the 3.5e core books. Early 3.5e was probably the height of OGC support at Wizards, both with the immediate release of the SRD and slightly later with the release of most of the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Unearthed Arcana as OGC (plus epic and divine rules from late 3.0). Late 3.0 was also when they allowed Necromancer Games to create Tome of Horrors, thereby dragging a whole lot of "classic" D&D monsters into the OGC canon – some of which have seen use as recently as PF2's Impossible Lands.


----------



## JEB

I'm glad they released a statement, at least that shows they're acknowledging the concern. Hopefully that awareness will factor into their decision-making process for One D&D and third parties, which appears to be ongoing.


----------



## Oofta

This is typical corporate CYA. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. They can't give any more details yet because they probably haven't made a final decisions about the SRD.

People are making a mountain out of a molehill to drive clicks.


----------



## Clint_L

Has anyone seen _anything_ from the OneD&D test materials released thus far that make them think this is going to be an issue? Because I sure haven't. We are not looking at significant changes to the game. If the new books are indeed compatible with the existing 5e books, as WotC states is their intent, and as everything they have so far released supports, then it will also work with the 5e compatible materials put out under the current OGL/SRD.

This is really just a bunch of folks shouting that "the sky is falling!" and reading ill intent and terrible design into everything that comes out. Mostly the same folks insisting that OneD&D will be a new edition that will make 5e obsolete, despite all evidence to the contrary.

OneD&D books are already being released. Monsters of the Multiverse did not unmake 5e. It will be alright.


----------



## Marc Radle

Clint_L said:


> OneD&D books are already being released.



They are?


----------



## MockingBird

"Time is a flat circle"


----------



## darjr

Marc Radle said:


> They are?



I think he means Tasha’s and monsters were the stealth .5 edition of 5e. Or something similar.

If you agree about the above or not 5e did indeed survive it.


----------



## Burnside

It's almost a non-statement, but I think it's positive because it at least acknowledges that they know people are concerned about this issue and affirms (in a totally non-specific and broad way) general support for 3rd party content.

I'm not sure what more people really want from them at this point. OneD&D doesn't exist yet, so there's not much specific to say about it.


----------



## Hussar

Yuppers, the typical response is ... typical.


----------



## Cordwainer Fish

MockingBird said:


> "Time is a flat circle"



"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."


----------



## LordEntrails

UngeheuerLich said:


> I fear youtubers are just killing it... I really can't believe how upset someone can be that a system you like gets a long needed upgrade.



This is because...


Oofta said:


> People are making a mountain out of a molehill to drive clicks.



Exactly.
Youtubers make money by people watching their videos. They get people to watch by making controversial or fear based statements.
Don't feed the algorithm!


----------



## SkidAce

darjr said:


> Dungeons & Dragons Clarifies Support for Third-Party Material as New Edition Draws Near
> 
> 
> Wizards of the Coast has responded to rumors of changes to the Open Game License and System [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comicbook.com



Well, I assume this may have been mentioned already...but it looks like all those who said that WotC would never make a statement were incorrect.

This is not a dig at them, its a statement that for all the truisms, and common sense, and best business practices about who does what, we very rarely have access to all the info that cause people to make decisions, or their motivations.

So I feel its cool to speculate and discuss, but always consider there could be factors we don't know, and then "voila" things happen that would "never" happen.


----------



## SkidAce

Oofta said:


> And ... as predicted they commented and already people are complaining.



Yeah.

I was with yah in the "they won't say ANYTHING" camp, but I was wrong.

Hope this doesnt turn into the other OGL threads.


----------



## Hussar

I was also very much in the camp that they won't say anything.  I'd actually prefer if they hadn't to be honest.  There just really is no upside for anyone in this.


----------



## vecna00

I'm waiting for the videos to start showing up in my recommended list on YouTube now...


----------



## Clint_L

darjr said:


> I think he means Tasha’s and monsters were the stealth .5 edition of 5e. Or something similar.
> 
> If you agree about the above or not 5e did indeed survive it.



I mean that there _is no .5 edition of 5e_. WotC have been crystal clear that they do not want to continue the editions model. They are keeping the 5e chassis and just offering small changes and adjustments over time. Like Monsters of the Multiverse, in other words, where they updated the material from two previous 5e books (that have now ceased print) without making any changes that interfere with backwards compatibility. I was using Volo's and Mordenkainen's in my campaign and now I am using MotM, and nothing really changed. In a few cases, I decided I wanted to keep using the old spell lists for some creatures, so I did, and that works fine too. 

What we've seen of OneD&D thus far does not look any more challenging for 5e than did MotM or Xanathar's or Tasha's. If those texts did not cause problems for 3rd party producers or the OGL/SRD, then what makes us think the next book will?


----------



## see

Staffan said:


> As I recall, the 3.5e SRD was released nigh-simultaneously with the 3.5e core books.



Upon a careful search, you're right; the 3.5 SRD was released no later than July 22nd (per the date of a forum post linking to the release), while the 3.5 core rules show up for the first time on the July 24th USA Today bestseller list (meaning they went on sale some time the previous week).

I "remembered" a longer gap, but, well, it's been almost twenty years.



Staffan said:


> Early 3.5e was probably the height of OGC support at Wizards, both with the immediate release of the SRD and slightly later with the release of most of the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Unearthed Arcana as OGC (plus epic and divine rules from late 3.0). Late 3.0 was also when they allowed Necromancer Games to create Tome of Horrors, thereby dragging a whole lot of "classic" D&D monsters into the OGC canon – some of which have seen use as recently as PF2's Impossible Lands.



Yep, that was definitely the peak of WotC support. 

(Which is kinda ironic because the release of 3.5 is what definitively burst the original D20 bubble, as even retailers who hadn't consciously noticed trouble moving 3PP stock before then realized they now had a huge backstock of stuff that was written for an older edition.)


----------



## Alby87

Well, they official haven't stated anything about the SRD. They said that it will be a possibility that will be updated. Now I'm asking myself: are they not opening wide that door because they fear "something", or is classic corporate "better say less than say much?".

I don't know, maybe they want to be sure that every 3PP product compatible with OneD&D is also compatible with their VTT? A lot of data about 3PP can be put on softwares via XML or JSON editing, and maybe the simplest of the information can be inserted via a Graphical User Interface. Just speaking because I can speak, not worried about the future or pointing fingers against anyone or any company.


----------



## delericho

Cordwainer Fish said:


> "All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."



Indeed. But is this the time when 3.5e was released, WotC promised to support third-party providers, and gave us a new SRD; or is this the time when 4e was released, WotC promised to support third-party providers, and then pulled the Dragon, Dungeon, and Dragonlance licenses, cancelled the d20 license, and gave us the GSL instead?

I don't think this statement from WotC really answers anything. But, equally, it's in response to a rumour that also had no real evidence behind it. So I guess we'll see. My gut feeling is that WotC won't mess with a good thing... but stranger things have happened.


----------



## Bagpuss

darjr said:


> The key bits being supporting 3rd parties with the release of OneD&D.




Yeah but DM Guild technically is supporting 3rd parties. Doesn't really say much of anything.


----------



## dave2008

Marc Radle said:


> They are?



WotC claimed the recent monster changes they have discussed and implemented in MotM are to match the '24 changes. This covers both monsters and player races.


----------



## Bolares

I don't know what people expect. One D&D got two playtest documents as of right now, it's waaaay to early to expect wizards to have a defined plan for an SRD.


----------



## Umbran

Dausuul said:


> Big corporation not willing to make definitive statements about what they will do two years from now. Film at 11.




Pretty much.  Not really surprising.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Dausuul said:


> Big corporation not willing to make definitive statements about what they will do two years from now. Film at 11.



They definitively stated that they're not willing to make a definitive statement.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> They definitively stated that they're not willing to make a definitive statement.



If you want to read it that way. You could take it as face value and read: we will keep it, but don't know if and how we need to upgrade it, because we are still playtesting the rules...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Clint_L said:


> I mean that there _is no .5 edition of 5e_. WotC have been crystal clear that they do not want to continue the editions model. They are keeping the 5e chassis and just offering small changes and adjustments over time. Like Monsters of the Multiverse, in other words, where they updated the material from two previous 5e books (that have now ceased print) without making any changes that interfere with backwards compatibility. I was using Volo's and Mordenkainen's in my campaign and now I am using MotM, and nothing really changed. In a few cases, I decided I wanted to keep using the old spell lists for some creatures, so I did, and that works fine too.
> 
> What we've seen of OneD&D thus far does not look any more challenging for 5e than did MotM or Xanathar's or Tasha's. If those texts did not cause problems for 3rd party producers or the OGL/SRD, then what makes us think the next book will?



WotC does not get to rewrite the corebooks after a multi-year open playtest and then decide for everyone that, "no, it's not really a new edition".  The fans make that decision.  We know only a few of the proposed changes so far, and some of that, like the critical rule and the mandatory feats, will already change play.  So the fans may very well make a separation that WotC officially won't.  

Personally, I'd prefer far more of a separation, so 5e, like the editions before it, can be looked at and worked with by 3pp as a separate entity.  Iterative changes are a pain in the butt to keep up with for 3pp, and I care about their well-being far more than WotC's, as in my opinion 3pp is doing better work.


----------



## Umbran

carmachu said:


> Not sure how to take it. It’s not exactly reassuring there.




Most of us cannot reliably predict much about what our lives will be like two years in advance.  What'll be the state of the economy in two years? What job will you have?  Will you hit any health issues between now and then?  Get married, or divorced, or married then divorced?  Have a new kid?  Major life changes can happen in two years.

It isn't a lot different in business.  While they have plans and move forward, many things can move and shift in two years.  Asking for specific commitments now on the details seems premature.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> If you want to read it that way. You could take it as face value and read: we will keep it, but don't know if and how we need to upgrade it, because we are still playtesting the rules...



Why would you take a press release from a for-profit, publicly traded company at face value?  You don't have to assume they're lying necessarily, but you do have to assume that they think whatever they're saying will help them make more money.  Understandable to read into it through that lens.


----------



## Ancalagon

I think there are 2 reasons (probably more, but 2 that I can see) why people may be a bit leery of this announcement, ie why there is a lack of trust.

First, there is what happened in 4e with the significantly more restrictive rules which squeezed out 3rd party producers.  Did WotC learn its lesson, or will whatever corporate instinct behind that blunder rear its head again?

Second, 5e writing style has revealed that the opening piece of fluff may have very little to do with the the "crunch" - the actual details, how the rules are applied.  For example, Paladins can "detect evil", and by detect evil WotC actually means detect fiends, undead, celestials etc, and not detect evil at all.

I am hopeful that WotC will do the right thing.  But people are sceptical because of what WotC had done


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> You don't have to assume they're lying necessarily, but you do have to assume that they think whatever they're saying will help them make more money.




In this case, especially, where we are asking for details about business decisions and positioning likely before those details have been finalized.

Of course they're going to give a non-specific response.  From their perspective, the answer to these inquiries isn't needed for a long time yet, but we want it _NOW!!!1!_


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> In this case, especially, where we are asking for details about business decisions and positioning likely before those details have been finalized.
> 
> Of course they're going to give a non-specific response.  From their perspective, the answer to these inquiries isn't needed for a long time yet, but we want it _NOW!!!1!_



Well, it's understandable that they may not be prepared to give an answer now, but the open question definitely affects 3pp now and until an answer is forthcoming.


----------



## Umbran

Ancalagon said:


> Second, 5e writing style has revealed that the opening piece of fluff may have very little to do with the the "crunch" - the actual details, how the rules are applied.  For example, Paladins can "detect evil", and by detect evil WotC actually means detect fiends, undead, celestials etc, and not detect evil at all.
> 
> I am hopeful that WotC will do the right thing.  But people are sceptical because of what WotC had done




What?  I hope this is a joke that landed poorly.   The people who write the game fluff are not the people who write the licenses and contracts!

If you are going to arbitrarily decide bits of game text are reasonable ways to interpret how corporate business policy is conducted, there is precious little reason for them to say anything, because you will be able to twist it around any darn way you want.


----------



## Reynard

This announcement is a Rorschach test.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, it's understandable that they may not be prepared to give an answer now, but the open question definitely affects 3pp now and until an answer is forthcoming.




It would be far worse for the 3pp if they gave an answer now, and then found they had to change it in a year and a a half because we rushed them.

Not to mention that 3pp are already allowed to use the core of D&D's creative product _for free_.  Now... the complaint is that they aren't being assured of rights to more free stuff fast enough?


----------



## jmartkdr2

EzekielRaiden said:


> Yeah that's...a non-statement.
> 
> Which means it should have a non-impact. Whatever concerns I had before aren't changed by this lack-of-a-statement. The only thing communicated here is that WotC wants us to know that _they_ know people are concerned. That's it. That's the sum total of the content here.



Well, if they're pretty sure they're not going to change anything, what is there to say? "We would like to assure you the books will continue to be available in English." They really can't be expected to release a statement about every conversation they're not having because someone on YouTube needs clicks.


----------



## Reynard

jmartkdr2 said:


> Well, if they're pretty sure they're not going to change anything, what is there to say? "We would like to assure you the books will continue to be available in English." They really can't be expected to release a statement about every conversation they're not having because someone on YouTube needs clicks.



The fact that they had to bother because YT culture is kind of sad, actually.


----------



## Ancalagon

Umbran said:


> What?  I hope this is a joke that landed poorly.   The people who write the game fluff are not the people who write the licenses and contracts!
> 
> If you are going to arbitrarily decide bits of game text are reasonable ways to interpret how corporate business policy is conducted, there is precious little reason for them to say anything, because you will be able to twist it around any darn way you want.




It is a joke yes.  

BUT

PR is nothing more than PR.  The _actual rules_ is what is going to matter, not the fluff.  The text of the licence, not this announcement.  That's not a joke.

The fact that some of 5e rules illustrate that principle?  Yeah, that is a sad joke.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> It would be far worse for the 3pp if they gave an answer now, and then found they had to change it in a year and a a half because we rushed them.
> 
> Not to mention that 3pp are already allowed to use the core of D&D's creative product _for free_.  Now... the complaint is that they aren't being assured of rights to more free stuff fast enough?



For better or worse, most people follow the leading edge of WotC's D&D.  As soon as they announced changes, it throws the 3pp community into disarray.  A long lead time like this is going to be hard on folks who make stuff for 5e.


----------



## Micah Sweet

jmartkdr2 said:


> Well, if they're pretty sure they're not going to change anything, what is there to say? "We would like to assure you the books will continue to be available in English." They really can't be expected to release a statement about every conversation they're not having because someone on YouTube needs clicks.



But, they did release a statement (which certainly surprised me).  Why bother with that?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Why would you take a press release from a for-profit, publicly traded company at face value?  You don't have to assume they're lying necessarily, but you do have to assume that they think whatever they're saying will help them make more money.  Understandable to read into it through that lens.




I am sorry that you look at it this way. For me this is a way too depressing way to look at life.
I have not seen a statement from the actual developers that they would kick the fans where it hurts, if that would generate more money in the short term. 
They really have built a lot of trust in the last 10 years (with me). What other people at wotc do with magic is not my concern whatsoever.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> A long lead time like this is going to be hard on folks who make stuff for 5e.




Yes, well, they did choose a business model that makes then dependent on another company.  That entails risk.

A short lead time, where they are surprised that changes are coming, wouldn't be better.


----------



## Staffan

Reynard said:


> This announcement is a Rorschach test.



And we're all trapped in here with it.


----------



## LordEntrails

Micah Sweet said:


> For better or worse, most people follow the leading edge of WotC's D&D.  As soon as they announced changes, it throws the 3pp community into disarray.  A long lead time like this is going to be hard on folks who make stuff for 5e.



No, wrong. Most D&D customers do not follow the leading edge of WotC's decisions. Compare the number of customers to sales numbers, YT watches, Tweets or any metric you want. You will find that very few D&D customers and players actually follow things to the level of detail you are suggesting. A very small minority, like ENWorld etc, actually follow this stuff. 

Yes, 3PP content providers are aware of this (mostly?). But has been shown in other threads, the OGL does not go away. The ability to create 3PP content for One D&D really does not change. Heck, we don't even know what One D&D is yet. It hasn't been published yet. It's a stragey, not (yet) a set of rules.


----------



## Scribe

LordEntrails said:


> Most D&D customers do not follow the leading edge of WotC's decisions. Compare the number of customers to sales numbers, YT watches, Tweets or any metric you want. You will find that very few D&D customers and players actually follow things to the level of detail you are suggesting. A very small minority, like ENWorld etc, actually follow this stuff.




Most D&D customers, probably dont have the faintest clue what the OGL is, or even DMsGuild.


----------



## Micah Sweet

LordEntrails said:


> No, wrong. Most D&D customers do not follow the leading edge of WotC's decisions. Compare the number of customers to sales numbers, YT watches, Tweets or any metric you want. You will find that very few D&D customers and players actually follow things to the level of detail you are suggesting. A very small minority, like ENWorld etc, actually follow this stuff.
> 
> Yes, 3PP content providers are aware of this (mostly?). But has been shown in other threads, the OGL does not go away. The ability to create 3PP content for One D&D really does not change. Heck, we don't even know what One D&D is yet. It hasn't been published yet. It's a stragey, not (yet) a set of rules.



What I mean is, if WotC changes the game, customers will follow where WotC leads.


----------



## Bolares

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, they did choose a business model that makes then dependent on another company.  That entails risk.
> 
> A short lead time, where they are surprised that changes are coming, wouldn't be better.



Yeah this. I'm all for WotC having third party designrs in mind and not turn their backs to them. But I really don't expect third party products to take priority in their decision making. If taking a long time would benefit their product I don't think they are obliged to change that because it will make the suplemental market suffer.


----------



## glass

Clint_L said:


> I mean that there _is no .5 edition of 5e_.



Not yet, but unless things change quite dramatically there is going to be.



Clint_L said:


> WotC have been crystal clear that they do not want to continue the editions model.



WotC also tried to claim 3.5 wasn't a new edition. Nobody bought it then either.


----------



## Alzrius

glass said:


> WotC also tried to claim 3.5 wasn't a new edition. Nobody bought it then either.



I'm reminded of what Shannon Appelcline wrote for his product history of D&D 4E's _Player Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ (affiliate link):



> *What a Difference an Edition Makes: The Compatibility.* When Mearls began working on Essentials, one of his main priorities was keeping it totally compatible with previous 4e books. With the release of _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, players could now see that changes were indeed pretty minimal, involving: errata; updated Feat and Magic Item systems; and updated philosophies for building characters. Of these, the difference between the character builds was the largest, and had the most possibility to be incompatible.
> 
> But the designers felt _they weren't_
> 
> Mearls paraphrased designer Rich Baker when he said, "the choice between a traditional build and an Essentials build would basically reflect different play styles". Baker expanded on this, saying "It’s perfectly ok if, at the same table, Joe is playing a Fighter straight out of the Players Handbook, with all of the power selections that he would ordinarily have had, and Dave, sitting next to him, is playing a Slayer, out of Essentials. Those Characters, essentially, are built the same, and are transparent to each other".
> 
> But that's not _at all_ how the D&D roleplaying community treated the new rules. Between late 2010 and early 2011, 4e players seemed to fracture into "traditional" gamers and "Essentials" gamers. At first there were edition wars over whether Essentials had replaced the core rules, then for the next year each new D&D book was scrutinized for whether it was Essentials or traditional.
> 
> So, there's no mechanical reason not to use core and Essentials products together, but you could similarly have said that 3e books could be used with D&D 3.5e (2003) with almost no problem. In both cases, the roleplaying community disagreed.


----------



## darjr

glass said:


> Not yet, but unless things change quite dramatically there is going to be.
> 
> 
> WotC also tried to claim 3.5 wasn't a new edition. Nobody bought it then either.



They literally put 3.5 on the cover. 

This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## Mark Craddock

darjr said:


> So dealing with the devilish details, like actually making the SRD, might just be on the back burner.
> 
> Maybe.




I think people should realize we need a full version of One D&D as a set of rules before we can get an SRD.


----------



## Undrave

Deset Gled said:


> Isn't that kind of a problem? I would have expected a corporation like Hasbro to be dealing with IP legalities/questions in the very early phases of a pro



They're probably waiting until they have a full ruleset before deciding what to put in it.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Micah Sweet said:


> What I mean is, if WotC changes the game, customers will follow where WotC leads.



Unless they change it in a way that most customers really don't like, in which case we might end up with another Pathfinder situation.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> They literally put 3.5 on the cover.
> 
> This is getting ridiculous.



I think folks are talking past one another and putting different definitions in the same rhetorical space, which can't turn out well. If one person thinks the definition of a new edition is defined entire by what is printed on the cover or designated by the publisher, and another thinks is is a matter of content and compatibility regardless of what the Publisher says, those two people aren't ever going to be able to agree and discussion is pointless.


----------



## glass

darjr said:


> They literally put 3.5 on the cover.



....and a sidebar just inside the front cover saying "it's not a new edition, honest!" But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of insulting me. Again.


----------



## darjr

Note for everyone else. I did nothing of the kind. They can keep repeating it but it doesn’t make it true.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> I think folks are talking past one another and putting different definitions in the same rhetorical space, which can't turn out well. If one person thinks the definition of a new edition is defined entire by what is printed on the cover or designated by the publisher, and another thinks is is a matter of content and compatibility regardless of what the Publisher says, those two people aren't ever going to be able to agree and discussion is pointless.



wait. Who is saying an edition is entirely defined by the cover?


----------



## Umbran

darjr said:


> They literally put 3.5 on the cover.
> 
> This is getting ridiculous.






glass said:


> ....and a sidebar just inside the front cover saying "it's not a new edition, honest!" But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of insulting me. Again.




*Mod Note:*
It is time for you two to lay off each other.  Thanks.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> wait. Who is saying an edition is entirely defined by the cover?



You literally did that.


----------



## carmachu

Umbran said:


> Most of us cannot reliably predict much about what our lives will be like two years in advance.  What'll be the state of the economy in two years? What job will you have?  Will you hit any health issues between now and then?  Get married, or divorced, or married then divorced?  Have a new kid?  Major life changes can happen in two years.
> 
> It isn't a lot different in business.  While they have plans and move forward, many things can move and shift in two years.  Asking for specific commitments now on the details seems premature.



Actually it IS a lot different in businesses. Many corporations make plans years in advance.

It doesn’t mean those time tables don’t get moved up or pushed back, but looking around at my work and company I really can buy what your selling here in the business world.

We have seen Wotc release the the OGL with 3.5 in relative same time as edition release. We have also seen them make promises and fail to deliver with 4e/gsl fiasco

So yes they could Make plans


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> You literally did that.



No I didn’t. I countered someone who said they tried to hide that it was a new version with the fact that they printed it on the cover. 

That’s the opposite of hiding something.

I didn’t make any argument if that actually makes it any different at all.


----------



## Umbran

carmachu said:


> Actually it IS a lot different in businesses. Many corporations make plans years in advance.




It is the _prediction_ that isn't much different.  They don't have oracles, or anything like that.

Sure, they make plans. But if they are good at it, they also change or abandon plans frequently, as their understanding of things change.  This makes them not fit for public consumption

If they announce a plan, and then have to change it, possibly several times, how do you think that goes over with the consumers?  Answer: about as well as breaking wind at a formal dinner.


----------



## innerdude

There's more to it as well than to just what is licensable from the actual rules text and fluff. 

If it's a digital platform, are they going to make some areas extensible for third-party programmers? What pieces of the code? How must third-party code that extends D&D One be licensed? What pieces of the platform are off limits? What's the connection between how the platform runs and how content is stored? How must third-party content be integrated into the data storage format? How will art, stored digitally, be protected, correctly attributed, and either included or excluded from image generation AI platforms, should WotC choose to use one for certain creative endeavors?

There's a mountain of legal and licensing concerns that frankly dwarf how the exact wording of a particular feat looks in the new license. 

And let's be frank too, there's a portion of WotC's audience that will be displeased and vocalize that displeasure even if WotC were to give away every inch of the IP for nothing. 

Is a more open license more preferable than something that is not open? Of course. 

Does it make financial sense for WotC to evaluate how previous licensing agreements worked for them, and determine if a different licensing model is in fact in their best interest? Of course it does.

It's frankly not WotC's job to try and suss out just exactly how productive one version of a license versus another is for hundreds of third-party producers; that's the 3pp's job. Should WotC consider 3pp input when doing the consideration? Yes, if they're interested in being a good long-term business partner. But they're certainly not obligated to in any cosmic moral sense. 

Getting burn back now, 2 years ahead of whatever the final product release ends up being, is nuts.

If I own a retail store that sells fresh fish, I can't really be angry if my local fisherman decides he/she is better off selling tuna to Fishmongers United instead of selling tilapia to me (assuming all contractual obligations are otherwise met).


----------



## MockingBird

I think it's an act of good will that they took the time to say something.


----------



## Hussar

glass said:


> ....and a sidebar just inside the front cover saying "it's not a new edition, honest!" But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of insulting me. Again.



huh... I just looked at my 3.5 PHB and I can't find that sidebar anywhere.  Maybe I got a different printing?

And, as someone who was there for the 3e to 3.5 changeover, I certainly don't recall anything saying that this wasn't a new edition.  That was the big change with Essentials - that it actually wasn't meant as a new edition.  There was no sense of backward compatibility with 3.5.  That's why they rereleased virtually everything printed for 3e in 3.5 - all the feats, spells, PrC's, everything got rereleased. 

There was no sense that you were supposed to use 3e material with 3.5.

This time around, they're repeating, over and over again, very, very clearly that things will be backward compatible and that this is absolutely not a new half edition.  Granted, again, as usual, there's the standard crowd who wouldn't believe WotC if they claimed that rain was wet no matter how much good will WotC has built up over the past ten years.

-----

Edit to add

I mean, sure, we're going to get a new Core 3 - fair enough.  After ten years, that's not really too much of an ask.  But, from everything WotC has said, and, fair enough, that might not be true, I could run Horde of the Dragon Queen in 2025 using the new rules and it would work with no problems.  I should be able to play a Forge Priest in OneDND without too much difficulty.  Sure, some of the specific spells and whatnot might be a bit different, but, at the end of the day, they have stated pretty clearly that things will be backward compatible.

However, what backwards compatible means is NOT "This will be identical to what we did ten years ago".


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> huh... I just looked at my 3.5 PHB and I can't find that sidebar anywhere. Maybe I got a different printing?



Looks like it's on page 4, "Why a revision?" Third paragraph says:



> If this is your first experience with D&D, we welcome you to a wonderful world of adventure and imagination. If you used the prior version of this book, rest assured that this revision is a testament to our dedication to continuous product improvement. We’ve updated errata, clarified rules, and made the game even better than it was. But also rest assured that this is an upgrade of the d20 System, *not a new edition of the game*. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> Looks like it's on page 4, "Why a revision?" Third paragraph says:



Heh, fair enough.

Yup, that was a straight up lie.  Because it was pretty obvious going forward that backwards compatibility wasn't on the table.


----------



## leafaiden

Seems to have some similarities to SCO vs Unix Dispute (summary via Wikipedia)


----------



## darjr

leafaiden said:


> Seems to have some similarities to SCO vs Unix Dispute (summary via Wikipedia)



Oh no. Is this still going on?!?


----------



## leafaiden

≤


darjr said:


> Oh no. Is this still going on?!?



Like a zombie.. yes, apparently it is. Only some of the names have changed.

My summary of the court cases and how I think it applies here...

"Those are some nice contributions you made to this table top game. We don't agree with some of those features. They were added in the wrong. We are suing to remove that|those|this."


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I wonder if there is some project of D&D-One to be not only a VTT but later a game-plataform as Little-Big-Planet, Playstation's Dreams, Roblox, Core(by Manticore Games) or the comingsoon Fortnite: Creative Mode 2.0. I don't say this to be wrong.

Digital market doesn't need cost to print and sending to the shops. Hasbro wants to be for the digital market. I don't blame. They don't only to make money, but also to pay a lot of bills and taxes.

D&D needs the 3PPs because these can add a lot of new and fresh ideas, for crunch and new-brand settings. Maybe someone of these will be acquired by WotC in the future, or by some videogame studio, or a streaming service to produce an adaptation.


----------



## delericho

Deset Gled said:


> Isn't that kind of a problem? I would have expected a corporation like Hasbro to be dealing with IP legalities/questions in the very early phases of a project.



It's a problem if _they_ don't know (in broad terms) what they're doing. But there's no particular reason to be concerned about them not sharing that with us.


----------



## Bolares

.... this thread got weird.


----------



## Reynard

Bolares said:


> .... this thread got weird.



Given time they all get weird.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Heh, fair enough.
> 
> Yup, that was a straight up lie.  Because it was pretty obvious going forward that backwards compatibility wasn't on the table.



And as far as I know, they never admitted to that lie (if they did, fair enough).


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> And as far as I know, they never admitted to that lie (if they did, fair enough).



Thinking about it though, there is some context to be aware of.

They were releasing 3.5, what, two years (or was it 3?) after 3.0.  3e was a complete revision of the game.  I know people talk about how 4e was a complete change to the game, and fair enough.  But, 2e-3e was easily as big of a change.  So, when they announced yet another edition, there were some pretty strong concerns that the game would be as large a change again.  And, let's not forget, that this is long before the era of public play tests, so, there was virtually nothing to tell people what to expect from the 3.5.

Like a lot of things, the devil is in the details.  

To be entirely fair though, I imagine that OneD&D will be a lot less of a change than 3.5 was.  Never minding that it's coming 8 years later as well.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

delericho said:


> It's a problem if _they_ don't know (in broad terms) what they're doing. But there's no particular reason to be concerned about them not sharing that with us.



Broad terms in that case is not enough. They already shared their broad terms: they will support 3rd parties. 
They just can't say specifics, because they are in the middle of a playtest.

If they now stated, that the SRD is done, people would claim, that the playtest is only a marketing ploy, otherwise they would not know what needs to be in the SRD or if the OGL needs to be updated... 

So regarding clickbaiters, it is a lose - lose situation.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Hussar said:


> Never minding that it's coming 8 years later as well.



10 years, by the time it hits shelves.  Even longer.

And to be honest... that length is exactly why I don't care at all whether it's a new edition, just an errata, or anything in between.  I'll have played 5E for an entire decade by the time it's released.  At that point playing a "new game" (however it ends up looking) sounds good to me.  I'm not one of those people who has any desire to play just one game for my entire life.  I never would have moved on from AD&D if I was.


----------



## SkidAce

DEFCON 1 said:


> 10 years, by the time it hits shelves.  Even longer.
> 
> ... I'm not one of those people who has any desire to play just one game for my entire life.  I never would have moved on from AD&D if I was....



I'm kinda in a similar boat, just on the other side of the deck.

I play all kinds of games.  Our primary game is D&D, but we bounce around to many different systems for our secondary games.  (Shadowrun 6, Fate Core, Rifts, Savage Worlds Rifts).

However, 

I am reaching fatigue in "upgrading" my home campaign over the years.  For example, what class makes the best "Runemaster", how are my fighter schools set up, rebuilding the legendary Gray Necromancer, etc.

So I think I am "technically" done, and will keep the main game/setting in 5E for the duration.  (might poach good ideas from OneDnD)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Thinking about it though, there is some context to be aware of.
> 
> They were releasing 3.5, what, two years (or was it 3?) after 3.0.  3e was a complete revision of the game.  I know people talk about how 4e was a complete change to the game, and fair enough.  But, 2e-3e was easily as big of a change.  So, when they announced yet another edition, there were some pretty strong concerns that the game would be as large a change again.  And, let's not forget, that this is long before the era of public play tests, so, there was virtually nothing to tell people what to expect from the 3.5.
> 
> Like a lot of things, the devil is in the details.
> 
> To be entirely fair though, I imagine that OneD&D will be a lot less of a change than 3.5 was.  Never minding that it's coming 8 years later as well.



They are completely re-writing the core books of the game, and expecting people to buy them again. That doesn't scan with insisting it's not a new edition, even if the changes are minor (which we don't know yet).


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Broad terms in that case is not enough. They already shared their broad terms: they will support 3rd parties.
> They just can't say specifics, because they are in the middle of a playtest.
> 
> If they now stated, that the SRD is done, people would claim, that the playtest is only a marketing ploy, otherwise they would not know what needs to be in the SRD or if the OGL needs to be updated...
> 
> So regarding clickbaiters, it is a lose - lose situation.



I thought the playtest was a marketing ploy.  They have to convince people to re-buy the books somehow.


----------



## Bolares

Micah Sweet said:


> I thought the playtest was a marketing ploy.  They have to convince people to re-buy the books somehow.



I doubt people will need much convincing to buy the new books. Most people won't even check the playtest. They will see a new logo and some rebranding and buy the books.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> They are completely re-writing the core books of the game, and expecting people to buy them again. That doesn't scan with insisting it's not a new edition, even if the changes are minor (which we don't know yet).



Huh.  My copy doesn't seem to be the same as yours.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Huh.  My copy doesn't seem to be the same as yours.



You have an advance copy of the re-written core books in 2024?


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> You have an advance copy of the re-written core books in 2024?



No, but apparently you do since you claim that the game is being  entirely rewritten.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> No, but apparently you do since you claim that the game is being  entirely rewritten.



They have shown us re-written passages from the proposed books.  If they were just doing a reprint with new art I think they would say so.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> They have shown us re-written passages from the proposed books.  If they were just doing a reprint with new art I think they would say so.



They've officially rewritten at least some parts of all of the books through errata. That doesn't mean that they're entirely different editions of D&D from the first printing, though. However, edition debates pretty quickly fall into arguments about the ship of theseus, and you've already made up your mind that OneD&D is a new edition. So I don't see much point in bringing up this discussion again.


----------



## tenkar

From WotC themselves:


> One D&D will take what we love from fifth edition and create an experience that is not only backwards compatible with the adventures and supplements you enjoy today but that will evolve the game for years to come. You’ll see updates to just about every facet of the game, from player classes to backgrounds and even to how we lay out books and present game information. Our goal is to improve on everything that has made D&D the best tabletop roleplaying game in the world.




One D&D


----------



## Micah Sweet

tenkar said:


> From WotC themselves:
> 
> 
> One D&D



Marketing copy.  We'll see how it holds up to reality and the opinion of the fandom.


----------



## Yaarel

I assume the "evolving" OGL refers to what content is available, which normally expands content with new additions, but occasionally prunes obsolete content.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> I assume the "evolving" OGL refers to what content is available, which normally expands content with new additions, but occasionally prunes obsolete content.



When did anyone remove content from the OGL?


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> When did anyone remove content from the OGL?



I believe he means SRD.  You cannot actually remove anything from OGL.  Once it's declared OGL, that's it.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> They have shown us re-written passages from the proposed books.  If they were just doing a reprint with new art I think they would say so.



There's a fair middle ground between an entire rewrite, and a simple reprint with new art.

Did you also feel it was a new edition of the game when the 3e PHB was rewritten between first and second printings?  As in there are large swaths of the book that were rewritten?


----------



## darjr

Hussar said:


> There's a fair middle ground between an entire rewrite, and a simple reprint with new art.
> 
> Did you also feel it was a new edition of the game when the 3e PHB was rewritten between first and second printings?  As in there are large swaths of the book that were rewritten?



Ssshhhh! It’s a secret!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> There's a fair middle ground between an entire rewrite, and a simple reprint with new art.
> 
> Did you also feel it was a new edition of the game when the 3e PHB was rewritten between first and second printings?  As in there are large swaths of the book that were rewritten?



Are you talking about 3.5?  I only ever bought the 3.0 book once, so I don't know what they changed between that and 3.5.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> Marketing copy.  We'll see how it holds up to reality and the opinion of the fandom.



Trusted text says pretty clearly that this new edition of D&D will allow you to.use your 5E adventures and supplements while still being a new edition. Now, we don't know what parts of that will end up being true -- not because they like but because design goals change during the process. But WotC's own language intentionally and specifically designated OneD&D as something different-- a new edition,  as it were.


----------



## Clint_L

Wizard's own language emphatically rejected designating OneD&D as a new edition. They could not have been more blunt about it.

It's some players who are having trouble giving up on the old "editions" paradigm, not WotC.


----------



## JEB

Reynard said:


> Trusted text says pretty clearly that this new edition of D&D will allow you to.use your 5E adventures and supplements while still being a new edition. Now, we don't know what parts of that will end up being true -- not because they like but because design goals change during the process. But WotC's own language intentionally and specifically designated OneD&D as something different-- a new edition,  as it were.



They're pretty careful to avoid calling it a new edition, but they are pretty clear that 5E and One D&D are not the same thing, and that One D&D material will be backwards compatible with 5E (rather than it simply being one and the same as 5E).

Honestly, having looked at the verbiage they used in the 3.5 PHB, it's all sounding awful similar to how they described 3.5 vs. 3.0.


----------



## Reynard

Clint_L said:


> Wizard's own language emphatically rejected designating OneD&D as a new edition. They could not have been more blunt about it.
> 
> It's some players who are having trouble giving up on the old "editions" paradigm, not WotC.



Source, please.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Are you talking about 3.5?  I only ever bought the 3.0 book once, so I don't know what they changed between that and 3.5.



No, I'm talking about the first printing and second printing of 3.0.  There were significant differences between the very first two printings.  Never minding the changes from 3e to 3.5.  But, in any case, I seriously doubt that OneD&D will even be as much of a change as we saw from 3e to 3.5.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> No, I'm talking about the first printing and second printing of 3.0.  There were significant differences between the very first two printings.  Never minding the changes from 3e to 3.5.  But, in any case, I seriously doubt that OneD&D will even be as much of a change as we saw from 3e to 3.5.



Fair enough.  I only ever bought the first printing.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> They're pretty careful to avoid calling it a new edition, but they are pretty clear that 5E and One D&D are not the same thing, and that One D&D material will be backwards compatible with 5E (rather than it simply being one and the same as 5E).
> 
> Honestly, having looked at the verbiage they used in the 3.5 PHB, it's all sounding awful similar to how they described 3.5 vs. 3.0.



But, again, there is a significant difference here.  How many player facing books were there for 3.0 from WOtC?  Quite a few in the 2-3 years that 3e was the current edition.  Splat books for every class, race, and a handful of others as well.  Let's not forget three full monster books as well.  

By my count, not including modules, there were twenty 3.0 books.  IOW, there were three times as many books (again, not counting modules) for 3e as there are for 5e.  And, within a couple of years, all of them had been replaced by 3.5 versions.  

In 5e, you've got what, half a dozen non-modules?  Modules aren't a big deal - you could certainly run a 3e module in 3.5 without any real difficulty.  Nearly all the changes were on the player side.  So, again, in 5e, we're not exactly replacing much of anything.  

It really isn't a new edition.


----------



## JEB

Accidental post, never mind.


----------



## delericho

Hussar said:


> By my count, not including modules, there were twenty 3.0 books.  IOW, there were three times as many books (again, not counting modules) for 3e as there are for 5e.  And, within a couple of years, all of them had been replaced by 3.5 versions.



Well, apart from Monster Manual 2, Fiend Folio, the Book of Vile Darkness, the Stronghold Builder's Guide, the Hero Builder's Guidebook, Enemies and Allies, Deities and Demigods, the Epic Level Handbook, Book of Challenges, Oriental Adventures, the Arms and Equipment Guide, Ghostwalk, and Manual of the Planes. _Selected parts _of those received updates, but not the whole.

And they did continue to work just fine with the 3.5e books. Even the books that did receive updates continued to work with the 3.5e core. What do you think people did in the period before they were replaced?

I actually agree with the argument that 3.5e should have been considered a new edition. But the extent to which 3.5e was incompatible with 3.0e is vastly overstated. And it is also true that WotC stated, in much the same terms as they're using now, that it was _not_ a new edition.


----------



## Morrus

delericho said:


> I actually agree with the argument that 3.5e should have been considered a new edition. But the extent to which 3.5e was incompatible with 3.0e is vastly overstated. And it is also true that WotC stated, in much the same terms as they're using now, that it was _not_ a new edition.



The word 'edition' in this context only has whatever meaning we attach to it.


----------



## delericho

Morrus said:


> The word 'edition' in this context only has whatever meaning we attach to it.



Indeed. The only authority you _might_ bow to is that of WotC, in which case they've produced three editions: 3e, 4e, and 5e - they've stated that 3.5e, Essentials, and the upcoming OneD&D are all _not_ new editions.

But as noted in the quote from Shannon Appelcline up-thread, the community view was quite different (even in the case of Essentials, which has a _much_ stronger case to be the same edition than 3.5e did). It remains to be seen, of course, what the community view will make of OneD&D.


----------



## Morrus

delericho said:


> Indeed. The only authority you _might_ bow to is that of WotC,



I wouldn’t say that. It’s not a defined term, but I wouldn’t suggest that any particular entity has the power to define it any more than a company can define ‘book’. I guess it’s an edition if you think it is, and it’s not if you don’t. Honestly, the word doesn’t matter; it’s just a word. It doesn’t _do_ anything.


----------



## delericho

Morrus said:


> I wouldn’t say that. It’s not a defined term, but I wouldn’t suggest that any particular entity has the power to define it any more than a. Company can define ‘book’. I guess it’s an edition if you think it is, and it’s not if you don’t. Honestly, the word doesn’t matter; it’s just a word. It doesn’t _do_ anything.



Hence 'might'.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

JEB said:


> They're pretty careful to avoid calling it a new edition, but they are pretty clear that 5E and One D&D are not the same thing, and that One D&D material will be backwards compatible with 5E (rather than it simply being one and the same as 5E).
> 
> Honestly, having looked at the verbiage they used in the 3.5 PHB, it's all sounding awful similar to how they described 3.5 vs. 3.0.




3 years vs 10 years...
a hell of a difference.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> 3 years vs 10 years...
> a hell of a difference.



The "it's been 10 years" argument is in favor of WotC properly making a new edition that updates the game to what they think all their new players want, not the "not an edition change" half-measure they appear to actually be producing.


----------



## Umbran

There's a whole lot of angst here over so little actual information.


----------



## glass

Hussar said:


> I believe he means SRD.  You cannot actually remove anything from OGL.  Once it's declared OGL, that's it.



There is one partial mechanism. If you bring out a new OGL document (book, SRD, whatever) and declare something PI in that, anyone who wants to use that document has to respect that declaration, even if that something was completely open before. OTOH, they obviously still have the option of not using that new document, in which case its previously open status still holds.

At least, I am pretty sure that is how it all works. IANAL, TINLA.



Clint_L said:


> Wizard's own language emphatically rejected designating OneD&D as a new edition. They could not have been more blunt about it.



At the risk of repeating myself, Wizards also claimed the 3.5 was not a new edition. It was naughty word then and (if the finished game looks anything like the playtests so far) it is naughty word now.


----------



## Umbran

glass said:


> It was naughty word then and (if the finished game looks anything like the playtests so far) it is naughty word now.




It would be really great if you raised the level of rhetoric above using curse words.


----------



## Hussar

glass said:


> There is one partial mechanism. If you bring out a new OGL document (book, SRD, whatever) and declare something PI in that, anyone who wants to use that document has to respect that declaration, even if that something was completely open before. OTOH, they obviously still have the option of not using that new document, in which case its previously open status still holds.
> 
> At least, I am pretty sure that is how it all works. IANAL, TINLA.



I don't believe that it actually works that way.  Since new versions of the OGL don't supersede previous ones.  So, even though 4e had the GSL which covered specific 4e terminology, the OGL still applied to anything that appeared in 4e that also appeared in 3e.  

So, if WotC tried to bang out a new OGL that restricted, say, (and I'm totally spitballing here obviously) dwarves as IP, it wouldn't really matter since you could simply use the older OGL and publish under that.

Ryan Dancey was pretty smart in how he framed the OGL.  He future proofed it as much as he possibly could IMO.  

I mean, heck, if you could actually bring out a new OGL document that declared something that was previously OGC as PI, they wouldn't have bothered with the GSL.  After all, if you can simply update the OGL and that invalidated previous OGL's, then Pathfinder could never have happened.

At least, that's how I understand it.  @Morrus, could you shed more light on this?


----------



## glass

Hussar said:


> I don't believe that it actually works that way. Since new versions of the OGL don't supersede previous ones. So, even though 4e had the GSL which covered specific 4e terminology, the OGL still applied to anything that appeared in 4e that also appeared in 3e.
> 
> So, if WotC tried to bang out a new OGL that restricted, say, (and I'm totally spitballing here obviously) dwarves as IP, it wouldn't really matter since you could simply use the older OGL and publish under that.



I never said anything about a new OGL, I said a new book or SRD.

For example, my homebrew setting contains a plane called The Dreaming. The Dreaming is also the name of a (different) plane in A5e's cosmology, and is declared as PI there. If I decided to write my homebrew setting up as a commercial product and release it under the OGL, and I wanted to include A5e in my s.15 for some reason, I would have to change the name of that plane (or I could ask @Morrus for a separate licence to use the name). If there was nothing I wanted from A5e OTOH, I could continue to use that name with impunity.

_EDIT: So to continue your example, if WotC brought out a 5.5 SRD and declared "dwarves" to be PI, one could simply not use the 5.5 SRD, but one could not use the5.5 SRD _and _use dwarves (without a separate licence)._

Unless I have misunderstood something.


----------



## Hussar

glass said:


> I never said anything about a new OGL, I said a new book or SRD.
> 
> For example, my homebrew setting contains a plane called The Dreaming. The Dreaming is also the name of a (different) plane in A5e's cosmology, and is declared as PI there. If I decided to write my homebrew setting up as a commercial product and release it under the OGL, and I wanted to include A5e in my s.15 for some reason, I would have to change the name of that plane (or I could ask @Morrus for a separate licence to use the name). If there was nothing I wanted from A5e OTOH, I could continue to use that name with impunity.
> 
> _EDIT: So to continue your example, if WotC brought out a 5.5 SRD and declared "dwarves" to be PI, one could simply not use the 5.5 SRD, but one could not use the5.5 SRD _and _use dwarves (without a separate licence)._
> 
> Unless I have misunderstood something.



Well, yes.  If you wanted to include something that has the same name as someone else's PI AND you wanted to use that other company's OGL, then, sure, you'd have to change the name of your stuff.

Now, if you didn't use A5e, for example, then you could use the same name to your heart's content.  

Seems pretty fair.  Also seems to be a VERY corner case.  And, none of it stops you from using material from an older SRD.  

I think the problem here is that we're mixing a few different things.  The D&D SRD is a pretty specific document in that it specifically doesn't include any PI.  That's the point.  Now you're talking about using someone else's product, that contains both open and closed content.  That's a rather different beast altogether.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> The "it's been 10 years" argument is in favor of WotC properly making a new edition that updates the game to what they think all their new players want, not the "not an edition change" half-measure they appear to actually be producing.




Nope. It is not. After 10 years, this seems exactly what is needed. Actually it was needed two years ago, but with the Anniversary right around the corner, this was implausible.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> I think the problem here is that we're mixing a few different things.  The D&D SRD is a pretty specific document in that it specifically doesn't include any PI.  That's the point.  Now you're talking about using someone else's product, that contains both open and closed content.  That's a rather different beast altogether.



We actually go the SRD route also with the _Level Up _SRD. Easier and clearer for the end user.


----------



## Reynard

Referencing an SRD or OGL product in your section 15 just means you can use the Open Content from that document. It doesn't require you to inude anything or prohibit you from including anything from a different (also referenced) document. It certainly doesn't stop you from creating your own content. 

One mistake I see a lot in Product Identity statements is people designating mechanics as PI. You technically can't do that. Mechanics derived from OGC in an OGL document are automatically OGC per the OGL. The line is probably fuzzy where the exact line is, but if your complex travel system uses the PCs ability scores and skills to determine outcome, I would think that counts as "derived from" -- I'm looking at you, AiME.


----------



## Art Waring

Reynard said:


> One mistake I see a lot in Product Identity statements is people designating mechanics as PI. You technically can't do that. Mechanics derived from OGC in an OGL document are automatically OGC per the OGL. The line is probably fuzzy where the exact line is, but if your complex travel system uses the PCs ability scores and skills to determine outcome, I would think that counts as "derived from" -- I'm looking at you, AiME.



Yeah I agree, I also noticed that Mutants & Masterminds d20 states that specific mechanics are their IP [Edit: PI], like the tables for powers. Except, the powers aren't listed in the IP[PI*] because you can't copyright generic superhero powers.

Edit*: Oops, I meant PI (product Identity as stated in the OGL), not IP (intellectual property). Thank you for pointing that out.


----------



## Morrus

Art Waring said:


> Yeah I agree, I also noticed that Mutants & Masterminds d20 states that specific mechanics are their IP, like the tables for powers. Except, the powers aren't listed in the IP because you can't copyright generic superhero powers.





Assuming you’re talking about the OGC declaration in the book, PI (not IP) is Product Identity, a label for a contractually agreed list of content. Copyright doesn’t come into it. It’s a license — contract law, not copyright law.


----------



## Art Waring

Morrus said:


> Assuming you’re talking about the OGC declaration in the book, PI (not IP) is Product Identity, a label for a contractually agreed list of content. Copyright doesn’t come into it. It’s a license — contract law, not copyright law.



Thank you for the clarification, my mistake I did mean Product Identity, not IP.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nope. It is not. After 10 years, this seems exactly what is needed. Actually it was needed two years ago, but with the Anniversary right around the corner, this was implausible.



I disagree, so we'll just have to see which of us is right.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> I disagree, so we'll just have to see which of us is right.




We won't see who is right.
Because you feel that a revision is not in order, I do. Because there is no objective truth in that, there won't be anything to see.
What we might see is which feeling is prevalent in most people.


----------



## SteveC

This is a bit of amazingly bad PR. If OneDnD is going to be entirely backwards compatible, then it's based on open gaming content and people can continue to use the old content based on that version of the license. You can build your own classes, spell systems and what have you, based on what is previously there. And if it's a new thing ... well I was here for 4E. I loved the game in fact. But I also understand that the GSL was horrible and responsible for splitting the hobby. I don't see the upside for this discussion in any way.

This has all the look and feel of someone releasing a PR statement that was in comms rather than a gamer. Mrs. SteveC works in comms right now and there is a very good reason the things her agency releases have both a fact check and legal check process. "Is this right? Is it factually correct? Oh, and is it a legal thing to say or does it open up any liabilities?"


----------



## UngeheuerLich

SteveC said:


> This is a bit of amazingly bad PR. If OneDnD is going to be entirely backwards compatible, then it's based on open gaming content and people can continue to use the old content based on that version of the license. You can build your own classes, spell systems and what have you, based on what is previously there. And if it's a new thing ... well I was here for 4E. I loved the game in fact. But I also understand that the GSL was horrible and responsible for splitting the hobby. I don't see the upside for this discussion in any way.
> 
> This has all the look and feel of someone releasing a PR statement that was in comms rather than a gamer. Mrs. SteveC works in comms right now and there is a very good reason the things her agency releases have both a fact check and legal check process. "Is this right? Is it factually correct? Oh, and is it a legal thing to say or does it open up any liabilities?"




"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."

What exactly in this is so dubious?
They will continue to support the third party ceators. The OGL will evolve. But by design, if you don't like the evolution, you just use the older one...

edit: maybe I don't speak corporate english, so don't most of the gamers. So I can't see bad PR here.


----------



## Clint_L

SteveC said:


> If OneDnD is going to be entirely backwards compatible, then it's based on open gaming content and people can continue to use the old content based on that version of the license.



First, 5e is not based on open gaming content. It is _compatible_ with open gaming content, which is a totally different thing. And since OneD&D is a continuation of 5e, it will still be compatible with open gaming content, which this statement affirms. Actually, even if it _wasn't_ compatible with 5e it would still be compatible with the OGL.

There is no controversy, aside from a clickbait YouTuber trying to generate attention on places like this, among the chunk of the hardcore fanbase which always assumes the worst. WotC has not raised the issue, nor, most importantly, have businesses who rely on the OGL/SRD. This is just people who don't know anything about anything making noises to get attention.


----------



## SteveC

UngeheuerLich said:


> "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."
> 
> What exactly in this is so dubious?
> They will continue to support the third party ceators. The OGL will evolve. But by design, if you don't like the evolution, you just use the older one...



I'll just put the part that's dubious here:
*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.*

Those are words that say "maybe we will put the SRD for OneDnD as open content, maybe not." And, again, depending on how different the rules are, the point may be entirely irrelevant. 

The truth is: *we don't know what that sentence really means*, and I expect many people will be charitable about it. I don't know. What I do know is that it opens the door to ... this thread. And many of the content creators I follow have been very dubious about it, so I can tell you it's creating controversy. And I'll just say it's better to say nothing than to create controversy at this quite early stage. Where is the up side for that statement?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

SteveC said:


> I'll just put the part that's dubious here:
> *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.*
> 
> Those are words that say "maybe we will put the SRD for OneDnD as open content, maybe not." And, again, depending on how different the rules are, the point may be entirely irrelevant.
> 
> The truth is: *we don't know what that sentence really means*, and I expect many people will be charitable about it. I don't know. What I do know is that it opens the door to ... this thread. And many of the content creators I follow have been very dubious about it, so I can tell you it's creating controversy. And I'll just say it's better to say nothing than to create controversy at this quite early stage. Where is the up side for that statement?




 Nope. Say nothing also did not help.
It is also ignoring the first part of their post...


----------



## SteveC

Clint_L said:


> First, 5e is not based on open gaming content. It is _compatible_ with open gaming content, which is a totally different thing. And since OneD&D is a continuation of 5e, it will still be compatible with open gaming content, which this statement affirms. Actually, even if it _wasn't_ compatible with 5e it would still be compatible with the OGL.
> 
> There is no controversy, aside from a clickbait YouTuber trying to generate attention on places like this, among the chunk of the hardcore fanbase which always assumes the worst. WotC has not raised the issue, nor, most importantly, have businesses who rely on the OGL/SRD. This is just people who don't know anything about anything making noises to get attention.



Well you definitely have me on a pedantic issue, so you have that going for you. I don't think that 1% of 1% of D&D fans make that distinction, so I decided not to be that precise with my wording. 
But as far as saying "OneD&D is a continuation of 5e", well ... we have nothing but what WotC has said so far on that topic. And I've been here long enough to know that WotC itself probably doesn't even know if that's true or not. So on the important point, we are being entirely speculative here.
I do know this: every time there's been a new edition, WotC (and TSR before them) have touted compatibility. That's done in part so that they will keep selling books for the next two years.

The question we have here, and the one that's relevant in terms of the OGL is: will OneDandD be like 3.5 or Essentials for 4E. If it's 3.5, it largely breaks compatibility but if it's Essentials it keeps it. None of us know what the final product is going to be.

And bringing up the OGL and how it will "evolve" and using marketing speak doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Incenjucar

WotC's statement is ensuring that they don't over-promise something that is not yet set in stone. Providing a firm statement before things are finalized would be foolish, as they would then have to backpedal if something changed between now and _2024_.

Moreover, there is no way to word things that will please everyone who is in paranoid mode. There are decades of games PR disasters to draw on for examples. They gave the best answer they could. They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot just to appease the unappeasable.


----------



## JEB

SteveC said:


> And I'll just say it's better to say nothing than to create controversy at this quite early stage. Where is the up side for that statement?



If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of third parties' concerns.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of third parties' concerns.




But here’s the thing. 

There are no concerns. 

This is 100% invented. Nothing WotC has said or done suggests anything like this. It’s entirely based on an anonymous insider with inside information. Completely unsubstantiated. 

But WotC has to waste time on it because people are “concerned “?


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> There are no concerns.



So everyone who's expressed concerns about Wizards dropping third-party support is a liar?


----------



## MockingBird

JEB said:


> So everyone who's expressed concerns about Wizards dropping third-party support is a liar?



Can you share what 3rd party's are concerned. Not being snide just interested, all I've seen is a few YT videos.


----------



## JEB

MockingBird said:


> Can you share what 3rd party's are concerned. Not being snide just interested, all I've seen is a few YT videos.



I'm referring to folks generally, not companies. And the rumor had been mentioned on these boards and elsewhere before the YouTube video, but @darjr's earlier thread linked others who expressed concerns. Feel free to Google the question if you want more examples...


----------



## kenmarable

JEB said:


> I'm referring to folks generally, not companies. And the rumor had been mentioned on these boards and elsewhere before the YouTube video, but @darjr's earlier thread linked others who expressed concerns. Feel free to Google the question if you want more examples...



Then what concerns is the post below referring to then?


JEB said:


> If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of third parties' concerns.


----------



## JEB

kenmarable said:


> Then what concerns is this referring to then?



"If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of concerns over continued third-party support." 

Does that rewrite satisfy you?


----------



## Clint_L

SteveC said:


> The question we have here, and the one that's relevant in terms of the OGL is: will OneDandD be like 3.5 or Essentials for 4E. If it's 3.5, it largely breaks compatibility but if it's Essentials it keeps it. None of us know what the final product is going to be.



No, that's not the "question we have here." That might be the question _you_ have here, but I am very open to the possibility that there are more than two options. Especially because WotC has explicitly stated that they are not going for either of those options.


----------



## Clint_L

JEB said:


> "If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of concerns over continued third-party support."
> 
> Does that rewrite satisfy you?



He specifically asked what _third-party designers_ have expressed concerns. Not whether the usual "the sky is falling" crowd who don't actually have skin in the game have expressed concerns. Like, has a single 3rd party provider gone on record that they are worried about the OGL/SRD? Can anyone provide a citation? Because otherwise, let's call this what it is: click-bait and hand-wringing from folks who read ill-intent into everything.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> So everyone who's expressed concerns about Wizards dropping third-party support is a liar?



What concerns?  

Again, I'm asking here.  What concerns?  Other than a totally unsubstantiated "inside man" rumour, there aren't any concerns being voiced.  

Can you please point to any evidence whatsoever that WotC is going to repeat another GSL debacle?  Where have they even given the merest whiff that they aren't going to continue doing things exactly the way they have been for eight years?


----------



## JEB

Clint_L said:


> He specifically asked what _third-party designers_ have expressed concerns. Not whether the usual "the sky is falling" crowd who don't actually have skin in the game have expressed concerns. Like, has a single 3rd party provider gone on record that they are worried about the OGL/SRD? Can anyone provide a citation?



That's what he asked, but I'm not only counting business owners' concerns as valid.

But to answer your question, here's a 3PP concerned about changes to the OGL under One D&D, from three months ago: One DnD: OGL Going Away in 6e


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> What concerns?



The concern that Wizards may change their support to third parties under One D&D into a form less favorable to third parties (and by extension, consumers) than it is now. As has been expressed by multiple sources at this point.

If you're trying to say the concern isn't _valid_, that's a different thing from whether or not the concern has been voiced, because it very clearly has been voiced. Unless you're arguing those voicing the concern are all liars, and aren't actually concerned at all?


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> The concern that Wizards may change their support to third parties under One D&D into a form less favorable to third parties (and by extension, consumers) than it is now. As has been expressed by multiple sources at this point.
> 
> If you're trying to say the concern isn't _valid_, that's a different thing from whether or not the concern has been voiced, because it very clearly has been voiced. Unless you're arguing those voicing the concern are all liars, and aren't actually concerned at all?



Please stop trying twist what I said.

I'm saying that the concerns are entirely baseless.  The concerns voiced on the Youtube video were completely baseless and @Morrus showed how baseless they were.  

Just because someone "voiced a concern" doesn't mean anything.  And, frankly, considering that the "concerns" were unsubstantiated and WRONG, I'm not sure I'd say they were lying, but, they sure as heck weren't telling the truth.


----------



## SteveC

Clint_L said:


> No, that's not the "question we have here." That might be the question _you_ have here, but I am very open to the possibility that there are more than two options. Especially because WotC has explicitly stated that they are not going for either of those options.



Well, I'll just say "right back at'cha" as far as what you're interested in and believe. I said the question "we" have as in the question, one of many, that are being raised in this thread. I consider it to be quite important.

I get it. You are a "everything will be fine" person. I've been through all of the edition changes, and much like new Doctors on Dr. Who, you have people who are great with the change and trust it will be fantastic, and those that don't. For me, Jon Pertwee for life. I'm not honestly sure what that equates to in D&D editions.

Ahem. I don't know which will be the case. Will it be a new game, or will it just be a continuation of 5E? Don't know. And neither do you, or anyone else in this thread.

What I'm saying, with regards to this thread, is that the statement by WotC was poorly written and used corporate speak, which has spawned controversy, like this thread. Continued support for the OGL matters based on if OneDandD is going to be it's own game or if it's largely a continuation of 5E, much like Essentials was a continuation of 4E. If it's a continuation, we can keep on playing the 5E Doctor Who game and use the new stuff too. See! I even managed to bring that tangent around.

And I know that Wizards has been saying it will be a continuation, but they have said things like that before which weren't always true in the end. It is in their financial interest to say so. I was told I would totally be able to convert my 3X character to 4E. Are they lying? I don't think so, since I don't believe that OneDandD is set in stone yet. But it will be in the not too distant future.

So we have this thread, which I'm participating in to say "the post from WotC was badly written and has created controversy." Which, we have this thread for, well, as proof. You (and anyone) can disagree but let's not try and make any more of it than that.


----------



## Incenjucar

Corporate speak has the purpose of maintaining the validity of the statement given the realities of business while minimizing financial risk if things change and the statement gets used as a weapon by critics. It would be a bad choice to use non-corporate speak specifically because of this conversation. Panicking fans did this to themselves.


----------



## Oofta

Incenjucar said:


> Corporate speak has the purpose of maintaining the validity of the statement given the realities of business while minimizing financial risk if things change and the statement gets used as a weapon by critics. It would be a bad choice to use non-corporate speak specifically because of this conversation. Panicking fans did this to themselves.




I sincerely doubt that 99% of the people who are actively playing D&D even know about this, or that they care if they do.  Just because clickbait works, it does not mean there's a widespread panic.

Of course the response was written in corporate speak.  WOTC is a corporation.  Because they didn't always do that we're still hearing how 5E is supposed to be the ultimate modular game a decade later.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Incenjucar said:


> Corporate speak has the purpose of maintaining the validity of the statement given the realities of business while minimizing financial risk if things change and the statement gets used as a weapon by critics. It would be a bad choice to use non-corporate speak specifically because of this conversation. Panicking fans did this to themselves.



This is exactly what people predicted would happen if WotC made a statement to address the "controversy", and why many of us expected that WotC would just stay silent and not deign to acknowledge the matter.


----------



## Blue Orange

They're taking no action. The statement doesn't say they will get rid of the OGL, it doesn't say they won't.

Probably they're weighing revenue loss from people making their own stuff against (1) bad blood with fans, many of whom are very internet-savvy (2) the greater difficulty in stamping out 'bootleg D&D' since the old 'T$R lawsuit' days (3) the risk of an OSR-like alternative popping up that has just enough difference to survive a copyright lawsuit.


----------



## Morrus

Blue Orange said:


> They're taking no action. The statement doesn't say they will get rid of the OGL, it doesn't say they won't.



They can’t.


----------



## Incenjucar

Probably they're not even thinking about it because they have something important to work on and they'll send an email to legal three months before launch to see of they need to update anything before things go live.


----------



## Reynard

Blue Orange said:


> They're taking no action. The statement doesn't say they will get rid of the OGL, it doesn't say they won't.
> 
> Probably they're weighing revenue loss from people making their own stuff against (1) bad blood with fans, many of whom are very internet-savvy (2) the greater difficulty in stamping out 'bootleg D&D' since the old 'T$R lawsuit' days (3) the risk of an OSR-like alternative popping up that has just enough difference to survive a copyright lawsuit.



None of that makes any sense in the context of a robust 5E 3rd party ecosystem, even allowing for the blatantly wrong idea that WotC could end the OGL if they wanted to.


----------



## LordEntrails

JEB said:


> But to answer your question, here's a 3PP concerned about changes to the OGL under One D&D, from three months ago: One DnD: OGL Going Away in 6e



See below...


Blue Orange said:


> The statement doesn't say they will get rid of the OGL, it doesn't say they won't.



Let me reiterate what Morrus said. THE OGL CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY, EVER. BY ANYONE.

Just like once something becomes Open Content or Public Domain, it can never NOT be Open Content or Public Domain. That is the power of releasing something like that. It goes into a perpetual legal state that means it stays there.

One D&D might not have an SRD, and it may not update (or coincide with an update) to the OGL. But the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a will ALWAYS exist and be available to anyone who wishes to use them as written.


----------



## John Lloyd1

Incenjucar said:


> Probably they're not even thinking about it because they have something important to work on and they'll send an email to legal three months before launch to see of they need to update anything before things go live.



This is 100% where I think they are at!


----------



## Blue Orange

LordEntrails said:


> See below...
> 
> Let me reiterate what Morrus said. THE OGL CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY, EVER. BY ANYONE.
> 
> Just like once something becomes Open Content or Public Domain, it can never NOT be Open Content or Public Domain. That is the power of releasing something like that. It goes into a perpetual legal state that means it stays there.
> 
> One D&D might not have an SRD, and it may not update (or coincide with an update) to the OGL. But the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a will ALWAYS exist and be available to anyone who wishes to use them as written.



Good to know, thank you. Thank God!


----------



## darjr

darjr said:


> Mike talks about the subject. Mentioning this thread and Russ' podcast alot. Refering to them as good resources.



Mike talks about the statement a bit after mentioning Russ' post and comment as good resources.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

delericho said:


> Indeed. The only authority you _might_ bow to is that of WotC, in which case they've produced three editions: 3e, 4e, and 5e - they've stated that 3.5e, Essentials, and the upcoming OneD&D are all _not_ new editions.
> 
> But as noted in the quote from Shannon Appelcline up-thread, the community view was quite different (even in the case of Essentials, which has a _much_ stronger case to be the same edition than 3.5e did). It remains to be seen, of course, what the community view will make of OneD&D.



And the Community can be wrong about that.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> This is exactly what people predicted would happen if WotC made a statement to address the "controversy", and why many of us expected that WotC would just stay silent and not deign to acknowledge the matter.



And them not just letting this dumb rumor go the way of the birds says more negative things much more plausibly about the company then whatever the conspiracy people are peddling does.


----------



## ElliottBalding

What's the difference between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a? I can't find 1.0 anywhere to compare it. I know its old but thought it wouldn't be as hard to find as it is.


----------



## Nylanfs

It's a bit about trademarks and trade dress IIRC.


----------



## wingsandsword

ElliottBalding said:


> What's the difference between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a? I can't find 1.0 anywhere to compare it. I know its old but thought it wouldn't be as hard to find as it is.



As I recall, someone compared the two once and it was a matter of hyphenating one word that was supposed to be hyphenated.

They released 1.0. . .then realized there was a minor typo, corrected it, and released it as 1.0a shortly thereafter which was substantially the same but had a very minor proofreading/grammar issue corrected.


----------



## Jack Daniel

1.0a clarifies "trademarks and licensed trademarks" where 1.0 only mentions "trademarks."


----------



## ElliottBalding

Based on my reading and watching videos after the most recent leak of what the "OGL" will be, it seems like WoTC absolutely have the ability to revoke all previous OGL's. Perpetual means no specified end date, not that it is irrevocable. You can use "any authorised OGL." 1.1 says that 1.0a is no longer authorised.


----------



## qstor

As I said on the other thread, perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable.  Version a includes a numbered paragraph allowing WotC to modify the license.  I'm a lawyer but not an IP lawyer


----------



## Staffan

qstor said:


> As I said on the other thread, perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable.  Version a includes a numbered paragraph allowing WotC to modify the license.  I'm a lawyer but not an IP lawyer



The relevant quote is "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

That's pretty much the text this whole debate revolves around. And we really won't get an answer until Wizards goes through with their madness and tries to take someone to court over it (or someone takes them to court).


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Staffan said:


> The relevant quote is "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."
> 
> That's pretty much the text this whole debate revolves around. And we really won't get an answer until Wizards goes through with their madness and tries to take someone to court over it (or someone takes them to court).




 Or they kill the OGL 1.1 completely, which I suspect they will now. I mean it was supposed to be released yesterday and yet still not officially released. I suspect no one saying anything right now because WotC and Hasbro are in utter chaos with lot of infighting over this.


----------



## Alzrius

Henadic Theologian said:


> Or they kill the OGL 1.1 completely, which I suspect they will now. I mean it was supposed to be released yesterday and yet still not officially released.



My understanding is that it's supposed to be released a week from today.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Alzrius said:


> My understanding is that it's supposed to be released a week from today.



 No it was supposed to have been released on the 4th, but only giving publishers till January 14th to sign onto the 1.1 OGL. So they have a very tight timeline built in to do this OGL and the longer they don't release it, the more likely it's dead already.


----------



## Art Waring

Alzrius said:


> My understanding is that it's supposed to be released a week from today.



A statement was supposed to be released on the 4th, when the NDA's all expired, and they were expected to make an announcement but they didn't in light of the leak.

The leak states the cutoff date for the 1.0a to be on the 13th of January, giving people a little over a week to do either sign or find another solution.

Its been two days since the 4th, and still no official statement.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Art Waring said:


> A statement was supposed to be released on the 4th, when the NDA's all expired, and they were expected to make an announcement but they didn't in light of the leak.
> 
> The leak states the cutoff date for the 1.0a to be on the 13th of January, giving people a little over a week to do either sign or find another solution.
> 
> Its been two days since the 4th, and still no official statement.



If NDAs expired and no one is talking openly that may mean something


----------



## UngainlyTitan

GMforPowergamers said:


> If NDAs expired and no one is talking openly that may mean something



Yup negotiations are ongoing but  delicate.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yup negotiations are ongoing but  delicate.



I agree... that there is delicate work being done as we speak


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> If NDAs expired and no one is talking openly that may mean something



If NDAs really expired, _someone_ would be talking. This industry is full of loudmouths, show-offs, and people with questionable professionalism, as well as lots of better people. The NDA's end date doesn't have to be a specific date, though - it could be until some condition is met.


----------



## humble minion

Ruin Explorer said:


> If NDAs really expired, _someone_ would be talking. This industry is full of loudmouths, show-offs, and people with questionable professionalism, as well as lots of better people. The NDA's end date doesn't have to be a specific date, though - it could be until some condition is met.



I suspect that the people who WotC chose to invite to sign the NDAs are more likely to slant towards the more professional side of the community though. 

Everyone who signed the NDA has a LOT to lose.  Not just personally if WotC sues them for violating it, but also in terms of the OGL itself if WotC decides that their 3pp discussion partners aren't operating in good faith and to just damn the torpedoes, scrap the consultation process and push ahead with 1.1.  And yes, I'm aware of the irony of WotC right now accusing ANYONE else of lacking good faith, but I don't think the rapacious  leeches who came up with this whole idea will care about that one little bit.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yup negotiations are ongoing but  delicate.




 More likely 1.1 is dead and they are discussing the best way to extract themselves from this disaster. WotC can see the current tidal wave of nerd rage coming their way from all sides.

 Plus there could be a lot of internal politics going on at Hasbro with finger pointing and so on going on.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Henadic Theologian said:


> More likely 1.1 is dead and they are discussing the best way to extract themselves from this disaster. WotC can see the current tidal wave of nerd rage coming their way from all sides.
> 
> Plus there could be a lot of internal politics going on at Hasbro with finger pointing and so on going on.



I bloody hope that's what's happening!


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> I bloody hope that's what's happening!



I hope so as well. I'm not terribly optimistic about it, but I don't consider it impossible.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Ruin Explorer said:


> I bloody hope that's what's happening!




 There is a timer on this thing and the longer it takes for WotC to release the 1.1 OGL the more likely it's dead. They have a deadline of the 14th, but more likely given they have to give folks some kind of time a week at least so if it's not released by Monday it's toast, or at least this disgusting version is.


----------



## Art Waring

Henadic Theologian said:


> More likely 1.1 is dead and they are discussing the best way to extract themselves from this disaster



I most certainly hope so.

I'm still taking Morrus' advice and laying out a mini booklet all about my zombie variants to release for free as OGC under the 1.0a OGL before the deadline.


----------



## Alzrius

Art Waring said:


> I'm still taking Morrus' advice and laying out a mini booklet all about my zombie variants to release for free as OGC under the 1.oa OGL before the deadline.



Same. I'm planning to re-release some Open Game Content that I wrote for a now-defunct webzine on my blog over the weekend, just to be safe.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> If NDAs expired and no one is talking openly that may mean something



Yeah.  It means that the NDA didn't expire on the 4th unless it was released.  

There's no way that no one would be talking if it expired a few days ago without an actual release.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Henadic Theologian said:


> .1More likely 1.1 is dead and they are discussing the best way to extract themselves from this disaster. WotC can see the current tidal wave of nerd rage coming their way from all sides.
> 
> Plus there could be a lot of internal politics going on at Hasbro with finger pointing and so on going on.



1.1 as we understand it is possibly dead but if they keep it essentially the same but make it  "opt in" and reassure the community that they are not going to try to break the existing OGL. 
Then the situation is recoverable. That said, being a fly on the wall at meetings now could be fun.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngainlyTitan said:


> 1.1 as we understand it is possibly dead



Iff all it takes is a nerd rage backlash  on line to change corp policy that had to go through marketing legal and most likely more... I will be shocked


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> Iff all it takes is a nerd rage backlash  on line to change corp policy that had to go through marketing legal and most likely more... I will be shocked



but I'd take it


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> Iff all it takes is a nerd rage backlash  on line to change corp policy that had to go through marketing legal and most likely more... I will be shocked



Hey, it got the GSL changed. Not very much, and it was ultimately too little too late, but it still produced a change.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

GMforPowergamers said:


> Iff all it takes is a nerd rage backlash  on line to change corp policy that had to go through marketing legal and most likely more... I will be shocked



I am sure it helped but the failure to release the licence when promised is indicative that something is up.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Henadic Theologian said:


> More likely 1.1 is dead and they are discussing the best way to extract themselves from this disaster. WotC can see the current tidal wave of nerd rage coming their way from all sides.
> 
> Plus there could be a lot of internal politics going on at Hasbro with finger pointing and so on going on.



I would very much like that to be true.


----------



## Staffan

GMforPowergamers said:


> Iff all it takes is a nerd rage backlash  on line to change corp policy that had to go through marketing legal and most likely more... I will be shocked



There's the nerd rage online, and then there's likely pushback from the 3PPs they've been talking to as well.


----------



## GracefulBreath

Fascinating that it's "too early in development" to give information on the OGL but just last month the dndbeyond OGL post said 


> We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023


----------



## Greg K

Some publishers are already turning away from WOTC and D&D over this. The lady from Arcane Library posted that she is now updating  a product that was to go to Kickstarter in February  from OGL to another license.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Staffan said:


> There's the nerd rage online, and then there's likely pushback from the 3PPs they've been talking to as well.



They are being slammed in the MSM as well like IGN. Oh heck even their Spokes woman for D&D One, Ginny Di is opposed to OGL 1.1! Said so on Twitter.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

GMforPowergamers said:


> Iff all it takes is a nerd rage backlash  on line to change corp policy that had to go through marketing legal and most likely more... I will be shocked




 It's all it took for WotC to fold in the face of the Dragonlance lawsuit, they saw fans were pissed and folded, settling out of court, giving Tracy and Maraget what they wanted, for WotC not to breach the contract made with them.

 They really need better lawyers who will tell the bosses the truth instead of what they want to hear.


----------



## Greg K

Henadic Theologian said:


> They are being slammed in the MSM as well like IGN. Oh heck even their Spokes woman for D&D One, Ginny Di is opposed to OGL 1.1! Said so on Twitter.



It is like there is no institutional memory over at WOTC and, thus, Hasbro regarding the 4e GSL ....


----------



## ersatzphil

Art Waring said:


> I most certainly hope so.
> 
> I'm still taking Morrus' advice and laying out a mini booklet all about my zombie variants to release for free as OGC under the 1.0a OGL before the deadline.



What was Morrus' advice?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's all it took for WotC to fold in the face of the Dragonlance lawsuit, they saw fans were pissed and folded, settling out of court, giving Tracy and Maraget what they wanted, for WotC not to breach the contract made with them.



Do you have any evidence that this is what happened, or is this just speculation?


Henadic Theologian said:


> They really need better lawyers who will tell the bosses the truth instead of what they want to hear.



Again, baseless speculation.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Greg K said:


> It is like there is no institutional memory over at WOTC and, thus Hasbro regarding the 4e GSL ....




 Among the executives there likely isn't, none where there for that and they likely didn't consult with those designers and other folks who were.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's all it took for WotC to fold in the face of the Dragonlance lawsuit, they saw fans were pissed and folded, settling out of court, giving Tracy and Maraget what they wanted, for WotC not to breach the contract made with them.
> 
> They really need better lawyers who will tell the bosses the truth instead of what they want to hear.



I suspect the lawyers are fine but the bosses need work.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Do you have any evidence that this is what happened, or is this just speculation?
> 
> Again, baseless speculation.




 It's not baseless speculation, WotC settling out of court on the DL case is public knowledge, do yoy think they did that so quickly because they feared the opposing lawyer?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's not baseless speculation, WotC settling out of court on the DL case is public knowledge, do yoy think they did that so quickly because they feared the opposing lawyer?



They settled a court case. We know that they did that. We don't know if public backlash was a substantial factor in that. It could have just as easily been resolved internally. Stop stating baseless speculation as if it were fact, please.


----------



## humble minion

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's all it took for WotC to fold in the face of the Dragonlance lawsuit, they saw fans were pissed and folded, settling out of court, giving Tracy and Maraget what they wanted, for WotC not to breach the contract made with them.




My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I don't think the public backlash had much to do with WotC settling that case.  I think it was more that it became clear they were going to lose.  There's a reason WotC booted their head of fiction soon afterwards.  From vague memory WotC had the right to approve W&Hs work before publication, and decided for whatever reason to arbitrarily delay that approval forever without actually knocking it back either, and you're not allowed to do that sort of stuff.  But there's a looong thread about that back in the archives somewhere.  




Greg K said:


> Some publishers are already turning away from WOTC and D&D over this. The lady from Arcane Library posted that she is now updating a product that was to go to Kickstarter in February from OGL to another license.





I just got an email from Kobold Press overnight saying that they'll soon be launching their Deep Magic II kickstarter 'for 5th edition games' in the near future.  Odds on are that KP are one of the 3pps under NDA - it'll be interesting to see what licence they publish under, whether they've come to a private bespoke agreement with WotC, or whether they talk about any of this at all.  It doesn't seem to have made them put a hold on their product pipeline though.


----------



## Irlo

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's not baseless speculation, WotC settling out of court on the DL case is public knowledge, do yoy think they did that so quickly because they feared the opposing lawyer?



I think they settled quickly to save money. That’s why most suits are settled. 

But that’s just me speculating.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

UngainlyTitan said:


> I suspect the lawyers are fine but the bosses need work.




 Yeah I'm increasingly convinced new leadership is needed at WotC deseperately. I suspect that the activist investors are quietly marshalling their forces for a renewed battle over the fate of WotC, just too many angry fans, bad publicity, potential lawsuits, and a host of other issues. WotC is just too valuable to keep dropping the ball like this.

Also rember they just cancelled 6 games, most of which I believe were partnerships, so that roughly 5 more partners pissed off.

 This is looking increasingly bad.


----------



## Art Waring

ersatzphil said:


> What was Morrus' advice?



quoted from @Morrus



> "anybody who thinks they might conceivably want to use the OGL 1.0a in the future should do so immediately by releasing a tiny 'product' into the wild under the OGL before WotC stops 'offering' it. If this version turns out to be the way it goes, those people will perpetually have the right to use the current SRD contents"


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Irlo said:


> I think they settled quickly to save money. That’s why most suits are settled.
> 
> But that’s just me speculating.



My understanding from the discussion here. It sounded like a WoTC executive was stalling the approval of the novel, not rejecting not approving. That was the basis of the suit.


----------



## ersatzphil

Art Waring said:


> quoted from @Morrus



Just so I’m clear - offering an ‘anything’ now, so that if things play out certain ways, we would be party to the license for other arbitrary projects in the future?


----------



## mamba

ersatzphil said:


> What was Morrus' advice?



use the OGL 1.0 before 1/13 if you want to publish anything under it


----------



## Art Waring

ersatzphil said:


> Just so I’m clear - offering an ‘anything’ now, so that if things play out certain ways, we would be party to the license for other arbitrary projects in the future?



I can't say that anything is a certainty right now, all I know is that it is _possible_ that if you can show prior use of the 1.0a license you can _theoretically_ keep using it, depending on their future course of action. Nothing is certain or clear right now until we get an official statement.

Until then, if you want to keep using the 1.0a, best start on that.


----------



## ersatzphil

Art Waring said:


> I can't say that anything is a certainty right now, all I know is that it is _possible_ that if you can show prior use of the 1.0a license you can _theoretically_ keep using it, depending on their future course of action. Nothing is certain or clear right now until we get an official statement.
> 
> Until then, if you want to keep using the 1.0a, best start on that.



Hrm. I actually have been working on and off on an OSR game where you play as 1880s ghosts - maybe I should polish up an art-less quickstart and upload it to DTRPG this weekend, just so it has a nice, bright origin timestamp on it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Art Waring said:


> quoted from @Morrus



I'm not sure if anyone here can answer this, but hopefully @Morrus would know better than I.

I've had just over a handful of my articles published for EN5ider. Would my ability to write OGL content in the future be protected through this, or would I personally have to publish something on my own before the new OGL is released?


----------



## overgeeked

ersatzphil said:


> Hrm. I actually have been working on and off on an OSR game where you play as 1880s ghosts - maybe I should polish up an art-less quickstart and upload it to DTRPG this weekend, just so it has a nice, bright origin timestamp on it.



I posted part of a PDF I was working on here just to have something up and out. It would be hilariously bad if that’s all it took. But we are in the dumbest timeline.


----------



## Riley

mamba said:


> use the OGL 1.0 before 1/13 if you want to publish anything under it




I’d like to take this opportunity to announce the imminent release of my life’s work: “Kobold and Pie.”


----------



## ersatzphil

overgeeked said:


> I posted part of a PDF I was working on here just to have something up and out. It would be hilariously bad if that’s all it took. But we are in the dumbest timeline.



I mean - I totally agree, but I don’t really see a downside. If putting something out this weekend means I get to publish ‘The Haunted Hack’ down the line? Great! If it doesn’t? Then I’ll probably never try to publish a Black Hack derived game. I either lose little or gain quite a bit.


----------



## Scribe

overgeeked said:


> I posted part of a PDF I was working on here just to have something up and out. It would be hilariously bad if that’s all it took. But we are in the dumbest timeline.




I may throw together some scraps of notes and do just that as well.

naughty word em.


----------



## Starglim

mamba said:


> use the OGL 1.0 before 1/13 if you want to publish anything under it



Done (and various others, but I think that's my earliest)


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> They are being slammed in the MSM as well like IGN. Oh heck even their Spokes woman for D&D One, Ginny Di is opposed to OGL 1.1! Said so on Twitter.



You say “their spokeswoman” like she’s in their pocket. She’s just a popular D&D YouTuber who happens to like what’s been shown of 1D&D so far. And far from the only one, I know XP to Level 3 also praised the playtest material.


----------



## ersatzphil

Scribe said:


> I may throw together some scraps of notes and do just that as well.
> 
> naughty word em.



Naughty word 'em indeed, friend.

Naughty word 'em indeed.


----------



## Scribe

ersatzphil said:


> Naughty word 'em indeed, friend.
> 
> Naughty word 'em indeed.
> 
> View attachment 271551




This is a family friendly forum, friend!


----------



## ersatzphil

Charlaquin said:


> You say “their spokeswoman” like she’s in their pocket. She’s just a popular D&D YouTuber who happens to like what’s been shown of 1D&D so far. And far from the only one, I know XP to Level 3 also praised the playtest material.



She's also recently tweeted her negative feelings about getting rid of the OGL.


----------



## ersatzphil

Scribe said:


> This is a family friendly forum, friend!



Let the record show that I did in fact type out the phrase "naughty word", rather than anything that was caught by the obscenity filter.


----------



## Charlaquin

ersatzphil said:


> She's also recently tweeted her negative feelings about getting rid of the OGL.



Right, I was just saying, “spokeswoman” seems like a really disingenuous way to describe her relationship with 1D&D.


----------



## Drake2000

Henadic Theologian said:


> Yeah I'm increasingly convinced new leadership is needed at WotC deseperately. I suspect that the activist investors are quietly marshalling their forces for a renewed battle over the fate of WotC, just too many angry fans, bad publicity, potential lawsuits, and a host of other issues. WotC is just too valuable to keep dropping the ball like this.



I believe Cynthia Williams and Dan Rawson _are _fairly new hires. I also believe they're doing exactly what power investors and the higher-ups at Hasbro want them to do, which is protect and monetize their IP to the hilt to increase their revenue stream. This isn't really about D&D rulebooks, or even the game itself, this is about squeezing every last penny they can out of the D&D brand, and either eliminating the competition, or bringing it to heel under WotC's own terms.


----------



## Staffan

Charlaquin said:


> Right, I was just saying, “spokeswoman” seems like a really disingenuous way to describe her relationship with 1D&D.



I think "spokeswoman" comes from her being hired to handle the D&D portion of the presentation WOTC did a few months back of their 2023 offerings. But AFAIK that was one gig, not an ongoing position.

Amy Dallen's probably closer to a spokesperson as she's an ongoing host on the D&D Beyond side of things, but that's still more of an "entertainment" position.


----------



## Morrus

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm not sure if anyone here can answer this, but hopefully @Morrus would know better than I.
> 
> I've had just over a handful of my articles published for EN5ider. Would my ability to write OGL content in the future be protected through this, or would I personally have to publish something on my own before the new OGL is released?



Well (a) I don't know that it would work and (b) if it did, it would apply to the publisher.


----------



## Art Waring

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm not sure if anyone here can answer this, but hopefully @Morrus would know better than I.
> 
> I've had just over a handful of my articles published for EN5ider. Would my ability to write OGL content in the future be protected through this, or would I personally have to publish something on my own before the new OGL is released?



I'm an not 100% certain about anything right now, but I think you would need to include the 1.0a OGL license together with any material you have posted up on the internet. So I guess you can make a PDF, add the 1.0a license as you would with any OGL product, and hopefully we will get some better news soon.


----------



## Rabulias

I am not a lawyer of any kind, and have no inside info, but I believe WotC's intent with "de-authorizing" the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a licenses means that anything published under them while they were authorized will be OK to keep in print and give away or sell in the future. I think they intend this to be complete products and not placeholders for further development and/or additional future content to be released under 1.0/1.0a.

In other words, I don't think they would look kindly on my putting out a one-page PDF today that says "My Game Stuff Here" with the OGL 1.0a attached, and at some point (after OGL 1.1 goes into effect) I add the 5.1 SRD content to that PDF and post it again without updating to the OGL 1.1 license. I do not think that is what the terms mean in the minds of WotC's lawyers.


----------



## glass

Drake2000 said:


> I believe Cynthia Williams and Dan Rawson _are _fairly new hires. I also believe they're doing exactly what power investors and the higher-ups at Hasbro want them to do, which is protect and monetize their IP to the hilt to increase their revenue stream.



They are obviously trying to monetise D&D, but depending on how this plays out they may end up doing the opposite of "protecting" the investment. The story of the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind. _EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying this will kill D&D (unlike the poor goose). But it might end up making quite a dent in it. _


----------



## Plokman

glass said:


> They are obviously trying to monetise D&D, but depending on how this plays out they may end up doing the opposite of "protecting" the investment. The story of the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind. _EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying this will kill D&D (unlike the poor goose). But it might end up making quite a dent in it. _



Corporate people, those who ask "What do we have?" as opposed to "What can we find or create" should never be allowed to make these decisions. They always follow the money.


----------



## bedir than

humble minion said:


> I just got an email from Kobold Press overnight saying that they'll soon be launching their Deep Magic II kickstarter 'for 5th edition games' in the near future. Odds on are that KP are one of the 3pps under NDA - it'll be interesting to see what licence they publish under, whether they've come to a private bespoke agreement with WotC, or whether they talk about any of this at all. It doesn't seem to have made them put a hold on their product pipeline though.



Kobold is one of the 3pp I'm most interested in seeing what they do. They and EN are the two 3pp I've spent the most supporting.


Henadic Theologian said:


> I suspect that the activist investors are quietly marshalling their forces for a renewed battle over the fate of WotC



Their claim was Hasbro needed to sell Wizards because Hasbro was holding back Wizards from monetizing the game enough.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

bedir than said:


> Kobold is one of the 3pp I'm most interested in seeing what they do. They and EN are the two 3pp I've spent the most supporting.
> 
> Their claim was Hasbro needed to sell Wizards because Hasbro was holding back Wizards from monetizing the game enough.




 Doesn't mean they wanted WotC to create a huge backlash in the process, I suspect they had their own idea of how to increasing the monetization of D&D by you know, producing more products worth buying, not illegally breaching a contract with who knows how many companies and pissing off the D&D fandom.


----------



## bedir than

Henadic Theologian said:


> Doesn't mean they wanted WotC to create a huge backlash in the process, I suspect they had their own idea of how to increasing the monetization of D&D by you know, producing more products worth buying, not illegally breaching a contract with who knows how many companies and pissing off the D&D fandom.




Wizards says that they want to monetize via movies, streams, video games -- posters here assumed that meant microtransactions.
but the activist investors that fronted hedge fund say they want to monetize and the assumption is benevolent glut?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

bedir than said:


> Wizards says that they want to monetize via movies, streams, video games -- posters here assumed that meant microtransactions.
> but the activist investors that fronted hedge fund say they want to monetize and the assumption is benevolent glut?




 Glut is too strong a word. There is a right way and a wrong why to monetize D&D, WotC chose wrong.


----------



## Micah Sweet

bedir than said:


> Wizards says that they want to monetize via movies, streams, video games -- posters here assumed that meant microtransactions.
> but the activist investors that fronted hedge fund say they want to monetize and the assumption is benevolent glut?



I really, really wish people wouldn't equate the words "more" and "glut".  They are not the same, and "glut" is an entirely subjective term.


----------



## bedir than

Micah Sweet said:


> I really, really wish people wouldn't equate the words "more" and "glut".  They are not the same, and "glut" is an entirely subjective term.



Hedge funds are definitely known for making wise business decisions when they take over a company.

Recall they put forward only a single candidate with business experience beyond retail management


----------



## Irlo

Henadic Theologian said:


> Doesn't mean they wanted WotC to create a huge backlash in the process, I suspect they had their own idea of how to increasing the monetization of D&D by you know, producing more products worth buying, not illegally breaching a contract with who knows how many companies and pissing off the D&D fandom.



I suspect they wanted to extract value (by way of stock dividends) from WotC. By breaking WotC away from the lower-performing arms of Hasbro, they could achieve that goal.  I really don’t think they’re concerned about making products worth buying.

This is the activist investor version of gerrymandering.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Irlo said:


> I suspect they wanted to extract value (by way of stock dividends) from WotC. By breaking WotC away from the lower-performing arms of Hasbro, they could achieve that goal.  I really don’t think they’re concerned about making products worth buying.
> 
> This is the activist investor version of gerrymandering.




 Honestly, they really emphasised their roots in the fandom, I suspect profits we're never their only goal, they just had to couch things in those terms to sway other investors, as fans I think they weren't happy with the direction of WotC.


----------



## humble minion

Henadic Theologian said:


> Honestly, they really emphasised their roots in the fandom, I suspect profits we're never their only goal, they just had to couch things in those terms to sway other investors, as fans I think they weren't happy with the direction of WotC.



Or else they were deliberately trying to astroturf themselves as 'true fans' to manufacture support from the fanbase for their profit-motivated corporate maneuvering.  But we'll never know one way or the other.


----------



## Irlo

Henadic Theologian said:


> Honestly, they really emphasised their roots in the fandom, I suspect profits we're never their only goal, they just had to couch things in those terms to sway other investors, as fans I think they weren't happy with the direction of WotC.



I’ve been called cynical.


----------



## Dausuul

Henadic Theologian said:


> Honestly, they really emphasised their roots in the fandom, I suspect profits we're never their only goal, they just had to couch things in those terms to sway other investors, as fans I think they weren't happy with the direction of WotC.



Generally I'm inclined not to think people's motivations are _more_ noble than their public statements let on.


----------



## Bohandas

glass said:


> They are obviously trying to monetise D&D, but depending on how this plays out they may end up doing the opposite of "protecting" the investment. The story of the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind. _EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying this will kill D&D (unlike the poor goose). But it might end up making quite a dent in it. _




If this actually happens I hope it does kill D&D. I still think that nobody should habe switched back to D&D from Pathfinder


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bohandas said:


> If this actually happens I hope it does kill D&D. I still think that nobody should habe switched back to D&D from Pathfinder



You can like what you like but I really like 5e, I even like the proposed changes to 5e. This makes me sad.


----------



## Remathilis

Comment coming 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




@Morrus


----------



## Stalker0

Remathilis said:


> Comment coming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Morrus



The big elephant in the room is the leaked document. There are really only 3 scenarios:

1) the document is fake, or an unreleased draft, aka unofficial. If that was the case, seems weird for WOTC to not say that.

2) the document is real but only for the few companies it was sent to, and the more general OGL will be “kinder”. Sucks for those poor sods but ok for the rest of us. Wotc might stay quiet to get them to sign… i mean they are obviously going to find out once the general doc is released, so it’s not like hiding that fact is going to hold us long term.

3) the document is a true representation of wotcs plan. In this case the releases statement is just standard corporate bs.


----------



## bedir than

Stalker0 said:


> The big elephant in the room is the leaked document. There are really only 3 scenarios:
> 
> 1) the document is fake, or an unreleased draft, aka unofficial. If that was the case, seems weird for WOTC to not say that.
> 
> 2) the document is real but only for the few companies it was sent to, and the more general OGL will be “kinder”. Sucks for those poor sods but ok for the rest of us. Wotc might stay quiet to get them to sign… i mean they are obviously going to find out once the general doc is released, so it’s not like hiding that fact is going to hold us long term.
> 
> 3) the document is a true representation of wotcs plan. In this case the releases statement is just standard corporate bs.



4) the document was real. They've changed their mind now.


Losing their largest 3pp partner may have changed things


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bohandas said:


> If this actually happens I hope it does kill D&D. I still think that nobody should habe switched back to D&D from Pathfinder




Bad attitude.

Very bad. There are people who never liked Pathfinder and do actually like D&D.

I don't go around saying: I hope that kills Pathfinder.


----------

