# OGL 1.1 live chat with a lawyer at Roll for Crit.



## darjr




----------



## darjr

The first point in the vid is that the main pint is the deauthorized OGL 1.0


----------



## Waller

Lawyer #9347 weighing in, each one with a different opinion!


----------



## darjr

They bring up a good point, if WotC asked Kickstarter to take down an OGL 1.0 license product, would they?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> They bring up a good point, if WotC asked Kickstarter to take down an OGL 1.0 license product, would they?



If WotC made a copyright claim on it, I suspect they would. If it was an OGL product but didn't actually use the SRD or anything else, then things might get trickier.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> They bring up a good point, if WotC asked Kickstarter to take down an OGL 1.0 license product, would they?





Ruin Explorer said:


> If WotC made a copyright claim on it, I suspect they would. If it was an OGL product but didn't actually use the SRD or anything else, then things might get trickier.



Which is why this will inevitably end up in court. There’s too much money on the line. Either WotC relents, not likely, or they C&D dozens or hundreds of game companies and distributors, and of course get sued by any number of people.  

It’s a pure own-goal fustercluck.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

overgeeked said:


> Which is why this will inevitably end up in court. There’s too much money on the line. Either WotC relents, not likely, or they C&D dozens or hundreds of game companies and distributors, and of course get sued by any number of people.
> 
> It’s a pure own-goal fustercluck.




 Oh I think WotC will relent, I think OGL 1.1 is already dead, it was supposed to be released today & wasn't so it was on shaky legs already and this leak and the ENORMEOUS backlash was the finishing move that killed OGL 1.1.

 Even with refusing to move forward with OGL 1.1, which I believe they won't now, this did so much damage to WotC's reputation that somebody's going to get deep crap for this.


----------



## mamba

Henadic Theologian said:


> Even with refusing to move forward with OGL 1.1, which I believe they won't now, this did so much damage to WotC's reputation that somebody's going to get deep crap for this.



well, if they want to get back in my good graces, going back to 1.0a and fixing the supposed loophole that they wanted to use to kill that would go some way


----------



## Retreater

Henadic Theologian said:


> Oh I think WotC will relent, I think OGL 1.1 is already dead, it was supposed to be released today & wasn't so it was on shaky legs already and this leak and the ENORMEOUS backlash was the finishing move that killed OGL 1.1.
> 
> Even with refusing to move forward with OGL 1.1, which I believe they won't now, this did so much damage to WotC's reputation that somebody's going to get deep crap for this.



I agree. I think OGL 1.1 is dead. OneD&D might also be dead with this leak. 
Seriously, I think the fanbase has turned against WotC so quickly and extremely that I think this is going to tumble stock prices. I think people might lose their jobs. 
They might seriously backtrack the whole project.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Retreater said:


> I agree. I think OGL 1.1 is dead. OneD&D might also be dead with this leak.
> Seriously, I think the fanbase has turned against WotC so quickly and extremely that I think this is going to tumble stock prices. I think people might lose their jobs.
> They might seriously backtrack the whole project.



do you think the few of us here represent the fan base over all?

I bet more then 3/4 of people have not heard of this yet and of them half of them wouldn't care.


----------



## darjr

I hope they relent.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Retreater said:


> I agree. I think OGL 1.1 is dead. OneD&D might also be dead with this leak.
> Seriously, I think the fanbase has turned against WotC so quickly and extremely that I think this is going to tumble stock prices. I think people might lose their jobs.
> They might seriously backtrack the whole project.



Some people on social media and forums isn’t the fan base. While I agree that it would be nice to have them relent, I don’t think there is a big backlash.


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> I agree. I think OGL 1.1 is dead. OneD&D might also be dead with this leak.
> Seriously, I think the fanbase has turned against WotC so quickly and extremely that I think this is going to tumble stock prices. I think people might lose their jobs.
> They might seriously backtrack the whole project.



too early to celebrate. I will relax once we have the official new OGL, it makes the license royalty free, irrevocable and perpetual. No registration, no reporting, no fee

Throw out software and NFTs if you want, but print, pdf *and* vtt stay.

Then I am ok with the change


----------



## Retreater

Sacrosanct said:


> Some people on social media and forums isn’t the fan base. While I agree that it would be nice to have them relent, I don’t think there is a big backlash.



No, but we're the ones who rile up the fan base. It always starts with the dedicated fans. 
And we're the "whales" - the casual fan doesn't buy the majority of the products.
WotC will notice. And I think the leadership will feel it.


----------



## Lanefan

Retreater said:


> I agree. I think OGL 1.1 is dead. OneD&D might also be dead with this leak.



I'd be pretty shocked if this kills OneD&D (a.k.a. 5.5e).

They need something to release in 2024 as a 50th-anniversary special and right now it's all they've got; it's probably too late to start over.


----------



## Lanefan

mamba said:


> too early to celebrate. I will relax once we have the official new OGL, it makes the license royalty free, irrevocable and perpetual. No registration, no reporting, no fee
> 
> Throw out software and NFTs if you want, but print, pdf *and* vtt stay.



What about songs, plays, and pantomimes?

You know, the important stuff.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Lanefan said:


> I'd be pretty shocked if this kills OneD&D (a.k.a. 5.5e).
> 
> They need something to release in 2024 as a 50th-anniversary special and right now it's all they've got; it's probably too late to start over.



Especially considering that book release is probably 18 months from now.

This bruhaha on EN World pretty much matches the same bruhahas we see when WotC releases a potential rule change in a UA article... a massive number of "How dare they!"s and declarations of dropping D&D... and then in a few week's time there's some other thing that grabs people's attentions and the rule change is forgotten. 

So to think this OGL "thing" will still BE a thing in 2024 seems a teensy-bit far-fetched to me.  The book designers have a year-and-a-half to just keep their heads down making their books, while the corporate-types figure out their money schemes.  And then after the schemes have been resolved, the books can see their release in the summer of '24 and everyone will kumbaya around the 50th Anniversary like we all planned.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially considering that book release is probably 18 months from now.
> 
> This bruhaha on EN World pretty much matches the same bruhahas we see when WotC releases a potential rule change in a UA article... a massive number of "How dare they!"s and declarations of dropping D&D... and then in a few week's time there's some other thing that grabs people's attentions and the rule change is forgotten.
> 
> So to think this OGL "thing" will still BE a thing in 2024 seems a teensy-bit far-fetched to me.  The book designers have a year-and-a-half to just keep their heads down making their books, while the corporate-types figure out their money schemes.  And then after the schemes have been resolved, the books can see their release in the summer of '24 and everyone will kumbaya around the 50th Anniversary like we all planned.



I agree with this. By the time the books are released this will be another storm in a teacup even if heads roll in the C suite over this. 

I can see where the corporate executives are coming from in this. They see opportunities in the IP and brand beyond the traditional table top and want to lock down the IP and in some ways they are being smarter than in the 4e era.
At that time, WoTC played their cards very close, with the GSL released after the game being released, so late in fact, that if memory serves, Paizo were making noises about separating. 
I think that they can get away with an OGL version that further restricts the IP and adds terms and conditions as long as they stay away from revoking the existing licences and revoking any future material based on them.
It will take longer but they could get to where they want to go over multiple iterations of licence and rules drift from the base of the 5.1 SRD OGC and end up where they want.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

mamba said:


> well, if they want to get back in my good graces, going back to 1.0a and fixing the supposed loophole that they wanted to use to kill that would go some way




I would not mind taking royalities for new products. But anything that touches existing games who were made to believe they can use the OGL forever and have evolved into their own product is a no go.
In Germany, even though I am no lawyer, there is something like a custom right.

For example, if the employer tolerated that the the employee works more hours on monday to go earlier fridays for several years, it becomes a part of the contract.
Also, if you have a limited time  trial contract and just go to work afterwards and your boss is giving you work, your contract is turned into a permanent one...


----------



## UngainlyTitan

UngeheuerLich said:


> snip






UngeheuerLich said:


> Also, if you have a limited time  trial contract and just go to work afterwards and your boss is giving you work, your contract is turned into a permanent one...



As far as I know, this bit is part of standard EU law. It may be implemented differently in different countries but it applies in Ireland for instance.


----------



## Dreamscape

I would be surprised if they think anyone will sign up to the new OGL as-is. My guess is that this is all simply to drive 3PPs into bespoke agreements to produce things for WotC's new VTT while making all older OGL materials irrelevant. Even if all the indies abandon the OGL* WotC loses nothing (e.g. I doubt the OSR drives any uptake of official 5E material). My prdiction is still that the future of D&D is subscription-only digital.

* And I know I and many other tiny fish are already doing this, no matter how things turn out, because we're only in this for fun and uncertainty over litigation is no fun at all.


----------



## Reynard

Henadic Theologian said:


> Oh I think WotC will relent, I think OGL 1.1 is already dead, it was supposed to be released today & wasn't so it was on shaky legs already and this leak and the ENORMEOUS backlash was the finishing move that killed OGL 1.1.
> 
> Even with refusing to move forward with OGL 1.1, which I believe they won't now, this did so much damage to WotC's reputation that somebody's going to get deep crap for this.



The "ENORMOUS" backlash is kind of only happening in echo chambers. Most of the D&D fans alive today were born after the OGL was created and probably couldn't tell you what it is. In addition, there is a strong current of WotC support on this on reddit, which skews younger.


----------



## jerryrice4949

GMforPowergamers said:


> do you think the few of us here represent the fan base over all?
> 
> I bet more then 3/4 of people have not heard of this yet and of them half of them wouldn't care.



You are correct.  Average fans have no idea.  At least not yet.  Look at D&Ds Facebook page and not a single person mentioned it until I did.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Retreater said:


> I agree. I think OGL 1.1 is dead. OneD&D might also be dead with this leak.
> Seriously, I think the fanbase has turned against WotC so quickly and extremely that I think this is going to tumble stock prices. I think people might lose their jobs.
> They might seriously backtrack the whole project.




 I think that given this this wasn't even released officially when it was supposed to be released, maybe WotC had already changed it's mind on it, in which case the real purpose of leaking this could be to get some else higher up the food chain fired, say WotC President Cynthia Williams or even Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks. 

 Also who would have access to this document in order to be able to leak it? Certainly not anybody on the D&D Design Team, this is not their sphere, it's legals department, which means either a lawyer did this, doubtful or more likely a rival executive did, which means Hasbro is in a civil war and someone's taking a shot at Hasbro/WotC leadership. Maybe multiple someones even. 

 This is Disney like behind the scenes infighting.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Henadic Theologian said:


> I think that given this this wasn't even released officially when it was supposed to be released, maybe WotC had already changed it's mind on it, in which case the real purpose of leaking this could be to get some else higher up the food chain fired, say WotC President Cynthia Williams or even Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks.
> 
> Also who would have access to this document in order to be able to leak it? Certainly not anybody on the D&D Design Team, this is not their sphere, it's legals department, which means either a lawyer did this, doubtful or more likely a rival executive did, which means Hasbro is in a civil war and someone's taking a shot at Hasbro/WotC leadership. Maybe multiple someones even.
> 
> This is Disney like behind the scenes infighting.



Most likely the leak was external.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

jerryrice4949 said:


> Most likely the leak was external.




 You mean like Kickstarter leaked this? They were quick to confirm it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

jerryrice4949 said:


> Most likely the leak was external.



I mean, that's what Linda Codega from io9 implied so yeah that is more likely.


----------



## Reynard

Lol. People are already claiming "victory."

I think that if you think this is anything other than a done deal, you are going to be very disappointed. Don't overestimate the "power" of a dying vestige of the fanbase to change anything.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Lanefan said:


> What about songs, plays, and pantomimes?
> 
> You know, the important stuff.



I'm more worried about the thousands of unemployed dancers that will fill the streets if 1.1 goes through.


----------



## Branduil

Reynard said:


> The "ENORMOUS" backlash is kind of only happening in echo chambers. Most of the D&D fans alive today were born after the OGL was created and probably couldn't tell you what it is. In addition, there is a strong current of WotC support on this on reddit, which skews younger.



There are multiple D&D-related subreddits. I haven't seen any kind of support for this at all on any I've checked.


----------



## Alzrius

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially considering that book release is probably 18 months from now.
> 
> This bruhaha on EN World pretty much matches the same bruhahas we see when WotC releases a potential rule change in a UA article... a massive number of "How dare they!"s and declarations of dropping D&D... and then in a few week's time there's some other thing that grabs people's attentions and the rule change is forgotten.
> 
> So to think this OGL "thing" will still BE a thing in 2024 seems a teensy-bit far-fetched to me.  The book designers have a year-and-a-half to just keep their heads down making their books, while the corporate-types figure out their money schemes.  And then after the schemes have been resolved, the books can see their release in the summer of '24 and everyone will kumbaya around the 50th Anniversary like we all planned.



I doubt that third-party companies will forget about this anytime soon, and while a lot of them are small outfits, a few of them have not-insignificant reach in terms of making themselves heard by at least a portion of the fan-base.

What I can't figure out is the timing in all of this. If 1D&D, and presumably a 1D&D SRD, isn't coming out for eighteen months, why try and revoke the OGL v1.0a next week? If WotC wants people to sign on to the OGL v1.1, what are they supposed to produce under it between now and mid-2024?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Reynard said:


> Lol. People are already claiming "victory."
> 
> I think that if you think this is anything other than a done deal, you are going to be very disappointed. Don't overestimate the "power" of a dying vestige of the fanbase to change anything.




 Lawyers from various companies are already in a attack mode, WotC folded in the face of a lawsuit by the Dragonlance writers and that was just two people, this is getting slammed by lawsuits from dozens, if not hundreds of companies, and maybe even some big corporations like Amazon (this could kill one of their TV shows). So no way does WotC not back down now, the only question is whose going to be the one who gets thrown under the bus for this and how brutal are the consequences for this going to be.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Lawyers from various companies are already in a attack mode, WotC folded in the face of a lawsuit by the Dragonlance writers and that was just two people, this is getting slammed by lawsuits from dozens, if not hundreds of companies, and maybe even some big corporations like Amazon (this could kill one of their TV shows). So no way does WotC not back down now, the only question is whose going to be the one who gets thrown under the bus for this and how brutal are the consequences for this going to be.



This will not kill an Amazon TV show. The legend of Vox Machina (Which is what I think you are refering to) has been stripped of all direct D&D traces. If WoTC could claim Vox Machina they could claim all the works of Raymond E Feist (and probably a few other fantasy authors).


----------



## Reynard

Henadic Theologian said:


> Lawyers from various companies are already in a attack mode, WotC folded in the face of a lawsuit by the Dragonlance writers and that was just two people, this is getting slammed by lawsuits from dozens, if not hundreds of companies, and maybe even some big corporations like Amazon (this could kill one of their TV shows). So no way does WotC not back down now, the only question is whose going to be the one who gets thrown under the bus for this and how brutal are the consequences for this going to be.



Can you link the filings and the press releases by the companies in attack mode?


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> Can you link the filings and the press releases by the companies in attack mode?



I'm guessing that one letter with typographical errors, no citations of relevant case law, and a demand that amounts to clowning that's been circulated endlessly.


----------



## mamba

Alzrius said:


> What I can't figure out is the timing in all of this. If 1D&D, and presumably a 1D&D SRD, isn't coming out for eighteen months, why try and revoke the OGL v1.0a next week? If WotC wants people to sign on to the OGL v1.1, what are they supposed to produce under it between now and mid-2024?



I assume they want none of this to distract from the ‘celebration’ in 2024, so the sooner this blows over, the better.

As to what to produce with the OGL1.1, if it replaces the 1.0a as intended, they release the current SRD under it and you can keep producing for 5e with it


----------



## Alzrius

mamba said:


> As to what to produce with the OGL1.1, if it replaces the 1.0a as intended, they release the current SRD under it and you can keep producing for 5e with it



That was the only thing I could think of, but I'm not sure they would, if for no other reason than you think they'd want everyone in lockstep to produce for 1D&D and not its predecessor game.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Reynard said:


> Can you link the filings and the press releases by the companies in attack mode?




 Ones already linked to in one of these threads, but the truth is I don't need to see them to know their are there or coming, this will destroy 3rd party publishers, threatening WotC will lawsuits is the only path to survival they have.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Greg Benage said:


> I'm guessing that one letter with typographical errors, no citations of relevant case law, and a demand that amounts to clowning that's been circulated endlessly.




 It's just a warning letter, not an actual legal document, it's early sabre rattling which almost certainly all of the major companies are engaging in, and possibly many smaller players as well, hoping to kill this before legal actions become needed.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jerryrice4949 said:


> You are correct.  Average fans have no idea.  At least not yet.  Look at D&Ds Facebook page and not a single person mentioned it until I did.



I'll raise you one of my friends owns a comic and gaming store. When I texted the group chat with him just a few minutes ago none of them knew about this he and 1 other knew about the earlier comment BY WotC and that was it... he was open and busy yesterday and is getting ready to open today. Not a peep from any gamer.


----------



## Greg Benage

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's just a warning letter, not an actual legal document, it's early sabre rattling which almost certainly all of the major companies are engaging in, and possibly many smaller players as well, hoping to kill this before legal actions become needed.



Yeah, good, if my lawyer wrote that letter, I wouldn't be a satisfied client.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'll raise you one of my friends owns a comic and gaming store. When I texted the group chat with him just a few minutes ago none of them knew about this he and 1 other knew about the earlier comment BY WotC and that was it... he was open and busy yesterday and is getting ready to open today. Not a peep from any gamer.



It's early yet. The first thing we've had that resembles genuine reporting, as opposed to unconfirmed leaks, is that Gizmodo article, and it's less than twenty-four hours old.


----------



## Dreamscape

Alzrius said:


> If WotC wants people to sign on to the OGL v1.1, what are they supposed to produce under it between now and mid-2024?



Hopefully nothing, so that they will be hungry enough to sign anything by then.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Alzrius said:


> I doubt that third-party companies will forget about this anytime soon, and while a lot of them are small outfits, a few of them have not-insignificant reach in terms of making themselves heard by at least a portion of the fan-base.
> 
> What I can't figure out is the timing in all of this. If 1D&D, and presumably a 1D&D SRD, isn't coming out for eighteen months, why try and revoke the OGL v1.0a next week? If WotC wants people to sign on to the OGL v1.1, what are they supposed to produce under it between now and mid-2024?



Heh... well, let's not forget another possibility here... for all we know Chris Cocks was fully aware what would happen if/when they chose not to release the 2024 book under the OGL 1.0a.  And knowing they would get lambasted for ANY attempt of theirs to "hold onto their money"... maybe they figured they could create this even-more-stringent version of OGL replacement and let IT take the hit for all the people who would immediately go ballistic over anything that might've been released...

...then they could walk back this version to a more palatable version of 1.1 and thus be seen as "good folks" for taking people's concerns to heart.  All the while knowing that this stepped-back version of 1.1 was _what they originally were happy to go with in the first place._

And that's what I find kind of hilarious about all of this.  It's nothing more than *basic car sales negotiation*.

You start with a price that is ridiculous and over the top.  If the customer doesn't blink-- then awesome!  Free money you weren't expecting to get!  But if the customer DOES want to "negotiate"... then you slowly work backwards and see what the eventual price is you both agree on.  And more often than not, that is STILL more than you actually would have been fine with getting from the beginning.

At the end of the day... Hasbro and WotC ARE going to make money off of people who are pulling in cash for no other reason than they've hitched their wagon to Dungeons & Dragons (as like the ONLY thing that could possibly bring in the dollars that we've been seeing for such a wide swathe of people/companies).  And they are going to come out of it looking like paragons of virtue because they were "gracious" enough not to gouge everyone as badly as they COULD have done.

And this is exactly why I find all of this so amusing rather than concerning.  Because nobody has any actual idea what we are eventually going to end up at.


----------



## Umbran

overgeeked said:


> Which is why this will inevitably end up in court. There’s too much money on the line.




There is, and there isn't.  The amount of money involved is large for a 3PP, who work with very thin margins of profit.  A few thousand one way or another can matter.  

For WotC, a few thousand here or there is chump change.

This, then, is more about _control and limits_ than it is about the money.



overgeeked said:


> Either WotC relents, not likely, or they C&D dozens or hundreds of game companies and distributors, and of course get sued by any number of people.




It isn't clear who has the resources to get tied up in years-long litigation over game products.  A small publisher will be financially dead for lack of being able to sell things before it resolves in court.


----------



## darjr

Such a tempest in a teacup that the very announcer of OneD&D, Ginny Di is totally ignoring it.

Or not.


Link


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> It's early yet. The first thing we've had that resembles genuine reporting, as opposed to unconfirmed leaks, is that Gizmodo article, and it's less than twenty-four hours old.



I mean it doesn't just resemble it, it is genuine reporting (with sources and lawyers and policies and everything!), and there aren't many sources of that for TTRPGs.

But yeah I presume WotC is still going "Ummmm. Er. We were hoping this wouldn't happen..." and emails are flying back and forth.


----------



## Umbran

DEFCON 1 said:


> And they are going to come out of it looking like paragons of virtue because they were "gracious" enough not to gouge everyone as badly as they COULD have done.




No, I think the leadership will be seen either as bumbling, or greedy.  

I mean, you yourself likened this to car sales.  Since when are car salesmen seen as "paragons of virtue"?



DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is exactly why I find all of this so amusing rather than concerning.  Because nobody has any idea what we are eventually going to end up at.




For small businesses, not knowing what we are ending up with is concerning, not amusing.  Finding it funny isn't a great show of empathy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> I presume WotC is still going "Ummmm. Er. We were hoping this wouldn't happen..." and emails are flying back and forth.



I hope not,  love it or hate it they HAD to at least suspect this is what would happen, old guard from 3e blowing up about Dancy and his legacy, 3e/4e cold war reblooming, and people who in general are into both the hobby and open source getting riled up.  The only unknowns is the casual fan that started with 5e...


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> But yeah I presume WotC is still going "Ummmm. Er. We were hoping this wouldn't happen..." and emails are flying back and forth.




As WotC learns that, in PR, hope is not a strategy.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Umbran said:


> No, I think the leadership will be seen either as bumbling, or greedy.



Uh... this is HASBRO.  I'm pretty sure those two adjectives have already been thrown at the company for years.  This is nothing new for them and nothing they are that concerned about.

Just like *EA* was crying all the way to the bank when they kept receiving those "Worst Corporations In America" awards on the internet a decade or so ago.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> Such a tempest in a teacup that the very announcer of OneD&D, Ginny Di is totally ignoring it.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> View attachment 271439
> Link



Yeah and we're still at the stage where WotC could easily back out of it. The obvious approach is:

< Read this in as silly a voice as you like > "This was an early draft of merely one approach we were merely considering some months ago and it's very unfortunate that someone chose to create this kerfuffle by so cruelly leaking it! Here's what we were always actually going with!"

Then put out something more resembles what WotC said on Beyond, and doesn't do any "deauthorizing" or similar craziness, just links access to the 1D&D SRD and possibly other perks to OGL 1.1.

The issue is, if WotC is anything like other corporations (and all signs are that they are), working out what they want in it/changed, drafting, sending it back and forth for approval, double-checking, and making ready a new, less offensive OGL 1.1 could easily take a week. And probably at least 2-3 days absolute best case, and that's assuming every could agree on what they needed to change on day 1 of those 2-3 days (and it'd probably be closer to 3). And that's business days. I know the US works more hours than the UK, but still usually don't work on weekends, and it's nearly the weekend.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope not,  love it or hate it they HAD to at least suspect this is what would happen...



"This" is non specific.

They should have known "this" reaction would happen once the terms became known, but by reporting, the initial timeline called for decisions before reaction could have impact.

They could have hoped "this" leak didn't occur, though.


----------



## Umbran

DEFCON 1 said:


> Uh... this is HASBRO.  I'm pretty sure those two adjectives have already been thrown at the company for years.  This is nothing new for them and nothing they are that concerned about.




Yeah, but I think folks still had some thought that WotC had not been fully Hasbrodized.  This is probably disabusing a lot of folks of that notion.


----------



## Dausuul

Alzrius said:


> I doubt that third-party companies will forget about this anytime soon, and while a lot of them are small outfits, a few of them have not-insignificant reach in terms of making themselves heard by at least a portion of the fan-base.
> 
> What I can't figure out is the timing in all of this. If 1D&D, and presumably a 1D&D SRD, isn't coming out for eighteen months, why try and revoke the OGL v1.0a next week? If WotC wants people to sign on to the OGL v1.1, what are they supposed to produce under it between now and mid-2024?



There were many things that sank the first GSL (chief among them being that it was just an appalling license with terms that no one in their right mind would take), but one of the contributing factors was that it came out super late -- after the launch of 4E itself, if I remember right. If you want 3PPs producing content for your big launch, they need a lot of lead time, and that means they need to know the terms they'll be producing under. And if you expect to be doing some negotiating, you need to leave time for that too.

That among other things makes me think that this is not a cunning and elaborate scheme by Wizards -- it's just the usual shortsighted, "see money, grab for money" thinking that is so common at big corporations. Whoever came up with GSL 2.0 was genuinely clueless about the reaction it was going to get.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I think what's surprising to me here when I consider it, is that the OGL 1.1 we have seems to be "All stick, no carrot". I know when they put out the Beyond post, I was really expecting there to be significant carrot, and a whole less stick than this. (As an aside I'm pretty sure Linda Codega isn't just keeping the carrots from us - if they were there, they'd have said.)


----------



## Greg Benage

Reposting from last week. For posterity.


----------



## Branduil

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think what's surprising to me here when I consider it, is that the OGL 1.1 we have seems to be "All stick, no carrot". I know when they put out the Beyond post, I was really expecting there to be significant carrot, and a whole less stick than this. (As an aside I'm pretty sure Linda Codega isn't just keeping the carrots from us - if they were there, they'd have said.)



Oh, it's simple, the terms are

1) WotC gets to eat the carrots, all of the carrots
2) If you have a problem with that, you get the stick


----------



## Retreater

jerryrice4949 said:


> You are correct.  Average fans have no idea.  At least not yet.  Look at D&Ds Facebook page and not a single person mentioned it until I did.



Casual fans won't notice it ... yet. The ripple effect, they will not be able to avoid.

Let's say MCDM (Matt Colville's studio) stops producing D&D content. Not a single word mentioned of the game again on his YouTube channel. That's 418,000 subscribers who will notice. 
Let's say Matt Mercer doesn't want to sign the agreement to basically give WotC permission to publish his works without giving him royalties. That's 1.86 MILLION subscribers.

If Wizards goes through with this, D&D is going to lose market prominence. And I'm not being hyperbolic. After the struggles with MtG, if they slaughter their only remaining cash cow, there are going to be heads rolling.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think what's surprising to me here when I consider it, is that the OGL 1.1 we have seems to be "All stick, no carrot". I know when they put out the Beyond post, I was really expecting there to be significant carrot, and a whole less stick than this. (As an aside I'm pretty sure Linda Codega isn't just keeping the carrots from us - if they were there, they'd have said.)



My guess is that WotC honestly thinks that getting to publish content for 1D&D – with an Official BadgeTM and everything! – is the carrot.


----------



## Greg Benage

Alzrius said:


> My guess is that WotC honestly thinks that getting to publish content for 1D&D – with an Official BadgeTM and everything! – is the carrot.



Yeah, because Paizo must be drooling at the opportunity to put WotC's "JV" patch on their product covers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> My guess is that WotC honestly thinks that getting to publish content for 1D&D – with an Official BadgeTM and everything! – is the carrot.



God. They probably do. I can only imagine how wildly incomprehensible this must be to the Microsoft people. Because if you could put a Microsoft badge on office/productivity software, that would obviously be amazing in a lot of ways. Microsoft was so utterly confused when it turned out pretty much all gamers _utterly loathed_ the Microsoft Store (esp. for games). Microsoft were like "But they're official, and checked, and safe! And we install them in a special way so they can't be altered! That's good right? Why are you booing? What do you mean overpriced? What's a mod?". They did at least learn a bit from that with Xbox Game Pass for PC (though not to give things snappy names!), though games still install in the dumbest way possible.


----------



## Aldarc

Retreater said:


> Casual fans won't notice it ... yet. The ripple effect, they will not be able to avoid.
> 
> Let's say MCDM (Matt Colville's studio) stops producing D&D content. Not a single word mentioned of the game again on his YouTube channel. That's 418,000 subscribers who will notice.
> Let's say Matt Mercer doesn't want to sign the agreement to basically give WotC permission to publish his works without giving him royalties. That's 1.86 MILLION subscribers.
> 
> If Wizards goes through with this, D&D is going to lose market prominence. And I'm not being hyperbolic. After the struggles with MtG, if they slaughter their only remaining cash cow, there are going to be heads rolling.



While YouTube content creators encourage subscribers, they will also tell you that subscribers are not always engaged viewers or fans. Many people, and I can't stress this enough, have susbscribed to channels, have stopped watching, but then never bother to unsubscribe. Subscriber numbers are unreliable when it comes to YouTube channel engagement.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Aldarc said:


> While YouTube content creators encourage subscribers, they will also tell you that subscribers are not always engaged viewers or fans. Many people, and I can't stress this enough, have susbscribed to channels, have stopped watching, but then never bother to unsubscribe. Subscriber numbers are unreliable when it comes to YouTube channel engagement.



correct, but those are still not small ripples if they bad mouth the company... BUT without something to say "Instead you should use Vampire the Masqurade Dark Ages rules" or the like I don't see it having a big impact.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> While YouTube content creators encourage subscribers, they will also tell you that subscribers are not always engaged viewers or fans. Many people, and I can't stress this enough, have susbscribed to channels, have stopped watching, but then never bother to unsubscribe. Subscriber numbers are unreliable when it comes to YouTube channel engagement.



I mean, you can go by views on videos instead, then, and looking there you can say Matt Colville, his videos get a pretty wide variance in views between about 5k and 200k in the last year or so. His ones where the title is a question seem to strongly correlate with higher view figures, and ones where looks at products get much lower (even his own!). Given his 418k subscribers, he actually gets up to some extremely high levels of engagement, comparable with extremely successful YouTubers.

Critical Role looks even better for engagement.

So I think any suggestion their subscriber bases are irrelevant can clearly be seen to be wrong in these two cases.


----------



## Branduil

3PPs and streamers are simultaneously stealing all of poor widdle WotC's rightful money and so irrelevant that nothing they say or do can stop the invincible D&D juggernaut.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but I think folks still had some thought that WotC had not been fully Hasbrodized.  This is probably disabusing a lot of folks of that notion.



And if/when WotC walks back the more egregious parts of this rumored 1.1 and makes something more palatable (while still getting their money)... WotC will be seen as the little guy who stepped up against their corporate Hasbro overlords and put their foot down.

At the end of the day... the results are the same.  People make D&D content because they know that is the most effective way to get the most eyeballs and wallets onto their products.  That's why they don't just make "generic" roleplaying products or products for other RPGs... it's because the _affiliation with D&D_ is what makes their sales as high as they are.  They make more money they otherwise wouldn't be if they didn't hitch their wagon to Dungeons & Dragons.

And if they try and avoid giving WotC a cut of that money by not releasing it through DMs Guild (which is pretty much already WotC's "GSL" for 5E)... then yeah, it's not surprising that WotC/Hasbro sees this as a hole in their revenue stream that could be patched.  And what better way to do so with an eventual acceptance of terms than to go insane with a massive patch to begin with to draw the ire that was going to be coming regardless... _and then_ walking back and making it seem like they're doing everyone favor by being more reasonable?

I mean none of you actually think that had WotC started at a more reasonable position of tightening the OGL to begin with that everyone still wouldn't have gone ballistic do you?  I mean come on.  WotC was going to be seen as greedy and/or incompetent _no matter how much or how little_ they tried to reacquire a piece of the D&D-affiliated pie.  So if you're going to freak everyone out anyway... you start as Mr. Hyde and then slowly transform back to Dr. Jackyll later on.  Because at least then people will be happy with avoiding what could have been.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> *So I think any suggestion their subscriber bases are irrelevant *can clearly be seen to be wrong in these two cases.



Irrelevant? No. Unreliable? Yes, which is what I actually said.  

Edit: I do agree that there would be ripples. I'm just not sure if subscriber count is the metric I would use to gauge how big those ripples would be.


----------



## Cergorach

Ruin Explorer said:


> Microsoft was so utterly confused when it turned out pretty much all gamers _utterly loathed_ the Microsoft Store (esp. for games).



The problem with the Microsoft Store was not the label, it was not the prices, it was just that it was a horrible store! And it wasn't just the store, the Xbox (store) interface was also absolutely horrible! And that's from someone that's in IT for 20+ years, eyeball deep in MS products.

But MS or WotC isn't unique in that regard. The EA Origin store/launcher was horrendous for the longest while, the Ubisoft one always has been horrible and still is.

The leaked stuff from the OGL 1.1 reads like someone wanted to reach certain business goals and disregarded all other factors. The amount of damage this is doing to the D&D brand is huge. Especially in the long term, even if they fix it now, that still leaves businesses with 0,0 trust in WotC/Hasbro to not do it again. And when there are multiple companies working with the OGL that do produce a million+ a year in OGL products, they are suddenly motivated to make sure this doesn't happen again. Either by just moving completely away from D&D with their IPs and create their own RPGs (as many already have over the years) or band together and setup something similar to the OGL outside of WotC/Hasbro that they can collectively use. That results in less exposure for D&D and people who make content for it (via YouTube/Twitch/etc.) might just move away as well because who knows when they are next... There goes a TON of exposure for D&D and that directly translates to sales for core rulebooks.


----------



## Retreater

DEFCON 1 said:


> I mean none of you actually think that had WotC started at a more reasonable position of tightening the OGL to begin with that everyone still wouldn't have gone ballistic do you? I mean come on. WotC was going to be seen as greedy and/or incompetent _no matter how much or how little_ they tried to reacquire a piece of the D&D-affiliated pie. So if you're going to freak everyone out anyway... you start as Mr. Hyde and then slowly transform back to Dr. Jackyll later on. Because at least then people will be happy with avoiding what could have been.



If they weren't trying to revoke the past OGL (which gave us other systems from Pathfinder to OSR to FATE), I wouldn't give a rat's butt. Let them have their crummy OneD&D and its license. Let other companies stay with their "dead" systems (OD&D - 5e).


----------



## Greg Benage

DEFCON 1 said:


> And what better way to do so with an eventual acceptance of terms than to go insane with a massive patch to begin with to draw the ire that was going to be coming regardless... _and then_ walking back and making it seem like they're doing everyone favor by being more reasonable?



I'd be very surprised if this is all four-dimensional chess. It has all the hallmarks of decision-making by committee, or more appropriately, decision-making distributed across several functional silos.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Branduil said:


> 3PPs and streamers are simultaneously stealing all of poor widdle WotC's rightful money and so irrelevant that nothing they say or do can stop the invincible D&D juggernaut.



I have it on good authority that david was the bully too... and poor goliath.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Greg Benage said:


> I'd be very surprised if this is all four-dimensional chess. It has all the hallmarks of decision-making by committee, or more appropriately, decision-making distributed across several functional silos.



Heh heh... well, I wouldn't exactly call "starting high and negotiating down" to be 4-Dimensional chess either.  It's the bog standard technique for negotiation.  I'm pretty sure _someone_ at Hasbro has taken Business 101.


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have it on good authority that david was the bully too... and poor goliath.



You don't wanna mess with Davey...


----------



## Greg Benage

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh heh... well, I wouldn't exactly call "starting high and negotiating down" to be 4-Dimensional chess either. It's the bog standard technique for negotiation. I'm pretty sure _someone_ at Hasbro has taken Business 101.



I think there's a distinction between negotiating tactics and image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Greg Benage said:


> I think there's a distinction between negotiating tactics and image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press.



I don't see one myself.  All of that is eventually a part of negotiation.  The only difference is which side can make the most out of the "image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press".


----------



## Greg Benage

DEFCON 1 said:


> I don't see one myself. All of that is eventually a part of negotiation. The only difference is which side can make the most out of the "image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press".



I don't see how it makes any sense as a negotiating tactic. Consider two alternatives:

1. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 but we won't deauthorize 1.0a." And third parties say, "Uh, fine."

2. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "Here's the new license but you can still use 1.0a if you want." Third parties say, "Uh, fine."

Which of those two do you consider the shrewder negotiating tactic?


----------



## Scars Unseen

Branduil said:


> There are multiple D&D-related subreddits. I haven't seen any kind of support for this at all on any I've checked.



It also hit the main /r/games subreddit with over a 1000 comments so far (which is pretty good considering how quickly stuff can slide off the first page on major subreddits).  There are definitely more people being made aware than just the core tabletop crowd.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah and we're still at the stage where WotC could easily back out of it. The obvious approach is:
> 
> < Read this in as silly a voice as you like > "This was an early draft of merely one approach we were merely considering some months ago and it's very unfortunate that someone chose to create this kerfuffle by so cruelly leaking it! Here's what we were always actually going with!"
> 
> Then put out something more resembles what WotC said on Beyond, and doesn't do any "deauthorizing" or similar craziness, just links access to the 1D&D SRD and possibly other perks to OGL 1.1.
> 
> The issue is, if WotC is anything like other corporations (and all signs are that they are), working out what they want in it/changed, drafting, sending it back and forth for approval, double-checking, and making ready a new, less offensive OGL 1.1 could easily take a week. And probably at least 2-3 days absolute best case, and that's assuming every could agree on what they needed to change on day 1 of those 2-3 days (and it'd probably be closer to 3). And that's business days. I know the US works more hours than the UK, but still usually don't work on weekends, and it's nearly the weekend.



Honestly, the only thing that could really "redeem" WotC in my eyes after this is creating a new OGL that explicitly closes the loopholes they think they have in the old ones.  They can call it a "legacy" OGL to cover all past editions, 4E included now that it's no longer current.  

At that point they can be as exploitative as they want with D&DOne.  It's their good will to throw out if they wish.  But the legacy of better people needs to be protected first.  What was the word being thrown around?  "Irrevocable."  Yeah, that.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Greg Benage said:


> I don't see how it makes any sense as a negotiating tactic. Consider two alternatives:
> 
> 1. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 but we won't deauthorize 1.0a." And third parties say, "Uh, fine."
> 
> 2. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "Here's the new license but you can still use 1.0a if you want." Third parties say, "Uh, fine."
> 
> Which of those two do you consider the shrewder negotiating tactic?



You forgot the possibility of...

3. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "Oh, okay."

Or

4. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 and deauthorizing 1.0a but the money you have to give us will be less." And third parties say, "Well, that still sucks, but it's better than it was, so I guess we have to go along with it because we don't really have a choice in the matter, do we?"

Or

5. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 and deauthorizing 1.0a, but if you individual companies want to each negotiate a separate deal with us, we're down with that." And select third parties say, "Uh, fine" and their deals make them happy and that happiness is spread to all the people for whom they directly influence.

And these are only a few of the possible scenarios.  But the point is... they never would have known what the other companies and public would have accepted had they not risked the whole "leading to public backlash" thing.  But that's more often than not not that much of an issue because all us nerds often have short memories when things we really like end up getting made.

How are all those people who "swore off Star Wars" when the Extended Universe got cancelled I wonder?  They still off the train or did they eventually find their way back like everyone expected?


----------



## ReshiIRE

DEFCON 1 said:


> 3. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "Oh, okay."



It's not really a possibility considering third parties are already against it and nobody are enthusiastic about something that, at the very least, is confirmed to affect royalties in a manner that is wholely negative to third parties and gives them zero value comapred to previous agreements.


----------



## DEFCON 1

ReshiIRE said:


> It's not really a possibility considering third parties are already against it and nobody are enthusiastic about something that, at the very least, is confirmed to affect royalties in a manner that is wholely negative to third parties and gives them zero value comapred to previous agreements.



It's not now, no.  But when the 1.1 was being proposed back at WotC HQ, this was still one of the possibilities on the table that could have resulted since they hadn't sent it out to people yet.  Which is possibly why they they did it... ask for the moon and who knows, maybe you'll get it?  Then if there's push back, at that point you negotiate down to a more equitable level.

Was it _likely_ that 3. would have been accepted?  Not at all.  But you'd never know until you asked.


----------



## macd21

Greg Benage said:


> I don't see how it makes any sense as a negotiating tactic. Consider two alternatives:
> 
> 1. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 but we won't deauthorize 1.0a." And third parties say, "Uh, fine."
> 
> 2. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "Here's the new license but you can still use 1.0a if you want." Third parties say, "Uh, fine."
> 
> Which of those two do you consider the shrewder negotiating tactic?



I don’t think 2 would have been the likely outcome. I think it would have been:

WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "Here's the new license but you can still use 1.0a if you want." Third parties say, “This sucks” and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC.


----------

