# The OGL -- Just What's Going On?



## Erdric Dragin

Red Wizards of the Coast now


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Morrus said:


> ​By these definitions, it appears that the new OGL is not actually an open gaming license, and has more in common with the Game System License WotC used for D&D 4th Edition.




All of this is well-put, but I just wanted to highlight this.

Open has a meaning.


----------



## Bacon Bits

I'm not sure if I'm more annoyed that they're trying the GSL scheme again, or if I'm more annoyed that they're calling it an "open license" when it isn't open at all. Not by the OGF definition, nor by the OKI definition.


----------



## Alzrius

I'm still surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that WotC is actually trying to kill off the OGL v1.0a. I mean, I expected that they'd want the OGL v1.1 to be a "walled garden," in that content originally published under it couldn't be republished under the older iteration of the OGL, but to try and revoke the OGL v1.0a entirely...a week ago that would have been laughed at (and was, by certain people on this forum) as "clickbait" and "trolling."

And yet, here we are.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I may have missed this in the summaries but I'm curious if those of us with 1 or 2 books in our back catalog that use the original OGL have anything to worry about or any responsibilities (like reporting revenue to WOTC). I'm not putting out any new OGL material so that is not a consideration for me (and most of of my books are original systems).


----------



## Art Waring

Morrus said:


> 7 days is not enough time for even a small publisher to overhaul its entire product line to comply with new rules, let along a large one like Paizo. I have to assume there is an allowed time period to do this, otherwise it's practically impossible to do. It does seem that -- if proven enforceable -- the de-athorization of the existing OGL would drive many companies out of business, especially those which produce or lean heavily on electronic apps and the like.



I have previously created homebrew content using the 3e SRD since it was released, allowing me to learn how to become a potential content creator. It has taken years of work converting my 3e materials over to 5e, a task that now seems futile in the absence of better news. 

Years of work potentially lost? I guess we will find out.


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> I'm still surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that WotC is actually trying to kill off the OGL v1.0a. I mean, I expected that they'd want the OGL v1.1 to be a "walled garden," in that content originally published under it couldn't be republished under the older iteration of the OGL, but to try and revoke the OGL v1.0a entirely...a week ago that would have been laughed at (and was, by certain people on this forum) as "clickbait" and "trolling."
> 
> And yet, here we are.



At a guess they probably think the huge influx of people new to D&D with 5E just won’t care about the OGL and 3PP. To say nothing of the wider RPG industry. Their new friends outnumber their old friends, so even if their old friends go away, their new friends will more than make up for it.


----------



## Bacon Bits

Alzrius said:


> I'm still surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that WotC is actually trying to kill off the OGL v1.0a. I mean, I expected that they'd want the OGL v1.1 to be a "walled garden," in that content originally published under it couldn't be republished under the older iteration of the OGL, but to try and revoke the OGL v1.0a entirely...a week ago that would have been laughed at (and was, by certain people on this forum) as "clickbait" and "trolling."
> 
> And yet, here we are.



I really don't think they can revoke the 1.0a. If they could, Hasbro would already have used it to shut down Paizo for Pathfinder 1e sometime between 2009 and 2012 when 4e was cratering. Or they'd do it before _now_ to shut down Pathfinder 2e as a part of their monetization strategy.

I think the "unauthorized" clause really does solely exist to break Section 9 of OGL 1.0a. It just exists to make OGL v1.1 content incompatible with the OGL 1.0a license.


----------



## Morrus

Bacon Bits said:


> I really don't think they can revoke the 1.0a. If they could, Hasbro would already have used it to shut down Paizo for Pathfinder 1e sometime between 2009 and 2012 when 4e was cratering. Or they'd do it before _now_ to shut down Pathfinder 2e as a part of their monetization strategy.



Different leadership, different opinions, different goals, different methods.


----------



## kenada

Bedrockgames said:


> I may have missed this in the summaries but I'm curious if those of us with 1 or 2 books in our back catalog that use the original OGL have anything to worry about or any responsibilities (like reporting revenue to WOTC). I'm not putting out any new OGL material so that is not a consideration for me (and most of of my books are original systems).



Supposedly not, but the correct answer is “talk to a lawyer”.


----------



## Yora

At this point, nobody knows anything.


----------



## Greg Benage

Bacon Bits said:


> I really don't think they can revoke the 1.0a.



From a tweet by the author of the Gizmodo article, to my untrained eye, it appears they are deploying precisely the contracts argument that our resident attorneys have been warning us about: “This agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and... any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.”

They're withdrawing their offer under the OGL 1.0/a.


----------



## Mercador

Wow, I feel sad for the professional content creators...


----------



## Lidgar

Greg Benage said:


> From a tweet by the author of the Gizmodo article, to my untrained eye, it appears they are deploying precisely the contracts argument that our resident attorneys have been warning us about: “This agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and... any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.”
> 
> They're withdrawing their offer under the OGL 1.0/a.


----------



## Remathilis

So if I'm reading this right (and ianal), Paizo is screwed? Like a non-d20 PF 3e next year screwed? WotC is going to basically take their lunch money or force them under their heel? Same with Goodman/DCC, Green Ronin/M&M, and anyone else who makes a derived from OGL RPG? 

I know WotC was going to tighten control. I actually thought it might be a good thing to get some tighter reins. But I didn't expect them to go nuclear on every 3pp in existence. 

They are adamant about making sure the even-edition curse lives on, eh?


----------



## Retreater

I hope this doesn't come to pass, especially as the worst fears are. I'm fine letting Wizards take OneD&D, but the previous OGLs should still stand so we can keep Pathfinder, 3PP 5e, and OSR. 
If not, well, I guess that's going back to pre-2000 TSR stuff where there were wildly different rules systems vs. D&D.


----------



## Retreater

Remathilis said:


> So if I'm reading this right (and ianal), Paizo is screwed? Like a non-d20 PF 3e next year screwed? WotC is going to basically take their lunch money or force them under their heel? Same with Goodman/DCC, Green Ronin/M&M, and anyone else who makes a derived from OGL RPG?



AND if they agree to it, AND share the profits, Wizards can still end the License within 30 days for no reason. AND Wizards owns the rights to everything they make and can do anything with it they want - so sell it on D&D Beyond VTT, republish it, etc.


----------



## Scribe

Not a lawyer, but it seems insane to me that they could take out Pathfinder and other games at that level.


----------



## Yora

Scribe said:


> Not a lawyer, but it seems insane to me that they could take out Pathfinder and other games at that level.



Now imagine what software companies could do to other software companies if this were ruled to be legal.


----------



## Remathilis

Retreater said:


> AND if they agree to it, AND share the profits, Wizards can still end the License within 30 days for no reason. AND Wizards owns the rights to everything they make and can do anything with it they want - so sell it on D&D Beyond VTT, republish it, etc.



I'm not a smart man, but I can't imagine even using OGL 2.0 that WotC gets access to Golarion and stuff. There has always been a difference between what is ogc and what is IP.


----------



## billd91

Well, who had "WotC goes with the nuclear option" on their 2023 Bingo card?


----------



## reelo

I really really hope —and I say this with the uttermost respect and love for the _brand_ "Dungeons & Dragons"— that this thing blows up in their face monumentally!

I hope that the "bubble will burst" and D&D becomes dormant for a while until it can rise up from the ashes under new management. 
I love D&D, but I hate what Habsbo/WotC has turned it into.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mercador said:


> Wow, I feel sad for the professional content creators...



I feel sad for me as a consumer of non-WotC D&D products.


----------



## Deset Gled

I literally just posted in another thread:

"I find it very hard to believe that WotC would attempt to revoke earlier versions of the OGL.  That wouldn't just be burning bridges, it would be nuking their relationship with the community and third party creators.  It would come with a guarantee of bad press and extreme likelihood of litigation.  Not to mention how it would leave a huge opening for someone else to come along with a true open licence and challenge D&Ds market position."

And now I'm reading this thread, which is basically a compilation that all the reasons I was wrong to believe that.


----------



## J.Quondam

OGL = "Onerous Gaming License"


----------



## Sacrosanct

Well, it wouldn't be D&D without someone eventually taking over with horrible management and PR skills to upset everyone.


----------



## kenada

Yora said:


> Now imagine what software companies could do to other software companies if this were ruled to be legal.



It expect it would depend on the terms of the project’s license and whether there are any similar to the OGL’s section 9 and what it says about authorized versions. I don’t believe any popularly used FOSS licenses do.


----------



## Von Ether

It seems the savvy indie publisher might just go POD this year. If things go south, better to just change a file than get stuck with useless inventory


----------



## Greg Benage

Remathilis said:


> So if I'm reading this right (and ianal), Paizo is screwed?



It seems to me Hasbro has given them until 1/13 to decide how screwed they are. My assessment is that they're trying to force Paizo to the table to negotiate a more conventional licensing agreement, because Paizo is unlikely to have a really clear idea of how screwed they are within the next week.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

> music, songs, dances, and pantomimes




Assuming this line isn't in the draft as a joke, this is wildly illegal under American law, as all of those would be covered under fair use as commentary or parody. Groups like the Library Bards don't need a license to write parody songs.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

The thing that irks me the most about this is that there's just no offering of goodwill, or a nice trade-off for using the license. Its just '' you must use it if you want to exist''.

I dont know, they could let people under the new OGL use some very protected terms or even settings, much like the Dmguild. Or use a WotC-approved trade-dress to show they are approved by the official line. 

You know, stricter but with benefits.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Micah Sweet said:


> I feel sad for me as a consumer of non-WotC D&D products.



The majority of the 5E content I own is not produced by WotC.

This license, had it been in place since the beginning of 5E, wouldn't have meant more money for WotC, since they show no inclination to produce things like books on Oz, non-combat-oriented spells, or monster books focused on the fey, cities or monsters of Latin America. All of those books, of course, _require_ 5E to work, so WotC has gotten most of my players to buy stuff (I DM for more than a dozen players in several countries) as a result.

This license, if it's accurate in how it's been described, would actually have meant less money from me and mine, rather than more. Whoever is the shot-caller at Hasbro has no real understanding of the gaming marketplace.


----------



## Scribe




----------



## Alzrius

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Assuming this line isn't in the draft as a joke, this is wildly illegal under American law, as all of those would be covered under fair use as commentary or parody.



The thing about contracts and licenses is that they can stipulate that a signatory gives up the right to do things that they'd otherwise be legally entitled to do, typically in exchange for being able to do something else that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. So I think that this would fly.

Of course, I'm no lawyer, but that's my lay understanding.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> So if I'm reading this right (and ianal), Paizo is screwed? Like a non-d20 PF 3e next year screwed? WotC is going to basically take their lunch money or force them under their heel? Same with Goodman/DCC, Green Ronin/M&M, and anyone else who makes a derived from OGL RPG?
> 
> I know WotC was going to tighten control. I actually thought it might be a good thing to get some tighter reins. But I didn't expect them to go nuclear on every 3pp in existence.
> 
> They are adamant about making sure the even-edition curse lives on, eh?



I think the idea is to use this as leverage to force people like Paizo to agree to less-awful conditions than the OGL 1.1 and thus avoid a situation where Paizo, who have enough money to mount some kind of legal challenge to this, take WotC to court.

Indeed I suspect every company big enough to take WotC to court on this is going to be presented with a much better deal in heavily NDA'd negotiations of the kind we know are going on right now.


----------



## zooey

I could see attaching a new license to One D&D, but retroactively removing existing OGLs from previous versions seems to violate the OGL, and it definitely a dick move.  It would have to be decided in court, which unfortunately would mean some larger 3rd party publisher would have to pay a lot of legal fees just to maintain the status quo (assuming they would win).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Alzrius said:


> The thing about contracts and licenses is that they can stipulate that a signatory gives up the right to do things that they'd otherwise be legally entitled to do, typically in exchange for being able to do something else that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. So I think that this would fly.
> 
> Of course, I'm no lawyer, but that's my lay understanding.



Filk musicians who play in hotel rooms at GenCon are not going to be signing the license. It's a stupid thing to put in the license, unless they've gotten word that Paizo is _this_ close to a big off-Broadway show or something.


----------



## Reynard

Morrus said:


> Different leadership, different opinions, different goals, different methods.



This is super important and needs highlighting: corporations are run by people, and those people change over time. just because WotC did or didn't do something before is not relevant if the leadership has changed.


----------



## Voadam

Paizo seems the most likely to bring this to court to clarify their right to continue publishing their whole line.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

zooey said:


> I could see attaching a new license to One D&D, but retroactively removing existing OGLs from previous versions seems to violate the OGL, and it definitely a dick move.  It would have to be decided in court, which unfortunately would mean some larger 3rd party publisher would have to pay a lot of legal fees just to maintain the status quo (assuming they would win).



I seem to recall that at least one major third party publisher was founded by a lawyer, although I can't remember who that is, if it's true at all.


----------



## kenada

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think the idea is to use this as leverage to force people like Paizo to agree to less-awful conditions than the OGL 1.1 and thus avoid a situation where Paizo, who have enough money to mount some kind of legal challenge to this, take WotC to court.
> 
> Indeed I suspect every company big enough to take WotC to court on this is going to be presented with a much better deal in heavily NDA'd negotiations of the kind we know are going on right now.



Paizo has been one of the most permissive publishers when it comes to OGC. They have also already been screwed in the past by WotC. I find it hard to believe they would put themselves at WotC’s mercy again, and I would be very disappointed if it did happen.


----------



## BMaC

My good friend is an IP lawyer.  He opines that the old OGL will hold because of this, among other reasons: contra proferentem


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Assuming this line isn't in the draft as a joke, this is wildly illegal under American law, as all of those would be covered under fair use as commentary or parody. Groups like the Library Bards don't need a license to write parody songs.



Okay, I think we need to make a "parody" version of OneD&D and release it into the public domain.


----------



## Alzrius

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I seem to recall that at least one major third party publisher was founded by a lawyer, although I can't remember who that is, if it's true at all.



Dave Kenzer, of Kenzer & Company, is an intellectual property attorney.


----------



## Xethreau

Scribe said:


>



Well said


----------



## Nikosandros

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I seem to recall that at least one major third party publisher was founded by a lawyer, although I can't remember who that is, if it's true at all.



Perhaps you are thinking of David Kenzer from Kenzer & Co.?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

kenada said:


> Paizo has been one of the most permissive publishers when it comes to OGC. They have also already been screwed in the past by WotC. I find it hard to believe they would out themselves at WotC’s mercy again, and I would be very disappointed if it did happen.



I kind of expected them to be loudly against this, but the only comment Linda could get from them was:

"Paizo Inc., publisher of the _Pathfinder _RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."

Which seems a lot softer than what I'd expect. This leads me to suspect they're either negotiating a better deal, or WotC have changed their mind on the OGL 1.1 and it's a lot less bad in the "final form".


----------



## Nikosandros

Nikosandros said:


> Perhaps you are thinking of David Kenzer from Kenzer & Co.?



Missed the post by @Alzrius  above


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> I kind of expected them to be loudly against this, but the only comment Linda could get from them was:
> 
> "Paizo Inc., publisher of the _Pathfinder _RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."
> 
> Which seems a lot softer than what I'd expect. This leads me to suspect they're either negotiating a better deal, or WotC have changed their mind on the OGL 1.1 and it's a lot less bad in the "final form".



I think it's more likely that they're having some internal discussions about what to do in response to this, and don't want to get ahead of themselves by making a public statement before they've figured out their next move.


----------



## kenada

Ruin Explorer said:


> I kind of expected them to be loudly against this, but the only comment Linda could get from them was:
> 
> "Paizo Inc., publisher of the _Pathfinder _RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."
> 
> Which seems a lot softer than what I'd expect. This leads me to suspect they're either negotiating a better deal, or WotC have changed their mind on the OGL 1.1 and it's a lot less bad in the "final form".



They may also have agreed to the NDA to hear what WotC had to say, and they can’t comment further until the NDA expires.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> I kind of expected them to be loudly against this, but the only comment Linda could get from them was:
> 
> "Paizo Inc., publisher of the _Pathfinder _RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."
> 
> Which seems a lot softer than what I'd expect. This leads me to suspect they're either negotiating a better deal, or WotC have changed their mind on the OGL 1.1 and it's a lot less bad in the "final form".



Yeah, it may well be that WotC may be changing their mind and Paizo doesn't want them to dig in.


----------



## ChaosOS

For Paizo, the most straightforward option seems to be just writing their own license and publishing under that? PF2 content has never needed the OGL except it's a convenient already-written license. The actual impact is folks like MCDM or Kobold Press who _do_ publish 5e content under the OGL and are going to get hammered by the royalties. Even a private licensing agreement for lower rate is still going to be what, 10, 15%? This is going to kill a lot of freelancer careers because there's no way MCDM can maintain 20c/word or more while hemorrhaging money on royalties.


----------



## Xethreau

BMaC said:


> My good friend is an IP lawyer.  He opines that the old OGL will hold because of this, among other reasons: contra proferentem



I heard it hurts really bad when you get a sunburn there


----------



## Morrus

Ryan Dancey believes the OGL cannot be deauthorized.









						Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deathorize OGL
					

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deathorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one.   He responded as follows:  Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> I'm still surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that WotC is actually trying to kill off the OGL v1.0a. I mean, I expected that they'd want the OGL v1.1 to be a "walled garden," in that content originally published under it couldn't be republished under the older iteration of the OGL, but to try and revoke the OGL v1.0a entirely...a week ago that would have been laughed at (and was, by certain people on this forum) as "clickbait" and "trolling."
> 
> And yet, here we are.




Yeah.  I was among those who felt the previous uproar was largely inflammatory.

I still _very much_ want more clear information on the provenance of the document these reports are based upon, and that none of us have actually seen.  The possibility of a hoodwink is still present.

But, as described, those terms are not acceptable.  I can, and will, stop buying WotC products and go play other games if this is their approach to licensing.  Third-party publishers have been supporting WotC's games for decades now, to mutual benefit and leading to their current market popularity.  To then put the squeeze on them is... ungrateful and greedy.

WotC should go seek to make big money in movies and videogames, and leave the 3pp be.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Well, it looks like _if_ the text is accurate and WoTC tries to revoke the OGL 1.0, someone is going to call them on it, legally.  It won't be me (I don't have nearly the resources), but it appears there are at least 1 or 2 candidates who will.  So I guess I'll just sit and wait.


----------



## Alzrius

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, it may well be that WotC may be changing their mind and Paizo doesn't want them to dig in.



I certainly hope WotC is changing their mind, because right now they seem to think that they're Thanos and can just snap the OGL v1.0a out of existence.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The majority of the 5E content I own is not produced by WotC.
> 
> This license, had it been in place since the beginning of 5E, wouldn't have meant more money for WotC, since they show no inclination to produce things like books on Oz, non-combat-oriented spells, or monster books focused on the fey, cities or monsters of Latin America. All of those books, of course, _require_ 5E to work, so WotC has gotten most of my players to buy stuff (I DM for more than a dozen players in several countries) as a result.
> 
> This license, if it's accurate to how it's been described, would actually have meant less money from me and mine, rather than more. Whoever is the shot-caller at Hasbro has no real understanding of the gaming marketplace.



This is why I doubt the reporting on the license. They can’t be this idiotic. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> I think the idea is to use this as leverage to force people like Paizo to agree to less-awful conditions than the OGL 1.1 and thus avoid a situation where Paizo, who have enough money to mount some kind of legal challenge to this, take WotC to court.
> 
> Indeed I suspect every company big enough to take WotC to court on this is going to be presented with a much better deal in heavily NDA'd negotiations of the kind we know are going on right now.



Hopefully they realize that the entire D&D bubble will pop if wotc publishes a license like what’s being reported, and tries to enforce the “de authorization” of previous OGL versions. 

If wotc thinks they are the tide, well, it’ll be fun to see what grows out of their spectacular failure.


----------



## Grantypants

Has Linda Codega from Gizmodo/io9 posted a copy of what she says is a leaked draft from December? She claims she got it from "a non-WotC developer". Is there any independent verification that what she looked at is real?


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  I was among those who felt the previous uproar was largely inflammatory.



Tell me about it! As early as this morning, I was saying that I didn't think WotC was trying to kill the OGL v1.0a.

Things are really changing fast.


----------



## darjr

Alzrius said:


> Dave Kenzer, of Kenzer & Company, is an intellectual property attorney.



He is but I dint think he uses the OGL


----------



## Yora

ChaosOS said:


> For Paizo, the most straightforward option seems to be just writing their own license and publishing under that? PF2 content has never needed the OGL except it's a convenient already-written license. The actual impact is folks like MCDM or Kobold Press who _do_ publish 5e content under the OGL and are going to get hammered by the royalties. Even a private licensing agreement for lower rate is still going to be what, 10, 15%? This is going to kill a lot of freelancer careers because there's no way MCDM can maintain 20c/word or more while hemorrhaging money on royalties.



If anything, there would only be royalties on future sales of OGL products. And I think if D&D goes down in flames from this, these companies have enough of a brand to maintain customers for future non-D&D products.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> Not a lawyer, but it seems insane to me that they could take out Pathfinder and other games at that level.



Also not a lawyer... my only thing is (and this may be being greedy and self centered) is if this was possible why they let PF compete with 4e to begin with.


----------



## darjr

Grantypants said:


> Has Linda Codega from Gizmodo/io9 posted a copy of what she says is a leaked draft from December? She claims she got it from "a non-WotC developer". Is there any independent verification that what she looked at is real?



It’s 9000 words. They are posting excerpts


----------



## Alzrius

darjr said:


> He is but I dint think he uses the OGL



He doesn't. The AD&D 2E-compatible and D&D 4E-compatible _Kingdoms of Kalamar_ products were produced without any sort of licensing agreement, as he was very aware of the legalities involved with publishing compatible game materials under existing U.S. laws.

The 3E KoK books, on the other hand, were part of a settlement that Kenzero & Co. reached with WotC after the _Dragon Archive CD-ROM_ debacle.


----------



## Greg Benage

ChaosOS said:


> For Paizo, the most straightforward option seems to be just writing their own license and publishing under that? PF2 content has never needed the OGL except it's a convenient already-written license



Hmm?


----------



## Malmuria

> *We’re* aware that, if We *somehow stretch* Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community *pushback* and *bad PR*




I still can't believe a lawyer wrote this line.  What does it mean to "somehow stretch Our decision"?  How do you stretch a decision?  Are the colloquialisms "pushback" and "bad PR" legal terms?  Why are they using contractions??


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I feel sad for me as a consumer of non-WotC D&D products.



I feel more sad for the creators who banked on being able to write for 3pp for ever. I don't use a lot (no player facing) 3pp but I still feel for those that will lose money over this.

My only hope is that every 3pp can swing to there own unique system and still make money and we can all play more diversified games.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> He is but I dint think he uses the OGL



Not the point. He's someone uniquely qualified to look at what's happening, with understanding of both the legal and gaming sides of the issue.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Grantypants said:


> Has Linda Codega from Gizmodo/io9 posted a copy of what she says is a leaked draft from December? She claims she got it from "a non-WotC developer". Is there any independent verification that what she looked at is real?



Linda is a proper reporter from an actual news source, and it's been specifically vetted by lawyers and so on (Linda has confirmed this). They haven't shared a copy, and notes that they received a text document rather than a PDF, to protect the person who sent it.

You can thus disbelieve if you want, but you're working extremely hard to do it lol.

EDIT - As a bonus, the guy in charge of games for Kickstarter just confirmed that this is real and that he negotiated WotC down, which is why KS has a slightly lower fee. That's kind of a big nail in the coffin for any "It's not real!".


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Yora said:


> If anything, there would only be royalties on future sales of OGL products. And I think if D&D goes down in flames from this, these companies have enough of a brand to maintain customers for future non-D&D products.



The big companies are a tiny portion of the D&D third party marketplace. The majority of little companies are the ones who would be in real trouble.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I feel more sad for the creators who banked on being able to write for 3pp for ever. I don't use a lot (no player facing) 3pp but I still feel for those that will lose money over this.
> 
> My only hope is that every 3pp can swing to there own unique system and still make money and we can all play more diversified games.



At this point I have moved from disliking WotC to actively wanting this to hurt them as a corporation.


----------



## EpicureanDM

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This license, if it's accurate to how it's been described, would actually have meant less money from me and mine, rather than more. *Whoever is the shot-caller at Hasbro has no real understanding of the gaming marketplace.*



Emphasis added.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> Also not a lawyer... my only thing is (and this may be being greedy and self centered) is if this was possible why they let PF compete with 4e to begin with.



The most obvious reason would be that they didn't think it was possible.

Different lawyers, different legal advice, they could easily have been relying on the same people who told Dancey this licence was bulletproof.

On top of that, D&D was in a more vulnerable place back then, so the GSL attempting to delete the OGL might have caused such blowback as to shove 4E's head fully under water.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

The one possible bright side of all of this might be more systemless books being published. 

_Hugs his Pirate's Guide to Freeport_


----------



## EpicureanDM

BMaC said:


> My good friend is an IP lawyer.  He opines that the old OGL will hold because of this, among other reasons: contra proferentem



Someone's got to spend the time and money to get a court to invoke contra proferentem, though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Yora said:


> If anything, there would only be royalties on future sales of OGL products. And I think if D&D goes down in flames from this, these companies have enough of a brand to maintain customers for future non-D&D products.



Yep I’d be surprised if old D&D writers, and 3pp writers, didn’t form a new company to make a new game that doesn’t use the OGL but is mechanically familiar, since mechanics can’t be copyrighted anyway, and then publish it under a new open license.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Malmuria said:


> I still can't believe a lawyer wrote this line.  What does it mean to "somehow stretch Our decision"?  How do you stretch a decision?  Are the colloquialisms "pushback" and "bad PR" legal terms?  Why are they using contractions??



They probably didn't. Because that bit is "legally inert", it may well have been verbiage whoever is in charge of this wanted put in. As it's "inert", it doesn't really matter either way if it's there or not, and it's easier to say yes to the pushy individual who wants it in.

EDIT - What it does suggest is that, whoever is in charge of this has quite a lot of shall we say, "attitude", and may be attempting a bit of "How do you do fellow kids".


----------



## RangerWickett

Reynard said:


> Okay, I think we need to make a "parody" version of OneD&D and release it into the public domain.



Dungeons or Dragons, available only by pirating it online, and the only class is the Pirate


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep I’d be surprised if old D&D writers, and 3pp writers, didn’t form a new company to make a new game that doesn’t use the OGL but is mechanically familiar, since mechanics can’t be copyrighted anyway, and then publish it under a new open license.



Many of them have done this years ago, as a hedge against another GSL-like situation. That's why Green Ronin has AGE and Goodman has DCC.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Many of them have done this years ago, as a hedge against another GSL-like situation. That's why Green Ronin has AGE and Goodman has DCC.



AGE, at least, is not mechanically familiar. I haven’t played DCC, but what I’ve heard suggests it isn’t either.


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> Also not a lawyer... my only thing is (and this may be being greedy and self centered) is if this was possible why they let PF compete with 4e to begin with.



Different leadership. Presumably, the leadership at the time either didn’t believe they could revoke the OGL, or thought doing so wouldn’t be worth the ill will it would bring. Now it seems current leadership has a different opinion.


----------



## EpicureanDM

Morrus said:


> Ryan Dancey believes the OGL cannot be deauthorized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deathorize OGL
> 
> 
> I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deathorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one.   He responded as follows:  Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



I'm not putting much stock in the opinion of the guy who may overlooked that terms in the final, published version of the OGL that seem to require specific definitions did not include the actual language of those specific definitions. It's a two-page legal agreement, for Pete's sake.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I don't quite understand why publishing "D&D inspired" things requires any licence at all. Rules cannot copyrighted, right? So if you want to publish 5.1 compatible stuff just use slightly different terminology but have compatible maths. 

And I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder 2e, but certainly at this point it is so divergent from 3e D&D that it is completely its own thing?


----------



## Charlaquin

Malmuria said:


> I still can't believe a lawyer wrote this line.  What does it mean to "somehow stretch Our decision"?  How do you stretch a decision?  Are the colloquialisms "pushback" and "bad PR" legal terms?  Why are they using contractions??



I don’t think one did. This is most likely paraphrasing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't quite understand why publishing "D&D inspired" things requires any licence at all. Rules cannot copyrighted, right? So if you want to publish 5.1 compatible stuff just use slightly different terminology but have compatible maths.
> 
> And I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder 2e, but certainly at this point it is so divergent from 3e D&D that it is completely its own thing?



my understanding is if you know the ins and outs it doesn't. You or I or anyone else can publish stuff for Rifts or Vampire, or 1D&D. but you gotta know where the lines are cause a lawsuite could sink you even if you were right.


----------



## Greg Benage

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't quite understand why publishing "D&D inspired" things requires any licence at all. Rules cannot copyrighted, right?



Because it's not that clean and easy. Some of us try to remind people of this every time these issues come up, and it just doesn't stick for whatever reason. No one knows where a specific court in a specific case would find the line between "function" and "expression," and that's why the "safe harbor" provided by the OGL was valuable.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The one possible bright side of all of this might be more systemless books being published.
> 
> _Hugs his Pirate's Guide to Freeport_



Yeah, if this gets enough people up in arms, maybe we’ll finally be able to break the curse of players only ever wanting to play D&D 5e


----------



## Alzrius

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't quite understand why publishing "D&D inspired" things requires any licence at all. Rules cannot copyrighted, right? So if you want to publish 5.1 compatible stuff just use slightly different terminology but have compatible maths.



The issue is one of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Basically, what is and isn't legally actionable with regard to using "non-copyrightable" game mechanics has the potential to be a very murky area, and just because _you_ think you're in the clear doesn't mean that someone else will think that...or that a judge will think that. The Open Game License is basically a way to say "here's an explicit outline of what you can and cannot do if you want to use our stuff, and so long as you stick to this we won't take legal action against you."


----------



## mamba

Ok, going through my library. RPGs that use OGL: 13th Age, Level Up, OSE, PF2. Games that do no: SotDL and Forbidden Lands, so I guess I know where I am moving to, looking forward to the Weird Wizard. Will kickstart that.


----------



## Umbran

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, it wouldn't be D&D without someone eventually taking over with horrible management and PR skills to upset everyone.




There is no "sad, but true" emoji.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, if this gets enough people up in arms, maybe we’ll finally be able to break the curse of players only ever wanting to play D&D 5e



Yup. Can't wait until everyone is back to playing their own heartbreaker RPGs and can't find groups willing to invest in and learn another ruleset.


----------



## whimsychris123

I must say, it would be difficult for me to support a company that pushed several companies out of business on a technicality that obviously went against the prior guarantees stated by the company. It’s one thing to decide to no longer offer an OGL; it’s quite another to revoke a prior one that people have relied on for their livelihood.

I doubt they can revoke the prior license, but even if they attempt to do so, I might be saying “see ya.”

I doubt I’m the only one who feels that way. I don’t know how much people like me would have an effect on WotC’s bottom line, probably not much, but at least I would have a clear conscience.


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> Ok, going through my library. RPGs that use OGL: 13th Age, Level Up, OSE, PF2. Games that do no: SotDL and Forbidden Lands, so I guess I know where I am moving to, looking forward to the Weird Wizard. Will kickstart that.



I'm really worried about Level Up.  I _ finally_ found a version of 5e I and my players can get behind, and to have it snipped off so early in its development cycle by the people I was trying to move away from is absolutely crushing.


----------



## Deset Gled

EpicureanDM said:


> I'm not putting much stock in the opinion of the guy who may overlooked that terms in the final, published version of the OGL that seem to require specific definitions did not include the actual language of those specific definitions. It's a two-page legal agreement, for Pete's sake.




IMNSHO, writing a two page legal agreement is actually harder than writing a 10 page one.

The main reason his opinion matters is that he said the same thing when he was part of WotC and was speaking on behalf of the company (and on their website, etc).  The extent to which this matters in court will be argued in much more detail.  But WotC definitely sold the OGL to a lot of third party devs with the promise that it was irrevocable.


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Many of them have done this years ago, as a hedge against another GSL-like situation. That's why Green Ronin has AGE and Goodman has DCC.



DCC is based on the OGL. If WotC revokes 1.0 or 1.0a, DCC dies on the vine as they cannot produce new content without accepting 1.1.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> DCC is based on the OGL.



Yeah, almost all the games I even want to run are based on the OGL.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't quite understand why publishing "D&D inspired" things requires any licence at all. Rules cannot copyrighted, right? So if you want to publish 5.1 compatible stuff just use slightly different terminology but have compatible maths.
> 
> And I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder 2e, but certainly at this point it is so divergent from 3e D&D that it is completely its own thing?



IANAL, but as I understand it, the trouble is that there isn’t much legal precedent (yet) over what constitutes “game mechanics” in an RPG. You definitely can’t copyright rolling a die, adding a modifier, and comparing the total to a target number to determine success or failure. But can you copyright, like, the standard six ability scores? That’s a bit more ambiguous. And it gets more complex when the mechanics are intertwined with the fiction. Is elves getting to add their proficiency bonus to Perception checks an un-copyrightable game mechanic, or a specific copyrightable presentation of a game mechanic? That would have to be decided in court.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm really worried about Level Up.  I _ finally_ found a version of 5e I and my players can get behind, and to have it snipped off so early in its development cycle by the people I was trying to move away from is absolutely crushing.



is there enough to play for a while at least if it gets shut down?


----------



## teitan

Gee wonder what company will single-handedly take down a third of the industry in a single day annnd destroy their good will with their customer base?


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> IANAL, but as I understand it, the trouble is that there isn’t much legal precedent (yet) over what constitutes “game mechanics” in an RPG. You definitely can’t copyright rolling a die, adding a modifier, and comparing the total to a target number to determine success or failure. But can you copyright, like, the standard six ability scores? That’s a bit more ambiguous. And it gets more complex when the mechanics are intertwined with the fiction. Is elves getting to add their proficiency bonus to Perception checks an un-copyrightable game mechanic, or a specific copyrightable presentation of a game mechanic? That would have to be decided in court.



Maybe that precedent isn't too far away, especially if WotC does more than try and "passively" smother competition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> IANAL, but as I understand it, the trouble is that there isn’t much legal precedent (yet) over what constitutes “game mechanics” in an RPG. You definitely can’t copyright rolling a die, adding a modifier, and comparing the total to a target number to determine success or failure. But can you copyright, like, the standard six ability scores? That’s a bit more ambiguous. And it gets more complex when the mechanics are intertwined with the fiction. Is elves getting to add their proficiency bonus to Perception checks an un-copyrightable game mechanic, or a specific copyrightable presentation of a game mechanic? That would have to be decided in court.



and the only way (to my non lawyer understanding) to generate that precedent is to pick a fight with a company that for sure has more money and lawyers then you... so not a great start.


----------



## Lidgar

overgeeked said:


> DCC is based on the OGL. If WotC revokes 1.0 or 1.0a, DCC dies on the vine as they cannot produce new content without accepting 1.1.



Yeah, I thought that was the case as well. That's...unfortunate, if this all comes to pass.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> is there enough to play for a while at least if it gets shut down?



Yeah, thankfully.  But now I'm going to have to stretch my budget to get hardcover copies of a couple books I only have in pdf before the shutdown, and if this happens it means the upcoming Voidrunner's Codex (with psionic and sci-fi rules) that I was _ really_ excited about may no longer be upcoming.  To say nothing of the compilation hardcover @Morrus recently announced.  It all feels very, very bad.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> DCC is based on the OGL. If WotC revokes 1.0 or 1.0a, DCC dies on the vine as they cannot produce new content without accepting 1.1.



Are you sure about that? I just looked through 8th printing DCC and I couldn't see the slightest sign of the OGL being involved, and DCC definitely have their own, separate licence that you obtain by writing to them, in order to sell compatible, logo'd products for DCC.


----------



## Lanefan

overgeeked said:


> DCC is based on the OGL. If WotC revokes 1.0 or 1.0a, DCC dies on the vine as they cannot produce new content without accepting 1.1.



So is WotC trying to say that 1.1 retroactively applies to all prior editions of D&D as well as the new one?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, thankfully.  But now I'm going to have to stretch my budget to get hardcover copies of a couple books I only have in pdf before the shutdown, and if this happens it means the upcoming Voidrunner's Codex (with psionic and sci-fi rules) that I was _ really_ excited about may no longer be upcoming.  To say nothing of the compilation hardcover @Morrus recently announced.  It all feels very, very bad.



that sucks, I am so sorry. I would say that getting physical copies while you can would be best even if this DOESN'T shut them down, because as you see something someday could.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Maybe that precedent isn't too far away, especially if WotC does more than try and "passively" smother competition.



Yeah, that’s why I added the parenthetical “yet.”

I’d guess WotC is banking on people not wanting to go through the expensive, lengthy, and complicated process of establishing that precedent, and would sooner agree to a more restrictive license than try to fight in court over what is and isn’t game mechanics. It’s a dangerous game of chicken they’re playing.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, thankfully.  But now I'm going to have to stretch my budget to get hardcover copies of a couple books I only have in pdf before the shutdown, and if this happens it means the upcoming Voidrunner's Codex (with psionic and sci-fi rules) that I was _ really_ excited about may no longer be upcoming.  To say nothing of the compilation hardcover @Morrus recently announced.  It all feels very, very bad.



Also people across the industry would be out of jobs and not able to pay their rent or mortgages.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lanefan said:


> So is WotC trying to say that 1.1 retroactively applies to all prior editions of D&D as well as the new one?



yes and no///  maybe.  It's as clear as mud.

IF THE LEAK IS RIGHT, then they are 'ending' the old OGLs and the new one will be the only one going forward,


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> Also people across the industry would be out of jobs and not able to pay their rent or mortgages.



THAT is the worst part of this... the PEOPLE effected not the game or the system, the workers


----------



## Incenjucar

This certainly curbs my enthusiasm about returning to the game after my post-4E hiatus. One D&D was looking like a good reason to jump back in. I am quite hoping that things are being blown out of proportion.

That writing is just so ridiculous that it's hard to accept.


----------



## Charlaquin

If this turns out to be the route WorC goes down, it’ll be the thing that finally gets me to stop buying their products.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> Also people across the industry would be out of jobs and not able to pay their rent or mortgages.



That brings me to a question I've been mulling for a little while now, regarding the timing of this announcement.

From the way it's being reported, the OGL v1.1 will be released next Friday (the 13th), and WotC plans to revoke the OGL v1.0a (presuming that they can) on the same date. However, 1D&D and presumably its attendant SRD aren't supposed to come out for something like eighteen months, right? So if the OGL v1.0a is sunset next week, what exactly are third-parties supposed to publish under the OGL v1.1 between now and when 1D&D comes out? Are they able to release stuff under the OGL v1.1 using the 3.5 SRD and 5.1 SRD? If not, what good is releasing the OGL v1.1 now, except to let people look it over before the 1D&D SRD comes out?


----------



## MockingBird

I was among the numbers who thought most of the prior news was being blown out of proportion. I was wrong. This doesn't look good at all. I can't really keep up with all the threads.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> Also people across the industry would be out of jobs and not able to pay their rent or mortgages.



Very true, and I'm sorry if my statement downplays that; absolutely not my intention.  Just explaining from a personal point of view.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

doctorbadwolf said:


> AGE, at least, is not mechanically familiar. I haven’t played DCC, but what I’ve heard suggests it isn’t either.



No, but it's a game they control and can be used to play games _like_ D&D. There are some qualitative differences between how D&D, AGE and DCC all play, but at the end of the day, you can run around in dungeons and/or fight dragons in all of them.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> THAT is the worst part of this... the PEOPLE effected not the game or the system, the workers



I just finished work on a Kickstarted 3PP book that went off to the printers before New year's. It could be "unauthorized" before it comes back from the printers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> DCC is based on the OGL. If WotC revokes 1.0 or 1.0a, DCC dies on the vine as they cannot produce new content without accepting 1.1.



DCC has never fundamentally changed since their first publication, beyond swapping cover art, fixing typos and changing the starting adventure.

Goodman could continue selling DCC and MCC core books for a long, long time -- long enough for new management at WotC to reverse things, for instance.

Troll Lords' Castles & Crusades has functioned much the same. (Even when people have asked them to change stuff! )


----------



## Deset Gled

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't quite understand why publishing "D&D inspired" things requires any licence at all. Rules cannot copyrighted, right? So if you want to publish 5.1 compatible stuff just use slightly different terminology but have compatible maths.
> 
> And I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder 2e, but certainly at this point it is so divergent from 3e D&D that it is completely its own thing?




The business purpose of the license is to remove risk.

Sure, you can always make a game product that is loosely compatible with another game, or is similar to another game.  You can decide when you want to put yourself up to the very edge of what is "legal" or you can try and play things very safe.  You can make every effort to play by the rules, or you can play fast and loose.  

But it doesn't matter what you do, because as a publisher you're taking a big risk.  You never know when the other company (who makes the product that "inspired" you) will turn around and tell you that you have to stop.  You could have a good working relationship with another company one day and a lawsuit the next.  Maybe you have problems right away.  Maybe it happens 10 years from now.  Maybe they'll send a C&D and then leave you alone.  Maybe they'll start by serving you with a lawsuit that requires you to spend thousands of dollars before they even negotiate.  The real problem is that, as an unlicensed third party publisher, you have no control over any of it.  And that's a bad position for a business to be in.

A license is an agreement by both parties that, as long as they both play by the rules, everyone gets to keep making money.  It raises the barrier to litigation and expensive disagreements, and ensures the spice, err, money, will flow.


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> DCC has never fundamentally changed since their first publication, beyond swapping cover art, fixing typos and changing the starting adventure.
> 
> Goodman could continue selling DCC and MCC core books for a long, long time -- long enough for new management at WotC to reverse things, for instance.



FWIW My copy of MCC indicates it was published under OGL 1.0


----------



## Lidgar

Ruin Explorer said:


> Are you sure about that? I just looked through 8th printing DCC and I couldn't see the slightest sign of the OGL being involved, and DCC definitely have their own, separate licence that you obtain by writing to them, in order to sell compatible, logo'd products for DCC.



Well, wikipedia says otherwise, unfortunately

"_*Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game*_ (*DCC RPG* or simply *DCC*) is a role-playing game published by Goodman Games using the Open Gaming License (OGL) and System Reference Document (SRD) version 3.5 to provide legal compatibility with the revised third edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_."









						Dungeon Crawl Classics - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Charlaquin

Morrus said:


> Also people across the industry would be out of jobs and not able to pay their rent or mortgages.



To the lawyerly folks here: would this be taken into account in determining whether or not the OGL 1.0 could be revoked? A lot of livelihoods have been built on the understanding that the OGL was irrevocable. Even if the language of the OGL is determined not to prevent revocation, would the fact that WotC themselves have perpetuated the impression that 3rd parties could continue operating under the old license matter at all?


----------



## kenmarable

GMforPowergamers said:


> my understanding is if you know the ins and outs it doesn't. You or I or anyone else can publish stuff for Rifts or Vampire, or 1D&D. but you gotta know where the lines are cause a lawsuite could sink you even if you were right.



Exactly! The OGL was designed as a "safe harbor" that defined what was ok or not. It allowed some things that "you can't copyright game mechanics" does not but also limited some things that approach does. But the biggest benefit of the OGL was clarity for all involved so that they could avoid a repeat of the TSR/Role Aids style lawsuits.


----------



## J.Quondam

I'm trying to fathom what this might mean for _non-D&D_ adjacent games that use OGL1.0a, like Fate. Would it be straightforward for them to just snip the OGL from future works, replace it with a Creative Commons license or something, and carry on? Or is it more complicated than that?


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> Are you sure about that? I just looked through 8th printing DCC and I couldn't see the slightest sign of the OGL being involved, and DCC definitely have their own, separate licence that you obtain by writing to them, in order to sell compatible, logo'd products for DCC.



Yes. Page 450 of the print and PDF of the 8th printing. The DCC copyright at the front of the book also declares it's based on the OGL.


----------



## EpicureanDM

Deset Gled said:


> IMNSHO, writing a two page legal agreement is actually harder than writing a 10 page one.
> 
> The main reason his opinion matters is that he said the same thing when he was part of WotC and was speaking on behalf of the company (and on their website, etc).  The extent to which this matters in court will be argued in much more detail.  But WotC definitely sold the OGL to a lot of third party devs with the promise that it was irrevocable.



I somewhat agree on the two-page vs. ten-page point, but it introduces doubt to me. A sloppy drafting error like that in such a simple agreement suggests sloppiness in the substance. And it's not like there aren't other errors and inconsistencies in the text of the OGL. They add up.

I do agree that if it ever gets to a trial, his statements as WotC's representative might have some bearing.


----------



## GMSkarka

The list of non-D&D adjacent games using OGL1.0a is pretty long -- FATE, D6, Mongoose Traveller and Runequest, etc.   
I have NO IDEA how a "de-authorization" of 1.0a is going to affect all of those titles.


----------



## Yora

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep I’d be surprised if old D&D writers, and 3pp writers, didn’t form a new company to make a new game that doesn’t use the OGL but is mechanically familiar, since mechanics can’t be copyrighted anyway, and then publish it under a new open license.



"OpenDND" has been floating as an idea for a few weeks now.


----------



## schneeland

Lidgar said:


> "_*Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game*_ (*DCC RPG* or simply *DCC*) is a role-playing game published by Goodman Games using the Open Gaming License (OGL) and System Reference Document (SRD) version 3.5 to provide legal compatibility with the revised third edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_."



Interestingly, my 4th printing PDF still has a reference to the OGL, but it's absent from the 8th printing.


----------



## kenmarable

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I seem to recall that at least one major third party publisher was founded by a lawyer, although I can't remember who that is, if it's true at all.



There was also Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games who is/was a lawyer. Not sure his specific field of practice, but at least was VERY active in early industry discussions and feedback during drafting of the OGL.


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> DCC has never fundamentally changed since their first publication, beyond swapping cover art, fixing typos and changing the starting adventure.
> 
> Goodman could continue selling DCC and MCC core books for a long, long time -- long enough for new management at WotC to reverse things, for instance.



Yes, but their audience is limited. They can't sell an infinite number of core books. They'd also have to stop publishing any new books...like those tasty adventures people seem to love so much.


----------



## Reynard

schneeland said:


> Interestingly, my 4th printing PDF still has a reference to the OGL, but it's absent from the 8th printing.



Look carefully. In my MCC PDF it was in very small font under a half page piece of art.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

kenmarable said:


> There was also Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games who is/was a lawyer. Not sure his specific field of practice, but at least was VERY active in early industry discussions and feedback during drafting of the OGL.



i think he became a judge


----------



## overgeeked

schneeland said:


> Interestingly, my 4th printing PDF still has a reference to the OGL, but it's absent from the 8th printing.



Page 450 in small print at the bottom of the page. And it's referenced in the copyright notice at the start of the book.


----------



## EpicureanDM

Alzrius said:


> From the way it's being reported, the OGL v1.1 will be released next Friday (the 13th), and WotC plans to revoke the OGL v1.0a (presuming that they can) on the same date. However, 1D&D and presumably its attendant SRD aren't supposed to come out for something like eighteen months, right? So if the OGL v1.0a is sunset next week, what exactly are third-parties supposed to publish under the OGL v1.1 between now and when 1D&D comes out? Are they able to release stuff under the OGL v1.1 using the 3.5 SRD and 5.1 SRD? If not, what good is releasing the OGL v1.1 now, except to let people look it over before the 1D&D SRD comes out?



Probably nothing. If we're assuming a mostly-to-full evil version of WotC, they starve the market for D&D-related content for the year before 6e comes out, clearing the field for 6e's arrival. By the time 6e is released in 2024, D&D fans starved for new content boost 6e's initial sales to headline-grabbing levels.


----------



## Alzrius

kenmarable said:


> There was also Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games who is/was a lawyer. Not sure his specific field of practice, but at least was VERY active in early industry discussions and feedback during drafting of the OGL.



He's a judge now (or at least, last I heard), and significantly dialed back his online presence several years ago, after someone unhappy with one of his decisions started using his online postings as evidence to support some action against him (overturning a ruling of his, I think?).


----------



## Charlaquin

GMSkarka said:


> The list of non-D&D adjacent games using OGL1.0a is pretty long -- FATE, D6, Mongoose Traveller and Runequest, etc.
> I have NO IDEA how a "de-authorization" of 1.0a is going to affect all of those titles.



That’s what makes me, a non-lawyer, think that WotC might not find the OGL1.0 so easy to revoke. Like, a huge portion of the RPG industry has been built on the notion that the OGL would exist in perpetuity, an impression which WotC themselves have reinforced with their FAQ on the matter. Could that not be said to constitute some kind of implicit agreement?


----------



## Reynard

I think it is important to remember that the reason the OGL was widely adopted at all was because of the massive network of D&D players that promised built in customers to third party publishers. Thinking that another company or system could just "replace" 5E/D&D in the model is completely unrealistic. There is no game or system out there that would draw all the 3PPs to it. We can expect that a lot, maybe even most, 3PPs will sign on to this new OGL. it is either that, or close up shop (which some will do).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

GMforPowergamers said:


> i think he became a judge



I think we found our jurisdiction!


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> I think it is important to remember that the reason the OGL was widely adopted at all was because of the massive network of D&D players that promised built in customers to third party publishers. Thinking that another company or system could just "replace" 5E/D&D in the model is completely unrealistic. There is no game or system out there that would draw all the 3PPs to it. We can expect that a lot, maybe even most, 3PPs will sign on to this new OGL. it is either that, or close up shop (which some will do).



And it looks like by the terms of this new OGL, a portion of those 3PPs revenue would go to WotC, so any attempt to boycott WotC over this move would hurt them too.


----------



## darjr

@Morrus this and Owen K Stevens post should be added as sources.


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> @Morrus this and Owen K Stevens post should be added as sources.
> 
> View attachment 271354



I think this pretty much confirms that the leaked text on Gizmodo is authentic. And most likely the one in the YT video as well. So, I eat crow for my skepticism about that one.


----------



## darjr

Nikosandros said:


> I think this pretty much confirms that the leaked text on Gizmodo is authentic. And most likely the one in the YT video as well. So, I eat crow for my skepticism about that one.



Yea, same.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> @Morrus this and Owen K Stevens post should be added as sources.
> 
> View attachment 271354



Tom: So you know that means even the most successful Kickstarters in this space will no longer be profitable, right?

Jon: Yep. 

Wow...just wow.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

so, here's my understanding of WOTC attempting to kill third party content they don't like by deauthorizing 1.0(a)...it's unenforceable. full stop. this is because the OGL applies to the material it's attached to (in most cases, the 5.1 SRD) - WOTC can't make you relicense it. they can terminate the license if you're not complying with it, but they can't point to _a different license you haven't even agreed to_ and then tell you your license is terminated because of it. WOTC _could possibly_ revoke the license (and pay an exorbitant amount of costs as compensation to everyone effected)...if they had a clause that specified how they could do so, which they don't (and which they aren't trying to do anyway - they're trying to deauthorize 1.0(a)). i think WOTC knows this, too, because otherwise why would they have ever even tried the GSL? wouldn't they have just tried to deauthorize 1.0(a) and replace it with a 1.1 that looked like the GSL back then? i think the people saying all this will really do is prevent 1.0(a) from being used with 5.5e content are about right, and to which at this point i say good, let 1.1 strangle that abomination in the crib.

all this said, i'm not a lawyer, and most of what i've been saying i'm really just parroting from people who understand these sorts of licenses better then i do, so...take me with a grain of salt, i guess.


----------



## jerryrice4949

What an incredibly stupid move by WoTC.  This will generate a tiny amount of revenue for them but will fracture the hobby and damage their reputation.  What should be a positive time with a new edition and movie looming is turning into a PR disaster.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

GMSkarka said:


> The list of non-D&D adjacent games using OGL1.0a is pretty long -- FATE, D6, Mongoose Traveller and Runequest, etc.
> I have NO IDEA how a "de-authorization" of 1.0a is going to affect all of those titles.



Now I'm even more confused...  Why were they using OGL if they're not D&D derivates?


----------



## Morrus

Crimson Longinus said:


> Now I'm even more confused...  Why were they using OGL if they're not D&D derivates?



They were using it in the same way WotC is -- to license their game to their third party creators. The OGL doesn't mention "D&D" in it anywhere -- it's an Open *Gaming* License not an Open *D&D* Licence.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> And it looks like by the terms of this new OGL, a portion of those 3PPs revenue would go to WotC, so any attempt to boycott WotC over this move would hurt them too.



Only the biggest companies will be affected by that specific requirement, and they are probably negotiating a better deal as we speak.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> Yes. Page 450 of the print and PDF of the 8th printing. The DCC copyright at the front of the book also declares it's based on the OGL.



AHA the dreaded SMALL PRINT, I see that now. Yeah looks like it's in a bit of trouble then.


----------



## Staffan

zooey said:


> I could see attaching a new license to One D&D, but retroactively removing existing OGLs from previous versions seems to violate the OGL, and it definitely a dick move.  It would have to be decided in court, which unfortunately would mean some larger 3rd party publisher would have to pay a lot of legal fees just to maintain the status quo (assuming they would win).



Right.

If I was running Wizards and wanted to get a piece of the action from 3PPs (in addition to the more nebulous money I may be making because they support my game system and thus make it more attractive to customers), here's what I would do:


I would not change anything about the OGL. It remains the same.
I would offer a second license that lets 3PPs sell via D&D Beyond and potentially have their mechanics incorporated into the character builder and future VTT, in exchange for some royalties of sales through this channel as well as some form of standardization and community standards (basically, the old d20 STL + D&D Beyond access).
This would offer a pretty strong incentive for 3PPs to go along, while not nuking the entire 3PP support ecosystem.



Grantypants said:


> Has Linda Codega from Gizmodo/io9 posted a copy of what she says is a leaked draft from December? She claims she got it from "a non-WotC developer". Is there any independent verification that what she looked at is real?



If I were her, I would not do that. It's very possible that Wizards have sent slightly different versions around so they can trace any leaks.


----------



## Lidgar

Morrus said:


> They were using it in the same way WotC is -- to license their game to their third party creators. The OGL doesn't mention "D&D" in it anywhere -- it's an Open *Gaming* License not an Open *D&D* Licence.



Yep. Most of those listed have their own open gaming licenses to develop compatible material by other 3pp’s.


----------



## Reynard

Morrus said:


> They were using it in the same way WotC is -- to license their game to their third party creators. The OGL doesn't mention "D&D" in it anywhere -- it's an Open *Gaming* License not an Open *D&D* Licence.



On the up side, it shouldn't be too difficult (I would think; IANAL etc) for the Open Gaming Foundation to produce a new general license should WotC be successful in their "de-authorization" of the OGL 1.0a. I don't know how that might help D&D SRD compatible publishers, but one would think it wouldn't be a difficult transition for those that aren't derivative of the D&D SRDs. I may be missing something, though, since I just write/design/edit and don't do any of the business stuff.


----------



## overgeeked

jerryrice4949 said:


> What an incredibly stupid move by WoTC.  This will generate a tiny amount of revenue for them but will fracture the hobby and damage their reputation.  What should be a positive time with a new edition and movie looming is turning into a PR disaster.



They're probably hoping that even with the bad PR, ill will, and fractured fanbase, they'll still be standing at the top of the mountain of new to RPGs with 5E fans.


----------



## Yora

Nikosandros said:


> I think this pretty much confirms that the leaked text on Gizmodo is authentic. And most likely the one in the YT video as well. So, I eat crow for my skepticism about that one.



I don't. My point was that the rumors seemed to dumb to be true.

Things just keep getting dumber since then.


----------



## Sacrosanct

overgeeked said:


> Tom: So you know that means even the most successful Kickstarters in this space will no longer be profitable, right?
> 
> Jon: Yep.
> 
> Wow...just wow.



It means that publishers will set their goal higher to accommodate, which means that more KS won't reach their goal.


----------



## jerryrice4949

I would love to hear Kobold Press’ thoughts on this.


----------



## mamba

Crimson Longinus said:


> Now I'm even more confused...  Why were they using OGL if they're not D&D derivates?



because there was no downside to it


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Only the biggest companies will be affected by that specific requirement, and they are probably negotiating a better deal as we speak.



Well that’s… I was going to say good, but… less bad, I guess…


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> I certainly hope WotC is changing their mind, because right now they seem to think that they're Thanos and can just snap the OGL v1.0a out of existence.




Yeah.  That didn't end well for Thanos.


----------



## Yora

overgeeked said:


> They're probably hoping that even with the bad PR, ill will, and fractured fanbase, they'll still be standing at the top of the mountain of new to RPGs with 5E fans.



Well, yes.

But they will more than make up for the loss in sales profit caused by all of this from the cuts they get from all the 1.1 products that still will be getting sold.
Surely...?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Staffan said:


> If I were her, I would not do that. It's very possible that Wizards have sent slightly different versions around so they can trace any leaks.



Them not her but yes, you definitely wouldn't want to potentially out your source to WotC like that. G/O's lawyers are advising them on this so I don't think they're going to, thankfully.


----------



## Umbran

Nikosandros said:


> So, I eat crow for my skepticism about that one.




No, you don't have to eat crow for skepticism.  Skepticism is generally healthy.  

One eats crow for having solid positions that they don't change when information becomes more reliable.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Well that’s… I was going to say good, but… less bad, I guess…



In the end, my guess is WotC/Hasbro is betting that whatever pushback and ill will this move garners won't reduce the bottom line by more than a rounding error and they will get a lot more control of what constitutes "D&D" -- which is important in the context oif them turning it into a lifestyle brand. They probably care less about getting to skim off MCDM's next book than they do about exerting control over streaming, merch and all the places where the brand really intersects with people. Like Marvel before them, they probably see book sales as more of a necessary evil to maintain the brand than the goal.


----------



## Greg Benage

Sacrosanct said:


> It means that publishers will set their goal higher to accommodate, which means that more KS won't reach their goal.



So you do Kickstarters, explain how this would work. If I expect my KS to exceed the $750K threshold, I think I'd reach out to Wizards for a license with a reasonable royalty. No? ETA: Like, no one's going to intentionally try to swallow that 20% egg, are they?

The question to me is, what if I launch my _Polearm Compendium_ campaign and it inexplicably blows up and goes viral and now I'm at $5MM and realize I'm going to owe Wizards a million dollars in royalties. Can I pull my campaign even though it funded? Do I have to pay KS their 5% even if I pull it?


----------



## GMSkarka

I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:

What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> So you do Kickstarters, explain how this would work. If I expect my KS to exceed the $750K threshold, I think I'd reach out to Wizards for a license with a reasonable royalty. No? ETA: Like, no one's going to intentionally try to swallow that 20% egg, are they?
> 
> The question to me is, what if I launch my _Polearm Compendium_ campaign and it inexplicably blows up and goes viral and now I'm at $5MM and realize I'm going to owe Wizards a million dollars in royalties. Can I pull my campaign even though it funded? Do I have to pay KS their 5% even if I pull it?



Why would you pull it, unless you got there by over-promising on stretch goals you couldn't actually complete?


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> Why would you pull it, unless you got there by over-promising on stretch goals you couldn't actually complete?



Because I figure a "normal" royalty would be something like 6-8% and I'd rather talk to Wizards about that.


----------



## Reynard

GMSkarka said:


> I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:
> 
> What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?



I know we are in uncharted territory here, but it seems crazy to me that they could retroactively make existing products unauthorized.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> They're probably hoping that even with the bad PR, ill will, and fractured fanbase, they'll still be standing at the top of the mountain of new to RPGs with 5E fans.



we already know more people play WotC only then any of the 3pp. We know this becuse none of the 3pp make the sales WotC do.


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> I know we are in uncharted territory here, but it seems crazy to me that they could retroactively make existing products unauthorized.



Separate issue. A bookstore can decide to no longer carry a title for any reason or no reason at all.


----------



## Sacrosanct

GMSkarka said:


> I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:
> 
> What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?



My understanding is that contract with WoTC expires soon.  Meaning I suspect OBS won't be able to sell 1.1 stuff, as WotC wants all of that themselves with their own digital platform.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> So you do Kickstarters, explain how this would work. If I expect my KS to exceed the $750K threshold, I think I'd reach out to Wizards for a license with a reasonable royalty. No? ETA: Like, no one's going to intentionally try to swallow that 20% egg, are they?
> 
> The question to me is, what if I launch my _Polearm Compendium_ campaign and it inexplicably blows up and goes viral and now I'm at $5MM and realize I'm going to owe Wizards a million dollars in royalties. Can I pull my campaign even though it funded? Do I have to pay KS their 5% even if I pull it?



I wonder what the profit margin is on KS. As a numbers guy I always assumed that at best the big Kick starters were makeing 20-25% profit and at worst basicly breaking even.


----------



## Lidgar

GMSkarka said:


> I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:
> 
> What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?



Sounds like a business opportunity for another website selling v1.0 content. Unfortunately, it sounds like none of that could be "new" content however...


----------



## Art Waring

GMSkarka said:


> I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:
> 
> What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?



I was thinking the same thing about kickstarter now that thay admit they have a deal with wotc.


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> Separate issue. A bookstore can decide to no longer carry a title for any reason or no reason at all.



I have never sold anything on DTRPG. What does the agreement between One Bookshelf and publishers look like? Can they delist a product without warning?


----------



## GMSkarka

Reynard said:


> I know we are in uncharted territory here, but it seems crazy to me that they could retroactively make existing products unauthorized.




No, but say, for instance, that DTRPG doesn't want the legal headache of selling product that relies upon a de-authorized license?  Better safe than sorry, and all that...

I have no indication that they'd do that, but this whole thing opens up a can of worms roughly the size of Montana.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> In the end, my guess is WotC/Hasbro is betting that whatever pushback and ill will this move garners won't reduce the bottom line by more than a rounding error and they will get a lot more control of what constitutes "D&D" -- which is important in the context oif them turning it into a lifestyle brand. They probably care less about getting to skim off MCDM's next book than they do about exerting control over streaming, merch and all the places where the brand really intersects with people. Like Marvel before them, they probably see book sales as more of a necessary evil to maintain the brand than the goal.



Oh, no doubt that’s their strategy.


----------



## Alzrius

GMSkarka said:


> I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:
> 
> What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?



I mentioned that in another thread. My initial reaction is that such a thing is too crazy to ever happen...but as recently as this morning I would have said the same thing about WotC trying to revoke the OGL v1.0a, so there we go.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> I know we are in uncharted territory here, but it seems crazy to me that they could retroactively make existing products unauthorized.




Especially when, in the text of the license used, it is referred to as a "perpetual" right.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Greg Benage said:


> So you do Kickstarters, explain how this would work. If I expect my KS to exceed the $750K threshold, I think I'd reach out to Wizards for a license with a reasonable royalty. No? ETA: Like, no one's going to intentionally try to swallow that 20% egg, are they?
> 
> The question to me is, what if I launch my _Polearm Compendium_ campaign and it inexplicably blows up and goes viral and now I'm at $5MM and realize I'm going to owe Wizards a million dollars in royalties. Can I pull my campaign even though it funded? Do I have to pay KS their 5% even if I pull it?



I don't know why you would pull it.  If you blow up and make that kind of money, you're cost per unit is really low, so even with 20% you're still making a profit.

I'm talking about if they lower the threshold, to say $50,000 for instance.  if it costs me $50,000 to create the product, I would set my goal at just above $50,000 to break even.  If I now have to pay 20% more, I have to set that goal at $60,000 for no additional increase in rewards or stuff.  Twilight Fables made $55,000.  So if I had to give 20% to WotC, that would  have been $11,000 taken from that.  I barely broke even.  With WotC's cut, I would have lost $11,000.  Or  more to the point, knowing I'd owe at least that much, I'd set the goal for $60,000 would have never reached it, causing the project to fail.


----------



## Reynard

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't know why you would pull it.  If you blow up and make that kind of money, you're cost per unit is really low, so even with 20% you're still making a profit.
> 
> I'm talking about if they lower the threshold, to say $50,000 for instance.  if it costs me $50,000 to create the product, I would set my goal at just above $50,000 to break even.  If I now have to pay 20% more, I have to set that goal at $60,000 for no additional increase in rewards or stuff.  Twilight Fables made $55,000.  So if I had to give 20% to WotC, that would  have been $11,000 taken from that.  I barely broke even.  With WotC's cut, I would have lost $11,000.  Or  more to the point, knowing I'd owe at least that much, I'd set the goal for $60,000 would have never reached it, causing the project to fail.



The royalty is only on revenue above $750,000.


----------



## rknop

I remember back some 20 years ago or so when Grey Ghost Games was working on releasing a version of Fudge with a formally open license.  (There'd been some sort of Fudge license before, if memory serves, but they wanted to go with something standard.)  At the time, I really thought they should have gone with something Creative Commons, as that was a much broader standard, and OGL had the danger of being controlled by Wizards.  But, they went with OGL, because that's what everybody in RPGs was doing.

Trying to revoke the old license is a pretty evil move by Wizards, and it has implications outside of the ecosystem of 3pp D&D products.


----------



## Greg Benage

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't know why you would pull it. If you blow up and make that kind of money, you're cost per unit is really low, so even with 20% you're still making a profit.



I mean, again, I'd want to pull it because I think I can get a "normal" royalty rate from WotC instead. Yours is the second response like this, though, so maybe _I'm_ the greedy one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

rknop said:


> Trying to revoke the old license is a pretty evil move by Wizards, and it has implications outside of the ecosystem of 3pp D&D products.



I would be careful about throwing around the label of Evil.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Reynard said:


> The royalty is only on revenue above $750,000.



bolding my statement: 

I don't know why you would pull it. If you blow up and make that kind of money, you're cost per unit is really low, so even with 20% you're still making a profit.

*I'm talking about if they lower the threshold, to say $50,000 for instance*. if it costs me $50,000 to create the product, I would set my goal at just above $50,000 to break even. If I now have to pay 20% more, I have to set that goal at $60,000 for no additional increase in rewards or stuff. Twilight Fables made $55,000. So if I had to give 20% to WotC, that would have been $11,000 taken from that. I barely broke even. With WotC's cut, I would have lost $11,000. Or more to the point, knowing I'd owe at least that much, I'd set the goal for $60,000 would have never reached it, causing the project to fail.


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> The royalty is only on revenue above $750,000.



For now.
And if you have a Kickstarter that actually has a reason to be at $750K, it now needs to be closer to $950K.
Edit: Woops, the game of telephone strikes again.


----------



## dbolack

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Assuming this line isn't in the draft as a joke, this is wildly illegal under American law, as all of those would be covered under fair use as commentary or parody. Groups like the Library Bards don't need a license to write parody songs.




Unless you have accepted a legal agreement that says you won't do it....


----------



## J.Quondam

jerryrice4949 said:


> What an incredibly stupid move by WoTC.  This will generate a tiny amount of revenue for them but will fracture the hobby and damage their reputation.  What should be a positive time with a new edition and movie looming is turning into a PR disaster.



Might fracture the hobby, but that maybe that's not be a huge concern for Hasbro/WotC at this point? 
They may have determined that the hit to godwill among creators and hardcore gamers justifies the boost among casual fans who are in it mainly for t-shirts, movies, and Monopoly variants. That "under-monetized D&D lifestyle brand" is potentially worth a lot more than the D&D game  itself.


----------



## Charlaquin

J.Quondam said:


> Might fracture the hobby, but that maybe that's not be a huge concern for Hasbro/WotC at this point?
> They may have determined that the hit to godwill among creators and hardcore gamers justifies the boost among casual fans who are in it mainly for t-shirts, movies, and Monopoly variants. That "under-monetized D&D lifestyle brand" is potentially worth a lot more than the D&D game  itself.



That’s the only reason I can imagine they would want to do this. They don’t really care about the game itself, they just need it to exist so they can monetize the IP in more lucrative ways.


----------



## ChaosOS

J.Quondam said:


> Might fracture the hobby, but that maybe that's not be a huge concern for Hasbro/WotC at this point?
> They may have determined that the hit to godwill among creators and hardcore gamers justifies the boost among casual fans who are in it mainly for t-shirts, movies, and Monopoly variants. That "under-monetized D&D lifestyle brand" is potentially worth a lot more than the D&D game  itself.



none of that conflicts with keeping an actually-open OGL


----------



## W'rkncacnter

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would be careful about throwing around the label of Evil.



no, he's right, this is pretty evil. kind of cartoonishly so, even.


----------



## Umbran

Incenjucar said:


> For now.
> And if you have a Kickstarter that actually has a reason to be at $750K, it now needs to be closer to $950K.




Why?  It is a percentage of revenue _over_ $750K.

So, if your kickstarter goes to $750K, you owe nothing.
If it goes to $850K, you are $100K over the threshold, and will owe WotC $20K.  

I don't see where you get that $950K from.


----------



## Umbran

W'rkncacnter said:


> no, he's right, this is pretty evil. kind of cartoonishly so, even.




It is, at the very least, crassly ungrateful.


----------



## J.Quondam

ChaosOS said:


> none of that conflicts with keeping an actually-open OGL



It does if their focus is brand control.
Heck, just clawing back some control over "owlbear" must be worth at least $20 billion* at this point.

_* That's the figure from anonymous Big Plushie industry insiders, probably._


----------



## darjr

I guess MCDM has referred to council over Flee Mortals and they said they think they are unaffected.

@Morrus


----------



## Reynard

ChaosOS said:


> none of that conflicts with keeping an actually-open OGL



But if they see D&D as the cash cow IP, they need to tightly control it to monetize it.


----------



## Charlaquin

ChaosOS said:


> none of that conflicts with keeping an actually-open OGL



Not directly, but a more restrictive license would give them more control over what is and isn’t D&D, which would be highly desirable if they want to go all-in on D&D as a multimedia lifestyle brand. I imagine the primary goal of this move is reigning in D&D-adjacent media; extracting revenue out of 3rd party publishers for their OGL-compatible games is just gravy they may as well add on top if they’re revising the license anyway.


----------



## Incenjucar

Umbran said:


> Why?  It is a percentage of revenue _over_ $750K.
> 
> So, if your kickstarter goes to $750K, you owe nothing.
> If it goes to $850K, you are $100K over the threshold, and will owe WotC $20K.
> 
> I don't see where you get that $950K from.



I was basing it on the Kickstarter Tweet, which doesn't mention it being limited to the amount over 750K. I see the i09 version states that it is over the 750K. My apologies for being part of the telephone game.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> I guess MCDM has referred to council over Flee Mortals and they said they think they are unaffected.
> 
> @Morrus



Link?


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> Link?



It’s discord so iffy. I’ll try.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> It’s discord so iffy. I’ll try.



Screenshot will do.


----------



## darjr

From MCDM discord


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> Why?  It is a percentage of revenue _over_ $750K.
> 
> So, if your kickstarter goes to $750K, you owe nothing.
> If it goes to $850K, you are $100K over the threshold, and will owe WotC $20K.
> 
> I don't see where you get that $950K from.



okay some number magic...

if you are building your kickstarter and think you have even a slight chance of hitting the 750k you need to plan. lets say you need $10 to make your book per book (just making it and shipping it not the writeing not any over head) but your overhead you want to make up is 10,000. so you figure if you sell each book for $11 you need to sell 10,000 copies to break even (opps forgot KS %) so if you sell it for $30 each book you only need to sell 500.

now lets say you hit $750k. First congrats, you rock. 2nd now you need to give 20% of everything above that... so you need to make sure that if you hit $1.1m you don't hit a point where you are giving X% to kickstarter and 20% to WotC and all of a sudden you don't have enough to cover your overhead and print all the books.


edit: so if you make $950k you really made $910k after the pay out to WotC, that needs to be built in.
in the $1,100,000 example you REALLY made $1,030,000. I don't know if anyone is hitting $2,000,000 but boy would WotC make bank off that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

dbolack said:


> Unless you have accepted a legal agreement that says you won't do it....



Again, why on Earth would musicians sign such an agreement?

Random folk singers playing at GaryCon aren't going to have any reason to sign on.

This is a silly point to bring up, guys, unless all these third party publishers have bands and theater companies as side lines that I've never heard about. (Narrator: They do not.)


----------



## Incenjucar

My math was based on what appears to be bad info, you don't need to defend it.  There is still the consideration where you have to make sure 20% doesn't cost you money if you end up with tons of orders, though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Greg Benage said:


> So you do Kickstarters, explain how this would work. If I expect my KS to exceed the $750K threshold, I think I'd reach out to Wizards for a license with a reasonable royalty. No? ETA: Like, no one's going to intentionally try to swallow that 20% egg, are they?



It’s 20% on revenue over 750k. This is one of the few things in the OGL 1.1 reporting I don’t see the problem with. 


Greg Benage said:


> The question to me is, what if I launch my _Polearm Compendium_ campaign and it inexplicably blows up and goes viral and now I'm at $5MM and realize I'm going to owe Wizards a million dollars in royalties. Can I pull my campaign even though it funded? Do I have to pay KS their 5% even if I pull it?



But you made 5 million dollars. You owe 20% on 4.25 million, which is 850k. 

Why on earth would you try to pull that?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Incenjucar said:


> My math was based on what appears to be bad info, you don't need to defend it.  There is still the consideration where you have to make sure 20% doesn't cost you money if you end up with tons of orders, though.



correct, you miss did your numbers (and I guarantee you it is not an uncommon mistake, especially when I see how people calculate yearly tax) but the idea is correct if not the numbers. You need to work in the safety zone. The safty zone is just way smaller then you thought.


----------



## Nikosandros

Umbran said:


> No, you don't have to eat crow for skepticism.  Skepticism is generally healthy.
> 
> One eats crow for having solid positions that they don't change when information becomes more reliable.



This is very true, but in this specific case, I feel like I was too sarcastisc and dismissive towards the authors of the video.


----------



## darjr

Link


----------



## dbolack

GMSkarka said:


> I'll tell you what I'm concerned about, which I haven't seen anyone mention:
> 
> What if DriveThruRPG, with a side contract with WOTC, announces that you can't sell any OGL 1.0a product on their platform?  That it's 1.1 or nothing?



Evil Stevie has a store and enjoys a good windmill tilt.


----------



## Sacrosanct

doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s 20% on revenue over 750k. This is one of the few things in the OGL 1.1 reporting I don’t see the problem with.
> 
> But you made 5 million dollars. You owe 20% on 4.25 million, which is 850k.
> 
> Why on earth would you try to pull that?



On the surface I don't have an issue with that either.  It's the _rest _of the stuff in there, and how it's being presented, that makes me dubius that they'll keep it to $750,000.


----------



## MCXL

Sacrosanct said:


> On the surface I don't have an issue with that either.  It's the _rest _of the stuff in there, and how it's being presented, that makes me dubius that they'll keep it to $750,000.



"I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it further."


----------



## mamba

J.Quondam said:


> Might fracture the hobby, but that maybe that's not be a huge concern for Hasbro/WotC at this point?
> They may have determined that the hit to godwill among creators and hardcore gamers justifies the boost among casual fans who are in it mainly for t-shirts, movies, and Monopoly variants. That "under-monetized D&D lifestyle brand" is potentially worth a lot more than the D&D game  itself.



who says the purchase of t-shirts, etc. is restricted to casual fans, or that the OGL changes help with that in the slightest.


----------



## S'mon

overgeeked said:


> They're probably hoping that even with the bad PR, ill will, and fractured fanbase, they'll still be standing at the top of the mountain of new to RPGs with 5E fans.




They had to destroy the village in order to save it.


----------



## Incenjucar

The scenario where they can change their mind about the numbers is deeply problematic. There needs to at least be a length of time where they guarantee they won't change the deal on everyone.


----------



## J.Quondam

deleted. wrong thing, sorry!


----------



## Morrus

Incenjucar said:


> The scenario where they can change their mind about the numbers is deeply problematic. There needs to at least be a length of time where they guarantee they won't change the deal on everyone.



They could technically change the terms to ask for extra royalties on_ previous _releases. "Hey that book that didn't make $750K? We've decided we want a cut of that one too. Yes, I know it was 8 years ago. Here are the new license terms."


----------



## Morrus

J.Quondam said:


> Is this the text of the OGL1.1?
> 
> 
> 
> https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf



No that's the current OGL.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

J.Quondam said:


> Is this the text of the OGL1.1?
> 
> 
> 
> https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf



no, that's the SRD with the OGL 1.0(a).

edit: damn i got beat out by morrus huh


----------



## Alzrius

J.Quondam said:


> Is this the text of the OGL1.1?
> 
> 
> 
> https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf



No, that's a copy of the original 5E SRD with the current OGL v1.0a, from the look of it.


----------



## Olrox17

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would be careful about throwing around the label of Evil.



You're right, evil isn't accurate. They are being _lawful_ evil.


----------



## J.Quondam

Morrus said:


> No that's the current OGL.



My bad... Yah, it's the SRD. That's why it's so big. The "v1.1" threw me!
I've deleted the post.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Olrox17 said:


> You're right, evil isn't accurate. They are being _lawful_ evil.



i mean, if we're talking 4e, which i think is fitting considering OGL 1.1 is basically just the GSL on steroids, it would just be evil.


----------



## Stonesnake

Over the past 24 hours, several leaks have appeared concerning OGL 1.1 and how it will affect gamers and content creators. Unfortunately, many of people's worst fears might be coming true if this leaked OGL 1.1 is correct, so we decided to sit down with expert contract lawyer Alan L. Bushlow, Esq., to discuss this license and the possible future of One D&D and the hobby at large.

*Join us today at 5 pm EST to ask your questions LIVE!*


----------



## mamba

J.Quondam said:


> Is this the text of the OGL1.1?
> 
> 
> 
> https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf



No "OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a"


----------



## Reynard

Alzrius said:


> No, that's a copy of the original 5E SRD with the current OGL v1.0a, from the look of it.



The "2016" in the url was a hint.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Olrox17 said:


> You're right, evil isn't accurate. They are being _lawful_ evil.



you do remember that there are people, gamers we all have things in common with, working on this right.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> you do remember that there are people, gamers we all have things in common with, working on this right.



Corporations, are not people.


----------



## Bitbrain

Reads entirety of thread.

Wow.  This is even worse than what I had been expecting.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> you do remember that there are people, gamers we all have things in common with, working on this right.



not on this license, no


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Scribe said:


> Corporations, are not people.


----------



## darjr

This is a slight tangent but is an illustration of what a company vs a creator may differ on what is allowed content.


----------



## S'mon

GMforPowergamers said:


> you do remember that there are people, gamers we all have things in common with, working on this right.




Those Microsoft guys & girls and their lawyers, they may have been gamers once. But when they emerged from the pit they were twisted, evil...


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why on earth would you try to pull that?




If your margin is less than 20% of the price of your product, eventually you run into trouble.

Say your product costs $10 to produce, inclusive of all production and shipping costs.
You add $1 to that, as your profit margin.

You sell 68,181 units.  You have total revenue of $749,991, and a profit of $68,181, at $1 per unit.

You sell _another_ 68,181 units.  You have a total revenue of $1,499,982.
Your revenue minus production cost is $1 per unit.  That's $136,362.
But you also now owe WotC 20% of revenue over $750K.  That's $149,998.20

You now owe WotC more than you made off the product. For selling twice the units, you've gone from a $68,181 profit to a _loss in excess of $13K!_


----------



## Olrox17

GMforPowergamers said:


> you do remember that there are people, gamers we all have things in common with, working on this right.



Nah, I'm fairly sure most of the actual gamers at WotC are ashamed right now. This is a corporate move.


----------



## Nikosandros

S'mon said:


> Those Microsoft guys & girls and their lawyers, they may have been gamers once. But when they emerged from the pit they were twisted, evil...



There should be an adventure about entering the dank dungeons of the Micro-Wizards to lliberate the Holy Tome of Open Gaming... Should it be released under OGL 1.0?


----------



## overgeeked

Nikosandros said:


> There should be an adventure about entering the dank dungeons of the Micro-Wizards to lliberate the Holy Tome of Open Gaming... Should it be released under OGL 1.0?



Creative Commons.


----------



## jerryrice4949

This will probably push me away from D&D.  I liked the mechanics of 5E but generally found the WoTC products were just average.  Most of what I use has been from 3PP.  I maybe buy one WoTC book a year.


----------



## wingsandsword

BMaC said:


> My good friend is an IP lawyer.  He opines that the old OGL will hold because of this, among other reasons: contra proferentem




I'm no IP lawyer, just a law student. . .but that's a very good point.

My legal thinking (such as it is, again IANAL) is that the parol evidence rule also comes into play.

Specifically, the idea of if a version of the existing OGL can be "de authorized", as the entire meaning of "authorized" in the OGL in Section 9 isn't defined or explained and there isn't a merger clause saying evidence from outside the contract can't be used. . .all those statements from WotC, like Ryan Dancey's statements when he was the WotC VP in charge of D&D, or WotC's own FAQ, about the OGL being irrevocable and how WotC can't rescind it and if they release a new edition the old ones will still be valid is relevant evidence for interpreting Section 9 of the OGL and the idea of "authorized" versions. . .to say that WotC can't arbitrarily just "de authorize" any version of the OGL.


----------



## EllisEthel

This might seem controversial….but maybe it’d be a good thing?

Developers outside of WoTC might look to other systems and perhaps this will create a flood of new exciting mechanics that move the industry to new levels of cool.


----------



## Incenjucar

EllisEthel said:


> This might seem controversial….but maybe it’d be a good thing?
> 
> Developers outside of WoTC might look to other systems and perhaps this will create a flood of new exciting mechanics that move the industry to new levels of cool.



Long term, perhaps, but in the short term it fractures communities. We have to develop whole new cultural artifacts to gab about, etc. Especially rough on those who have been playing for decades.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> If your margin is less than 20% of the price of your product, eventually you run into trouble.
> 
> Say your product costs $10 to produce, inclusive of all production and shipping costs.
> You add $1 to that, as your profit margin.
> 
> You sell 68,181 units.  You have total revenue of $749,991, and a profit of $68,181, at $1 per unit.
> 
> You sell _another_ 68,181 units.  You have a total revenue of $1,499,982.
> Your revenue minus production cost is $1 per unit.  That's $136,362.
> But you also now owe WotC 20% of revenue over $750K.  That's $149,998.20
> 
> You now owe WotC more than you made off the product. For selling twice the units, you've gone from a $68,181 profit to a _loss in excess of $13K!_



100% this is my fear. This is exactly what I warn of. Take everything into account, first assume you will hit a million and plan costs to be able to make your profit from it, then assume you will hit exactly to the penny your KS amount, and make sure you make profit there as well. Now I am crazy and would go half way and run those numbers.


----------



## reelo

Olrox17 said:


> Nah, I'm fairly sure most of the actual gamers at WotC are ashamed right now. This is a corporate move.



This meme comes to mind:


----------



## eyeheartawk

Been a rough day, gonna check in on my favorite past time that I use to escape from end stage capitalism.

Oh. Oh no.


----------



## Reynard

EllisEthel said:


> This might seem controversial….but maybe it’d be a good thing?
> 
> Developers outside of WoTC might look to other systems and perhaps this will create a flood of new exciting mechanics that move the industry to new levels of cool.



Mechanics no one will ever see.

Even when D&D was literally DYINGin the late 90s, nothing stepped in to fill its role. If TSR had died then, it is quite possible RPGs as anything more than a niche hobby would have died, too. For better or worse, D&D is the role-playing game industry.


----------



## Charlaquin

jerryrice4949 said:


> This will probably push me away from D&D.  I liked the mechanics of 5E but generally found the WoTC products were just average.  Most of what I use has been from 3PP.  I maybe buy one WoTC book a year.



Yeah, same boat.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EllisEthel said:


> This might seem controversial….but maybe it’d be a good thing?
> 
> Developers outside of WoTC might look to other systems and perhaps this will create a flood of new exciting mechanics that move the industry to new levels of cool.





Incenjucar said:


> Long term, perhaps, but in the short term it fractures communities. We have to develop whole new cultural artifacts to gab about, etc. Especially rough on those who have been playing for decades.



yes it MIGHT have some upsides in the long run for the end users (us) but in the short term there are people who need to plan to eat next week


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Mechanics no one will ever see.
> 
> _*Even when D&D was literally DYINGin the late 90s, nothing stepped in to fill its role*_. If TSR had died then, it is quite possible RPGs as anything more than a niche hobby would have died, too. For better or worse, D&D is the role-playing game industry.



White Wolf would like to say hello. WW was ubiquitous when D&D was floundering.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

jerryrice4949 said:


> This will probably push me away from D&D.  I liked the mechanics of 5E but generally found the WoTC products were just average.  Most of what I use has been from 3PP.  I maybe buy one WoTC book a year.



Yeah, I've been spending my off day looking for non-OGL games I have at home.

Fantasy AGE will probably be my next game. Do someone know the proposed release date of the new Core Book? (@Aldarc )

or maybe Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its probably OGL though.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> White Wolf would like to say hello. WW was ubiquitous when D&D was floundering.



White wolf outshined D&D much earlier, actually. The Vampire fad was already dying y the late 90s. Shannon Applecline's "Designers and Dragons: the 90s" has the full story and it is well worth the read.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> White Wolf would like to say hello. WW was ubiquitous when D&D was floundering.



I was about to say that. Vampire was Pathfinder before there was pathfinder BUT with an extra selling point of being different enough to bring in people who didn't want to play D&D.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The majority of the 5E content I own is not produced by WotC.
> 
> This license, had it been in place since the beginning of 5E, wouldn't have meant more money for WotC, since they show no inclination to produce things like books on Oz, non-combat-oriented spells, or monster books focused on the fey, cities or monsters of Latin America. All of those books, of course, _require_ 5E to work, so WotC has gotten most of my players to buy stuff (I DM for more than a dozen players in several countries) as a result.
> 
> This license, if it's accurate to how it's been described, would actually have meant less money from me and mine, rather than more. Whoever is the shot-caller at Hasbro has no real understanding of the gaming marketplace.



Well, all of this talk got me to pull the trigger and purchase Andrew Kolb's Oz book, on the (remote?) chance that third party stuff might get harder to find after next week.

I just received my two books and screen from Double Critical's Adventures in Oz Kickstarter campaign (they are _hefty_ and the monster book alone is a great pick-up for people who want more fey types, especially ones without a Celtic vibe), which I'll likely use with Kolb's book.

It'd be a damned shame if projects like these -- which WotC would _never_ do -- went away because of someone not understanding that rising tides can lift all boats.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> I was about to say that. Vampire was Pathfinder before there was pathfinder BUT with an extra selling point of being different enough to bring in people who didn't want to play D&D.



But earlier.


----------



## Sacrosanct

overgeeked said:


> White Wolf would like to say hello. WW was ubiquitous when D&D was floundering.



And a little thing called "Magic the Gathering".  I was overseas in the military in the 90s, and MtG replaced RPGs by a significant amount.  Prolly because it was much easier to carry with you when you got deployed or were in the field.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> White wolf outshined D&D much earlier, actually. The Vampire fad was already dying y the late 90s. Shannon Applecline's "Designers and Dragons: the 90s" has the full story and it is well worth the read.



Yeah, by the late 1990s, White Wolf was splashing on gasoline aftershave and playing with matches.


----------



## billd91

MCXL said:


> "I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it further."



Pretty much, yeah. As long as they give 30 days notice.


----------



## Gammadoodler

I think what I'm wondering about all this is how the pressure would be applied to publishers that choose to ignore the OGL "deauthorizization".

I can imagine that there would be a litter of cease and desist orders sent out, but wouldn't those need to be backed by some likelihood that a court would grant an injunction to prevent the 3pp's from operating? If so, wouldn't we expect for *WOTC* to need to successfully argue their interpretation of the license?

Edit: hell, forget about the ones who make a conscious choice, what about the ignorant or incompetent.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

EllisEthel said:


> This might seem controversial….but maybe it’d be a good thing?
> 
> Developers outside of WoTC might look to other systems and perhaps this will create a flood of new exciting mechanics that move the industry to new levels of cool.



There _is_ a flood of new systems and mechanics out there. The audience just hasn't gone looking for them. 

And I don't know that this decision will send the majority of fans out looking, unless tastemakers like Critical Role switch systems.


----------



## overgeeked

Sacrosanct said:


> And a little thing called "Magic the Gathering".  I was overseas in the military in the 90s, and MtG replaced RPGs by a significant amount.  Prolly because it was much easier to carry with you when you got deployed or were in the field.



The non-portability of RPGs and the associated chotchkies is one reason I go with FKR games lately. You just need the players involved and you're off.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sacrosanct said:


> And a little thing called "Magic the Gathering".  I was overseas in the military in the 90s, and MtG replaced RPGs by a significant amount.  Prolly because it was much easier to carry with you when you got deployed or were in the field.



The first time I saw MTG was bored soldiers on deployment playing it. It was ubiquitous in an era when smartphones weren't a thing and only so many people could play on a basketball court and at places and times when that wasn't a viable option.


----------



## darjr

@Morrus but what do you think? Any navel gazing about what ENWorld can or would do?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Gammadoodler said:


> I can imagine that there would be a litter of cease and desist orders sent out, but wouldn't those need to be backed by some likelihood that a court would grant an injunction to prevent the 3pp's from operating? If so, wouldn't we expect for *WOTC* to need to successfully argue their interpretation of the license?



my understanding is the anyone can get a C&D written for anything, you don't need backing unless the person you issue it to pushes back.  The problem is when the 800lbs gorilla pushes you run you don't push back.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> That’s the only reason I can imagine they would want to do this. They don’t really care about the game itself, they just need it to exist so they can monetize the IP in more lucrative ways.



Marvel makes big movies and TV shows even though comic sales are tiny compared to days of yore :-(


----------



## Morrus

darjr said:


> @Morrus but what do you think? Any navel gazing about that ENWorld can or would do?



Sorry, I'm not sure what that means?


----------



## S'mon

wingsandsword said:


> I'm no IP lawyer, just a law student. . .but that's a very good point.




I'm a big fan of applying _contra proferentem _to all standard form contracts, but sadly you can't rely on a judge following this. I asked Sir Richard Arnold why he didn't apply _contra proferentem _to the contract in _Duran Duran v Sony_; he said well the argument hadn't been raised. 

Still I don't think judges take the Mad Hatter approach "It means whatever I say it means", either.


----------



## mamba

Tales and Chronicles said:


> or maybe Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its probably OGL though.



it is not, will have to take a look at Fantasy AGE  Building up my non-OGL library now


----------



## Cadence

wingsandsword said:


> I'm no IP lawyer, just a law student. . .but that's a very good point.
> 
> My legal thinking (such as it is, again IANAL) is that the parol evidence rule also comes into play.
> 
> Specifically, the idea of if a version of the existing OGL can be "de authorized", as the entire meaning of "authorized" in the OGL in Section 9 isn't defined or explained and there isn't a merger clause saying evidence from outside the contract can't be used. . .all those statements from WotC, like Ryan Dancey's statements when he was the WotC VP in charge of D&D, or WotC's own FAQ, about the OGL being irrevocable and how WotC can't rescind it and if they release a new edition the old ones will still be valid is relevant evidence for interpreting Section 9 of the OGL and the idea of "authorized" versions. . .to say that WotC can't arbitrarily just "de authorize" any version of the OGL.




I want to say the FAQ uses "acceptable" instead of "authorized" when mentioning it:



> *7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?*
> 
> Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

S'mon said:


> Still I don't think judges take the Mad Hatter approach "It means whatever I say it means", either.



I mean there are good DMs and bad DMs, and sometimes you end up with a bad one that yells "I am the law"


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Cadence said:


> I want to say the FAQ uses "acceptable" instead of "authorized" when mentioning it:



in context it quite clearly means acceptable to you ("you" being the reader). it's not "instead of" authorized - it's referring to a different concept entirely.


----------



## Voadam

GMforPowergamers said:


> you do remember that there are people, gamers we all have things in common with, working on this right.



I expect there is an explanation to how something like this gets leaked.

I don't think it was a deliberate WotC corporate leak.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Tales and Chronicles said:


> or maybe Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its probably OGL though.



It apparently is not. In a worst-case scenario, Shadow of the Weird Wizard will end up having been well-timed.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean there are good DMs and bad DMs, and sometimes you end up with a bad one that yells "I am the law"



Wait, that makes you a bad one?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> If your margin is less than 20% of the price of your product, eventually you run into trouble.
> 
> Say your product costs $10 to produce, inclusive of all production and shipping costs.
> You add $1 to that, as your profit margin.
> 
> You sell 68,181 units.  You have total revenue of $749,991, and a profit of $68,181, at $1 per unit.
> 
> You sell _another_ 68,181 units.  You have a total revenue of $1,499,982.
> Your revenue minus production cost is $1 per unit.  That's $136,362.
> But you also now owe WotC 20% of revenue over $750K.  That's $149,998.20
> 
> You now owe WotC more than you made off the product. For selling twice the units, you've gone from a $68,181 profit to a _loss in excess of $13K!_



that is a very different scenario than what I replied to.


----------



## Morrus

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yeah, I've been spending my off day looking for non-OGL games I have at home.
> 
> Fantasy AGE will probably be my next game. Do someone know the proposed release date of the new Core Book? (@Aldarc )
> 
> or maybe Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its probably OGL though.



That sounds like you're punishing the OGL creators, not WotC.


----------



## S'mon

Voadam said:


> I expect there is an explanation to how something like this gets leaked.
> 
> I don't think it was a deliberate WotC corporate leak.




Well it could be a non-WoTC person violating an NDA.


----------



## Dreamscape

Voadam said:


> I don't think it was a deliberate WotC corporate leak.



WotC would have to be pretty naive if they thought someone wouldn't leak it, though. But then the current set of execs don't seem to be entirely of this planet...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Voadam said:


> I expect there is an explanation to how something like this gets leaked.
> 
> I don't think it was a deliberate WotC corporate leak.



Despite how they get portrayed in fiction (including cable pundits' blabbing), leaks are almost always true-believers inside an organization who have tried and failed to get a problem solved through the right channels and are leaking or talking to the press as a last-ditch effort.


----------



## schneeland

EllisEthel said:


> Developers outside of WoTC might look to other systems and perhaps this will create a flood of new exciting mechanics that move the industry to new levels of cool.



Finally everything can be rebuilt on top of a 2d6 system just like Dave intended


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> On the surface I don't have an issue with that either.  It's the _rest _of the stuff in there, and how it's being presented, that makes me dubius that they'll keep it to $750,000.



Sure. I get where you're coming from. I don't really see the problem with the numbers as they are now, though.


----------



## Gammadoodler

GMforPowergamers said:


> my understanding is the anyone can get a C&D written for anything, you don't need backing unless the person you issue it to pushes back.  The problem is when the 800lbs gorilla pushes you run you don't push back.



What I mean is, who is going to make the brave (or simply foolhardy) 3pp who do not abide by the order to stop operating..stop.

Not a lawyer, but I'd expect you'd need something from a judge that is enforceable by some version of law enforcement.

To get that 'something' from a judge, I'd expect WOTC to need to present a legal argument that the judge finds sufficient merit in to grant that 'something'.

If their argument fails, is there, then, legal precedent which is contrary to their interests?

Edit: Basically, if it's all stick no carrot, they're gonna have to beat at least one person with that stick., right?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Gammadoodler said:


> What I mean is, who is going to make the brave (or simply foolhardy) 3pp who do not abide by the order to stop operating..stop.
> 
> Not a lawyer, but I'd expect you'd need something from a judge that is enforceable by some version of law enforcement.
> 
> To get that 'something' from a judge, I'd expect WOTC to need to present a legal argument that the judge finds sufficient merit in to grant that 'something'.
> 
> If their argument fails, is there, then, legal precedent which is contrary to their interests?



yup... but that 'Brave' (I think foolhardy is closer to right) 3pp could spend a ton of money getting a lawyer filing the paperwork and a lot of billable time... going up against the much better paid and equiped law team.

Then it comes down to how well you argue as much as how right you are.


----------



## Morrus

Gammadoodler said:


> What I mean is, who is going to make the brave (or simply foolhardy) 3pp who do not abide by the order to stop operating..stop.



We'll all be looking to Paizo for leadership!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

schneeland said:


> Finally everything can be rebuilt on top of a 2d6 system just like Dave intended



joke all you want I made a (VERY BAD) d12 system that was basicly D&D with weird subsystems. Now I'm not publishing it (again it's very bad) but it can be done


----------



## Gammadoodler

GMforPowergamers said:


> yup... but that 'Brave' (I think foolhardy is closer to right) 3pp could spend a ton of money getting a lawyer filing the paperwork and a lot of billable time... going up against the much better paid and equiped law team.
> 
> Then it comes down to how well you argue as much as how right you are.



Let's say you don't get an attorney (unwise though that would be). You just keep selling books. Someone has to make you stop, someone with legal authority to jail you, fine you or whatever if you disobey them, and that someone needs to have legal direction to take such action against you. 

What would that legal direction be, and how easily could it be obtained?


----------



## Morrus

Gammadoodler said:


> Let's say you don't get an attorney (unwise though that would be). You just keep selling books. Someone has to make you stop, someone with legal authority to jail you, fine you or whatever if you disobey them, and that someone needs to have legal direction to take such action against you.
> 
> What would that legal direction be, and how easily could it be obtained?



A court order, which would be enforced by the courts in the usual manner against people who defy court orders. Plus takedowns, etc. Eventually bailiffs would turn up and take your car. Well, that's the silly end situation which it would never get to.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

EllisEthel said:


> This might seem controversial….but maybe it’d be a good thing?



I agree. If this goes through, there will be hurt for many creators. But I think it will lead to very fertile ground for creativity and creators to move to new pastures. In my head, I much prefer WOTC to either entirely back down or commit, the in between scenario where everyone reluctantly agrees to an undesirable compromise is the worst outcome.



Reynard said:


> Even when D&D was literally DYINGin the late 90s, nothing stepped in to fill its role. If TSR had died then, it is quite possible RPGs as anything more than a niche hobby would have died, too. For better or worse, D&D is the role-playing game industry.



Except that this was a lifetime ago in a world that was entirely different than the one we live in today. The internet was barely a thing. The amount of zines, systems, variants, new mechanics and modules being created right now is absolutely mindblowing. If quantity is the measure, we live in a golden age of roleplaying. Nowadays creators have means to connect, form communities; they have means to create, redact and test their games much easier; they have the means to do layout and distribution much easier; art has democratized a ton in the last twenty years and is much more affordable than it was.

The image I have in my head is a forest fire. It's terrible, countless animals and trees burn in the process. It's not desirable. But if it does happen, the silver lining is that the forest grows back after.


----------



## mamba

Gammadoodler said:


> Let's say you don't get an attorney (unwise though that would be). You just keep selling books. Someone has to make you stop, someone with legal authority to jail you, fine you or whatever if you disobey them, and that someone needs to have legal direction to take such action against you.
> 
> What would that legal direction be, and how easily could it be obtained?



Not sure what you are looking for. WotC will sue you, the court will make you stop.


----------



## eyeheartawk

In even a best case scenario where Wizards walks this back 100% I expect most publishers at some point in the future, sooner or later, to separate their games from the OGL. Now that it's no longer sacrosanct you can't expose your business to that level of outside risk.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

TheAlkaizer said:


> I agree. If this goes through, there will be hurt for many creators. But I think it will lead to very fertile ground for creativity and creators to move to new pastures.



Most of them will move to the pastures known as "a full-time job in another industry."

Most people who are passionate about game design are already doing it.


----------



## Reynard

TheAlkaizer said:


> Except that this was a lifetime ago in a world that was entirely different than the one we live in today. The internet was barely a thing. The amount of zines, systems, variants, new mechanics and modules being created right now is absolutely mindblowing. If quantity is the measure, we live in a golden age of roleplaying. Nowadays creators have means to connect, form communities; they have means to create, redact and test their games much easier; they have the means to do layout and distribution much easier; art has democratized a ton in the last twenty years and is much more affordable than it was.



If D&D currently had a viable competitor I might be inclined to believe it could happen. But it doesn't. Even in this "golden age" when NO ONE has to buy D&D to play RPGs (or even play D&D, really). yet here we are.


----------



## Charlaquin

Gammadoodler said:


> What I mean is, who is going to make the brave (or simply foolhardy) 3pp who do not abide by the order to stop operating..stop.
> 
> Not a lawyer, but I'd expect you'd need something from a judge that is enforceable by some version of law enforcement.
> 
> To get that 'something' from a judge, I'd expect WOTC to need to present a legal argument that the judge finds sufficient merit in to grant that 'something'.
> 
> If their argument fails, is there, then, legal precedent which is contrary to their interests?
> 
> Edit: Basically, if it's all stick no carrot, they're gonna have to beat at least one person with that stick., right?



You want to be the one who volunteers to get beaten with it? I imagine not, and neither does anyone else.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> If D&D currently had a viable competitor I might be inclined to believe it could happen. But it doesn't. Even in this "golden age" when NO ONE has to buy D&D to play RPGs (or even play D&D, really). yet here we are.



Did it have a viable competitor before 4e ?


----------



## schneeland

GMforPowergamers said:


> joke all you want I made a (VERY BAD) d12 system that was basicly D&D with weird subsystems. Now I'm not publishing it (again it's very bad) but it can be done



Only half-joking - I like 2d6-based systems (and Dave's contribution to D&D). And I guess a lot of us have half-finished homebrew systems on their hard drives*. Maybe some of these homebrews will actually be completed if WotC insists that slash-and-burn is the way.

* Mine oscillates between B/X-like OSR stuff and newer indie systems with other roots. I think the latest draft used a d6 dice pool-system, but there are older versions that work with 2d6 +/- (small) modifiers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

mamba said:


> Did it have a viable competitor before 4e ?



Runequest, Traveller, the World of Darkness games all had their moments.


----------



## darjr

Morrus said:


> We'll all be looking to Paizo for leadership!



A lot of folks are looking to you. Folks in the industry wondering what you will do.


----------



## mamba

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Runequest, Traveller, the World of Darkness games all had their moments.



yet none ate its lunch during the 4e phase, a newcomer did, wonder if that will repeat (even if the same scenario is not really possible)


----------



## eyeheartawk

Charlaquin said:


> You want to be the one who volunteers to get beaten with it? I imagine not, and neither does anyone else.



Hasbro is 100% betting on that. They know they "can't". You gotta take a multi-billion dollar corp to court to make them stop though. Who's got pockets deep enough for that? Paizo? Goodman? Anyone else in the market? 

Nope.


----------



## wingsandsword

eyeheartawk said:


> In even a best case scenario where Wizards walks this back 100% I expect most publishers at some point in the future, sooner or later, to separate their games from the OGL. Now that it's no longer sacrosanct you can't expose your business to that level of outside risk.




Yeah, after this the only way I could see them getting goodwill back is to release a version of the OGL that is the OGL 1.0a. . .but with one small alteration. . .a clause specifically saying it is irrevocable and that it cannot be rescinded, unapproved, "de authorized" or anything similar by WotC.

Specifically put an unambiguous and explicit clause in there saying that the OGL version they're releasing can never be walked back. . .like they tried to do with 1.0a.


----------



## Turbiales

I don't think it will be feasible to invalidate 1.0a even it isn't "authorized".

There is a lot of other SRD using the 1.0a as for example, Pathfinder, Traveller, Legend... Wizards simply cannot impose their terms to anybody that doesn't aagree to use v1.1


----------



## TheAlkaizer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Most of them will move to the pastures known as "a full-time job in another industry."



Well, most of the creators in the industry are not doing it full-time already. So the minuscule portion of those that do might have to yes. But the thousand others that have no interest in doing content for 5E might see their part of the industry grow and potentially have a chance to send more time creating content.



Reynard said:


> If D&D currently had a viable competitor I might be inclined to believe it could happen. But it doesn't. Even in this "golden age" when NO ONE has to buy D&D to play RPGs (or even play D&D, really). yet here we are.



I think an event like that is a possible catalyst for having competitors form. It's very common for popularity to attract popularity. Creators make content for 5E because that's where the money is, then 5E becomes more popular and attracts more creator. It's a very common feedback loop.

I'm not saying it will happen, but maybe having a few other systems grow in popularity will create opportunities and make it so some new players will enter the hobby through a different gate.


----------



## Alzrius

TheAlkaizer said:


> I agree. If this goes through, there will be hurt for many creators. But I think it will lead to very fertile ground for creativity and creators to move to new pastures.



There's a PhD dissertation written about open licenses in general, and the OGL in particular, that argues that such licenses create and abet the fertile ground you're talking about. Prior to this debacle, the OGL was a force for, rather than a detriment to, creativity.


----------



## Gammadoodler

mamba said:


> Not sure what you are looking for. WotC will sue you, the court will make you stop.



What I'm looking for, ultimately is...

..how high a bar does WOTC need to clear to get the court to issue that order (i.e.: is it likely to be difficult/expensive for them), and..
..if they don't clear it, have they established contrary legal precedent


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

mamba said:


> yet none ate its lunch during the 4e phase, a newcomer did, wonder if that will repeat (even if the same scenario is not really possible)



I think a diaspora is much more likely. There are a _lot_ of choices out there already and there will be even more in the coming years.

Will there be a single behemoth? Probably not. But I'm not sure that matters. Discovery no longer relies on having a bunch of kids in your middle school playing a game at lunch. YouTube and Kickstarter are introducing people to tiny little niche games that grow enough to be a profitable hobby or even a full-time job for a small group of people -- enough that they can keep them going as long as they're inclined to do so.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

Alzrius said:


> There's a PhD dissertation written about open licenses in general, and the OGL in particular, that argues that such licenses create and abet the fertile ground you're talking about. Prior to this debacle, the OGL was a force for, rather than a detriment to, creativity.



And I'd agree that it 100% was. I don't think we would have the ecosystem that we have to day without it. But this license is tied and controlled by a multi-billion hyper-capitalist entity. Maybe it's time to move to a new model and/or license. Industries grow over time and have to change. I'm not saying a post-OGL era will be good and is desirable, the truth is that I don't know. I'm just saying it could be.


----------



## Aldarc

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yeah, I've been spending my off day looking for non-OGL games I have at home.
> 
> Fantasy AGE will probably be my next game. Do someone know the proposed release date of the new Core Book? (@Aldarc )
> 
> or maybe Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its probably OGL though.



No idea at this point. The releases of the Fantasy AGE revision and Shadow of the Weird Wizard seem to keep getting pushed back indefinitely. There are so many times that they can say "soon" before I move on to other games with more reliable release schedules.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Morrus said:


> That sounds like you're punishing the OGL creators, not WotC.



yeah, I can see that...

But is there a way to support small creators without lining the pockets (I think that's the expression) of the company who's kinda preying upon them?


----------



## eyeheartawk

I'm not suggesting anything, but, you know, FATAL doesn't use the OGL.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

eyeheartawk said:


> I'm not suggesting anything, but, you know, FATAL doesn't use the OGL.



Good family fun for everyone!


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> yet none ate its lunch during the 4e phase, a newcomer did, wonder if that will repeat (even if the same scenario is not really possible)



Paizo did not appear out of nowhere. It had a great reputation as a producer of D&D specifically, and succeeded by promising to continue to produce D&D.


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think a diaspora is much more likely. There are a _lot_ of choices out there already and there will be even more in the coming years.
> 
> Will there be a single behemoth? Probably not. But I'm not sure that matters. Discovery no longer relies on having a bunch of kids in your middle school playing a game at lunch. YouTube and Kickstarter are introducing people to tiny little niche games that grow enough to be a profitable hobby or even a full-time job for a small group of people -- enough that they can keep them going as long as they're inclined to do so.



There probably will be a single behemoth. D&D. We’re fooling ourselves if we think the majority of fans will walk away over this. Casual fans, certainly not. New with 5E fans, not likely. Hell, even many of us crusty old folks will likely just grit our teeth and keep on keeping on. A small slice of fans will revolt and be mad and play other stuff or quit the hobby. Same as every edition change. 

Look at Critical Role. Their YouTube has nearly 2 million subscribers. How many people play D&D world wide? About 50 million. So the whole of CR fandom is what…4% of D&D’s fan base. WotC would notice if they all left en masse. But would even that be enough to stop them? Not likely.


----------



## wingsandsword

mamba said:


> Did it have a viable competitor before 4e ?



In the late 90's, for a little while circa 1997/1998, Vampire was selling as well as D&D.

This was when White Wolf was still doing quite well, and D&D was at its all time nadir, but there definitely was a period in the mid-to-late 90's when White Wolf was in the same tier as TSR in terms of prominence in the gaming industry.

White Wolf then began to fade slowly as the whole 90's goth trend waned, and 3e came out and invigorated D&D


----------



## mamba

Gammadoodler said:


> What I'm looking for, ultimately is...
> 
> ..how high a bar does WOTC need to clear to get the court to issue that order (i.e.: is it likely to be difficult/expensive for them), and..
> ..if they don't clear it, have they established contrary legal precedent



it will be expensive for *you*, maybe them too, but somehow I feel that what is expensive for you is a drop in the bucket for them


----------



## Incenjucar

If this goes down in the worst way, I'm hoping that a good chunk of the bigger names in the industry work together to form a true open license system, and from there the only control they can exert is whether or not your material is officially recognized and listed as a very mild incentive to create distance between products that do and do not have reasonable community standards.


----------



## Scribe

overgeeked said:


> Look at Critical Role. Their YouTube has nearly 2 million subscribers. How many people play D&D world wide? About 50 million. So the whole of CR fandom is what…4% of D&D’s fan base. WotC would notice if they all left en masse. But would even that be enough to stop them? Not likely.




While I agree with the conceptual numbers, I think the 2 Million CR fans, are much more important that 2 Million 'not hyper engaged' fans.

If that crowd rallies against what Wizards is doing, it will make waves online.


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> yet none ate its lunch during the 4e phase, a newcomer did, wonder if that will repeat (even if the same scenario is not really possible)



Paizo wasn't a newcomer. They were the publishers of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and comprised of ex-WotC employees.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

wingsandsword said:


> White Wolf then began to fade slowly as the whole 90's goth trend waned, and 3e came out and invigorated D&D



You have to give White Wolf credit for a lot of its decline. It made a lot of bad decisions and then was unable to fully dig themselves back out of the deep hole they had created with the NWoD.


----------



## S'mon

Morrus said:


> A court order, which would be enforced by the courts in the usual manner against people who defy court orders. Plus takedowns, etc. Eventually bailiffs would turn up and take your car. Well, that's the silly end situation which it would never get to.




WoTC would likely seek an interim injunction from the judge, which would require a _prima facie_ case from them and a decision on balance of convenience.  I think it's unlikely to be granted with something like this where there's a contractual dispute, as opposed to obvious trade mark infringement & piracy.


----------



## Lidgar

Speaking of Kickstarter...now I'm wondering what may happen to some of currently funded Kickstarters that rely on the OGL. 

For example, I funded the Dark Tower (GG) KS - fervently hoping that still sees the light of day.


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> Paizo wasn't a newcomer. They were the publishers of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and comprised of ex-WotC employees.



granted, new to publishing rulebooks though. That is more what I was thinking of, that a new RPG can come out of leftfield


----------



## jerryrice4949

I am interested to see if WoTC responds.  Seems like OGL 1.1 has been delayed at least a little.


----------



## billd91

Lidgar said:


> Speaking of Kickstarter...now I'm wondering what may happen to some of currently funded Kickstarters that rely on the OGL.
> 
> For example, I funded the Dark Tower (GG) KS - fervently hoping that still sees the light of day.



Same here. Plus MCDM's big Flee project as well as Griffon's Saddlebag volume 2.


----------



## mamba

billd91 said:


> Same here. Plus MCDM's big Flee project as well as Griffon's Saddlebag volume 2.



MCDM apparently said they do not feel it affects them, guess they were not using the OGL to begin with


----------



## Gammadoodler

Charlaquin said:


> You want to be the one who volunteers to get beaten with it? I imagine not, and neither does anyone else.



Of course not, and I'm not suggesting anyone _should_. 

I'm saying that WoTC has chosen to take an aggressive stance with a bad PR outlook with, what appears to be, ambiguous legal backing against a group of folks who are, I'd guess, typically more independent and less legally sophisticated than Hasbro's other corporate partners. 

I'd be very surprised if some combination of that independence/lack of legal sophistication doesn't result in WoTC having to win at least one court case. 

If a loss in that one court case could invalidate all their leverage, why risk it?


----------



## Bitbrain

mamba said:


> it is not, will have to take a look at Fantasy AGE  Building up my non-OGL library now




Shadow of the Demon Lord would be safe then?  I’ll have to check it out.


----------



## billd91

mamba said:


> MCDM apparently said they do not feel it affects them, guess they were not using the OGL to begin with



No, Flee Mortals definitely uses OGL 1.0a. I suspect his legal advisor must think the OGL 1.0a is sufficiently irrevocable to use or the product is sufficiently covered by it in its current state.


----------



## Voadam

Gammadoodler said:


> Of course not, and I'm not suggesting anyone _should_.
> 
> I'm saying that WoTC has chosen to take an aggressive stance with a bad PR outlook with, what appears to be, ambiguous legal backing against a group of folks who are, I'd guess, typically more independent and less legally sophisticated than Hasbro's other corporate partners.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if some combination of that independence/lack of legal sophistication doesn't result in WoTC having to win at least one court case.
> 
> If a loss in that one court case could invalidate all their leverage, why risk it?



If you have to make a tougher argument, going against an independent with a "lack of legal sophistication," that is about as good of an adversarial legal opponent as you can hope for in case establishing a precedent.

Also once actually engaged in the litigation, the costs will eat at the smaller guy, and can drag on, and require doing a lot of unexpected stuff they were not really aware of, and be stressful, giving them an increasing incentive to settle on terms favorable to WotC.


----------



## wingsandsword

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You have to give White Wolf credit for a lot of its decline. It made a lot of bad decisions and then was unable to fully dig themselves back out of the deep hole they had created with the NWoD.




I'll be honest, I always wondered what White Wolf did that ruined them.

I remember when NWoD was coming out, I recall it had much improved game mechanics and a substantially improved system. . .but the setting/lore stuff was much worse than original WoD.

I recall a brief scandal about them trying to charge all larp groups a pay-to-play fee to use their larp rules and that failing miserably, but I figure they had to do a lot more to really ruin themselves.  It's probably been 15 years since I've seen a White Wolf book in a gaming store.


----------



## Charlaquin

wingsandsword said:


> I'll be honest, I always wondered what White Wolf did that ruined them.
> 
> I remember when NWoD was coming out, I recall it had much improved game mechanics and a substantially improved system. . .but the setting/lore stuff was much worse than original WoD.



Mmm… The setting and lore was much _different_, but I would argue much more thematically cohesive. Better or worse is a matter of preference.


wingsandsword said:


> I recall a brief scandal about them trying to charge all larp groups a pay-to-play fee to use their larp rules and that failing miserably, but I figure they had to do a lot more to really ruin themselves.  It's probably been 15 years since I've seen a White Wolf book in a gaming store.



Thats because they went all print-on-demand.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

wingsandsword said:


> I'll be honest, I always wondered what White Wolf did that ruined them.
> 
> I remember when NWoD was coming out, I recall it had much improved game mechanics and a substantially improved system. . .but the setting/lore stuff was much worse than original WoD.
> 
> I recall a brief scandal about them trying to charge all larp groups a pay-to-play fee to use their larp rules and that failing miserably, but I figure they had to do a lot more to really ruin themselves.  It's probably been 15 years since I've seen a White Wolf book in a gaming store.



They were bought by CCP Games in 2006, in order to produce a World of Darkness MMO. RPG production dwindled and the MMO never materialised.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> Did it have a viable competitor before 4e ?



white wolf
rifts


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> Mmm… The setting and lore was much _different_, but I would argue much more thematically cohesive. Better or worse is a matter of preference.



Other than Mage, I'd say the NWoD stuff was better written and better thought-out, but the NWoD was the second of two big moves they made to alienate OWoD fans and it was a very tough sell for many of them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> yet none ate its lunch during the 4e phase, a newcomer did, wonder if that will repeat (even if the same scenario is not really possible)



becuse the only thing to beat D&D so far has been D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Gammadoodler said:


> What I'm looking for, ultimately is...
> 
> ..how high a bar does WOTC need to clear to get the court to issue that order (i.e.: is it likely to be difficult/expensive for them), and..
> ..if they don't clear it, have they established contrary legal precedent



most likely if you aren't sending grade A lawyers with high Billables to oppose them... there team's JR most member can do it in there sleep.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Lidgar said:


> For example, I funded the Dark Tower (GG) KS - fervently hoping that still sees the light of day.



I would be shocked if it didn't get released. Goodman has an agreement for the rest of the OAR line (which republishes TSR stuff for the existing books) and it would be a weird move for WotC to tell them they can't release the former Judges Guild book.


----------



## Cadence

Morrus said:


> That sounds like you're punishing the OGL creators, not WotC.




What makes me feel especially sad is that the vast majority of 3PP things I've purchased over the past two decades (from a ton of PF things to some more recent 5e adjacent things) have been explicitly because they went with the OGL and I could at least dream of the heartbreaker I would roll them into.  

Not sad (much) that I spent the money, but that I can't see myself buying many without that unless someone locally decides to run one or I can see running it.


----------



## whimsychris123

Is it possible that the language is merely stating that if you use the 1.1 license, the old license is no longer considered authorized? In other words, if I publish something under the 1.1 license, I may not use the past license to defend my use of WotC’s IP. Perhaps they are not attacking those products under the old license, just stating that if you use the new one, say goodbye to the old one.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> granted, new to publishing rulebooks though. That is more what I was thinking of, that a new RPG can come out of leftfield



But it didn't. It literally was the continuing of D&D for those that did not like 4E. That's the big difference,  I think, that is goingvto make this very different than the GSL: this change in license is not tied to an "unpopular" edition change. There can't really be "a Pathfinder" when WotC isn't abandoning "real D&D."

Please not my use of quotation marks to indicate I am not making any statements about 4E, just how it was perceived at the time.


----------



## wingsandsword

jerryrice4949 said:


> I am interested to see if WoTC responds.  Seems like OGL 1.1 has been delayed at least a little.



I do wonder if this was a controlled, intentional leak to test the waters and see JUST how controversial this would be in the community and what the responses would be.


----------



## Yaarel

wingsandsword said:


> I do wonder if this was a controlled, intentional leak to test the waters and see JUST how controversial this would be in the community and what the responses would be.



A "trial balloon" does sometimes happen.


----------



## overgeeked

whimsychris123 said:


> Is it possible that the language is merely stating that if you use the 1.1 license, the old license is no longer considered authorized? In other words, if I publish something under the 1.1 license, I may not use the past license to defend my use of WotC’s IP. Perhaps they are not attacking those products under the old license, just stating that if you use the new one, say goodbye to the old one.



If that’s the case they’re just shooting themselves in the foot. No one would use the new license and keep on using the old and now most of the industry is mad at them.


----------



## darjr

I’ll say one thing, I dint think I’ve seen the swath of D&D fandom so united or at least so heavily to one side of a particular issue.


----------



## overgeeked

mamba said:


> MCDM apparently said they do not feel it affects them, guess they were not using the OGL to begin with



They are. They even included the license in the back of the playtest for Flee, Mortals!


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> I’ll say one thing, I dint think I’ve seen the swath of D&D fandom so united or at least so heavily to one side of a particular issue.



True. I also don't think I've seen WotC make such an hostile move.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> But it didn't. It literally was the continuing of D&D for those that did not like 4E. That's the big difference,  I think, that is goingvto make this very different than the GSL: this change in license is not tied to an "unpopular" edition change. There can't really be "a Pathfinder" when WotC isn't abandoning "real D&D."



the point was D&D became unpopular, the reason is not that important. It could become sufficiently unpopular over this too for a competitor to have an opening


----------



## MNblockhead

Ruin Explorer said:


> They probably didn't. Because that bit is "legally inert", it may well have been verbiage whoever is in charge of this wanted put in. As it's "inert", it doesn't really matter either way if it's there or not, and it's easier to say yes to the pushy individual who wants it in.
> 
> EDIT - What it does suggest is that, whoever is in charge of this has quite a lot of shall we say, "attitude", and may be attempting a bit of "How do you do fellow kids".



Since it was sent as a text document with all formatting removed. I wonder if it was a discussion document with in-line or Word comments and these get intermingled in the txt file without any formatting to note it is a comment.  The final draft almost certainly won't read like this, but things are moving so fast I hesitate to make any guess.


----------



## whimsychris123

overgeeked said:


> If that’s the case they’re just shooting themselves in the foot. No one would use the new license and keep on using the old and now most of the industry is mad at them.



They didn’t release this OGL nor have they explained their intentions behind it. We don’t know the reaction of the industry to the new OGL because they signed an NDA. So far, they are mum except for Matt Colville who doesn’t thing it will affect him. Maybe we are overreacting. Maybe not. We’ll see, I guess.


----------



## TheSword

I think what this does is put a revenue cap on 3pp as 25% of revenue is a huge proportion - albeit only on revenue over $1m. Sell a book for $40 shelf price. It costs $10 to print. $5 to distribute. The vendor takes $10 markup. Leaving $15 left of which WOC is gets two thirds. Not pretty - when you have to cover the other overheads of expansion.

Basically, don’t sell more than a million $ or else.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MNblockhead said:


> Since it was sent as a text document with all formatting removed. I wonder if it was a discussion document with in-line or Word comments and these get intermingled in the txt file without any formatting to note it is a comment.  The final draft almost certainly won't read like this, but things are moving so fast I hesitate to make any guess.



I don't know. It doesn't sound like a comment to me. It could be. But it sounds more like someone who is really not transparent or straightforward trying to be transparent or straightforward, but actually landing on "needless jerk" (ummmm not that I've never landed there unintentionally). But it is hard to rule anything out.


----------



## FormerLurker

I keep saying I'm done with message boards (they just trigger me emotionally and make me depressed) but this news is just too much and I need to vent somewhere...

Reading the reports and leaks, to me it feels like this is a move from either Hasbro or the upper management at Wizards of the Coast and the leak is someone on the Dungeons & Dragons team knowing this is a terrible move and trying to save the brand from itself. 
Repealing the old Open Game License alone would have huge ripples through the industry. Paizo would have to shut down. As would Pelgrane Press, which is just setting-up the second edition of 13th Age. Any publisher selling old product on DriveThru would have to remove them. 
I imagine Paizo would have no choice but to bring the matter to court to argue over what "authorized" meant in the license, likely bringing in Dancey and others. I'd expect a GoFundMe to help supplement their legal costs. 

Heck, what does it mean for Fate by Evil Hat Games, which doesn't use the D&D SRD but does use the 1.0a OGL?!?
Licensing Fate (OGL)

Plus there are the other worrying claims from Codega's tweets: 


> "Physical books and PDFs are the ONLY content covered in the OGL 1.1. “It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."



That would seem to exclude YouTube and Twitch. Which would affect Critical Role, Dimension 20, Matt Colville, QueueTimes, and a bajillion other monetized D&D YouTube channels. Heck, even Order of the Stick and other webcomics wouldn't qualify!! 
This would literally be turning D&D's biggest champions and most vocal fans—the ones with the biggest audiences—into either competition or disgruntled former fans. 

If this does go through, there really needs to be a coordinated boycotting and protest. Not just not buying books, but also supporting other publishers and their legal efforts. I really hope freelancers and other people in the industry join in and eschew working for WotC.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> Basically, don’t sell more than a million $ or else.



$750k, not $1m.

It's even worse - you could easily end up actively losing money with each sale if your profit margin is under 20%, which is not entirely uncommon as I understand it (Jon Ritter seemed to be noting this earlier).


----------



## Incenjucar

darjr said:


> I’ll say one thing, I dint think I’ve seen the swath of D&D fandom so united or at least so heavily to one side of a particular issue.



The information we have available has no upside for players, DMs, designers, or the industry as a whole. It's not even a clean "We have cancelled OGL" which would at least force everyone to flip the table and make their own game. It instead makes success something that 3P designers have to _worry_ about happening, which kills the options and size of the player base for everyone else. Plus, if they can make the courts agree that they can negate old OGLs, they can now just do whatever whenever.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FormerLurker said:


> That would seem to exclude YouTube and Twitch. Which would affect Critical Role, Dimension 20, Matt Colville, QueueTimes, and a bajillion other monetized D&D YouTube channels. Heck, even Order of the Stick and other webcomics wouldn't qualify!!



They don't normally use the OGL unless they're releasing products, though. You don't need the OGL to release a video about D&D or to play D&D on video.

Though it is extremely weird WotC went out of the way to say stuff like pantomime wasn't covered. Not sure what's going on there.


----------



## techno

I spend thousands of $ every year on D&D books and miniatures. If this happens, I will never buy anything that benefits WOTC or Hasbro in any way ever again.


----------



## mamba

FormerLurker said:


> That would seem to exclude YouTube and Twitch. Which would affect Critical Role, Dimension 20, Matt Colville, QueueTimes, and a bajillion other monetized D&D YouTube channels. Heck, even Order of the Stick and other webcomics wouldn't qualify!!
> This would literally be turning D&D's biggest champions and most vocal fans—the ones with the biggest audiences—into either competition or disgruntled former fans.



Youtube etc. would fall under the fan policy, CR might get a separate individual license



FormerLurker said:


> If this does go through, there really needs to be a coordinated boycotting and protest. Not just not buying books, but also supporting other publishers and their legal efforts. I really hope freelancers and other people in the industry join in and eschew working for WotC.



I am all for this, if there is a GoFundMe for this I will pitch in, I also won't buy anything Hasbro and will kickstart Weird Wizard  Other things tbd


----------



## Nikosandros

FormerLurker said:


> That would seem to exclude YouTube and Twitch. Which would affect Critical Role, Dimension 20, Matt Colville, QueueTimes, and a bajillion other monetized D&D YouTube channels. Heck, even Order of the Stick and other webcomics wouldn't qualify!!
> This would literally be turning D&D's biggest champions and most vocal fans—the ones with the biggest audiences—into either competition or disgruntled former fans.



Do you actually need the OGL to stream a D&D game? That would be surprising to me.


----------



## dbolack

mamba said:


> granted, new to publishing rulebooks though. That is more what I was thinking of, that a new RPG can come out of leftfield



Under that name? Yes. WotC published books when Lisa was there...


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> Though it is extremely weird WotC went out of the way to say stuff like pantomime wasn't covered. Not sure what's going on there.



LARP? Cosplay?


----------



## mamba

dbolack said:


> Under that name? Yes. WotC published books when Lisa was there...



Under what name ? I am not understanding your reply


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Nikosandros said:


> Do you actually need the OGL to stream a D&D game? That would be surprising to me.



pbft, no. it's fair use.


----------



## Staffan

TheSword said:


> I think what this does is put a revenue cap on 3pp as 25% of revenue is a huge proportion - albeit only on revenue over $1m. Sell a book for $40 shelf price. It costs $10 to print. $5 to distribute. The vendor takes $10 markup. Leaving $15 left of which WOC is gets two thirds. Not pretty - when you have to cover the other overheads of expansion.
> 
> Basically, don’t sell more than a million $ or else.



I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. If I publish something, my revenue is not what the game store eventually sell it for. My revenue is what *I* sell it for.

I don't know how well the old proportions have kept up these days, but as I understand it most RPG publishers sell to distributors at about half MSRP. So if my book has MSRP $40 and I sell 10,000 of them, my revenue is about $200,000 (what the distributor pays me), not $400,000 (what the end customers pay their FLGSs). This is of course a simplified calculation that ignores that I might do some direct sales (via Kickstarter or my website), or sell PDFs via DrivethruRPG, but it illustrates the point.

I mean, a 25% royalty on revenue is still horrible, but we don't have to make it *more* horrible.


----------



## jerryrice4949

wingsandsword said:


> I do wonder if this was a controlled, intentional leak to test the waters and see JUST how controversial this would be in the community and what the responses would be.



I don’t.  This was a  predictable  response and it will probably get worse.  Seems like an especially stupid move as they try and promote the movie.


----------



## Drake2000

Staffan said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. If I publish something, my revenue is not what the game store eventually sell it for. My revenue is what *I* sell it for.
> 
> I don't know how well the old proportions have kept up these days, but as I understand it most RPG publishers sell to distributors at about half MSRP. So if my book has MSRP $40 and I sell 10,000 of them, my revenue is about $200,000 (what the distributor pays me), not $400,000 (what the end customers pay their FLGSs). This is of course a simplified calculation that ignores that I might do some direct sales (via Kickstarter or my website), or sell PDFs via DrivethruRPG, but it illustrates the point.
> 
> I mean, a 25% royalty on revenue is still horrible, but we don't have to make it *more* horrible.



I am not up on the current distro discounts, but back in the '90s the distributor bought the books at 40% of the retail price, and some (most?) had a further 5% discount for payment within a certain time period (usually 30 days, although some tried to extend that to 45 or 60 days). The profit margins were _very _slim.


----------



## MockingBird

wingsandsword said:


> I do wonder if this was a controlled, intentional leak to test the waters and see JUST how controversial this would be in the community and what the responses would be.



I had the same thought. It does kinda feel that way.


----------



## Staffan

Drake2000 said:


> I am not up on the current distro discounts, but back in the '90s the distributor bought the books at 40% of the retail price, and some (most?) had a further 5% discount for payment within a certain time period (usually 30 days, although some tried to extend that to 45 or 60 days). The profit margins were _very _slim.



Right. The exact numbers weren't the point, the fact that the publisher's revenue is what they sell it to the distributor and not what the FLGS sells it to the consumer for was.


----------



## Yaarel

Nikosandros said:


> True. I also don't think I've seen WotC make such an hostile move.



WotC did this kind of hostile move just before 4e came out.


----------



## Nikosandros

Yaarel said:


> WotC did this kind of hostile move just before 4e came out.



IMHO, not on this scale. The GSL was very restrictive, but there was no talk of taking away the older OGL like now.


----------



## OB1

wingsandsword said:


> I do wonder if this was a controlled, intentional leak to test the waters and see JUST how controversial this would be in the community and what the responses would be.



I was thinking along the lines that this version of the 1.1 doc was meant as a hardball negotiating tactic with the biggest 3PPs to get them into more WotC friendly deal ahead of the real 1.1 license.  And now someone decided to play hardball back by leaking the doc, knowing the community would go into an uproar.


----------



## FormerLurker

Ruin Explorer said:


> They don't normally use the OGL unless they're releasing products, though. You don't need the OGL to release a video about D&D or to play D&D on video.





Nikosandros said:


> Do you actually need the OGL to stream a D&D game? That would be surprising to me.




You're using trademarked and copyrighted terms to make money. This feels a lot like making a TV show or film—even a fan film—which would be a legally grey area. Even when *not* monetized. Which most Twitch streams would be, as you're getting money from subscriptions. And most streamers namedrop the game (trademarked) and anyone running published adventures will be recited copyrighted read aloud text. 

It feels like they should be required to have the OGL in the video or channel description.


mamba said:


> Youtube etc. would fall under the fan policy, CR might get a separate individual license



Only if they're not monetized, and aren't running ads or taking sponsorship. Even mid-sized channels like Bob World Builder can have sponsors.


----------



## wingsandsword

Nikosandros said:


> IMHO, not on this scale. The GSL was very restrictive, but there was no talk of taking away the older OGL like now.




Given that Pathfinder was clearly D&D 4e's biggest competitor, it always seemed obvious that if WotC thought they could rescind the OGL, they would have.

This whole idea of the 1.1 OGL rescinding the 1.0a OGL sounds like some novel legal theory someone in their legal dept. came up with and they're seeing if it will fly.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FormerLurker said:


> You're using trademarked and copyrighted terms to make money. This feels a lot like making a TV show or film—even a fan film—which would be a legally grey area. Even when *not* monetized. Which most Twitch streams would be, as you're getting money from subscriptions. And most streamers namedrop the game (trademarked) and anyone running published adventures will be recited copyrighted read aloud text.
> 
> It feels like they should be required to have the OGL in the video or channel description.



LOL is really the only response to this.

I mean, it's kind of got a "I woke up from being in a coma since the 1990s and have OPINIONS about YouTube" vibe. Not trying to harsh but that ain't how it works, bud. That's never been how it works.


----------



## Haplo781

Has anybody shared this yet?


----------



## Voadam

Nikosandros said:


> IMHO, not on this scale. The GSL was very restrictive, but there was no talk of taking away the older OGL like now.



Yes there was. The original GSL had a provision where if you used it for a product line, you agreed to drop all OGL publishing in that product line forever, even if the GSL were terminated. This applied to prior products and future ones. So if Necromancer/Frog God had put out a 4e tome of horrors under that original license, they would have had to have dropped the 3e, 3.5, and Swords & Wizardry Tome of Horrors product lines, and never developed the Pathfinder or 5e ones.

This was what is referred to as the poison pill provision.

It was an attempt to cut off a bunch of OGL stuff through a separate license.

Nobody bit until WotC revised it to remove the poison pill provision and have the GSL just be a revocable at will license from WotC to produce certain 4e non core type things (modules, monster books, settings, different classes and such).


----------



## Nikosandros

Still not the same level. With the GLS, if you didn't want to use it (and you didn't need to unless you wanted to publish 4e material) WotC would let you be. Now (according to leaked information) they want to nuke all publishers that are using the OGL no matter if they want to publish for 1D&D or not. This would be destructive for Pathfinder, Level Up, a lot of OSR products, etc.


----------



## wingsandsword

Haplo781 said:


> Has anybody shared this yet?



That's excellent.

I gave up trying to debate the issue on Reddit because everywhere I was trying to argue it, making much the same legal points, I was getting people shouting at me that they had a link to some blog post by some lawyer saying WotC could do it, or that it was "obvious" that WotC was right, so I just left in frustration.


----------



## Voadam

Nikosandros said:


> Still not the same level. With the GLS, if you didn't want to use it (and you didn't need to unless you wanted to publish 4e material) WotC would let you be. Now (according to leaked information) they want to nuke all publishers that are using the OGL no matter if they want to publish for 1D&D or not. This would be destructive for Pathfinder, Level Up, a lot of OSR products, etc.



There is still some ambiguity from what I have seen of the leaked stuff, though I might not have seen it all.

"De-Authorizing" the prior OGL versions might be trying to revoke the 1.0 OGL licenses entirely. It might also be just an attempt to de-authorize for purposes of Section 9 of the 1.0 OGL so the 1.1 SRD OGC cannot be used under 1.0 as it is not an authorized license for the 1.1 OGC but leaving the 1.0 OGL intact for non 1.1 stuff. From what I have seen it is not clear to me what WotC's full position is on the effect of de-authorization.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Haplo781 said:


> Has anybody shared this yet?



very good to know at least someone is willing to fight this nonsense.


----------



## Cadence

Voadam said:


> There is still some ambiguity from what I have seen of the leaked stuff, though I might not have seen it all.
> 
> "De-Authorizing" the prior OGL versions might be trying to revoke the 1.0 OGL licenses entirely. It might also be just an attempt to de-authorize for purposes of Section 9 of the 1.0 OGL so the 1.1 SRD OGC cannot be used under 1.0 as it is not an authorized license for the 1.1 OGC but leaving the 1.0 OGL intact for non 1.1 stuff. From what I have seen it is not clear to me what WotC's full position is on the effect of de-authorization.




I really want to believe that...


----------



## overgeeked

Haplo781 said:


> Has anybody shared this yet?



That’s great. Here’s to hoping it at least gets a response.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> Has anybody shared this yet?



my god... that ending threatening to start a class action lawsuit. Nothing about this guy is getting in trouble by halfs...


----------



## Greg Benage

Haplo781 said:


> Has anybody shared this yet?



This...I think we have better lawyers at EnWorld.


----------



## FormerLurker

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL is really the only response to this.
> 
> I mean, it's kind of got a "I woke up from being in a coma since the 1990s and have OPINIONS about YouTube" vibe. Not trying to harsh but that ain't how it works, bud. That's never been how it works.



That's not really a counterargument... 
I made an argument with several points and you're basically saying "_nuh uh_" but not offering any opposing points.  

Yes, there are LOTS of fan films and the like on YouTube. But most aren't monetized. There are so many amazing Star Wars fan films on YouTube but Lucasfilm only cracks down if they use protected footage, images, logos, or music _or_ are making money. That's also how the Trek film _Prelude to Axanar_ ran into trouble...

Twitch and YouTube D&D streams are basically the same thing as a fan film. If someone is running _Shadow of the Dragon Queen_ they're reading from the book and maybe showing images from the adventure. Not making a profit _should _be a requirement.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FormerLurker said:


> I made an argument with several points and you're basically saying "_nuh uh_" but not offering any opposing points.



I mean, you don't need a counter-argument or opposing when facts and reality do your job for you.

It's like you're telling me they'll never have public libraries whilst we're standing in a public library or something. You can say "SHOULD!!!!" as much as you like and it's still not going to change how the world works.

I didn't make the comparison thinking about this but I note public libraries have been opposed on similar grounds to the logic (I use the term advisedly m'lud) you're employing.


----------



## FormerLurker

nm


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FormerLurker said:


> LOL is really the only response to this.



<3 Oh buddy, never mind, one day it'll work out.


----------



## Lidgar

Anyone else get the email that the Troll Lords are doing a fire sale on their 5e stuff? Title says “OGL Uncertainty? We have it too…”









						5E Fire Sale! $10 Dollar Hardbacks!
					

OGL uncertainty? We have it too... View as Webpage Save on all 5th Edition Content This year promises to be the biggest and brightest for Castles & Crusades and we intend on this being the year of Aih



					myemail.constantcontact.com
				







This year promises to be the biggest and brightest for Castles & Crusades and we intend on this being the year of Aihrde (our amazing world setting) so we need to make room in the warehouse for all our stuff. So with that in mind...

Fifth Edition Fire Sale!

FOUR TITLES

$10 dollars a book

Settings -- Sourcebooks

Plus $3.99 on all 5E adventures while supplies last!!

Help us clear out the Troll Dens!​




Our Future is Castles & Crusades, so help us clear out the warehouse and load up your bookshelves!​










						Troll Lord Games • Makers of Castles & Crusades and many other RPGs
					

Troll Lord Games




					www.trolllord.com


----------



## ChaosOS

The stance WotC seems to be taking is that Actual Plays are covered by the fan content policy, which would SEEM to suggest that you can't paywall your productions - which then imperil Dimension 20, which paywalls everything behind Dropout. Unclear if that would mean standard Twitch things, like subscriber-only VoDs or having early access for paying folks not permitted.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lidgar said:


> Anyone else get the email that the Troll Lords are doing a fire sale on their 5e stuff? Title says “OGL Uncertainty? We have it too…”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5E Fire Sale! $10 Dollar Hardbacks!
> 
> 
> OGL uncertainty? We have it too... View as Webpage Save on all 5th Edition Content This year promises to be the biggest and brightest for Castles & Crusades and we intend on this being the year of Aih
> 
> 
> 
> myemail.constantcontact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This year promises to be the biggest and brightest for Castles & Crusades and we intend on this being the year of Aihrde (our amazing world setting) so we need to make room in the warehouse for all our stuff. So with that in mind...​Fifth Edition Fire Sale!
> 
> FOUR TITLES
> 
> $10 dollars a book
> 
> Settings -- Sourcebooks
> 
> Plus $3.99 on all 5E adventures while supplies last!!
> 
> Help us clear out the Troll Dens!​
> 
> 
> 
> ​Our Future is Castles & Crusades, so help us clear out the warehouse and load up your bookshelves!​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll Lord Games • Makers of Castles & Crusades and many other RPGs
> 
> 
> Troll Lord Games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trolllord.com



good for them. That is what people should do try to turn this into an advertisement for there 5e content.


----------



## Mecheon

FormerLurker said:


> Twitch and YouTube D&D streams are basically the same thing as a fan film. If someone is running _Shadow of the Dragon Queen_ they're reading from the book and maybe showing images from the adventure. Not making a profit _should _be a requirement.



If someone's running a D&D campaign on Twitch, chances are they're not just playing a set module but instead something custom. Something completely divorved from Shadow of the Dragon Queen. Because, here's the thing, people watching it aren't there to see Shadow of the Dragon Queen. They're here to see the players and the characters they've played, and how they get through a situation

Like, you do know in Japan back in the day they used to sell novels that were basically campaign playthroughs, right? Twitch/Youtube streaming is just the modern version of this. Ever heard of a little show called Record of Lodoss War? That's just someone's D&D homebrew that sold well enough he managed to get an anime made of it. And multiple video games. I'm reasonably certain the Metroidvania Deedlit in Wonder Labyrinth is a better D&D game than anything that's been put out since NWN 2

You're basically saying that, rather than streaming their own custom world that just so happens to use the D&D rules, they should instead earn no money from it and be forced to pay WotC, when the heavy lifting is entirely the streamer's work and WotC is doing entirely zilch. I entirely disagree


----------



## mamba

Lidgar said:


> Anyone else get the email that the Troll Lords are doing a fire sale on their 5e stuff? Title says “OGL Uncertainty? We have it too…”



Got it too, interesting that they leave 5e when C&C is under the OGL too


----------



## darjr

Comic book com reports in this and spoke with several 3pp, quite front eh article


	
		In the meantime, several creators have told ComicBook.com that they've put their upcoming D&D projects on hold while waiting to see what the new OGL entails for them and whether it would even be profitable to move forward with them.
		
	
 Dungeons & Dragons Looks to Clamp Down on Competition With New OGL


----------



## deganawida

Lidgar said:


> Anyone else get the email that the Troll Lords are doing a fire sale on their 5e stuff? Title says “OGL Uncertainty? We have it too…”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5E Fire Sale! $10 Dollar Hardbacks!
> 
> 
> OGL uncertainty? We have it too... View as Webpage Save on all 5th Edition Content This year promises to be the biggest and brightest for Castles & Crusades and we intend on this being the year of Aih
> 
> 
> 
> myemail.constantcontact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This year promises to be the biggest and brightest for Castles & Crusades and we intend on this being the year of Aihrde (our amazing world setting) so we need to make room in the warehouse for all our stuff. So with that in mind...​Fifth Edition Fire Sale!
> 
> FOUR TITLES
> 
> $10 dollars a book
> 
> Settings -- Sourcebooks
> 
> Plus $3.99 on all 5E adventures while supplies last!!
> 
> Help us clear out the Troll Dens!​
> 
> 
> 
> ​Our Future is Castles & Crusades, so help us clear out the warehouse and load up your bookshelves!​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll Lord Games • Makers of Castles & Crusades and many other RPGs
> 
> 
> Troll Lord Games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trolllord.com



Yeah, I got it, sent it my best who’s our usual DM and who I’ve been trying to convince to play. He’s currently shopping there.


----------



## MockingBird

Haplo781 said:


> Has anybody shared this yet?



Oh boy, this is getting juicy!


----------



## FormerLurker

Mecheon said:


> If someone's running a D&D campaign on Twitch, chances are they're not just playing a set module but instead something custom. Something completely divorved from Shadow of the Dragon Queen. Because, here's the thing, people watching it aren't there to see Shadow of the Dragon Queen. They're here to see the players and the characters they've played, and how they get through a situation



I've seen both. There's a lot of streams of people playing published adventures. Especially _Curse of Strahd_. 

10 seconds of searching:



Mecheon said:


> You're basically saying that, rather than streaming their own custom world that just so happens to use the D&D rules, they should instead earn no money from it and be forced to pay WotC, when the heavy lifting is entirely the streamer's work and WotC is doing entirely zilch. I entirely disagree



I'm not _exactly_ saying that. 
I'm more pointing out you could make a strong argument that the standard fan film rule-of-thumb should apply to D&D streams: that people should be expected to do it for fun rather than profit. That it's not unprecedented for IP owners to crack down on fan content. 

Personally, I think the advertising aspect of streamed games is far more advantageous for WotC than any lost revenue. Streams are free publicity. However, it is a bit of a wild west on Twitch and YouTube and fans have been pushing the limits. It was a matter of time before WotC started establishing harder lines of acceptable content.


----------



## Yaarel

Nikosandros said:


> IMHO, not on this scale. The GSL was very restrictive, but there was no talk of taking away the older OGL like now.



At the time, WotC believed it was illegal to revoke the OGL. Now they believe it is legal.

In any case, WotC was draconian about rejecting the OGL and pushing its new GSL.


----------



## agrayday

think about how many 5E KS projects are in Design/Production mode right now getting nervous and trying to find an answer about how they will deliver their projects. I know i have two backed KS projects, and the creators already sent out notices saying they may need to think about how their projects get produced to system neutral or some other system.


----------



## FormerLurker

darjr said:


> Comic book com reports in this and spoke with several 3pp, quite front eh article
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, several creators have told ComicBook.com that they've put their upcoming D&D projects on hold while waiting to see what the new OGL entails for them and whether it would even be profitable to move forward with them.
> 
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Looks to Clamp Down on Competition With New OGL



I know I'll likely pull my content off the DMsGuild in protest if WotC actually goes ahead with this license. (Or just set the price to $0 so people can still get it but WotC makes no money.) 
I hope other content creators do something similar.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

agrayday said:


> think about how many 5E KS projects are in Design/Production mode right now getting nervous and trying to find an answer about how they will deliver their projects. I know i have two backed KS projects, and the creators already sent out notices saying they may need to think about how their projects get produced to system neutral or some other system.



If they are not for more then $750,000 they should be fine... if they are form MORE then that they need a lawyer and an accountant.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> If they are not for more then $750,000 they should be fine... if they are form MORE then that they need a lawyer and an accountant.



I guess the first question is, are they ok with being under 1.1, a license that can be changed or revoked at any time for no reason whatsoever?


----------



## dbolack

mamba said:


> Under what name ? I am not understanding your reply



Lisa was part of WotC when they published books before Magic was folded back into WotC. She ran the Cryptych magazine and was responsible for a couple of the "make a book" roles in the Talislanta 3rd edition rulebook. There may also be credits in other Talialnta and Primal Order books.  While the process had changed a bit since those days, it wasn't fundamentally different.


----------



## mamba

dbolack said:


> Lisa was part of WotC when they published books before Magic was folded back into WotC. She ran the Cryptych magazine and was responsible for a couple of the "make a book" roles in the Talislanta 3rd edition rulebook. There may also be credits in other Talialnta and Primal Order books.  While the process had changed a bit since those days, it wasn't fundamentally different.



Gotcha, so basically you are saying the person was used to creating rulebooks, but did so for WotC before, not Paizo. Well, I was thinking of Paizo the company, yes, granted employees have fluctuated between them, but I never required my 'leftfield RPG' to be by someone who has not done so before


----------



## dbolack

mamba said:


> Gotcha, so basically you are saying the person was used to creating rulebooks, but did so for WotC before, not Paizo. Well, I was thinking of Paizo the company, yes, granted employees have fluctuated between them, but I never required my 'leftfield RPG' to be by someone who has not done so before




There seemed to be an assertion of a lack of experience being an issue in the post I originally responded to. It was not the case. Not to mention that Paizo had plenty of more current experience from publishing previous OGL material.


----------



## NaturalZero

This whole thing reminds of when you get a new manager at your job who wants to change everything and screw up the entire operation, despite the fact that the existing workforce was running a top-rated shop. Everything is running at top efficiency, but why don't we mess things up in order to chase more profit?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Okay, I'm still stupidly far behind on this news, but I'm piecing things together and trying to figure out.... well, the logic here. 

And I have a thought of maybe something that is threading a needle here. 

Let's take Grimhollow, a 5e compatible set of books that I own. Revoking the 1.0 OGL cannot get rid of the Grimhollow books currently in print, it cannot stop their sales. It was published under a valid license, and they can't do much about that. 

Now, in the thread made by the lawyer I think it was, there was an idea floated about derivative works. They were talking about how it would be hard to publish a new Druid Subclass for One D&D, because the subclass is a derivative of the Druid, which is under the new license. 

But... does that street go both ways? 


If Ghostfire publishes an adventure book in the One D&D era, as a derivative of their completely legal Grimhollow series... then with or without the license they should be fine, right? They wouldn't be able to make OD&D monsters in the adventure, but they have a full monster book to pull from. And since it is a derivative work, it doesn't need the new license. 

Now, I'm not a lawyer, this is just some speculation, but I wonder if THAT is the tactic at play here. Less ruining every business that isn't WoTC and more preventing a proliferation of more and more companies specifically copying the work that WoTC is doing. I could be wildly off base, but that tactic makes more sense to me than nuking every most of the major players in the RPG scene.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Greg Benage said:


> It seems to me Hasbro has given them until 1/13 to decide how screwed they are. My assessment is that they're trying to force Paizo to the table to negotiate a more conventional licensing agreement, because Paizo is unlikely to have a really clear idea of how screwed they are within the next week.




 Only if they still go through with it, they didn't release it today, I think it's dead in the water.


----------



## Greg Benage

Henadic Theologian said:


> Only if they still go through with it, they didn't release it today, I think it's dead in the water.



That'd be nice, but I don't think these leaks from inside WotC would be coming now if it was "dead in the water."


----------



## dbolack

Chaosmancer said:


> If Ghostfire publishes an adventure book in the One D&D era, as a derivative of their completely legal Grimhollow series... then with or without the license they should be fine, right? They wouldn't be able to make OD&D monsters in the adventure, but they have a full monster book to pull from. And since it is a derivative work, it doesn't need the new license.




This all falls to the enforceability of the believed perpetual license access and/or WotC's current belief they can revoke it. If it is perpetual, there is absolutely nothing preventing this action. If WotC's argument holds, that adventure book better be third-party ( not Ghostfire ) OGC-free.


----------



## Von Ether

At this point, I think this "leak" was to test the waters and see who would come to the table. Though already had a big NDA meet?


----------



## W'rkncacnter

dbolack said:


> This all falls to the enforceability of the believed perpetual license access and/or WotC's current belief they can revoke it. If it is perpetual, there is absolutely nothing preventing this action. If WotC's argument holds, that adventure book better be third-party ( not Ghostfire ) OGC-free.



"believed"? there's a _ton_ of precedence for perpetual licenses. 1.0(a) _is_ perpetual, explicitly so - there's nothing to believe about it. the only "question" is if WoTC can unauthorize an OGL license version...and it's really looking like they can't.


----------



## Von Ether

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Assuming this line isn't in the draft as a joke, this is wildly illegal under American law, as all of those would be covered under fair use as commentary or parody. Groups like the Library Bards don't need a license to write parody songs.



That does seem to be pretty amateur hour for the lawyers Hasbro should be able to afford.


----------



## Haplo781

Greg Benage said:


> That'd be nice, but I don't think these leaks from inside WotC would be coming now if it was "dead in the water."



They're trying to figure out how to do damage control and spin.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

dbolack said:


> Lisa was part of WotC when they published books before Magic was folded back into WotC. She ran the Cryptych magazine and was responsible for a couple of the "make a book" roles in the Talislanta 3rd edition rulebook. There may also be credits in other Talialnta and Primal Order books.  While the process had changed a bit since those days, it wasn't fundamentally different.



She was probably also there when WotC was sued by Palladium (and lost pretty badly iirc)









						Wizards of the Coast History: Founding, Timeline, and Milestones
					

Wizards of the Coast




					www.zippia.com
				




History is a flat circle and all that


----------



## jerryrice4949

Greg Benage said:


> That'd be nice, but I don't think these leaks from inside WotC would be coming now if it was "dead in the water."



What leaks from inside WoTC?  The sense I got is the leaks are from 3PP.


----------



## Greg Benage

jerryrice4949 said:


> What leaks from inside WoTC? The sense I got is the leaks are from 3PP.



Oh, fair, it's probably just wishful thinking that they've been coming from inside WotC.


----------



## FormerLurker

jerryrice4949 said:


> What leaks from inside WoTC?  The sense I got is the leaks are from 3PP.


----------



## SkidAce

GMforPowergamers said:


> is there enough to play for a while at least if it gets shut down?



You can play it forever.


----------



## jerryrice4949

FormerLurker said:


>



That does not say the leak is from WoTC.  Could be. A 3PP who has a copy.


----------



## darjr

Hey, heads up, I’d be wary of pointing out any leaks as from WotC folks.


----------



## Sword of Spirit

Maybe if we're really fortunate, the most financially successful OGL dependent players will successfully bring an antitrust suit against D&D. If it's finally gotten big enough, maybe Hasbro will have succeeded themselves right out of the ability to exercise the market control they wish.


----------



## Umbran

darjr said:


> Hey, heads up, I’d be wary of pointing out any leaks as from WotC folks.




I _still_ want to know the provenance of the document. 

However, everyone should realize that if WotC learns it was an employee, that employee is losing their job.  If they learn it was someone under NDA, that person is likely going to see legal action.

So, be wary about how you talk about who did it.  If this is genuine, they did us a solid.


----------



## Umbran

Sword of Spirit said:


> Maybe if we're really fortunate, the most financially successful OGL dependent players will successfully bring an antitrust suit against D&D. If it's finally gotten big enough, maybe Hasbro will have succeeded themselves right out of the ability to exercise the market control they wish.




That would only happen after WotC issues the license - until then, no harm is done to bring suit over.  And it would take years to hash out in court.

A superior hope is that fan feedback is so strong that they don't ever issue that license.


----------



## Greg Benage

Umbran said:


> That would only happen after WotC issues the license - until then, no harm is done to bring suit over. And it would take years to hash out in court.



Even then, an _antitrust_ suit seems like a sure loser.


Umbran said:


> A superior hope is that fan feedback is so strong that they don't ever issue that license.



Right on.


----------



## Umbran

Greg Benage said:


> Even then, an _antitrust_ suit seems like a sure loser.




Yeah.  Class action suit against the revocation is probably a better approach.

I have learned an interesting bit about the license not being revocable - the GPL, the most well known software open license, has stood up in court as not revocable, even _before_ it included the word "irrevocable".  So, a tiny bit of hope that the license terms of 20 years ago will be interpreted like the software license of 20 years ago?


----------



## darjr

I can't help but think that WotC wanting to be a Marvel is fueling this. If they do become a Marvel then the hobby is small potatoes and REAL IP companies lock down their IP tight.


----------



## Lidgar

darjr said:


> I can't help but think that WotC wanting to be a Marvel is fueling this. If they do become a Marvel then the hobby is small potatoes and REAL IP companies lock down their IP tight.



Oh I think it is more like Apple or MS. They essentially want subscription services (VTT) and a cut of all sales, like the App Store. Easy money.


----------



## darjr

Lidgar said:


> Oh I think it is more like Apple or MS. They essentially want subscription services (VTT) and a cut of all sales, like the App Store. Easy money.



That's still peanuts compared to the Movies or actual video games.

Edit to add: I think.


----------



## teitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Are you sure about that? I just looked through 8th printing DCC and I couldn't see the slightest sign of the OGL being involved, and DCC definitely have their own, separate licence that you obtain by writing to them, in order to sell compatible, logo'd products for DCC.



It’s in the back in a small box on all our copies. Including the more recent printing but not the new, new Poag cover. It is very small print and inconspicuous.


----------



## teitan

Lidgar said:


> Well, wikipedia says otherwise, unfortunately
> 
> "_*Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game*_ (*DCC RPG* or simply *DCC*) is a role-playing game published by Goodman Games using the Open Gaming License (OGL) and System Reference Document (SRD) version 3.5 to provide legal compatibility with the revised third edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dungeon Crawl Classics - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Well it isn’t very compatible. Lol


----------



## teitan

They could have avoided the whole mess by not releasing D&DOne with an SRD and released just a DMSguild only license. Sure it undercuts the Kickstarter crowd in regard to publishing D&DOne material but now WOTC is staring at lawsuits and essentially pulling the rug out from underneath the industry in what looks like an attempt to crush their main competitor and take a huge cut of the proceeds from publishers who find success before they can even guarantee pay to their creatives, essentially undercutting that possibility of a revenue stream for themselves anyway.


----------



## teitan

Art Waring said:


> I was thinking the same thing about kickstarter now that thay admit they have a deal with wotc.



I wouldn’t call it a deal so much as advocacy! Even they are like holy schnikeys this is a crap situation and they’re going to essentially wipe out some of our revenue with this.


----------



## blakesha

Turbiales said:


> I don't think it will be feasible to invalidate 1.0a even it isn't "authorized".
> 
> There is a lot of other SRD using the 1.0a as for example, Pathfinder, Traveller, Legend... Wizards simply cannot impose their terms to anybody that doesn't aagree to use v1.1



They can make it so that no new content can be created by making it "unauthorised". Means existing created content can still be sold, but new content cannot be created with this license.

As an aside - seems like after 22 pages noone has mentioned the other implications of this new license. Youtube content creators. If the new license is written as suggested, if you are earning revenue from YouTube/Twitch/etc and you mention content covered by the license you will have to pay royalties to WotC...

EDIT: Missed one  ForumLurker stated it in a post on page 18 - Sorry FL


----------



## Echohawk

blakesha said:


> If the new license is written as suggested, if you are earning revenue from YouTube/Twitch/etc and you mention content covered by the license you will have to pay royalties to WotC...



Doesn't that content fall under the Fan Content Policy, which allows for content creators to take advantage of "sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations" as long as the content is free to access?


----------



## blakesha

FormerLurker said:


> I keep saying I'm done with message boards (they just trigger me emotionally and make me depressed) but this news is just too much and I need to vent somewhere...
> 
> Reading the reports and leaks, to me it feels like this is a move from either Hasbro or the upper management at Wizards of the Coast and the leak is someone on the Dungeons & Dragons team knowing this is a terrible move and trying to save the brand from itself.
> Repealing the old Open Game License alone would have huge ripples through the industry. Paizo would have to shut down. As would Pelgrane Press, which is just setting-up the second edition of 13th Age. Any publisher selling old product on DriveThru would have to remove them.
> I imagine Paizo would have no choice but to bring the matter to court to argue over what "authorized" meant in the license, likely bringing in Dancey and others. I'd expect a GoFundMe to help supplement their legal costs.
> 
> Heck, what does it mean for Fate by Evil Hat Games, which doesn't use the D&D SRD but does use the 1.0a OGL?!?
> Licensing Fate (OGL)
> 
> Plus there are the other worrying claims from Codega's tweets:
> That would seem to exclude YouTube and Twitch. Which would affect Critical Role, Dimension 20, Matt Colville, QueueTimes, and a bajillion other monetized D&D YouTube channels. Heck, even Order of the Stick and other webcomics wouldn't qualify!!
> This would literally be turning D&D's biggest champions and most vocal fans—the ones with the biggest audiences—into either competition or disgruntled former fans.
> 
> If this does go through, there really needs to be a coordinated boycotting and protest. Not just not buying books, but also supporting other publishers and their legal efforts. I really hope freelancers and other people in the industry join in and eschew working for WotC.



Dont agree with the statement that the old content would have to be removed. It wouldnt. NEW content couldnt be created with that license.


----------



## blakesha

Echohawk said:


> Doesn't that content fall under the Fan Content Policy, which allows for content creators to take advantage of "sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations" as long as the content is free to access?



It may do currently - but they will have to remove it, or it could contradict the new OGL and MAY invalidate it.


----------



## Echohawk

blakesha said:


> It may do currently - but they will have to remove it, or it could contradict the new OGL and MAY invalidate it.



I'm not sure I understand that reasoning. Why would it contradict/invalidate the OGL 1.1?


----------



## Kinematics

darjr said:


> That's still peanuts compared to the Movies or actual video games.
> 
> Edit to add: I think.



The global market value of the movies and entertainment market (which includes music and videos) in 2022 is estimated at $95 billion. The global market value of video games in 2022 is estimated at $220 billion. The market value of the global mobile application market in 2022 is estimated at $206 billion.

So apps are about the same size as video games, and both are about twice the size of movies/music.


----------



## blakesha

Echohawk said:


> I'm not sure I understand that reasoning. Why would it contradict/invalidate the OGL 1.1?



Cos videos are published works. And if they allow a published work, but then in the OGL say you can publish something outside of the express terms of the license then the license can be deemed invalid. (if someone wanted to fight it). Also, would mean that WOTC could arbitrarily ask YouTube content creators for royalties from revenue. - why this is such a monumental screw up by WOTC. They could be alienating the very industry that is has a strong argument for making D&D as successful as it currently is.


----------



## humble minion

I'm not a lawyer or a 3pp, but it seems to me like rendering any OGL version revokable at WotCs pleasure would have a massive broader chilling effect on the 3pp industry as well.

RPG supplements have long lead and development times, especially hardcopy.  But if this goes through, for a creator - how do you possibly justify committing time and resources to a project when WotC has said, and demonstrated by revoking previous OGLs, that the licence you're writing against may disappear or change radically at any time and that the whole foundation of your project is built on sand?  Even if you've poured your heart into a successful kickstarter, got it to the printers, and it's wending its way through shipping purgatory to fulfillment - then WotC decides to change the OGL underneath your feet, revoke the one you're using, and you're stuck.  Hell, I think I have backed 10+ OGL-based kickstarters pending fulfillment, at least three of which are already printed.  I've got no idea what happens to them - if WotC kills the licence they were written under on 13/1, can they even be delivered?  are the creators stuck with a containerload of material that they've paid for but now cannot legally sell?  Cos if WotC argues that they can revoke OGL 1.0a, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll be reserving themselves the power to arbitrarily revoke OGL 1.1 should they so choose.  Which makes an utter mockery of the whole concept of a licence.  An at-will revokable licence isn't a licence in any meaningful sense at all.

People will keep developing 3pp material because so many people do this for love.  You don't get into RPGs to make a fortune.  But this is going to strangle the pipeline of new voices into the industry.  Even the bigger, more successful non-D&D systems often get their start through name recognition - a company gets a loyal  customer base through their OGL D&D products, and when they branch out into systems, that base follows.  Paizo's D&D work created the loyal base for Pathfinder, Green Ronin's created the base for AGE and M&M.  Hell, even Level Up probably wouldn't have achieved the success it did if a relative unknown had written it on their own and chucked it up on DTRPG, because they wouldn't have the EN Publishing base to get excited about it.


----------



## Aldarc

For the record, while Fate does have the OGL, it also "backs up" their licensing agreement with the Creative Commons License.


----------



## Charlaquin

darjr said:


> I’ll say one thing, I dint think I’ve seen the swath of D&D fandom so united or at least so heavily to one side of a particular issue.



The same thing happened with the MtG community when the 30th anniversary edition was announced. WotC seems to be hard at work uniting their own fans against them lately.


----------



## Aldarc

Cortex Prime had a similar issue when it came to their licensing agreement. It was reworked when the fan community pointed out how bonkers the original agreement was. There is still likely over a year between now and the release of One D&D. A lot can happen in that time when it comes to their OGL agreements.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Wonder if Paizio could end up benefitting from this longer term.

Bring out PF3e not based on the OGL at all, with rules specifically designed to catch the 5e players who don't want to hop onto 5.5e.


----------



## Aldarc

doctorbadwolf said:


> AGE, at least, is not mechanically familiar. I haven’t played DCC, but what I’ve heard suggests it isn’t either.



It plays like D&D well enough. If you watched the Dragon Age RPG or Titansgrave actual play on Wil Wheaton's TableTop then many would think that they were playing D&D but with 3d6 rolls and a stunt point mechanic. IME, I have found AGE to be a bit more new player friendly at the table than 5e, though your experiences may vary.  



Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yeah, I've been spending my off day looking for non-OGL games I have at home.
> 
> Fantasy AGE will probably be my next game. Do someone know the proposed release date of the new Core Book? (@Aldarc )
> 
> or maybe Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its probably OGL though.



Update: 

Shadow of the Weird Wizard is aiming for a March 2023 Kickstarter. I've read that the last playtest document will be released soon. 

The last projected release date for Fantasy AGE Core is Q1 of 2023.


----------



## BRayne

ChaosOS said:


> The stance WotC seems to be taking is that Actual Plays are covered by the fan content policy, which would SEEM to suggest that you can't paywall your productions - which then imperil Dimension 20, which paywalls everything behind Dropout. Unclear if that would mean standard Twitch things, like subscriber-only VoDs or having early access for paying folks not permitted.




What's this! Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, off the top rope!


----------



## Reynard

Sword of Spirit said:


> Maybe if we're really fortunate, the most financially successful OGL dependent players will successfully bring an antitrust suit against D&D. If it's finally gotten big enough, maybe Hasbro will have succeeded themselves right out of the ability to exercise the market control they wish.



Or they will all sign special agreements with WotC that are mutually beneficial and not burn their own businesses down over idealism.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Frozen_Heart said:


> Wonder if Paizio could end up benefitting from this longer term.
> 
> Bring out PF3e not based on the OGL at all, with rules specifically designed to catch the 5e players who don't want to hop onto 5.5e.



I very much doubt it.

They've invested _alot _into PF2E and to have to abandon it now, just a couple of years in, develop a whole new game, print it and promote it would be a huge burden, and perhaps not fiscally possible.

And that's not even considering the fact that alot of people have just bought into PF2E and to have the rug pulled under them so early on would leave a bad taste in their mouth ( even if it's not really Paizo's "fault"). So, who knows how many would actually switch over or just ignore it. 

Do you remember how mad people were about 3.0 being replaced by 3.5 after just like four years?


----------



## wingsandsword

Bacon Bits said:


> I really don't think they can revoke the 1.0a. If they could, Hasbro would already have used it to shut down Paizo for Pathfinder 1e sometime between 2009 and 2012 when 4e was cratering. Or they'd do it before _now_ to shut down Pathfinder 2e as a part of their monetization strategy.
> 
> I think the "unauthorized" clause really does solely exist to break Section 9 of OGL 1.0a. It just exists to make OGL v1.1 content incompatible with the OGL 1.0a license.




I think it's more that some lawyer at WotC came up with the "unauthorized" concept as a way to try to rescind the OGL.

It's pretty clear that the intention of the OGL was that it be permanent and irrevocable, even though WotC's probably wanted to rescind the OGL since circa 2008 when 4e came out.  They didn't at the time because they believed they couldn't do it. . .but someone in the legal dept. probably saw that part of Section 9 and is trying to exploit the ambiguity in Section 9 about authorized versions of the OGL.  

Others have noted that a principle of contract law is that ambiguous terms are traditionally NOT interpreted in favor of the person who drafted the contract, so that's a heck of a stretch, so I suspect they may be counting on the unethical legal strategy of "We're a huge company with deep pockets and can just hound smaller parties into bankruptcy through frivolous filings". . .which works right up until someone has the means to fight back.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

eyeheartawk said:


> I very much doubt it.
> 
> They've invested _alot _into PF2E and to have to abandon it now, just a couple of years in, develop a whole new game, print it and promote it would be a huge burden, and perhaps not fiscally possible.
> 
> And that's not even considering the fact that alot of people have just bought into PF2E and to have the rug pulled under them so early on would leave a bad taste in their mouth ( even if it's not really Paizo's "fault"). So, who knows how many would actually switch over or just ignore it.
> 
> Do you remember how mad people were about 3.0 being replaced by 3.5 after just like four years?



Yeah it's basically the worst possible time for Paizo on this one. Having dropped a new edition using the OGL only a few years ago.

If they were later in the edition cycle it might have all lined up better.


----------



## eyeheartawk

wingsandsword said:


> Others have noted that a principle of contract law is that ambiguous terms are traditionally NOT interpreted in favor of the person who drafted the contract, so that's a heck of a stretch, so I suspect they may be counting on the unethical legal strategy of "We're a huge company with deep pockets and can just hound smaller parties into bankruptcy through frivolous filings". . .which works right up until someone has the means to fight back.



Exactly right. But who in the field has the means? Outside of Peter Adkison swooping in from on high to pay for it I don't think any other entity in our little hobby has the financial resources for such a fight.

It's deeply cynical, unethical and downright contemptuous. But I can't really argue with the logic of Wizards' here. I don't think anybody is likely resourced enough to fight a long, and certainly drawn out (to consume the most financial resources possible to force a tap out) court battle with a multi-billion dollar mega corp.


----------



## humble minion

Reynard said:


> Or they will all sign special agreements with WotC that are mutually beneficial and not burn their own businesses down over idealism.



That's the most likely solution for my betting.  Unless either private feedback or public outrage convinces WotC to wind this back in a big way, the larger 3pps are more likely to come to some sort of private sweetheart arrangement with WotC (and to be fair it's hard to fault them for that - much as the proposed 1.1 is catastrophic for the broader industry, it's very easy for us to sit here at our keyboards and pontificate about how someone else should willingly put themselves in danger of bankruptcy and ruin to just have a shot at knocking this on the head via the legal system).  

Places like KP and GR have decentish relationships with WotC anyway I think.  The small players, and anyone new trying to break in, will be the ones who really cop the pointy end of the pineapple here.  And even the bigger 3pps are mostly fairly small and operating on thin margins.  Green Ronin had to run a kickstarter just to get capital together to reprint out-of-stock Mutants and Masterminds material (including the core book!) quite recently.  That ain't the behaviour of a company that has a handy sooper-sekrit multimillion dollar fighting fund suitable for launching extended legal assaults on Hasbro.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Von Ether said:


> That does seem to be pretty amateur hour for the lawyers Hasbro should be able to afford.



It wouldn't surprise me if wotc management "shopped around" for lawyers until they found someone who gave them the answer they wanted.


----------



## dbolack

W'rkncacnter said:


> "believed"? there's a _ton_ of precedence for perpetual licenses. 1.0(a) _is_ perpetual, explicitly so - there's nothing to believe about it. the only "question" is if WoTC can unauthorize an OGL license version...and it's really looking like they can't.



Citations, please.


----------



## dbolack

Eyes of Nine said:


> She was probably also there when WotC was sued by Palladium (and lost pretty badly iirc)




My memory of that is that they did not lose.  I'd have to go reread, it's been 30 years.


----------



## BMaC

I know someone who will work pro bono, but his area of legal expertise is rather specialized:


----------



## dbolack

humble minion said:


> Places like KP and GR have decentish relationships with WotC anyway I think.  The small players, and anyone new trying to break in, will be the ones who really cop the pointy end of the pineapple here.  And even the bigger 3pps are mostly fairly small and operating on thin margins.  Green Ronin had to run a kickstarter just to get capital together to reprint out-of-stock Mutants and Masterminds material (including the core book!) quite recently.  That ain't the behaviour of a company that has a handy sooper-sekrit multimillion dollar fighting fund suitable for launching extended legal assaults on Hasbro.




I find it very likely that GR will ditch OGL if forced to 1.1 or nothing.


----------



## humble minion

dbolack said:


> I find it very likely that GR will ditch OGL if forced to 1.1 or nothing.




Maybe.  Lots of water to pass under the bridge yet, and it's quite possible that 1.1 is still subject to change.  I suspect that GR, like everyone else, are waiting for concrete news and quietly pulling whatever strings they still have at WotC.

I believe M&M is published under the old OGL though.  If it comes to that, unless they can get themselves a new licence or successfully argue that M&M3 is sufficiently divorced from its d20 roots (no hit points, no levels, no damage rolls, different saves, different ability stats and character generation...) that a licence is no longer necessary, then abandoning the OGL completely would likely mean the death of that game.  And they just crowdfunded a bunch of money to reprint M&M.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

I understand that corporate motives can be and often are bizarre from a consumer perspective. But emotionally I have a hard time grasping that the people who have tied knots of themselves trying to cleanse their product from everything than can be interpreted as offensive to someone somewhere, now may be moving towards one of the biggest duck moves in our hobbys history.


----------



## Alzrius

teitan said:


> They could have avoided the whole mess by not releasing D&DOne with an SRD and released just a DMSguild only license.



My guess (and I want to stress that this is just a guess) is that someone at WotC realized that a third-party could take the existing 5.1 SRD (and 3.5 SRD; there's no reason you can't mingle their content) and create a near-perfect facsimile of 1D&D (when it comes out) under the OGL, similar to how earlier versions of D&D were retro-cloned, and that this entire debacle is them trying to stop that from happening.

No idea if that's correct, but it's one of the few reasons I can think of for why they'd go this far.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> I _still_ want to know the provenance of the document.
> 
> However, everyone should realize that if WotC learns it was an employee, that employee is losing their job.  If they learn it was someone under NDA, that person is likely going to see legal action.
> 
> So, be wary about how you talk about who did it.  If this is genuine, they did us a solid.



I can NOT stress enough how crazy it is that we (and lots of other communities) go out of our way to out the people that did what we wanted/needed. 

We all need to 'forget' who leaked it... don't ask, don't investigate, don't give HASBRO lawyers/HR anything to work with.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

HaroldTheHobbit said:


> I understand that corporate motives can be and often are bizarre from a consumer perspective. But emotionally I have a hard time grasping that the people who have tied knots of themselves trying to cleanse their product from everything than can be interpreted as offensive to someone somewhere, now may be moving towards one of the biggest duck moves in our hobbys history.



No this one is easy; money. It is quite possible that some one in WoTC has thought of a product idea that is or could be easily cloneable under the current dispensation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

teitan said:


> l but now WOTC is staring at lawsuits and essentially pulling the rug out from underneath the industry



lets not talk about lawsuits that have not been filed as if they are guarantied. I have seen people claim green ronin and piazo both are going to sue... if they are going to let THEM announce it and file it (Hopefully in the reverse order) don't 'volontold' others to do what we can't.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

HaroldTheHobbit said:


> But emotionally I have a hard time grasping that the people who have tied knots of themselves trying to cleanse their product from everything than can be interpreted as offensive to someone somewhere, now may be moving towards one of the biggest duck moves in our hobbys history.



So you thought? Those are totally compatible motives.

The reason they "cleansed" D&D is the same reason they dirtied it up going from 4E to 5E (c.f. Vistani, Orcs, etc. all regressing back to 1E/2E depictions in 5E rather than going forwards with 3E/4E approaches). They thought people would like it better and give them more *money*.

(They were probably right, perhaps in both cases - 5E at launch was the "apology edition" designed to recover people from PF1 and bring back long-time players. But it went huge for various cultural reasons not related to that, and largely with a much younger crowd, who found a few elements of it distasteful, so WotC retool those few elements with that younger crowd in mind.)

This "duck move" (waddling?) as you put it has exactly the same goal. Get WotC more *money*.

Is it dumb? Is it utterly failing to read the room? Absolutely.

But *$$$* y'all.

Are they probably reading the room now, given it's been leaked and people are mad? Yeah, they're going "Huh, will angry people give us LESS money? Less money am bad!". But we shall see.


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> So you thought? Those are totally compatible motives.
> 
> The reason they "cleansed" D&D is the same reason they dirtied it up going from 4E to 5E (c.f. Vistani, Orcs, etc. all regressing back to 1E/2E depictions in 5E rather than going forwards with 3E/4E approaches). They thought people would like it better and give them more *money*.
> 
> (They were probably right, perhaps in both cases - 5E at launch was the "apology edition" designed to recover people from PF1 and bring back long-time players. But it went huge for various cultural reasons not related to that, and largely with a much younger crowd, who found a few elements of it distasteful, so WotC retool those few elements with that younger crowd in mind.)
> 
> This "duck move" (waddling?) as you put it has exactly the same goal. Get WotC more *money*.
> 
> Is it dumb? Is it utterly failing to read the room? Absolutely.
> 
> But *$$$* y'all.
> 
> Are they probably reading the room now, given it's been leaked and people are mad? Yeah, they're going "Huh, will angry people give us LESS money? Less money am bad!". But we shall see.



It occurs to me that the reason WotC isn't leaping to defend the leaked OGL 1.1 is not because they are in a panic over the response. it's that they are probably just letting the outrage wear itself out. As far as internet news cycles go, this gnashing of teeth will probably be measured in days. Sure, some folks (me included) are going to drop them like a hot potato, but I don't think that is likely to occur on a large scale. Once Keys drops and the movie comes out, no one will likely even care.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Frozen_Heart said:


> Wonder if Paizio could end up benefitting from this longer term.
> 
> Bring out PF3e not based on the OGL at all, with rules specifically designed to catch the 5e players who don't want to hop onto 5.5e.



I hope that ALL 3pp go and make there own systems. I have 2 dozen systems that use d6s d12s, d4s, all the dice, dice and cards, just cards, rock paper sisors... but as the OGL became more and more used I have noticed those systems get less and less.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the reason WotC isn't leaping to defend the leaked OGL 1.1 is not because they are in a panic over the response. it's that they are probably just letting the outrage wear itself out. As far as internet news cycles go, this gnashing of teeth will probably be measured in days. Sure, some folks (me included) are going to drop them like a hot potato, but I don't think that is likely to occur on a large scale. Once Keys drops and the movie comes out, no one will likely even care.



that is also why they want this out now, a year BEFORE 1D&D. Let us all get our rage out BEFORE the new books they want us to buy.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the reason WotC isn't leaping to defend the leaked OGL 1.1 is not because they are in a panic over the response. it's that they are probably just letting the outrage wear itself out.



That absolutely could be, but I don't think it's going to work out for them unless they wait until after the D&D movie. Which is what, Feb 9th or something? That's quite a long time to wait, given the intention was apparently to launch this on January 13th. I don't think Keys will have any impact at all either way.

I also think a major 3PP like Paizo or Critical Role will snap before a whole month passes.

And it's one of those issues which will have recurring fallout if they 1.1 OGL is still designed this way. It's not like a one-time "rip-the-plaster-off". This is a festering wound they're intending to inflict. The news will keep coming back, and people will start needling CR and others about it, which may well provoke an angry fan response from the kind of psycho-fans which every fan-friendly podcast and YouTube has (I'm sure CR's are more polite than most, but probably no less rabid), which will just cause more boat-rocking as people respond to them and so on.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is also why they want this out now, a year BEFORE 1D&D. Let us all get our rage out BEFORE the new books they want us to buy.



And if WotC shores up support and partnership with from companies like Kobold, leaders in the 3PP field, it will further erode support for a sustained, community wide rejection of OGL 1.1.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> And if WotC shores up support and partnership with from companies like Kobold, leaders in the 3PP field, it will further erode support for a sustained, community wide rejection of OGL 1.1.



even if they went full TSR and shut down everything we love, in a year some people will have 'delt and moved on'. if they pick 2-3 companies to give special exception to, and keep the DMsGuild up for small bit players I bet most of the fans will be fine come 2024 and used to this


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can NOT stress enough how crazy it is that we (and lots of other communities) go out of our way to out the people that did what we wanted/needed.
> 
> We all need to 'forget' who leaked it... don't ask, don't investigate, don't give HASBRO lawyers/HR anything to work with.



Yeah, I'm with you on this one. 
"Oh, you think you know who leaked this? NO. YOU DON'T."


----------



## eayres33

mamba said:


> MCDM apparently said they do not feel it affects them, guess they were not using the OGL to begin with



Could be that, could be they believe the book is already published as they have delivered some completed work to backers.


----------



## Alzrius

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I'm with you on this one.
> "Oh, you think you know who leaked this? NO. YOU DON'T."


----------



## wingsandsword

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the reason WotC isn't leaping to defend the leaked OGL 1.1 is not because they are in a panic over the response. it's that they are probably just letting the outrage wear itself out. As far as internet news cycles go, this gnashing of teeth will probably be measured in days. Sure, some folks (me included) are going to drop them like a hot potato, but I don't think that is likely to occur on a large scale. Once Keys drops and the movie comes out, no one will likely even care.



Nuking the OGL, which has been a major part of D&D fandom for 22 years, isn't something that blows over in a few days.

I suspect that the reason that WotC isn't trying to defend this or comment on it is that this was a strategic leak, intentionally performed, to see just how much outrage it would generate.

This pushes the major 3PP's to come to them to negotiate better licensing deals than they'd have under OGL 1.1, so they'll see if the 3PP's are lining up to negotiate. . .or to fight.


----------



## jerryrice4949

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is also why they want this out now, a year BEFORE 1D&D. Let us all get our rage out BEFORE the new books they want us to buy.



But right before the movie?  It reminds me being good at one thing, say running a software company, does not mean being good at another, say running an entertainment company.  It is a stupid and unnecessary move likely to earn them little revenue and damage their brand.  How much would 25% of earnings above 750k make them.  Very little as only a couple companies even approach that.   Probably not even a couple million a year.


----------



## wingsandsword

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is also why they want this out now, a year BEFORE 1D&D. Let us all get our rage out BEFORE the new books they want us to buy.



Nope.

Remember 4e?  The outrage for that began a year before its release. . .it didn't blow over.  It stayed.  It lingered.

It ensured that 4e was generally a flop.

The outrage over 4e didn't die until 5e came out.  These boards were enveloped in edition wars for _YEARS_.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the reason WotC isn't leaping to defend the leaked OGL 1.1 is not because they are in a panic over the response. it's that they are probably just letting the outrage wear itself out. As far as internet news cycles go, this gnashing of teeth will probably be measured in days. Sure, some folks (me included) are going to drop them like a hot potato, but I don't think that is likely to occur on a large scale. Once Keys drops and the movie comes out, no one will likely even care.



I don’t think is going to dissipate. I’ve seen lots of gaming rage over the years but nothing like this (it’s quite uniform across the board).


----------



## wingsandsword

jerryrice4949 said:


> But right before the movie?  It reminds me being good at one thing, say running a software company, does not mean being good at another, say running an entertainment company.




Yeah, when I heard the current WotC execs were mostly Microsoft alums, I wondered if that was why the rhetoric around 6e/OneD&D sounded a LOT like the talk around Windows 10.

Now it's sounding more like Microsoft's long-term war on Open Source Software.  MS is notorious for hating open source software in pretty much every form, and trying to attack the very concept.  I could see the same execs that embraced that just pivoting to opposing open-source gaming.


----------



## jerryrice4949

wingsandsword said:


> Nuking the OGL, which has been a major part of D&D fandom for 22 years, isn't something that blows over in a few days.
> 
> I suspect that the reason that WotC isn't trying to defend this or comment on it is that this was a strategic leak, intentionally performed, to see just how much outrage it would generate.
> 
> This pushes the major 3PP's to come to them to negotiate better licensing deals than they'd have under OGL 1.1, so they'll see if the 3PP's are lining up to negotiate. . .or to fight.



Not sure about that.  I am sure they could read the room when they met with the 3PP.  Additionally they know the thin margins these companies have.


----------



## Art Waring

deleted.

The first party to release a new "true" OGL (one that is actually open & irrevocable) license for their own 5e-adjacent SRD will be getting my full support.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jerryrice4949 said:


> But right before the movie?



that is still months away, and if they ONLY get d&d fans to watch it then it already flopped. They want to hit main stream fantasy, not us on enworld.


wingsandsword said:


> Remember 4e?  The outrage for that began a year before its release. . .it didn't blow over.  It stayed.  It lingered.
> 
> It ensured that 4e was generally a flop.



lol... again I hope every friend and family member I love has HALF the flop that was 4e.


wingsandsword said:


> The outrage over 4e didn't die until 5e came out.  These boards were enveloped in edition wars for _YEAS_.



an edition war you and others seem fully pressed into continueing today.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think is going to dissipate. I’ve seen lots of gaming rage over the years but nothing like this (it’s quite uniform across the board).



only with the most hard core fans. Most casual fans that D&D is craving don't know, don't understand and most likely wont care.


----------



## darjr

Ginny Di, the very person who announced One D&D to the world comes out against the OGL 1.1



LinkLink


----------



## jerryrice4949

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is still months away, and if they ONLY get d&d fans to watch it then it already flopped. They want to hit main stream fantasy, not us on enworld.
> 
> lol... again I hope every friend and family member I love has HALF the flop that was 4e.
> 
> an edition war you and others seem fully pressed into continueing today.



It is just over two months away.  Not far at all but their energy should be spent promoting the movie not defending this mess.  While I agree the movies success will depend on casual movie goers and not grognards having people bashing the company may keep even some casual fans away.


----------



## mamba

eayres33 said:


> Could be that, could be they believe the book is already published as they have delivered some completed work to backers.



apparently the latter, as the delivered parts use the OGL


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> only with the most hard core fans. Most casual fans that D&D is craving don't know, don't understand and most likely wont care.




I think we will have to see how it plays out. I’m seeing and hearing mostly outrage. 

I will say it is probably not wise to dismiss the hard core fans. This is a hobby, it isn’t like other industries. If a company distanced itself from the people regularly playing the game, it is going to lose the folks who keep interest alive when casual gamers move onto something else. I think a lot of the boom we are seeing is a fad. There have been many D&D fads. This may be the largest but it also has similarities to prior ones. When the fad passes you need those devoted fans who play regularly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jerryrice4949 said:


> It is just over two months away.  Not far at all but their energy should be spent promoting the movie not defending this mess.  While I agree the movies success will depend on casual movie goers and not grognards having people bashing the company may keep even some casual fans away.



it may.  I have no doubt that no matter what comes there will be some of us that will not see it in theaters. However short of making the evening news I can't imagine it really hitting the bottom line.

then again I am reminded that kevin smith not only took part in protests against one of his own movies, but got interviewed not as director but as protester for said movie... cause controversy is clicks and name recognition.


----------



## ChaosOS

There's no reason to be conspiratorial about this coming out now. Even in a best case scenario of a carrots only 1.1 (no revocation, small royalties, promises DDB access) it would be good practice to roll this out now well before the half edition update in 18 months.

In addition to the harm this will do to 3PP, I'm very concerned about the deliberate damage this will do to Foundry and other "unlicensed" VTTs, ahead of WotC releasing their own in the marketplace.


----------



## darjr

It’s not much but Matt had to know people would notice.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> So you thought? Those are totally compatible motives.
> 
> The reason they "cleansed" D&D is the same reason they dirtied it up going from 4E to 5E (c.f. Vistani, Orcs, etc. all regressing back to 1E/2E depictions in 5E rather than going forwards with 3E/4E approaches). They thought people would like it better and give them more *money*.
> 
> (They were probably right, perhaps in both cases - 5E at launch was the "apology edition" designed to recover people from PF1 and bring back long-time players. But it went huge for various cultural reasons not related to that, and largely with a much younger crowd, who found a few elements of it distasteful, so WotC retool those few elements with that younger crowd in mind.)
> 
> This "duck move" (waddling?) as you put it has exactly the same goal. Get WotC more *money*.
> 
> Is it dumb? Is it utterly failing to read the room? Absolutely.
> 
> But *$$$* y'all.
> 
> Are they probably reading the room now, given it's been leaked and people are mad? Yeah, they're going "Huh, will angry people give us LESS money? Less money am bad!". But we shall see.



And as we speak, Hasbro's stock has been going up. Money talks.


----------



## S'mon

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think is going to dissipate. I’ve seen lots of gaming rage over the years but nothing like this (it’s quite uniform across the board).




If there's one thing that can bring the Woke & the Deplorable together, it's hating on Hasbro-WoTC!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bedrockgames said:


> I think we will have to see how it plays out. I’m seeing and hearing mostly outrage.



yes and that is my point.  We don't know. The big unknown is what happens when some 19 year old kid walks into the comic or game store and someone tells him, the guy who joined 4 years ago and only owns 2 books anyway. HIS reaction multiplied by thousands is what we need to see. 


Bedrockgames said:


> I will say it is probably not wise to dismiss the hard core fans. This is a hobby, it isn’t like other industries.



it is if you only care about IP.

Comics are a hobby. Yet they make major changes to the comics for movies and we get BIG blow ups about 'why did they take the heritage of the scarlet witch and change it to white wash it' still turns out block buster after block buster and her own d+ series. 

I am not dismissing all fans. I am dismissing the few 40+ year old D&D players on enworld that just are not the main revenue stream anymore even for the books let alone the movie.


Bedrockgames said:


> If a company distanced itself from the people regularly playing the game, it is going to lose the folks who keep interest alive when casual gamers move onto something else. I think a lot of the boom we are seeing is a fad. There have been many D&D fads. This may be the largest but it also has similarities to prior ones. When the fad passes you need those devoted fans who play regularly.



this I agree with, and if you look back to before this blow up you will see I say pretty much this.  The IP is HUGE right now but it can't grow forever... it will not only someday stop growing but someday it will shrink again, and when it does WotC is in for a shock it would seem.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> And as we speak, Hasbro's stock has been going up. Money talks.



I mean, there are two possible reasons to buy Hasbro stock relating to this:

1) You think this will cause WotC and thus Hasbro to directly make more money. It could happen. I don't think it's likely, but I could see some people believing that.

2) Based on the shareholder meeting where the sale of eOne was demanded and rejected (and yet is ultimately happening!), the other big suggestion was that WotC should be sold off, and dividends paid to shareholders (or spun off, and shareholders given shares in the spin-off). So equally it could be people anticipating this.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

S'mon said:


> the Woke & the Deplorable



Keiron Gillen's less popular sequel to the The Wicked + The Divine.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> It’s not much but Matt had to know people would notice.
> 
> View attachment 271441



the OGL was and is important but the name D&D matters too. the fact that in the 90's when I went to play LARPS my grandmother called THAT D&D, and when I learned TTRPGs that were not D&D it was D&D and the fact that every RPG we see in TV shows and movies are D&D helps... that IP is the main selling point. 
I don't know who Cam Banks is (I assume an actor on CR?) but where I agree it's not the best game, but it was and is the most well known and only going to get bigger.


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know who Cam Banks is



Freelancer/designer/developer, Sovereign Press and Atlas Games


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not dismissing all fans. I am dismissing the few 40+ year old D&D players on enworld that just are not the main revenue stream anymore even for the books let alone the movie.




This isn't just 40+ fans on En World is my point. Online, the rage is across the board (and it seems even more heightened among the younger posters). Go to twitter and search "WOTC" you will find about 200 to 1 negative tweets on this topic. Go to any forum and you will see mostly outrage. Talk to people who game, you will hear outrage. Generally you'd be right, a lot of times there is anger over something in gaming and it is just a small group of like minded posters. This isn't that. This is a wide variety of people who often disagree strongly with one another about gaming issues, who all are expressing intense dislike of what WOTC appears to be planning.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> It’s not much but Matt had to know people would notice.
> 
> View attachment 271441



Don't get me wrong: I love the OGL and think any attempt to undermine it is wrong and bad, but Cam Banks is off here. Even 4E -- the most controversial edition, and no I am not stirring up edition warring, just stating a fact -- was the number one TTRPG of its time. Literally because it was D&D. And yes, for a short time, Pathfinder got close. Do you know why? because for that time it, too, "was D&D." That's how they marketed it to the disaffected. I truly believe the OGL is good for both the community and WotC, but it is demonstrable that it isn't necessary for the ongoing success of D&D and that is what WotC's new management sees. They want to control D&D in order to capture that missing monetization, and they are likely going to succeed -- with the help of larger 3PP studios they bring into the fold.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> this I agree with, and if you look back to before this blow up you will see I say pretty much this.  The IP is HUGE right now but it can't grow forever... it will not only someday stop growing but someday it will shrink again, and when it does WotC is in for a shock it would seem.




This is something I think they really need to pay attention to because it has happened so many times before.


----------



## Mistwell




----------



## Alzrius

Reynard said:


> Don't get me wrong: I love the OGL and think any attempt to undermine it is wrong and bad, but Cam Banks is off here. Even 4E -- the most controversial edition, and no I am not stirring up edition warring, just stating a fact -- was the number one TTRPG of its time.



I seem to recall some headlines here about how Pathfinder actually overtook 4E as the #1 RPG for a while.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> Freelancer/designer/developer, Sovereign Press and Atlas Games



thank you... I just assumed by the connection to mercer he was one of the actors.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't just 40+ fans on En World is my point. Online, the rage is across the board (and it seems even more heightened among the younger posters). Go to twitter and search "WOTC" you will find about 200 to 1 negative tweets on this topic. Go to any forum and you will see mostly outrage. Talk to people who game, you will hear outrage. Generally you'd be right, a lot of times there is anger over something in gaming and it is just a small group of like minded posters. This isn't that. This is a wide variety of people who often disagree strongly with one another about gaming issues, who all are expressing intense dislike of what WOTC appears to be planning.



okay... now how long will that outrage last?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I seem to recall some headlines here about how Pathfinder actually overtook 4E as the #1 RPG for a while.



okay... can we please not edition war AGAIN?
Nobody has hard numbers, but nobody that DOES have those or close to those that do have those think PF sold more then 4e.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay... now how long will that outrage last?



Presuming that WotC sticks to the course they've apparently chosen, I suspect we'll find out.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Mistwell said:


>



So why would anyone opt in?  Do they really need the new SRD?


----------



## Cadence

jerryrice4949 said:


> So why would anyone opt in?  Do they really need the new SRD?



If they want to make material with the new 5.5 stuff that is marketed that way and get it up on whatever the officially pushed VTTs or marketplace like DMS Guild are?


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay... can we please not edition war AGAIN?
> Nobody has hard numbers, but nobody that DOES have those or close to those that do have those think PF sold more then 4e.



It's not edition warring, it's just reiterating what was put forward at the time, at least from ICv2; you can see their rankings over here.


----------



## Reynard

Alzrius said:


> I seem to recall some headlines here about how Pathfinder actually overtook 4E as the #1 RPG for a while.



I directly addressed that in the post you quoted.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> It's not edition warring, it's just reiterating what was put forward at the time, at least from ICv2; you can see their rankings over here.



Four people who would know


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Mistwell said:


>



That is am interesting point and while I think a lot of people will still have issues with it. I for one would not. "Opt in" preserves the existing ecosystem without the need for law suits.
As I am not a 3rd party producer nor will ever be, that said, I would want a pretty big carrot to opt in to that licence. We do not really know what the carrot is. Access to the VTT on its own would probably not be enough.


----------



## Staffan

Mistwell said:


>



That seems like a far more likely thing – essentially a repeat of the GSL (though if they do, they really shouldn't call it OGL). To my mind, releasing 5.5e under a different license would be a bad move, but fair. My main ire is directed at trying to mess with stuff already released under the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## S'mon

Mistwell said:


>




That seems reassuring to me, implying they're not going to try to stop all 3PPs using the True OGL (1.0), but rather doing a 4e GSL thing. It will likely go about as well as the 4e GSL did.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> Four people who would know




All of those quotes sound like they are talking about the entire lifecycle of the products to me, and not "over every single month" or "over every single quarter" of their lifecycles.


----------



## Greg Benage

If whatever publisher does _Pathfiver_ needs freelancers, hit me up.


----------



## Alzrius

Reynard said:


> I directly addressed that in the post you quoted.



You said they got close; I'm saying they got more than close, they actually pulled ahead. Maybe not in overall sales, but there were multiple sales quarters where 4E was the second-best-selling RPG.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Four people who would know



Another person who would know is Shannon Appelcline:



> *1. Paizo Ruled (for a Time)* Many old-timers remember the _one month_ in 1997 that D&D (1974+) dropped below the sales of the World of Darkness games — a month when TSR was on their way out of business and had stopped printing new products as a result. Thus, one of the most notable things about the '10s has to be that the sales of D&D probably dropped below Paizo's _Pathfinder_ (2008, 2009) sales for as long as three years, from 2011-2014! Those numbers comes from ICv2, who polls game stores; the numbers have a self-selection bias, and likely a US-centric bias too, so they can't be taken as absolutes (nor could the reports of that one month in 1997), but they're certainly suggestive.




So yeah, it's not definitive, but that cuts both ways. There's a reasonable belief that Pathfinder did outsell 4E for a time.


----------



## thirdkingdom

I just posted an interview with an intellectual property attorney about the leaked OGL document. OGL Interview with an Intellectual Property Lawyer

He didn't want to say anything about the leaked document, simply because he hasn't seen it (I don't think very many people have), but has some interesting insights into the OGL itself.


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> That seems reassuring to me, implying they're not going to try to stop all 3PPs using the True OGL (1.0), but rather doing a 4e GSL thing. It will likely go about as well as the 4e GSL did.



The GSL did poorly because it was attached to a controversial version of D&D. Companies that want to remain viable will want to support 1D&D, so they'll sign on -- and in so doing, stop supporting 5E (or OSR or Pathfinder, etc).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mistwell said:


>



Big if true.

Though it is very hard to see why anyone would opt-in on the basis of the current OGL 1.1.

If this is true this would explain the negotiations better though - because it's possible that bigger companies will be cut deals where they get to put out material for 1D&D, and ALSO get to keep putting out 1.0a material.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jerryrice4949 said:


> So why would anyone opt in?  Do they really need the new SRD?



I would say that for this iteration of One D&D one would not need to new SRD. One could support the game with the existing 5.1 SRD. However it is likely that as new supplements are produced then One D&D may drift significantly from the SRD 5.1 base. For instance suppose that circa 2026-7 WoTC produces a supplement that reworks the skill system in to something explicitly less binary than the current one and then produces a set of wilderness or journey rules that exploits that skill system. 
Could one replicate that with the 5.1 SRD? More to the point could you convince the customers that your OGL 1.0a SRD 5.1 derived content was compatible with a D&D that had drifted that far from the 5.1 OGC base?


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> Big if true.
> 
> Though it is very hard to see why anyone would opt-in on the basis of the current OGL 1.1.
> 
> If this is true this would explain the negotiations better though - because it's possible that bigger companies will be cut deals where they get to put out material for 1D&D, and ALSO get to keep putting out 1.0a material.



I think you are underestimating the value of being for the current edition of D&D. Do you think Flee Mortals would have done as well as a Kickstarter if it were for 4E or even Pathfinder (either edition)?


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> The GSL did poorly because it was attached to a controversial version of D&D. Companies that want to remain viable will want to support 1D&D, so they'll sign on -- and in so doing, stop supporting 5E (or OSR or Pathfinder, etc).




You can support One D&D using the 1.0 OGL and the 5e SRD. You can even put "5e/ONE" on the cover. No need to sign a deal with the Devil.


----------



## Staffan

Alzrius said:


> It's not edition warring, it's just reiterating what was put forward at the time, at least from ICv2; you can see their rankings over here.



@GMforPowergamers already posted the relevant tweets, but: I can buy that Pathfinder *briefly* outsold 4e, particularly mid 2011 to mid 2014 when 4e was basically abandoned by Wizards. That doesn't mean that Pathfinder *lifetime* sales were more than 4e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> So yeah, it's not definitive, but that cuts both ways. There's a reasonable belief that Pathfinder did outsell 4E for a time.



then don't state it as anything approching a fact. 

Even YOUR version says "Self selected" and "Bias" the ones I had no such terms in it... so yeah if you go JUST by the few contacts at the local shops you can say PF MAY have outsold 4e...


----------



## Alzrius

Staffan said:


> That seems like a far more likely thing – essentially a repeat of the GSL (though if they do, they really shouldn't call it OGL). To my mind, releasing 5.5e under a different license would be a bad move, but fair. My main ire is directed at trying to mess with stuff already released under the OGL 1.0a.



Yeah, that was my initial take on it too; that the OGL v1.0a can't be revoked, but rather than you give up your right to use it if you sign on with the OGL v1.1. Basically the GSL fiasco all over again. It's just that there's been some anxiety as to whether or not WotC can unilaterally cancel the OGL v1.0a across the board. Hopefully the answer to that is "no," but at this point there's a lot of damage being caused by uncertainty in that regard.


----------



## Aldarc

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know who Cam Banks is (I assume an actor on CR?) but where I agree it's not the best game, but it was and is the most well known and only going to get bigger.





Greg Benage said:


> Freelancer/designer/developer, Sovereign Press and Atlas Games



Cam Banks is the lead designer for Cortex Prime, including on the recent Tales of Xadia RPG based on The Dragon Prince.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> You said they got close; I'm saying they got more than close, they actually pulled ahead. Maybe not in overall sales, but there were multiple sales quarters where 4E was the second-best-selling RPG.
> 
> 
> Another person who would know is Shannon Appelcline:
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah, it's not definitive, but that cuts both ways. There's a reasonable belief that Pathfinder did outsell 4E for a time.



Love Shannon's work but he often gets facts wrong in his anecdotal/storytelling approach to RPG history. I spotted a couple in his lengthy bit on Drivethru/DM's Guild for "Heroes of Shadow" for 4E. The easiest to show being the multiple errors he made talking about Blackguards/Anti-Paladins, seemingly saying they'd never been in anything but Dragon until Heroes of Shadow, and claiming the 1986 article "A Plethora of Paladins" offered Paladins for all 9 alignments (seemingly implying one was Blackguard/Anti-Paladin), when IIRC, it only actually offers 7 alignments, not LG or CE, because those were "already covered" by Paladin and Anti-Paladin (the other ones are delightfully wack and in some cases OP btw).

So I would not trust vague claims by him on this.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> The GSL did poorly because it was attached to a controversial version of D&D. Companies that want to remain viable will want to support 1D&D, so they'll sign on -- and in so doing, stop supporting 5E (or OSR or Pathfinder, etc).



The GSL was a disaster because it had a clause where WoTC could pull the plug at any time (subsequent amendments not withstanding). Even if that was withdrawn later (I do not know) it would not matter because the licence was poison at that point. Everyone knew that Paizo thought it was unacceptable and people felt that they had access to good legal advice and left it at that.
OGL 1.1 can only stick the landing if the big third parties accept it. If say Kobold Press or Green Ronin or MCDM all say that they are not playing with this ball it is dead in the water.
No one down the food chain will touch it, no matter what the benefits. Most 3rd parties do not have to lawyers to evaluate this and will rely to some extent on the acceptability with the big guns in the OGL space.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> then don't state it as anything approching a fact.
> 
> Even YOUR version says "Self selected" and "Bias" the ones I had no such terms in it... so yeah if you go JUST by the few contacts at the local shops you can say PF MAY have outsold 4e...



I don't think that ICv2 can be dismissed as "JUST by the few contacts at the local shops." It's a fact that they reported that Pathfinder outsold D&D 4E for multiple quarters; how much weight you assign to that, whether it represents 4E being outsold in lifetime sales or not, and how much other distribution channels _might_ change that are all relevant factors. But insofar as facts go, the ICv2 rankings count, and so there's nothing wrong with citing them as such.


----------



## darjr

The point of the Mercer Like isn’t about what Cam maybe wrong or right about. It’s the emphasis on the OGL and Matt agreeing. Everything else is noise in this context.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> Love Shannon's work but he often gets facts wrong in his anecdotal/storytelling approach to RPG history. I spotted a couple in his lengthy bit on Drivethru/DM's Guild for "Heroes of Shadow" for 4E. The easiest to show being the multiple errors he made talking about Blackguards/Anti-Paladins, seemingly saying they'd never been in anything but Dragon until Heroes of Shadow, and claiming the 1986 article "A Plethora of Paladins" offered Paladins for all 9 alignments (seemingly implying one was Blackguard/Anti-Paladin), when IIRC, it only actually offers 7 alignments, not LG or CE, because those were "already covered" by Paladin and Anti-Paladin (the other ones are delightfully wack and in some cases OP btw).
> 
> So I would not trust vague claims by him on this.



To be fair, he's just citing the same ICv2 data that I linked to earlier. There's really no getting around the fact that they did report Pathfinder outselling 4E for a not-inconsiderable length of time. We can speculate about lifetime sales and alternative sales venues, but there's no arguing that the ICv2 numbers aren't factual.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Staffan said:


> @GMforPowergamers already posted the relevant tweets, but: I can buy that Pathfinder *briefly* outsold 4e, particularly mid 2011 to mid 2014 when 4e was basically abandoned by Wizards. That doesn't mean that Pathfinder *lifetime* sales were more than 4e.



right, I have NO doubt that PF was doing good. it came closer then any other (even WoD in 90s) to beating D&D... but the fact that it was really just D&D varriant itself shows that D&D regardless holds the title.

I promise you there are better games that have better systems then your favorite edition of D&D that don't break top 10 best seller games. Just like I promise you writers better then Martin and King put out amazing books you have never heard of.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> I think you are underestimating the value of being for the current edition of D&D. Do you think Flee Mortals would have done as well as a Kickstarter if it were for 4E or even Pathfinder (either edition)?



< please imagine me opening my eyes real wide and looking kinda vacant whilst I say this lol >

But Reynard, there's no edition change, WotC has said so!

1D&D is merely some changes to D&D that are entirely compatible with current D&D! Again WotC has said so!

< back to normal >

More seriously though, I don't think that's a good analogy you're making, because we really are talking about something that's genuinely largely compatible. It's very hard to see what could possibly be in the 1D&D SRD that would be actually necessary to something like Flee Mortals. What, are they going to change monster stat blocks? I mean, they might change the math, but you don't need the SRD for the math. If they changed saving throws or how attacks worked or what AC was maybe things would get complicated but 1D&D seeks to avoid all that.

And the problem is even with opt-in deauthorization, it's a hell of a decision, to essentially put yourself at the whims/mercy of WotC (with that "We can change anything about this with 30 days notice" deal). Especially as some big boys will probably get sweeter deals than that.

Were we talking about a 3E-4E type edition change, well, it might be more convincing, but that didn't work out so great with the GSL lol.


----------



## ko6ux

Haplo781 said:


> They're trying to figure out how to do damage control and spin.




They could just double down on the chaos by abolishing the MTG Reserve List at the same time they rescind the OGL.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I don't think that ICv2 can be dismissed as "JUST by the few contacts at the local shops."



it can becuse like the source said it isn't all game shops it's selected ones that are willing to answer, and it take 0 online or subscriptions into account.


Alzrius said:


> It's a fact that they reported that Pathfinder outsold D&D 4E for multiple quarters; how much weight you assign to that, whether it represents 4E being outsold in lifetime sales or not, and how much other distribution channels _might_ change that are all relevant factors. But insofar as facts go, the ICv2 rankings count, and so there's nothing wrong with citing them as such.



it only matters when you try to pretend that a small bit of the facts are the ONLY facts... here again are four people who would know

I mean what are we even comparing with the ICv?  if I walk into a shop and already own every 4e book but the new one coming out next week, but buy 3 pathfinder books is that +3 pathfinder? does it count that I have the 4e book pre ordered on amazon and a sub to the 4e service? no. So again PF did great, and it came closer then any other to unseating D*D (but did so by being a retroclone of D&D) but we have nothing to say it actually beat or out performed 4e.


----------



## dbolack

jerryrice4949 said:


> It is just over two months away.  Not far at all but their energy should be spent promoting the movie not defending this mess.  While I agree the movies success will depend on casual movie goers and not grognards having people bashing the company may keep even some casual fans away.



My experience is that at least as many more will go to "own" the nerds...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> To be fair, he's just citing the same ICv2 data that I linked to earlier. There's really no getting around the fact that they did report Pathfinder outselling 4E for a not-inconsiderable length of time. We can speculate about lifetime sales and alternative sales venues, but there's no arguing that the ICv2 numbers aren't factual.



just like there is no argument that a train got to a station. You can't say that it didn't if it did. But overall that doesn't tell you enough to know if that train company runs more or less on time then others.   Facts out of context don't help.


----------



## Cadence

Are the old Amazon sales figures saved somewhere?  (Say January 18, 2011?).






						Pathfinder Outselling Dungeons and Dragons
					

Following a report from a few months back  that Pathfinder  had tied D&D  4e in sales, it now appears that Pathfinder  has surpassed D&D :  ...




					cyclopeatron.blogspot.com


----------



## UngeheuerLich

If tenkar's source is correct and it is strictly an opt in like the gsl, then it is totally ok for me. Not great, but I can understand, why they want to do that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> To be fair, he's just citing the same ICv2 data that I linked to earlier. There's really no getting around the fact that they did report Pathfinder outselling 4E for a not-inconsiderable length of time. We can speculate about lifetime sales and alternative sales venues, but there's no arguing that the ICv2 numbers aren't factual.



I mean, the figures aren't factual.

The figures are a survey. They're essentially opinion, and subject to all sorts of reporting biases.

What is factual is that that's what ICv2 reported, but that's a slightly different thing.

(Also "that that's what" English is a rubbish stupid language lol)


----------



## teitan

GMforPowergamers said:


> lets not talk about lawsuits that have not been filed as if they are guarantied. I have seen people claim green ronin and piazo both are going to sue... if they are going to let THEM announce it and file it (Hopefully in the reverse order) don't 'volontold' others to do what we can't.



Letters have been sent with intent stated and deadlines set have been sent to WOTC looking at Class Action. I have not heard anything about Paizo or GR but DM Dave’s letter of intent and notification is already out there.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> it can becuse like the source said it isn't all game shops it's selected ones that are willing to answer, and it take 0 online or subscriptions into account.



Unless you can actually cite numbers with regard to those venues, that's pointless speculation. They _might_ support what you're saying, or they might not.


GMforPowergamers said:


> it only matters when you try to pretend that a small bit of the facts are the ONLY facts... here again are four people who would know



None of whom are actually presenting facts, just supposition without any verification. For that matter, there's an underlying reframing of the argument going on; 4E _might_ have outsold Pathfinder in lifetime sales, but *none* of the tweets you presented say that Pathfinder never outsold 4E. Three of them say that "4E did financially fine," and one makes an assertion about what looks like lifetime sales.

In other words, you're presenting support for an entirely different argument. That's called strawmanning.


GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean what are we even comparing with the ICv?  if I walk into a shop and already own every 4e book but the new one coming out next week, but buy 3 pathfinder books is that +3 pathfinder? does it count that I have the 4e book pre ordered on amazon and a sub to the 4e service? no. So again PF did great, and it came closer then any other to unseating D*D (but did so by being a retroclone of D&D) but we have nothing to say it actually beat or out performed 4e.



Except we _do_ have data to say that it beat out 4E; that data is from ICv2. Pointing out that there's additional venues that aren't being taken into account doesn't change that. Pointing out that might change if you look at lifetime sales vs. sales for specific quarters doesn't change that. Saying that 4E did "financially fine" doesn't change that.

You're essentially arguing that there's _no_ metric by which Pathfinder outperformed 4E, and we have factual data proving you wrong.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, the figures aren't factual.
> 
> The figures are a survey. They're essentially opinion, and subject to all sorts of reporting biases.
> 
> What is factual is that that's what ICv2 reported, but that's a slightly different thing.
> 
> (Also "that that's what" English is a rubbish stupid language lol)



wait... this is just a survey of store owners? so they could have a bias one way or the other? I thought that SOME sales numbers were involved...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

teitan said:


> Letters have been sent with intent stated and deadlines set have been sent to WOTC looking at Class Action. I have not heard anything about Paizo or GR but DM Dave’s letter of intent and notification is already out there.



yes it is, I am just cautioning about people who have NOT done so...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> wait... this is just a survey of store owners? so they could have a bias one way or the other? I thought that SOME sales numbers were involved...



It's a survey of some store owners (not all), asking them to volunteer what they believe are their sales numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> just like there is no argument that a train got to a station. You can't say that it didn't if it did. But overall that doesn't tell you enough to know if that train company runs more or less on time then others.   Facts out of context don't help.



Except you're changing the context. You're suggesting that 4E was always the top-selling RPG in every regard, and we know that it wasn't.


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> wait... this is just a survey of store owners? so they could have a bias one way or the other? I thought that SOME sales numbers were involved...



It’s a survey in that they ask the stores to rank their sales based in their numbers.

It’s not a qna about what they feel like. Some people are taking the word survey a bit to bent in one way.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, the figures aren't factual.
> 
> The figures are a survey. They're essentially opinion, and subject to all sorts of reporting biases.
> 
> What is factual is that that's what ICv2 reported, but that's a slightly different thing.
> 
> (Also "that that's what" English is a rubbish stupid language lol)



I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that a survey is "essentially opinion." ICv2 built a business model on their reporting, and while you can certainly say that there are _potentially_ issues with the reporting, that treads dangerously close to supposition. We don't have anything to say that their reporting is inaccurate, beyond the acknowledgment that they don't measure all sales venues. But saying "that means that what they're reporting isn't accurate" is an opinion with nothing to back it up.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> The GSL was a disaster because it had a clause where WoTC could pull the plug at any time (subsequent amendments not withstanding). Even if that was withdrawn later (I do not know) it would not matter because the licence was poison at that point. Everyone knew that Paizo thought it was unacceptable and people felt that they had access to good legal advice and left it at that.



Paizo did not like 4E. Lisa Stevens explained this in the 10 year anniversary blog post series.


UngainlyTitan said:


> OGL 1.1 can only stick the landing if the big third parties accept it. If say Kobold Press or Green Ronin or MCDM all say that they are not playing with this ball it is dead in the water.



Which they will most likely because their businesses rely on producing work for the current edition of D&D. I mean, maybe not so much GR these days, but Kobold and MCDM certainly. But those folks are much more likely to get special favor when negotiating with WotC.


UngainlyTitan said:


> No one down the food chain will touch it, no matter what the benefits. Most 3rd parties do not have to lawyers to evaluate this and will rely to some extent on the acceptability with the big guns in the OGL space.



I don't think WotC cares whether Grim Press or Legendary Games gets on board.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> You're essentially arguing that there's _no_ metric by which Pathfinder outperformed 4E, and we have factual data proving you wrong.



I mean, you talk aggressively about strawmanning and so on, but it looks more like you're talking past people, and no-one is strawmanning anyone (or if anyone is, you also are!).


Alzrius said:


> I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that a survey is "essentially opinion." ICv2 built a business model on their reporting, and while you can certainly say that there are _potentially_ issues with the reporting, that treads dangerously close to supposition. We don't have anything to say that their reporting is inaccurate, beyond the acknowledgment that they don't measure all sales venues. But saying "that means that what they're reporting isn't accurate" is an opinion with nothing to back it up.



There's no question it will be inaccurate.

The only question is the _degree_ of inaccuracy. It could be low, it could be high.

And now I'm hearing they just rank sales, they don't list actual sales amounts, is that right? That sort of thing doesn't sound like it's going to lead to much accuracy, if so.


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> What, are they going to change monster stat blocks? I mean, they might change the math, but you don't need the SRD for the math.



If you wanted to do it, I think you'd create a template for a monster stat block and a system for creating monsters based on that template, and you'd make the template and the system "Licensed Content" (not "Open Game Content"). Then, if a third-party used that template and system to create their own monsters without accepting 1.1, I could make a case complete with detailed exhibitions that this derivative work infringed on my copyright. From what I've read (it's been a while), courts like charts and tables when finding that line between "function" and "expression." Use my math? That's function. Use my chart? That's expression.

Alternatively, the third-party could choose _not_ to use the template or the system to create monster stat blocks, but they would have to forego some compatibility or perceived compatibility with 1D&D to do so. Consumers can be fairly hard on third parties when their execution or implementation of mechanics and design seems to stray from the "core" approach.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> You're essentially arguing that there's _no_ metric by which Pathfinder outperformed 4E, and we have factual data proving you wrong.



that is NOT what I am arguing. 

My argument today and my argument in 2015 when I was already sick of this edition war is simple... please address it and not a made up one:
"We can not ever know for sure what the sales numbers are, we have small peeks behind the curtain and some say one thing and others say the opposite. We can either take ALL the facts and admit we can't call it, or we can take NONE of the facts and go by our biased gut instincts. Either way no pro PF person will ever convince a pro 4e person that PF 'beat' 4e, and no pro 4e person will ever convince a prof PF person that 4e 'beat' PF. This has come down to opinion and opinion only."

I have in the past compared this edition war to the black panther or captian America vs batman arguments... both sides have solid facts they can point to in the way of feats of the hero they think would win, and examples of the one they think would lose losing to similar attacks. the problem is ONLY when one side take the stance "No way X can beat Y" because you can look at those 'facts' and get either answer.

This is pointless "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend" nonsense, and I would bet WotC/Hasbro will NEVER release the full item break down, and my gut says piazo (shouldn't) wont either. Without that information we are back to what SHOULD be the only metric... why we liked one and disliked the other,


----------



## dbolack

Ruin Explorer said:


> And now I'm hearing they just rank sales, they don't list actual sales amounts, is that right? That sort of thing doesn't sound like it's going to lead to much accuracy, if so.




That's my memory of their process. So it's more akin to aggregated movie review scores than ticket sales...


----------



## teitan

Alzrius said:


> I seem to recall some headlines here about how Pathfinder actually overtook 4E as the #1 RPG for a while.



That was during the end of 4e when there was little product and the months when 4e released a product it would return to number 1. I did a long post about it a couple years back but I don’t have the link at hand.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> Except you're changing the context. You're suggesting that 4E was always the top-selling RPG in every regard, and we know that it wasn't.



we don't know if it was or not.

We know in SOME stores that willingly took part in (what I thought was sales data but may now be just opinion) Ivc... out sold 4e for some periods of time.


----------



## qstor

The fact that it says perpetual in version a doesn't make it irrevocable.  Version a includes a numbered paragraph allowing WotC to modify it


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, you talk aggressively about strawmanning and so on, but it looks more like you're talking past people, and no-one is strawmanning anyone (or if anyone is, you also are!).



I don't think it was particularly aggressive. I was pointing out that quoting people saying "4E did financially fine" as a rebuttal to the ICv2 rankings is countering a point which was never put forward; that's the literal definition of a strawman. I could possibly see _some_ point being made with regard to saying that 4E outsold Pathfinder in terms of lifetime sales (simply because the issue of "top-selling" or "best-selling" RPG is undefined), but that doesn't change the context presented in the ICv2 rankings either, which is that there was a specific period where Pathfinder did outsell 4E.


Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no question it will be inaccurate.
> 
> The only question is the _degree_ of inaccuracy. It could be low, it could be high.
> 
> And now I'm hearing they just rank sales, they don't list actual sales amounts, is that right? That sort of thing doesn't sound like it's going to lead to much accuracy, if so.



Again, that's a question of how you want to frame the argument with regard to what's being measured. Insofar as I know, ICv2 doesn't have stores turn over sales figures (which most stores wouldn't do anyway), but they do more than just call someone up and ask how they think things sold (though the full report for a given quarter, assuming I followed the right series of links, is something you need to pay for). Suggesting that their rankings aren't correct, or don't provide any worthwhile insight, doesn't strike me as being correct.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay... now how long will that outrage last?



I think it will last, but no one can predict the future. Just speculation


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> This is pointless "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend" nonsense, and I would bet WotC/Hasbro will NEVER release the full item break down, and my gut says piazo (shouldn't) wont either. Without that information we are back to what SHOULD be the only metric... why we liked one and disliked the other,



If you don't want to have the debate, that's perfectly fine, but by your own logic you shouldn't assert the idea that Pathfinder never outsold 4E as a fact, when there's at least some evidence for it having done so. Admittedly, that's in a certain context, but the point that was originally put forward is that it did so in _any_ context is notable.


----------



## Alzrius

teitan said:


> That was during the end of 4e when there was little product and the months when 4e released a product it would return to number 1. I did a long post about it a couple years back but I don’t have the link at hand.



Sure, there were extenuating circumstances. That's notable, because there are extenuating circumstances happening right now (albeit not the same ones).


----------



## Cadence

Ruin Explorer said:


> And now I'm hearing they just rank sales, they don't list actual sales amounts, is that right? That sort of thing doesn't sound like it's going to lead to much accuracy, if so.



Is Amazon any better for measuring that? (Is there an ap for the old sales numbers?)









						4 Hours w/ RSD: Who Am I?
					

Who Am I & How Did I Get Here?   Greetings! It’s been a while since I’ve been an active member of the ENWorld community or actively involved with publishing tabletop RPGs so I may need to make a few introductions.   Almost 20 years ago I created one of the first ecommerce businesses, RPG...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> we don't know if it was or not.
> 
> We know in SOME stores that willingly took part in (what I thought was sales data but may now be just opinion) Ivc... out sold 4e for some periods of time.



Leaving aside a debate on the validity of representative sampling (and whether or not ICv2's methods approach anything of the sort), the notable point is that another RPG outselling D&D in _any_ regard, particularly for a sustained period of time, is notable unto itself.


----------



## teitan

Alzrius said:


> Unless you can actually cite numbers with regard to those venues, that's pointless speculation. They _might_ support what you're saying, or they might not.
> 
> None of whom are actually presenting facts, just supposition without any verification. For that matter, there's an underlying reframing of the argument going on; 4E _might_ have outsold Pathfinder in lifetime sales, but *none* of the tweets you presented say that Pathfinder never outsold 4E. Three of them say that "4E did financially fine," and one makes an assertion about what looks like lifetime sales.
> 
> In other words, you're presenting support for an entirely different argument. That's called strawmanning.
> 
> Except we _do_ have data to say that it beat out 4E; that data is from ICv2. Pointing out that there's additional venues that aren't being taken into account doesn't change that. Pointing out that might change if you look at lifetime sales vs. sales for specific quarters doesn't change that. Saying that 4E did "financially fine" doesn't change that.
> 
> You're essentially arguing that there's _no_ metric by which Pathfinder outperformed 4E, and we have factual data proving you wrong.



ICV2 only reflects a portion of the sales, game stores. It doesn’t look at offerings in the period it examines either and how that impacts sales rankings. Paizo had multiples releases a month and Wizards went months without new D&D product and a string of product cancellations before Pathfinder took the number 1 spot and then took up residence during the edition neutral release schedule aside from the release months. You can look at the release schedule for D&D during that time period and leading up to 5e launching to correlate with ICV2 data very easily and see how the months that WOtC released Heroes of Shadow for example corresponded to D&D being number 1 on ICV2 again and the next month it was Pathfinder with no new releases for D&D of significance. It’s like when Vampire was topping D&D during the TSR bankruptcy and TSR couldn’t get their books distributed by Random House or from the printer due to owing money. Would Vampire have been top dog in those months? It would have been pretty close but TSR was greatly weakened by poor business practices and a crumbling fanbase.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I don't think it was particularly aggressive. I was pointing out that quoting people saying "4E did financially fine" as a rebuttal to the ICv2 rankings is countering a point which was never put forward; that's the literal definition of a strawman. I could possibly see _some_ point being made with regard to saying that 4E outsold Pathfinder in terms of lifetime sales (simply because the issue of "top-selling" or "best-selling" RPG is undefined), but that doesn't change the context presented in the ICv2 rankings either, which is that there was a specific period where Pathfinder did outsell 4E.



except no... (especially with this new info that no actual sales data was collected just a ranking by store owner) what we have is ICv2 ranked PF higher some quaters then 4e for some stores only. That is it. 


Alzrius said:


> Again, that's a question of how you want to frame the argument with regard to what's being measured. Insofar as I know, ICv2 doesn't have stores turn over sales figures (which most stores wouldn't do anyway), but they do more than just call someone up and ask how they think things sold (though the full report for a given quarter, assuming I followed the right series of links, is something you need to pay for). Suggesting that their rankings aren't correct, or don't provide any worthwhile insight, doesn't strike me as being correct.



I have directly been involved with 3 stores (that sold D&D... more if you count just food) and I can tell you that as the person that ACTUALLY RUNS THE NUMBERS for some of them that not once have I met an owner that can off hand without checking with the book keeper tell you 100% accuracy what sells.

Lets say I sell self sealing stem bolts and Converters both. I bought 100 of each to start and when I sold out I replenished each. However I didn't keep count (in my head my book keeper did in files) of how many times I replenished, and I had to off the cuff say what I sold more... I MIGHT be right, but I most likely would remember what I rang up more of (with faulty human memory) and glance at my stock... if i see I have 74 Self Sealing Stem Bolts and 22 Converters I can easily say I sold more converters... BUT if I refreshed my order 8 times for self sealing stem bolts and 6 times for converters... that isn't true, but I can easily think it is... if I also have spacly sprockets and cogswell cogs to keep track of and all 4 sell similar I can guarantee my 'gut check' answer will be the one I personally like more. 

and if you only ask 500 store to compare self sealing stem bolts, coverters, spacly sprocket and cogswell cogs and 392 of them answer, that doens't paint a full picture even of store sales let alone ones sold online or direct.


----------



## Alzrius

teitan said:


> ICV2 only reflects a portion of the sales, game stores. It doesn’t look at offerings in the period it examines either and how that impacts sales rankings. Paizo had multiples releases a month and Wizards went months without new D&D product and a string of product cancellations before Pathfinder took the number 1 spot and then took up residence during the edition neutral release schedule aside from the release months. You can look at the release schedule for D&D during that time period and leading up to 5e launching to correlate with ICV2 data very easily and see how the months that WOtC released Heroes of Shadow for example corresponded to D&D being number 1 on ICV2 again and the next month it was Pathfinder with no new releases for D&D of significance. It’s like when Vampire was topping D&D during the TSR bankruptcy and TSR couldn’t get their books distributed by Random House or from the printer due to owing money. Would Vampire have been top dog in those months? It would have been pretty close but TSR was greatly weakened by poor business practices and a crumbling fanbase.



I'm pretty sure I said all of that already.  

Yeah, the data doesn't cover all sales through all potential venues (though as @Cadence pointed out above, there was also a suggestion that Pathfinder was outselling D&D on Amazon at the time), and isn't a measure of lifetime sales. But the point isn't to say that Pathfinder was the top-selling RPG in every conceivable regard; it's that for another RPG to outsell D&D in _any context_ is remarkable, and deserves to be noted for that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it will last, but no one can predict the future. Just speculation



maybe.  I think it depends on foot print... and remember to us this is a game. to some it's there life's work. If a bunch of creators land on there feet and make morgage payments and have food on the table (even if that means changing gears jobs or even careers) then it will be lessened. If a bunch of people get put out of work (MY BIGGEST FEAR HERE) then DONT land on there feet that outrage can become a tidle wave.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> If you don't want to have the debate, that's perfectly fine, but by your own logic you shouldn't assert the idea that Pathfinder never outsold 4E as a fact, when there's at least some evidence for it having done so.



okay so lets go back to my 
"Nobody has all the numbers and facts and we are at best working with biased numbers and guess work"
how is that? How about we just DON'T say anyone can 'prove' anything and talk about our own experiences and feelings instead?


Alzrius said:


> Admittedly, that's in a certain context, but the point that was originally put forward is that it did so in _any_ context is notable.



if that is true then my rebuttal that in a different context others put forward it did not should show that we don't know.


----------



## Reynard

This question of how much or how long Pathfinder did or did not outsell 4E erntirely misses the point I was making when i brought it up: even if Pathfinder did outsell 4E for some period at that time, it was still explicitly a version of D&D that was at the top. Pathfinder billed itself and marketed itself as the true continuation of the real D&D at the time. That's the point. D&D is the industry and companies that want something resembling success (like Kobold) are going to follow where WotC leads if the players follow -- and based on those survey results, 1D&D is going to be the next D&D without controversy.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> except no... (especially with this new info that no actual sales data was collected just a ranking by store owner) what we have is ICv2 ranked PF higher some quaters then 4e for some stores only. That is it.



I'm not sure what you mean by "that is it." No one put forward anything otherwise; but that's the best data we have for that particular channel, with no other data for or against the conclusion ICv2 reached (again, notwithstanding the Amazon sales ranks that were mentioned at the time).


GMforPowergamers said:


> I have directly been involved with 3 stores (that sold D&D... more if you count just food) and I can tell you that as the person that ACTUALLY RUNS THE NUMBERS for some of them that not once have I met an owner that can off hand without checking with the book keeper tell you 100% accuracy what sells.



I'm fairly confident that ICv2 checked with more than three stores. That said, this comes across like an attempt to say that their data is entirely unreliable, which strikes me as being in bad faith. You can argue that they don't cover all venues, or that the data doesn't include hard sales numbers or revenue generated. I don't think you can imply anything to the effect of "it should be discounted completely."


GMforPowergamers said:


> Lets say I sell self sealing stem bolts and Converters both. I bought 100 of each to start and when I sold out I replenished each. However I didn't keep count (in my head my book keeper did in files) of how many times I replenished, and I had to off the cuff say what I sold more... I MIGHT be right, but I most likely would remember what I rang up more of (with faulty human memory) and glance at my stock... if i see I have 74 Self Sealing Stem Bolts and 22 Converters I can easily say I sold more converters... BUT if I refreshed my order 8 times for self sealing stem bolts and 6 times for converters... that isn't true, but I can easily think it is... if I also have spacly sprockets and cogswell cogs to keep track of and all 4 sell similar I can guarantee my 'gut check' answer will be the one I personally like more.
> 
> and if you only ask 500 store to compare self sealing stem bolts, coverters, spacly sprocket and cogswell cogs and 392 of them answer, that doens't paint a full picture even of store sales let alone ones sold online or direct.



Hypotheticals aren't really worth anything in this context. We have to work with the data we have, incomplete though it may be. The ICv2 data is the most concrete information we have for the venues and period of time in question. Suggesting that it could be better is self-evident. Suggesting that it's untrustworthy goes further than I think is reasonable.


----------



## darjr

For a couple short times I would like to believe Paizo outsold 4e. And in stores I believe they did.

Overall sales I dint know but I doubt Paizo outsold overall.

The ICV2 numbers match what I’ve been told from retailers I’ve talked too, none of whom report to icv2.

But it is in stores only. I wish I’d grabbed Amazon numbers at the time.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> This question of how much or how long Pathfinder did or did not outsell 4E erntirely misses the point I was making when i brought it up: even if Pathfinder did outsell 4E for some period at that time, it was still explicitly a version of D&D that was at the top. Pathfinder billed itself and marketed itself as the true continuation of the real D&D at the time. That's the point. D&D is the industry and companies that want something resembling success (like Kobold) are going to follow where WotC leads if the players follow -- and based on those survey results, 1D&D is going to be the next D&D without controversy.



This. 

I think this is a good point.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> Paizo did not like 4E. Lisa Stevens explained this in the 10 year anniversary blog post series.



This may well be true but the 4e GSL was a gun to the business model of Paizo and there was no way they could accept it if another option was available. 


Reynard said:


> Which they will most likely because their businesses rely on producing work for the current edition of D&D. I mean, maybe not so much GR these days, but Kobold and MCDM certainly. But those folks are much more likely to get special favor when negotiating with WotC.



They might or they might not, I think, that despite opinion to the contrary that the 1.0a OGL is defensible in court. We will see, I also think that, that if Tenkar is correct and the OGL 1.1 is opt in that WoTC will not try to shut down the 1.0a OGL in court (it is a pretty nuclear move). So we are now negotiating and we will see in time the outcome of that. 
My guess is that much of that special favour will be written into the final form of the OGL 1.1 but we will see.


Reynard said:


> I don't think WotC cares whether Grim Press or Legendary Games gets on board.



Who?   .
Actually the name Legendary Games rings a bell but I have never heard of Grim Press.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> Leaving aside a debate on the validity of representative sampling (and whether or not ICv2's methods approach anything of the sort), the notable point is that another RPG outselling D&D in _any_ regard, particularly for a sustained period of time, is notable unto itself.



by this metric White Wolf and VtM 2nd edition is also a notable moment. I believe that you could also say the fact that Call of Cthulhu having much smaller changes from edition to edition and out lasted every version of D&D is notable, and Rifts started in 2e and has out lasted multi editions with no edition change and has as big a foot print at Gencon or bigger most years then WotC...

By lots of metrics we can show D&D isn't number 1 if taken in a vacuum (sam said "lies, damn lies and statistics")


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay so lets go back to my
> "Nobody has all the numbers and facts and we are at best working with biased numbers and guess work"
> how is that? How about we just DON'T say anyone can 'prove' anything and talk about our own experiences and feelings instead?



Because there's a middle ground between "this is the undisputable Truth-with-a-capital-T" and "nobody knows anything for certain." The best data we have might be incomplete, but it's still something.


GMforPowergamers said:


> if that is true then my rebuttal that in a different context others put forward it did not should show that we don't know.



Again, that strikes me as going a bit too high in terms of setting a bar for what we "know." There's a particular context where the facts available to us suggest that Pathfinder outsold 4E in a particular context for a particular period of time. Saying that that's not definitive is certainly true, but so is saying that's notable unto itself for how unusual it is even within those contexts.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> by this metric White Wolf and VtM 2nd edition is also a notable moment. I believe that you could also say the fact that Call of Cthulhu having much smaller changes from edition to edition and out lasted every version of D&D is notable, and Rifts started in 2e and has out lasted multi editions with no edition change and has as big a foot print at Gencon or bigger most years then WotC...
> 
> By lots of metrics we can show D&D isn't number 1 if taken in a vacuum (sam said "lies, damn lies and statistics")



Leaving aside that what people find to be "notable" will vary from individual to individual, the aforementioned ICv2 data is notable because even restricting the contexts involved (e.g. store sales only, looking at particular times rather than lifetime sales, etc.) it's almost unheard of for D&D to be outsold.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> This question of how much or how long Pathfinder did or did not outsell 4E erntirely misses the point I was making when i brought it up: even if Pathfinder did outsell 4E for some period at that time, it was still explicitly a version of D&D that was at the top. Pathfinder billed itself and marketed itself as the true continuation of the real D&D at the time. That's the point. D&D is the industry and companies that want something resembling success (like Kobold) are going to follow where WotC leads if the players follow -- and based on those survey results, 1D&D is going to be the next D&D without controversy.



Correct.  No non D&D game other then Vampire ever came close... and even then 'close' is really doing a lot of heavy lifting when D&D basicly proved it could sustain 2 companies competing for #1 while others are at half or less of those sales.

Edit: Burger King and McDonalds went to war over being THE fast food chain, and you know who won? Coke... because both of them and Wendy's (the distant 3rd) sold Coke products.
Or to put it another way Pathfinder and D&D 4e went to war over who was the best selling game... and all it proved was that it was a version of D&D.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> Suggesting that their rankings aren't correct, or don't provide any worthwhile insight, doesn't strike me as being correct.



What does "correct" even mean on this basis?

The understanding is that store owners merely _rank sales_. So if Pathfinder outsold D&D by 50 cents one month, it'd be #1 and 4E #2 (equally vice-versa), which give how little product was produced for 4E in the later days, and that we're talking FLGSes here, not big stores, Amazon, or the like, doesn't tell us very much.

To me it looks like this is perfectly compatible with 4E outselling Pathfinder, even by a large margin (!!!), especially given @teitan's comment that when there was product, it sold better. I'm not even sure what you're arguing at this point.

You seem to be basically arguing a circular thing. ICv2's approach, which is purely a sales ranking, and not necessarily reflective of total sales _in any way_, is true to itself and its peculiar methodology, but it's not necessarily very interesting.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> This may well be true but the 4e GSL was a gun to the business model of Paizo and there was no way they could accept it if another option was available.



From the blog:
----------
"When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for. Whether a license for 4E was forthcoming or not, we were going to create our own game system based on the 3.5 SRD: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. And we were already WAY behind schedule."


UngainlyTitan said:


> They might or they might not, I think, that despite opinion to the contrary that the 1.0a OGL is defensible in court. We will see, I also think that, that if Tenkar is correct and the OGL 1.1 is opt in that WoTC will not try to shut down the 1.0a OGL in court (it is a pretty nuclear move). So we are now negotiating and we will see in time the outcome of that.
> My guess is that much of that special favour will be written into the final form of the OGL 1.1 but we will see.



I think what that quote suggests is that a publisher has to make a choice -- OGL 1.0a or 1.1 -- and companies who rely on official support for the current edition of D&D are likely going to accept the new terms.


UngainlyTitan said:


> Who?   .
> Actually the name Legendary Games rings a bell but I have never heard of Grim Press.



Exactly (from WotC's perspective, even if we lose).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> Is Amazon any better for measuring that? (Is there an ap for the old sales numbers?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Hours w/ RSD: Who Am I?
> 
> 
> Who Am I & How Did I Get Here?   Greetings! It’s been a while since I’ve been an active member of the ENWorld community or actively involved with publishing tabletop RPGs so I may need to make a few introductions.   Almost 20 years ago I created one of the first ecommerce businesses, RPG...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



I mean, it usually lists sales FIGURES, doesn't it, so yeah? That's definitely more useful than ranking.

Whether you can get old ones? Probably somewhere but I wouldn't know where.


----------



## darjr

Also I think the inflection point of selling more is kinda counter to the real information.

The fact that Pathfinder got so close we can even have this debate is, flat out, remarkable.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> What does "correct" even mean on this basis?



That was me trying to be humorous.  Essentially, what I was saying was that pointing out that their data isn't all-encompassing, or that it _could_ have been more rigorous, doesn't mean it can be dismissed as invalid, which is what it looked to me was being implied.


Ruin Explorer said:


> You seem to be basically arguing a circular thing. ICv2's approach, which is purely a sales ranking, and not necessarily reflective of total sales _in any way_, is true to itself and its peculiar methodology, but it's not necessarily very interesting.



No, I don't believe that's an accurate restating of what I'm putting forward. To put it simply, the ICv2 data might not be as definitive as we'd like, but it's still among the best we have.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "that is it." No one put forward anything otherwise; but that's the best data we have for that particular channel, with no other data for or against the conclusion ICv2 reached (again, notwithstanding the Amazon sales ranks that were mentioned at the time).



I put forward more data for you: eye witness form employees of both



Alzrius said:


> I'm fairly confident that ICv2 checked with more than three stores.



I am sure they must... I never said 3, I made a number up of they called 500 and got 300+ to agree to answer, but I never said 3.


Alzrius said:


> That said, this comes across like an attempt to say that their data is entirely unreliable, which strikes me as being in bad faith.



no, its an intresting data point, it just isn;t the whole story, and make no mistake we don't have the whole story.


Alzrius said:


> You can argue that they don't cover all venues, or that the data doesn't include hard sales numbers or revenue generated. I don't think you can imply anything to the effect of "it should be discounted completely."



nor did I


Alzrius said:


> Hypotheticals aren't really worth anything in this context. We have to work with the data we have, incomplete though it may be.



except you want to pick and choose what data we take (I mean we all do, we want the data that supports us to be right and the data that doesn't to be wrong).


Alzrius said:


> The ICv2 data is the most concrete information we have for the venues and period of time in question.



no it isn't. We have statements form WotC and now I have employees of both companies refuiting it.
Suggesting that it could be better is self-evident. Suggesting that it's untrustworthy goes further than I think is reasonable.
what is reasonable is that we don't know. WE can either take ALL the eviedence both pro and con for both sides or we can take NONE of the eviedence and just talk about our opinions and feelings... the unreasonable thing is to ONLY take the eviedence we like


----------



## MockingBird

If we picked our battles better threads wouldn't get shut down. You (general) don't always have to refute a claim that's been beaten to death just to be right. I could care less about 4e vs pathfinder, I'm more worried about the OGL v1.1.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> For a couple short times I would like to believe Paizo outsold 4e. And in stores I believe they did.
> 
> Overall sales I dint know but I doubt Paizo outsold overall.
> 
> The ICV2 numbers match what I’ve been told from retailers I’ve talked too, none of whom report to icv2.
> 
> But it is in stores only. I wish I’d grabbed Amazon numbers at the time.



and make no mistake, Paizo HAD to outsell WotC somewhere or else it would not even be close. If EVERY store was 'about even' I can't for the life of me beleive Paizo stood a chance. SOme places HAD to be pro 1 or the other.


----------



## darjr

I get roasted all the dang time about “oh you have sales numbers then?” 

Chris isn’t talking about quarters. Ugh.


----------



## darjr

Also make no mistake, many stores are STILL bent out of shape about Paizo selling direct.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> it's almost unheard of for D&D to be outsold.



and if you are pro 4e (like I am) or pro PF this is just untrue... because pro PF people will tell you PF is true D&D, so D&D IF IT WAS OUTSOLD (not in evidence) was outsold by D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Also I think the inflection point of selling more is kinda counter to the real information.
> 
> The fact that Pathfinder got so close we can even have this debate is, flat out, remarkable.



and again... I don't know anyone that disputes that. Even the hardest core 4e fans say EXACTLY that...The fact that Pathfinder got so close we can even have this debate is, flat out, remarkable.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the reason WotC isn't leaping to defend the leaked OGL 1.1 is not because they are in a panic over the response. it's that they are probably just letting the outrage wear itself out. As far as internet news cycles go, this gnashing of teeth will probably be measured in days. Sure, some folks (me included) are going to drop them like a hot potato, but I don't think that is likely to occur on a large scale. Once Keys drops and the movie comes out, no one will likely even care.



I think it’s important to remember that “leaping into action” takes longer the bigger a company is. This thing _just_ broke. It’s too soon to tell yet if WotC’s strategy is to get a response out ASAP or to let it blow over, because ASAP hasn’t happened yet. If they are going to make a response, it’s surely being passed around for approvals and such now, and we won’t see it for a few days at least, maybe longer. We have to be a bit patient.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MockingBird said:


> If we picked our battles better threads wouldn't get shut down. You (general) don't always have to refute a claim that's been beaten to death just to be right. I could care less about 4e vs pathfinder, I'm more worried about the OGL v1.1.



Okay I will end this if the others will. I will walk away with "Agree to disagree"


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> I put forward more data for you: eye witness form employees of both



Again, these are saying that 4E outsold Pathfinder, without any further context. They don't address whether they mean in lifetime sales or consistently across every quarter. They don't mention anything about distribution channels. It essentially boils down to them saying "trust us, we're insiders." I don't think that they're lying, but I do think that they're not addressing the idea that ICv2 put forward, which is that there was a period of time where Pathfinder was outselling 4E (at least in the context they measured).


GMforPowergamers said:


> I am sure they must... I never said 3, I made a number up of they called 500 and got 300+ to agree to answer, but I never said 3.



I'm fairly sure you did: "I have directly been involved with 3 stores (that sold D&D... more if you count just food)"


GMforPowergamers said:


> no, its an intresting data point, it just isn;t the whole story, and make no mistake we don't have the whole story.



Which means that we can at least refer to the part of the story we do have.


GMforPowergamers said:


> nor did I



Again, that was the implication that I read into people suggesting that ICv2's methodology was somehow lacking.


GMforPowergamers said:


> except you want to pick and choose what data we take (I mean we all do, we want the data that supports us to be right and the data that doesn't to be wrong).



No, I'm saying that the ICv2 data is the best that we've got. The personal testimony you linked to above is interesting, but so lacking in context that it doesn't really add much to the discussion.


GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't. We have statements form WotC and now I have employees of both companies refuiting it.



The "it" in the idea that they "refute it" is undefined. Are they saying that Pathfinder _never_ outsold 4E in any given business quarter, in any context? No, so there's room for saying that ICv2 is correct.


GMforPowergamers said:


> Suggesting that it could be better is self-evident. Suggesting that it's untrustworthy goes further than I think is reasonable.
> what is reasonable is that we don't know. WE can either take ALL the eviedence both pro and con for both sides or we can take NONE of the eviedence and just talk about our opinions and feelings... the unreasonable thing is to ONLY take the eviedence we like



Again, no one is selectively pointing to only certain evidence that I'm aware of. I'm pointing out that there's data that backs up the idea that Pathfinder did outsell 4E in a particular context, and that even in that context that's exceptional.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> Also I think the inflection point of selling more is kinda counter to the real information.
> 
> The fact that Pathfinder got so close we can even have this debate is, flat out, remarkable.



I mean, but how remarkable is the question? How close did White Wolf get? I heard similar "White Wolf outsold AD&D some months" claims at the time, but I dunno what the basis was for them.

It seems to me like we have different phases of D&D.

Early '80s - D&D craze and Satanic Panic (which we are informed increased sales in the short term). D&D basically created the RPG industry and outsold everything.
Late '80s through late '90s - D&D falls increasingly out of favour, other RPGs, particular WoD, come into favour. It is alleged WoD outsold D&D a bunch in the '90s, but we have no figures.
'00s - 3E is a big success but what kicks it into the stratosphere is absolutely undeniably the OGL and d20 revolution. The d20 era was unavoidable. It profoundly changed what was in FLGSes, and when it went away, so did some FLGSes which had leaned into it too hard. This was something you could see just walking into an FLGS. The RPG section used to have dozens of RPGs, and D&D would have a small portion of it. With d20, yeah 3E didn't even really have a much larger portion than 2E had, but the d20 books? God they sure did! That was like half or more of the RPG section of a store. It probably helped that a lot of other RPGs made major missteps in or just before this era, especially WW.
'08-'14 - 4E was NOT the same kind of success as 3E, and d20 stuff started to like, curl up and die. In fact I'd say the big d20 boom actually started to fail by maybe '05, leaving behind a smaller number of better-adapted games. Pathfinder was one of the better-adapted ones, because Paizo's APs had already got a shelf or more to themselves, and it expanded from there.
I'll be honest I haven't been in an FLGS since like 2017, so I will refrain from commenting much on 5E.


Alzrius said:


> No, I don't believe that's an accurate restating of what I'm putting forward. To put it simply, the ICv2 data might not be as definitive as we'd like, but it's still among the best we have.



One thing I know from archaeology is that _sometimes_ even "the best data we have" is basically worthless, and it can be a serious error to rely on it (as filthy historians love to do).


----------



## darjr

Can you imagine the debate about this within WotC?!?

And then what it must be like now?!


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> and if you are pro 4e (like I am) or pro PF this is just untrue... because pro PF people will tell you PF is true D&D, so D&D IF IT WAS OUTSOLD (not in evidence) was outsold by D&D.



I don't think this is helpful to the discussion at hand, because it relies on things like "PF is true D&D" which seem to lower the discourse rather than elevate it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> I don't think this is helpful to the discussion at hand, because it relies on things like "PF is true D&D" which seem to lower the discourse rather than elevate it.



Uh-huh, but it's usually the subtext to approaches like yours. Anyway, I've think we've discussed this enough.


----------



## darjr

@Ruin Explorer 
Please. All other RPGs are a rounding error in sales. Almost has always been. To get within striking distance is essentially impossible.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> One thing I know from archaeology is that _sometimes_ even "the best data we have" is basically worthless, and it can be a serious error to rely on it (as filthy historians love to do).



I mean...maybe? Yeah, incomplete data can be wrong, but coming to _that_ conclusion requires better (i.e. more holistic, more accurate, more reliable, etc.) data, which insofar as this discussion goes we don't really have.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> Uh-huh, but it's usually the subtext to approaches like yours. Anyway, I've think we've discussed this enough.



I honestly don't know what you mean by "approaches like mine."


----------



## schneeland

Reynard said:


> This question of how much or how long Pathfinder did or did not outsell 4E erntirely misses the point I was making when i brought it up: even if Pathfinder did outsell 4E for some period at that time, it was still explicitly a version of D&D that was at the top.



I feel, w.r.t. to the discussion at hand, this is the key point.
Now we do have a number of mid-sized publishers doing relatively well at the moment that have mostly non-D&D systems (Chaosium, Free League, Modiphius, Cubicle 7), but even these companies have started to adopt 5e versions of their systems because of the extent to which the current edition of D&D dominates the market. So I agree that there is a strong incentive to be on the current version of D&D. And even VTTs like Foundry probably want to be on the current version (the Foundry-Reddit often seems like 80-90% 5e).
That being said: for me personally, the biggest worry is for the effect of the new version on systems outside 5e that rely on the OGL (in particular OSR stuff). So if the new license becomes opt-in, it's still a naughty word license, but it will not affect me or the games I like too much.

P.S.: I guess one thing we can say for sure is that any D&D discussion of sufficient length turns into a 4e argument.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> I honestly don't know what you mean by "approaches like mine."



Slamming post after post after post after post about how you're certain PF1 outsold 4E and how it's big and important for sure.

That approach. I know you probably don't intend that, but dude, this ain't our first rodeo.


Alzrius said:


> I mean...maybe? Yeah, incomplete data can be wrong, but coming to _that_ conclusion requires better (i.e. more holistic, more accurate, more reliable, etc.) data, which insofar as this discussion goes we don't really have.



Disagree strongly.

You can reach that conclusion just by looking at the quality of the evidence. If it's poor enough, you know not to rely on it for any significant conclusions. Unless you're a bloody historian in which case you can probably sustain half a career and several bestselling pop-history books on incredibly sketchy and later disproven "historical evidence" which everyone knew was hopelessly incomplete and misleading. Grinding an axe, me?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I'm fairly sure you did: "I have directly been involved with 3 stores (that sold D&D... more if you count just food)"



that was talking about unreliableness of ranking... I couldn't even tell you month by month in 2010 what sold more in a store I was handling the books for without going back (and since they aren't in business' anymore I can't) I NEVER said they only asked 3 stores.


Alzrius said:


> No, I'm saying that the ICv2 data is the best that we've got. The personal testimony you linked to above is interesting, but so lacking in context that it doesn't really add much to the discussion.



except the ICv2 data is personal testimony compiled by ICv2.  It is personal testimony by people with smaller views of teh overall picture.


Alzrius said:


> The "it" in the idea that they "refute it" is undefined. Are they saying that Pathfinder _never_ outsold 4E in any given business quarter, in any context? No, so there's room for saying that ICv2 is correct.



yes but being correct on a data point is not correct on the big picture.  ICv2 data says that some stores think that PF out sold 4e in those select locations. that is what we have. combined personal testimony of a collection of store owners.


Alzrius said:


> Again, no one is selectively pointing to only certain evidence that I'm aware of. I'm pointing out that there's data that backs up the idea that Pathfinder did outsell 4E in a particular context, and that even in that context that's exceptional.



again, I am not saying no store every sold more PF then 4e content in any given month... I am saying at BEST we can say ICv2 data says that some stores think that PF out sold 4e in those select locations. that is what we have. combined personal testimony of a collection of store owners.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> Slamming post after post after post after post about how you're certain PF1 outsold 4E and how it's big and important for sure.



I don't believe I was doing that; certainly, I think that more appropriate describes the person I'm posting in response to (leaving aside the particulars of what outsold what) than it does to me.


Ruin Explorer said:


> You can reach that conclusion just by looking at the quality of the evidence. If it's poor enough, you know not to rely on it for any significant conclusions. Unless you're a bloody historian in which case you can probably sustain half a career and several bestselling pop-history books on incredibly sketchy and later disproven evidence. Grinding an axe, me?



I'll certainly admit that some evidence can, unto itself, look so suspect that it's not _prima facie_ worthwhile. I just don't think that's really relevant to what's being discussed here.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

schneeland said:


> So I agree that there is a strong incentive to be on the current version of D&D. And even VTTs like Foundry probably want to be on the current version (the Foundry-Reddit often seems like 80-90% 5e).



Pre covid my groups did a lot of gaming that WASn't D&D or D&D adjacent. Useing Roll20 it is easier to play 5e then anything else... so our gaming is almost 99% 5e D&D right now. 

VTT intergration is a BIG part


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Unless you're a bloody historian in which case you can probably sustain half a career and several bestselling pop-history books on incredibly sketchy and later disproven "historical evidence" which everyone knew was hopelessly incomplete and misleading. Grinding an axe, me?



I;m not saying it's aliens... but I'm not saying it CAN'T be aliens...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> I don't believe I was doing that; certainly, I think that more appropriate describes the person I'm posting in response to (leaving aside the particulars of what outsold what) than it does to me.
> 
> I'll certainly admit that some evidence can, unto itself, look so suspect that it's not _prima facie_ worthwhile. I just don't think that's really relevant to what's being discussed here.



Okay, I think maybe this not something you're really interested hearing lol. Anyway discussion over, returning to  OGL.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I don't believe I was doing that; certainly, I think that more appropriate describes the person I'm posting in response to (leaving aside the particulars of what outsold what) than it does to me.



lol... you think I am causing trouble by saying "We don't know for sure and we both can point to evidence that contradicts each other"

I have offered to walk away with "Agree to disagree" but I will keep going if you want to.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> except the ICv2 data is personal testimony compiled by ICv2.  It is personal testimony by people with smaller views of teh overall picture.



Leaving aside the specifics of the methodology (since short of actually purchasing one of their reports and breaking it down, examining how rigorous it may or may not have been seems like a dead end), having ICv2 put those smaller views together into a larger picture is the entire point of what they do.


GMforPowergamers said:


> yes but being correct on a data point is not correct on the big picture.  ICv2 data says that some stores think that PF out sold 4e in those select locations. that is what we have. combined personal testimony of a collection of store owners.



Again, I'm not sure it's accurate to characterize it like that. It might be, but leaving aside that the store owners are going to probably be right with regard to their own sales (or at least, no one can really gainsay them), and issues of how many stores ICv2 checked with and how much their sampling represents the entire industry...that's still among the best data we have, and doesn't strike me as particularly suspect.


GMforPowergamers said:


> again, I am not saying no store every sold more PF then 4e content in any given month... I am saying at BEST we can say ICv2 data says that some stores think that PF out sold 4e in those select locations. that is what we have. combined personal testimony of a collection of store owners.



I think that data is more reliable than you're characterizing it to be, here, for reasons outlined above. Even then, if that's the best we can say, then it's still the most accurate data we have.


----------



## Mistwell

jerryrice4949 said:


> So why would anyone opt in?  Do they really need the new SRD?





UngainlyTitan said:


> That is am interesting point and while I think a lot of people will still have issues with it. I for one would not. "Opt in" preserves the existing ecosystem without the need for law suits.
> As I am not a 3rd party producer nor will ever be, that said, I would want a pretty big carrot to opt in to that licence. We do not really know what the carrot is. Access to the VTT on its own would probably not be enough.





Staffan said:


> That seems like a far more likely thing – essentially a repeat of the GSL (though if they do, they really shouldn't call it OGL). To my mind, releasing 5.5e under a different license would be a bad move, but fair. My main ire is directed at trying to mess with stuff already released under the OGL 1.0a.





Ruin Explorer said:


> Big if true.
> 
> Though it is very hard to see why anyone would opt-in on the basis of the current OGL 1.1.
> 
> If this is true this would explain the negotiations better though - because it's possible that bigger companies will be cut deals where they get to put out material for 1D&D, and ALSO get to keep putting out 1.0a material.




IF Tenkar's information is correct, we'd bad back to right where we were before the "leaked 1.1" became bombshell news and answer the question of "OK so why would anyone opt-in to this?"

The answer is back to the prior discussion everyone was having on this. Because WOTC 1) thinks the new rules will be that much better and widely adopted by the customer base that 3rd parties will want to work from them, and 2) 3rd parties will need to be using 1.1 in order to get their material listed on DNDBeyond, and 3) 3rd parties will need to be using 1.1 in order to use their materials with the new DND Beyond VTT, which WOTC thinks will be the killer app that everyone is using instead of the other VTTs out there right now and 3rd parties will want to get on board with it.

Those are the reasons that come to my mind.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> From the blog:
> ----------
> "When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for. Whether a license for 4E was forthcoming or not, we were going to create our own game system based on the 3.5 SRD: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. And we were already WAY behind schedule."



Well, they played that close to the vest at the time. 


Reynard said:


> I think what that quote suggests is that a publisher has to make a choice -- OGL 1.0a or 1.1 -- and companies who rely on official support for the current edition of D&D are likely going to accept the new terms.



Here, we really do not know. We do not really know the terms of the licence on offer and I certainly do not know how well resourced the players are and what their sticking points are. I do not believe it is a slam dunk for WoTC though. 


Reynard said:


> Exactly (from WotC's perspective, even if we lose).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> I think that data is more reliable than you're characterizing it to be, here, for reasons outlined above. Even then, if that's the best we can say, then it's still the most accurate data we have.



what about the data of Employees that worked for both that said it is an internet missunderstanding?


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> Okay, I think maybe this not something you're really interested hearing lol. Anyway discussion over, returning to  OGL.



I'm honestly not sure why you'd say that, given that I thought I was replying very thoughtfully and forthrightly to your posts. Without saying things like "lol" at the end.


----------



## qstor

Legal Information :: d20srd.org
		


It doesn't contain the word irrevocable. Perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable. For instance Texas law disfavors perceptual ie forever contracts as does federal copyright policy.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
Folks, 

In another thread, I warned folks against going down angry ratholes.  That rathole was about who sold better when.

Lo and behold, folks decided to try to re-litigate the issue here, instead.

That was a bad decision.  Please stop arguing about who sold more when in threads about the upcoming OGL release.  It isn't constructive or terribly relevant to these threads.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> Well, they played that close to the vest at the time.



I remember it the same way you do, but the blog speaks for itself.


UngainlyTitan said:


> Here, we really do not know. We do not really know the terms of the licence on offer and I certainly do not know how well resourced the players are and what their sticking points are. I do not believe it is a slam dunk for WoTC though.



That's fair. And maybe I am being cynical and the big player will take a stand (assuming one is necessary). But in my heart of hearts I feel that WotC is going to win this one.


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> lol... you think I am causing trouble by saying "We don't know for sure and we both can point to evidence that contradicts each other"
> 
> I have offered to walk away with "Agree to disagree" but I will keep going if you want to.



I don't think you're causing trouble. We _don't_ know for sure; I'm just pointing out that the best data we _do_ have says Pathfinder outsold 4E, taking context into account. We can agree to disagree on the significance of that, but not on the existence of the information itself.



> what about the data of Employees that worked for both that said it is an internet missunderstanding?



I addressed that above, pointing out their lack of specificity and context.

EDIT: I didn't see the mod notice until after posting this.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mistwell said:


> 1) thinks the new rules will be that much better and widely adopted by the customer base that 3rd parties will want to work from them



Huh.

Like, I think most of the 1D&D changes are technically improvements, but I dunno if there's even one single change in 1D&D that we've see so far that's like a "killer change", i.e. so good I wouldn't play 5E without it. Almost all the changes are 0.5 steps forward, 0.25 steps back, and 0.1 steps to the side-type tweaks or ones that are both good and bad like the spell list and "everyone prepares" deals.

Looking at boards I'm not seeing like, wild enthusiasm, either.

Which actually surprises me a little bit. Plenty of time yet but...


Mistwell said:


> 2) 3rd parties will need to be using 1.1 in order to get their material listed on DNDBeyond



Yeah if that turns out to be a thing. I'm really skeptical WotC is going to open the floodgates to stuff going on D&D Beyond though.

I mean one approach for a lot of companies would be simply to split into two companies (even if their employees cross over a ton)- one signs the OGL 1.1 and makes OGL 1.1 material, the other doesn't. You could probably even licence material FROM the OGL 1.0a company TO the OGL 1.1 company (though perhaps not vice-versa). You might even be able to get a Hollywood style tax write-down on that!


Mistwell said:


> 3) 3rd parties will need to be using 1.1 in order to use their materials with the new DND Beyond VTT



Kind of interesting they haven't said more about this. Maybe they're briefing people on this extensively behind NDAs though.

EDIT:

Further to this, what's REALLY WEIRD is them doing it NOW, in early 2023, when the VTT and any changes to Beyond are essentially speculative and certainly at the very least many months away, perhaps even years away.


----------



## Composer99

Removed for redundancy.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> I remember it the same way you do, but the blog speaks for itself.
> 
> That's fair. And maybe I am being cynical and the big player will take a stand (assuming one is necessary). But in my heart of hearts I feel that WotC is going to win this one.



I would point out that any attempt to deauthorise exiting OGC content would be an existential threat to Paizo, they would have to fight it. 
After that, I do not know, we do not really know the terms being offered, the resources of the players involved, their philosophical positioning nor really anything else. Time will tell us something.


----------



## Xyxox

I'm beginning to get the feeling that WotC intentionally leaked this to start OGL hysteria, then low and behold when the actual unOpen OGL 1.1 is finally released and 'heh heh' the OGL 1.0a is only revoked if you want to make content for the new bigger brighter D&D 6E (yes, it's 6E, don;t kid yourselves) it won't be as big of a PR debacle and will be more acceptable.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Huh.
> 
> Like, I think most of the 1D&D changes are technically improvements, but I dunno if there's even one single change in 1D&D that we've see so far that's like a "killer change", i.e. so good I wouldn't play 5E without it. Almost all the changes are 0.5 steps forward, 0.25 steps back, and 0.1 steps to the side-type tweaks or ones that are both good and bad like the spell list and "everyone prepares" deals.



I am a little more positive about the 1D&D changes but largely agree, there are steps back even if the rules are more consistent and tighter. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> Looking at boards I'm not seeing like, wild enthusiasm, either.



Agreed


Ruin Explorer said:


> Which actually surprises me a little bit. Plenty of time yet but...
> 
> Yeah if that turns out to be a thing. I'm really skeptical WotC is going to open the floodgates to stuff going on D&D Beyond though.



I think that D&DBeyond has technical issues with this but that they will have to open a DMsGuild like market on it if they want the VTT to be a killer app. And solve the issue of making the third party market items usable on the VTT.



Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean one approach for a lot of companies would be simply to split into two companies (even if their employees cross over a ton)- one signs the OGL 1.1 and makes OGL 1.1 material, the other doesn't. You could probably even licence material FROM the OGL 1.0a company TO the OGL 1.1 company (though perhaps not vice-versa). You might even be able to get a Hollywood style tax write-down on that!
> 
> Kind of interesting they haven't said more about this. Maybe they're briefing people on this extensively behind NDAs though.



I could see this happening.


Ruin Explorer said:


> EDIT:
> 
> Further to this, what's REALLY WEIRD is them doing it NOW, in early 2023, when the VTT and any changes to Beyond are essentially speculative and certainly at the very least many months away, perhaps even years away.



No, now is the time to do this. One of the problems with the 4e release is that they left all of this until the release to resolve and most third parties balked when they felt there was a gun to their head.

They are better off resolving this now and getting agreement if they can rather than letting it overshadow the launch.
If the get an amicable agreement with the big players most of the storm and angst will have blown over in a year.


----------



## wingsandsword

qstor said:


> Legal Information :: d20srd.org
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't contain the word irrevocable. Perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable. For instance Texas law disfavors perceptual ie forever contracts as does federal copyright policy.




Section 9 is what makes it essentially perpetual.  There's more to this than a Ctrl+F and typing in "irrevocable"

Section 9 says:



> 9. Updating the License: 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.




WotC is now trying to claim they can say 1.0a is no longer an "authorized version" of the license. . .despite the FAQ they had up for 20+ years saying that if they ever released a new version of the OGL then people could still use the 1.0a version.

The idea is that even if WotC releases a new version of the OGL, that you can still use 1.0a and still distribute things with it.  

However, for all of WotC's claims they are terminating 1.0a by "de authorizing" it, the section in the OGL about termination only says:



> 13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.




So, if you fail to comply with the terms of OGL 1.0a and are notified of failing to comply with OGL 1.0a, then the license is terminated for the person that violated it.  It says nothing about WotC having a unilateral authority to "de authorize" the OGL.


----------



## overgeeked

What’s funny is this is also why WotC will win. Because we’re obsessive nerds who have to be right we will fight each other endlessly on the most minor and irrelevant point just to be right. We can’t hold a conversation about a topic without veering off into some pointless tangent and then botting down in if for hours on end, and when the few people tearing into each ofher finally, meecifully exhaust themselves; they’re now mad at each other and/or banned, and that’s fewer people focused on the actual problem. WotC and OGL 1.1.


----------



## Alzrius

overgeeked said:


> What’s funny is this is also why WotC will win. Because we’re obsessive nerds who have to be right we will fight each other endlessly on the most minor and irrelevant point just to be right. We can’t hold a conversation about a topic without veering off into some pointless tangent and then botting down in if for hours on end, and when the few people tearing into each ofher finally, meecifully exhaust themselves; they’re now mad at each other and/or banned, and that’s fewer people focused on the actual problem. WotC and OGL 1.1.



Well, I for one am still very upset about the OGL v1.1.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Dear oh dear


Glad I'm not a Discord guy, the idea that this can't be discussed because a journalist have access to information from a source is "PIRATED MATERIAL!" (shiver me timbers) is some next-level internet-only-person thing.


----------



## Scribe

Aldarc said:


> And as we speak, Hasbro's stock has been going up. Money talks.




Stock prices are pretty fanciful, for sure.



overgeeked said:


> What’s funny is this is also why WotC will win. Because we’re obsessive nerds who have to be right we will fight each other endlessly on the most minor and irrelevant point just to be right. We can’t hold a conversation about a topic without veering off into some pointless tangent and then botting down in if for hours on end, and when the few people tearing into each ofher finally, meecifully exhaust themselves; they’re now mad at each other and/or banned, and that’s fewer people focused on the actual problem. WotC and OGL 1.1.




All roads lead to 4e fights.


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> Dear oh dear
> 
> 
> Glad I'm not a Discord guy, the idea that this can't be discussed because a journalist have access to information from a source is "PIRATED MATERIAL!" (shiver me timbers) is some next-level internet-only-person thing.



Lol.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> What’s funny is this is also why WotC will win. Because we’re obsessive nerds who have to be right we will fight each other endlessly on the most minor and irrelevant point just to be right. We can’t hold a conversation about a topic without veering off into some pointless tangent and then botting down in if for hours on end, and when the few people tearing into each ofher finally, meecifully exhaust themselves; they’re now mad at each other and/or banned, and that’s fewer people focused on the actual problem. WotC and OGL 1.1.



I'd agree except this is something which will keep coming up over and over, until there's some certainty.

I see Linda on Twitter looking for more industry people willing to discuss 1.1 (including anonymously), so we may well have a follow-up article next week.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> Dear oh dear



The Twitter links dont show up for me. I made an image of it for others in the same situation.

*WotC censors any discussion about the OGL 1.1*


----------



## Incenjucar

Ehhh. I'm very upset about the content of the leak, and I'm glad we can talk about it here, but it makes sense for a corporation to not allow discussion about a violation of their own NDA on their own board. If they ban discussion after they reveal the text, then that's getting heavy handed.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> Stock prices are pretty fanciful, for sure.



there is an argument to be made that stock market is as much a game as any TTRPG we play with as much made up fantasy...


----------



## Yaarel

Incenjucar said:


> Ehhh. I'm very upset about the content of the leak, and I'm glad we can talk about it here, but it makes sense for a corporation to not allow discussion about a violation of their own NDA on their own board. If they ban discussion after they reveal the text, then that's getting heavy handed.



But it harms the D&D community when censoring the discussion until it is legally too late to remedy.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Reynard said:


> I think what that quote suggests is that a publisher has to make a choice -- OGL 1.0a or 1.1 -- and companies who rely on official support for the current edition of D&D are likely going to accept the new terms.



Do you need to though?

I mean, if they don't revoke the old OGL for everybody then nothing stops you from continuing to use the 5.1 SRD and just make additions to it that, with some perhaps new protected terms removed, happen to look exactly like those newer mechanics. Weird, huh?

 Since game mechanics can't be copyrighted - only their expression - they can't stop you.

I mean, you _could _make a very good and fully "compatible" supplement for 5e using OGL 1.0a and the 3.5 SRD if you really wanted to in this manner.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay so lets go back to my
> "Nobody has all the numbers and facts and we are at best working with biased numbers and guess work"



agreed


GMforPowergamers said:


> how is that? How about we just DON'T say anyone can 'prove' anything and talk about our own experiences and feelings instead?



how is that any better?

How about acknowledging that this leads nowhere / won’t convince anyone and just stop this altogether. Unless and until we have cold hard data this will remain unresolved. As much as we would like to solve it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Incenjucar said:


> Ehhh. I'm very upset about the content of the leak, and I'm glad we can talk about it here, but it makes sense for a corporation to not allow discussion about a violation of their own NDA on their own board. If they ban discussion after they reveal the text, then that's getting heavy handed.



It'd be one thing if they were saying something like that, but this absolute unmitigated and literally _anti-democratic anti-free speech anti-press_ (none of that is even an exaggeration!) claim that this is "pirated material" and "should not be discussed" is outrageous balderdash on the part of the person running the server. It's really bonkers stuff. The kind of argument, if you made it in real life, people would be laughing at you so much you'd turn red and run out of the room.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> Okay I will end this if the others will. I will walk away with "Agree to disagree"



aren’t you doing that even when you walk away? It is hard to disagree to disagree


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> Dear oh dear
> 
> 
> Glad I'm not a Discord guy, the idea that this can't be discussed because a journalist have access to information from a source is "PIRATED MATERIAL!" (shiver me timbers) is some next-level internet-only-person thing.



So Wizards of the Coast considers it "illegal" to leak material? I can see it being an NDA violation, or a fireable offense if the leaker was one of their employees, but actual criminal activity? Geez...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> agreed
> 
> how is that any better?
> 
> How about acknowledging that this leads nowhere / won’t convince anyone and just stop this altogether. Unless and until we have cold hard data this will remain unresolved. As much as we would like to solve it.



@Umbran has asked us not to do this anymore


----------



## Yaarel

It seems like Hasbro is making WotC dystopian.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> It seems like Hasbro is making WotC dystopian.




alwayswasmeme.jpeg


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> So Wizards of the Coast considers it "illegal" to leak material? I can see it being an NDA violation, or a fireable offense if the leaker was one of their employees, but actual criminal activity? Geez...



not a lawyer BUT I deal with NDAs. I will say IF they feel that way they are NOT alone. several (even small companies) have tried to scare people with the IDEA of a criminal aspect of it. I have never in my personal experence seen it happen though.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> It seems like Hasbro is making WotC dystopian.



To be fair this may just be one demented mod.

It wouldn't be the first time being a Discord mod has driven someone insane with power. I don't think it's clear they're a proper WotC employee.


----------



## darjr

Both these journalists are open for sources. FYI.


Link


----------



## Incenjucar

Ruin Explorer said:


> It'd be one thing if they were saying something like that, but this absolute unmitigated and literally _anti-democratic anti-free speech anti-press_ (none of that is even an exaggeration!) claim that this is "pirated material" and "should not be discussed" is outrageous balderdash on the part of the person running the server. It's really bonkers stuff. The kind of argument, if you made it in real life, people would be laughing at you so much you'd turn red and run out of the room.



It's a corporation, not a government entity. It's rare for corporations to go "whelp, you found out some partially complete information about our secret business plans, go ahead and talk about it on our official forums". We don't have to like it or respect it, but I'd expect any other corporation to do the same.


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be fair this may just be one demented mod.
> 
> It wouldn't be the first time being a Discord mod has driven someone insane with power.



Who would have thought that something called Discord wouldn't be utopian in nature?


----------



## qstor

wingsandsword said:


> Section 9 is what makes it essentially perpetual.  There's more to this than a Ctrl+F and typing in "irrevocable"
> 
> Section 9 says:
> 
> 
> 
> WotC is now trying to claim they can say 1.0a is no longer an "authorized version" of the license. . .despite the FAQ they had up for 20+ years saying that if they ever released a new version of the OGL then people could still use the 1.0a version.
> 
> The idea is that even if WotC releases a new version of the OGL, that you can still use 1.0a and still distribute things with it.
> 
> However, for all of WotC's claims they are terminating 1.0a by "de authorizing" it, the section in the OGL about termination only says:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you fail to comply with the terms of OGL 1.0a and are notified of failing to comply with OGL 1.0a, then the license is terminated for the person that violated it.  It says nothing about WotC having a unilateral authority to "de authorize" the OGL.






wingsandsword said:


> Section 9 is what makes it essentially perpetual.  There's more to this than a Ctrl+F and typing in "irrevocable"
> 
> Section 9 says:
> 
> 
> 
> WotC is now trying to claim they can say 1.0a is no longer an "authorized version" of the license. . .despite the FAQ they had up for 20+ years saying that if they ever released a new version of the OGL then people could still use the 1.0a version.
> 
> The idea is that even if WotC releases a new version of the OGL, that you can still use 1.0a and still distribute things with it.
> 
> 
> wingsandsword said:
> 
> 
> 
> Section 9 is what makes it essentially perpetual.  There's more to this than a Ctrl+F and typing in "irrevocable"
> 
> Section 9 says:
> 
> 
> 
> WotC is now trying to claim they can say 1.0a is no longer an "authorized version" of the license. . .despite the FAQ they had up for 20+ years saying that if they ever released a new version of the OGL then people could still use the 1.0a version.
> 
> The idea is that even if WotC releases a new version of the OGL, that you can still use 1.0a and still distribute things with it.
> 
> However, for all of WotC's claims they are terminating 1.0a by "de authorizing" it, the section in the OGL about termination only says:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you fail to comply with the terms of OGL 1.0a and are notified of failing to comply with OGL 1.0a, then the license is terminated for the person that violated it.  It says nothing about WotC having a unilateral authority to "de authorize" the OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, for all of WotC's claims they are terminating 1.0a by "de authorizing" it, the section in the OGL about termination only says:
Click to expand...


Yes but it doesn't use irrevocable


----------



## Reynard

eyeheartawk said:


> Do you need to though?
> 
> I mean, if they don't revoke the old OGL for everybody then nothing stops you from continuing to use the 5.1 SRD and just make additions to it that, with some perhaps new protected terms removed, happen to look exactly like those newer mechanics. Weird, huh?
> 
> Since game mechanics can't be copyrighted - only their expression - they can't stop you.
> 
> I mean, you _could _make a very good and fully "compatible" supplement for 5e using OGL 1.0a and the 3.5 SRD if you really wanted to in this manner.



I think that is what the compatibility logo is for. WotC probably knows they can't technically stop people from producing compatible materials, so they are going to try and make it hard to designate those materials as compatible. Now @S'mon has suggested that they really can't stop someone from putting a "compatible with 1D&D" logo on the cover and I don't know anything about that.


----------



## eyeheartawk




----------



## qstor

> amicable agreement




I personally don't see that happening if Hasbro wants to "cash in" on D&D that's what the OGL 1.1 does


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> @Umbran has asked us not to do this anymore



yeah, saw that after the fact (also do not really contribute either imo, I am saying give it a rest)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Incenjucar said:


> It's a corporation, not a government entity. It's rare for corporations to go "whelp, you found out some partially complete information about our secret business plans, go ahead and talk about it on our official forums". We don't have to like it or respect it, but I'd expect any other corporation to do the same.



I wouldn't. The reasoning he's employing is fundamentally at odds with Western society and traditions (he said, sounding like he was on Fox News). Working for a corporation doesn't mean disingenuous anti-democratic rhetoric is cool! Just say "Sorry, WotC has asked us not to discuss this". I work at a large corporate law firm, and that's what we'd do.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be fair this may just be one demented mod.
> 
> It wouldn't be the first time being a Discord mod has driven someone insane with power. I don't think it's clear they're a proper WotC employee.



It seems to me a "proper WotC employee" layed out the argument to the Discord mod ... explaining what WotC "considers illegal".

Including the veiled legal threat.


----------



## Mistwell

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would point out that any attempt to deauthorise exiting OGC content would be an existential threat to Paizo, they would have to fight it.
> After that, I do not know, we do not really know the terms being offered, the resources of the players involved, their philosophical positioning nor really anything else. Time will tell us something.




I agree it's likely Paizo would fight it. But I am not convinced it's an existential threat. Not nearly as much of PF2e is tied to WOTC material as PF1e. They do have things tied to it, but it's a lot less, and could be transitioned to their own setting names. I think that's the direction they were already heading, and this would accelerate their plans. But it would also mean they'd be re-publishing a bunch of their stuff, and likely picking up a lot of angry former-5e players in the process who would be up for buying those re-issued tweaked books. This could be the best thing to happen to Paizo in years. Which is one reason I think the rumor is flawed and it's an op-in and not a blanket de-authorization.


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> Now @S'mon has suggested that they really can't stop someone from putting a "compatible with 1D&D" logo on the cover and I don't know anything about that.




You can't put a TM compatibility notice on if you use the OGL as you can't use their TMs. But you can put non-trademarked terms like "5e/1" on your cover, which works ok.


----------



## Scribe

Mistwell said:


> I agree it's likely Paizo would fight it. But I am not convinced it's an existential threat. Not nearly as much of PF2e is tied to WOTC material as PF1e. They do have things tied to it, but it's a lot less, and could be transitioned to their own setting names. I think that's the direction they were already heading, and this would accelerate their plans. But it would also mean they'd be re-publishing a bunch of their stuff, and likely picking up a lot of angry former-5e players in the process who would be up for buying those re-issued tweaked books. This could be the best thing to happen to Paizo in years. Which is one reason I think the rumor is flawed and it's an op-in and not a blanket de-authorization.




As long as Paizo doesnt take the next Pathfinder even more in the direction of what 5e has been, I'd be cool with a migration back to Pathfinder for sure.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mistwell said:


> Which is one reason I think the rumor is flawed and it's an op-in and not a blanket de-authorization.



Really hoping your guy is right on that.

if was a better betting man, my odds would be on him being right, in part because it would be less likely to a cause an absolute riot, but more because Paizo and others are still in negotiations, and if there was a blanket deauthorization planned, I feel like they might not be.

In my mind (everyone really cares right lol?) it'd say like 65% not blanket deauthorization, 30% blanket deauthorization, 5% absolute climbdown, in terms of what's the likely outcome here.

(Edit retaining amazing original typo with strikethru)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

S'mon said:


> You can't put a TM compatibility notice on if you use the OGL as you can't use their TMs. But you can put non-trademarked terms like "5e/1" on your cover, which works ok.



again, the safe harbor part was so you didn't need to know for sure what you could or couldn't say/do.  If you are in the know and have a lawyer(or are one) to argue how right you are... go for it no OGL needed. The issue is most people don't have that,


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> if was a better betting man, my odds would be on him being right, in part because it would be less likely to a cause an absolute riot, but more because Paizo and others are still in negotiations, and if there was a blanket deauthorization planned, I feel like they might not be.



I would think that Paizo being in meetings and negotiations leads to them thinking they MIGHT be able to or plan on deauthorizaing... a 20-25% fee over 750k with it can be pulled anytime would be bad for them... BUT if they could say "look let us keep using SRD as PF compatible and publish for the next X years we will pay a small fee today and 3% over that 750k" would look better then a prolonged legal battle even if they win.

If I WERE the money guy I would look at the estimated guess of how much a 1 year or 2 year lawsuit would cost and say "Look you need to offer them less then half the 1 year cost, and if they try to negotiate you can't go above 3/4 the 2 year or the bet of the lawsuit is better"


----------



## Mistwell

Scribe said:


> As long as Paizo doesnt take the next Pathfinder even more in the direction of what 5e has been, I'd be cool with a migration back to Pathfinder for sure.




I mean, the only "next pathfinder" in this context is renaming some monsters and spells and such. Not really a fundamental change in direction.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


> I mean, the only "next pathfinder" in this context is renaming some monsters and spells and such. Not really a fundamental change in direction.



I would think that if it was too close to D&D hasbro would be able to argue (I am NOT a lawyer) that it is the same thing they used to use with the OGL that is now deauthorized and as such can't be... and win or lose I imagine Hasbro law team can out  money Paizo law team


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> and win or lose I imagine Hasbro law team can out money Paizo law team



I know @Snarf Zagyg will be delighted by my input on this but I'd say even in the US you can't necessarily just muscle things like that. If you have a strong argument, whilst there have been some dubious decisions, especially in courts of first instance, it's not always "who spends more wins". (Obvs. Snarf and other lawyers feel free to sigh and correct!)

Though Oracle made an absolutely incredible attempt at that a few years back (maybe a decade or more?), I can't remember what the lawsuit was about but the powerhouse team of lawyers they assembled, who had to have been charging them tens of thousands (if not over a hundred thousand!) a day was _absolutely terrifying_. I'm not entirely sure they won though.


----------



## darjr

Critical Role purportedly makes a statement by way of stopping discourse on their discord.

Apologies I haven’t verified it yet.Link


----------



## wingsandsword

qstor said:


> Yes but it doesn't use irrevocable



Which doesn't matter.  

It's possible for it to be irrevocable because of how other terms in the license are construed, without using that word itself.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Ruin Explorer said:


> I know @Snarf Zagyg will be delighted by my input on this but I'd say even in the US you can't necessarily just muscle things like that. If you have a strong argument, whilst there have been some dubious decisions, especially in courts of first instance, it's not always "who spends more wins". (Obvs. Snarf and other lawyers feel free to sigh and correct!)




_sigh_

Ha! Just kidding. You're not wrong. Money matters a lot in litigation, but it can't overcome all problems. The main thing is that money (and the ability to keep spending) allows a party to do more - more discovery, more motion practice more more more .... and that can make it difficult for the other party to keep up.

ETA- it also lets you afford the best attorneys, and pay those attorneys to go through every possible argument. Or have their associates do it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> Both these journalists are open for sources. FYI.
> 
> View attachment 271454
> Link



If you want to speak to a journalist anonymously and are worried that your employer will figure out it's you, some suggestions:

1) Make a new Gmail account to communicate with the journalist. ONLY access it at the public library, not your home computer, not your phone and definitely not on your work computer.
2) Do not send them images or PDFs that you did not create. Print those files out and scan them in (again, at the library).
3) If you do send files, make sure (research this part, for your particular devices and software) ALL settings related to your location are turned off.
4) If you do not know if you have potentially been given access to a unique version of a document or file intended to flush out leakers (each potential leaker being given a slightly different document, and then your employer will see which one appears in the press, and they then trace it back to you), don't share it, don't even discuss it. Just tell the journalist you can't discuss certain elements because you think some of what you have may be intended to out you to investigators.
EDIT: 5) If you sign up for Signal to communicate with the journalist, it uses your phone number as your default ID, which potentially voids a lot of the security the app gives you. Before doing this -- and you probably don't need to, to be clear -- sign up for a Google Voice number with your new Google account and use _that_ number to sign up for Signal.

There are still ways someone could find you -- there are post-Oklahoma City microdots on print-outs, for instance -- but unless you are being investigated by the feds, it's not likely they will have the resources to do so.


----------



## Greg Benage

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> ONLY access it at the public library



Now Hasbro PIs are staking out every public library in Seattle.


----------



## mamba

wingsandsword said:


> Which doesn't matter.
> 
> It's possible for it to be irrevocable because of how other terms in the license are construed, without using that word itself.



yes, but if they had used that word, there now would be a lot less uncertainty about this…


----------



## darjr

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If you want to speak to a journalist anonymously and are worried that your employer will figure out it's you, some suggestions:
> 
> 1) Make a new Gmail account to communicate with the journalist. ONLY access it at the public library, not your home computer, not your phone and definitely not on your work computer.
> 2) Do not send them images or PDFs that you did not create. Print those files out and scan them in (again, at the library).
> 3) If you do send files, make sure (research this part, for your particular devices and software) ALL settings related to your location are turned off.
> 4) If you do not know if you have potentially been given access to a unique version of a document or file intended to flush out leakers (each potential leaker being given a slightly different document, and then your employer will see which one appears in the press, and they then trace it back to you), don't share it, don't even discuss it. Just tell the journalist you can't discuss certain elements because you think some of what you have may be intended to out you to investigators.
> 
> There are still ways someone could find you -- there are post-Oklahoma City microdots on print-outs, for instance -- but unless you are being investigated by the feds, it's not likely they will have the resources to do so.



Dang. 

Dang.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I don't want to start yet another OGL thread (I will take my Nobel Peace Prize now, thank you), so a bit of a tangent:

The new OGL says you can do livestreams, podcasts, etc., so long as they're open to the public. So this doesn't impact Critical Role but it does say that Dimension 20 can't put their actual plays behind a paywall on Dropout.com and that people can't show actual plays to their Patreon supporters.

_Maybe_ Dropout makes enough money to care about (although I doubt it; they're running a pretty lean shop over there), but going after Patreon accounts with 300 backers watching a handful of little-known people playing D&D is insane for a company trying to build D&D into a billion-dollar brand.

Is this all their second step after looking under the cushions in the break room for loose change?

The level of pointless pettiness here is unbelievable. (Also, I'm pretty sure that Dropout would comp you a few subscriptions, WotC.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Greg Benage said:


> Now Hasbro PIs are staking out every public library in Seattle.



There are a _lot_ of libraries in Washington.


----------



## Greg Benage

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> here are a _lot_ of libraries in Washington.



Cap and sunglasses just to be sure. Maybe a fake beard.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't want to start yet another OGL thread (I will take my Nobel Peace Prize now, thank you), so a bit of a tangent:
> 
> The new OGL says you can do livestreams, podcasts, etc., so long as they're open to the public. So this doesn't impact Critical Role but it does say that Dimension 20 can't put their actual plays behind a paywall on Dropout.com and that people can't show actual plays to their Patreon supporters.
> 
> _Maybe_ Dropout makes enough money to care about (although I doubt it; they're running a pretty lean shop over there), but going after Patreon accounts with 300 backers watching a handful of little-known people playing D&D is insane for a company trying to build D&D into a billion-dollar brand.
> 
> Is this all their second step after looking under the cushions in the break room for loose change?
> 
> The level of pointless pettiness here is unbelievable. (Also, I'm pretty sure that Dropout would comp you a few subscriptions, WotC.)



You forget at what point of history we're in. 

It's the sequel, Corporate Greed 2: Exploit Harder.

Keep in mind, all the Microsoft execs are likely going to only be over there for like, 5 years or less. And, since the majority of their compensation is based on stock they *categorically do not care about the long term health of the product/company. *Everything makes sense in this context. Maximum exploitation, no matter how petty, for maximum ultra short term benefit.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't want to start yet another OGL thread (I will take my Nobel Peace Prize now, thank you), so a bit of a tangent:
> 
> The new OGL says you can do livestreams, podcasts, etc., so long as they're open to the public. So this doesn't impact Critical Role but it does say that Dimension 20 can't put their actual plays behind a paywall on Dropout.com and that people can't show actual plays to their Patreon supporters.
> 
> _Maybe_ Dropout makes enough money to care about (although I doubt it; they're running a pretty lean shop over there), but going after Patreon accounts with 300 backers watching a handful of little-known people playing D&D is insane for a company trying to build D&D into a billion-dollar brand.
> 
> Is this all their second step after looking under the cushions in the break room for loose change?
> 
> The level of pointless pettiness here is unbelievable. (Also, I'm pretty sure that Dropout would comp you a few subscriptions, WotC.)



I feel like there's just not possible way they could, at this point in history, actually compel you on the basis of the OGL, to not have paywalled content.

It's just about impossible to believe.

Also it would be a declaration of war on exactly the wrong people.

Like you're basically pointing your guns at the most popular, most influential group of D&D-involved people, whose teens through late twenties fans are the absolute core of the D&D revival (understatement?) we've seen over the last 5 years. Even if Critical Role are out of the line of fire, a lot of people who wouldn't are literally their friends and I think in some cases even SOs/partners.

So absolutely agree on "pointless pettiness". Like why? What's going on here?

And they'd be strangling the "next generation" of D&D streamers particularly here. Do they want this to be one-time flowering of D&D? Because that's how you make it one-time, rather than generational.


----------



## Greg Benage

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Is this all their second step after looking under the cushions in the break room for loose change?



I think it's a lot more about control of the IP than searching cushions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> I think it's a lot more about control of the IP than searching cushions.



You could well be right. Historically that kind of IP pettiness hasn't gone great unless you have access to actual legislators though.


----------



## Tazawa

Mistwell said:


> I agree it's likely Paizo would fight it. But I am not convinced it's an existential threat. Not nearly as much of PF2e is tied to WOTC material as PF1e. They do have things tied to it, but it's a lot less, and could be transitioned to their own setting names. I think that's the direction they were already heading, and this would accelerate their plans. But it would also mean they'd be re-publishing a bunch of their stuff, and likely picking up a lot of angry former-5e players in the process who would be up for buying those re-issued tweaked books. This could be the best thing to happen to Paizo in years. Which is one reason I think the rumor is flawed and it's an op-in and not a blanket de-authorization.




I believe it may now be an opt-in, but I am almost certain the original plan was to de-authorized OGL 1.0a. The deal with Kickstarter doesn’t make any sense without it.

All existing 5e-related kickstarters use open game content from the OGL and supply their own Product Identity. The lack of access to WOTC Product Identity hasn’t hindered their successes. If 1.0a was intended to continue, their would be no contractual obligation for royalties on the Kickstarters—they could simply ignore it.


----------



## Alzrius

Greg Benage said:


> Cap and sunglasses just to be sure.



So do like this guy, in other words?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> Critical Role purportedly makes a statement by way of stopping discourse on their discord.
> 
> Apologies I haven’t verified it yet.Link
> 
> View attachment 271465



I mean, not great but at least they're not appealing to anti-democratic rhetoric and are absolutely pointing people to subreddits where it can be discussed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> So do like this guy, in other words?



Honestly he was never more than a beard and a paunch away from looking like a fairly typical D&D DM.


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, not great but at least they're not appealing to anti-democratic rhetoric and are absolutely pointing people to subreddits where it can be discussed.



Besides, they aren't really an OGL outfit. They are a WotC partner when they do actual game material. Otherwise they are a TV show. It makes sense for them to take a step back from the OGL debate.


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> I think it's a lot more about control of the IP than searching cushions.



If your goal is create a lifestyle brand, you have to be the one deciding what that brand is. Carefully selected 3PP partners and restricting merch etc from other sources go a long way toward doing that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Alzrius said:


> So do like this guy, in other words?



The (intentional) irony is that the glasses and hat were the least-anonymous things about him. Being a schlubby middle aged chemistry teacher was what made him invisible to begin with, in every sense.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> If your goal is create a lifestyle brand, you have to be the one deciding what that brand is. Carefully selected 3PP partners and restricting merch etc from other sources go a long way toward doing that.



I think some of this is still a reaction to the 3E-era Book of Erotic Fantasy, which was a major Streisand Effect moment. I didn't see the book for sale anywhere until _after_ WotC panicked and suddenly FLGS owners wanted to have it available for curious shoppers.

(Pro-tip: Just make that kind of stuff systemless, folks.)


----------



## Tazawa

Reynard said:


> Besides, they aren't really an OGL outfit. They are a WotC partner when they do actual game material. Otherwise they are a TV show. It makes sense for them to take a step back from the OGL debate.




Darrington Press is most definitely an OGL outfit. In fact, they are one of the most successful ones.

My copy of Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn has the OGL license in the back.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Critical Role purportedly makes a statement by way of stopping discourse on their discord.
> 
> Apologies I haven’t verified it yet.Link
> 
> View attachment 271465



Not really. The CR sub is not run by the CR people or anyone associated with the CR people. The mods are fans pure and simple.


----------



## Reynard

Tazawa said:


> Darrington Press is most definitely an OGL outfit. In fact, they are one of the most successful ones.
> 
> My copy of Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn has the OGL license in the back.



They have one book and a board game.

They aren't Kobold.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> I know @Snarf Zagyg will be delighted by my input on this but I'd say even in the US you can't necessarily just muscle things like that. If you have a strong argument, whilst there have been some dubious decisions, especially in courts of first instance, it's not always "who spends more wins". (Obvs. Snarf and other lawyers feel free to sigh and correct!)



yes 100% if you have no argument you can throw good money at something and still lose... the thing is if you have a half way decent argument and a good (speaking) lawyer matched with a good (research) lawyer you will find that you can steam roll much better arguments. The more money you throw the better it gets. 

If WotC/Hasbro THINKS they have a case, they have the lawyers to put up a heck of a fight and most 3pp can't fight back at that level MAYBE piazo can... but it will cost them.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Though Oracle made an absolutely incredible attempt at that a few years back (maybe a decade or more?), I can't remember what the lawsuit was about but the powerhouse team of lawyers they assembled, who had to have been charging them tens of thousands (if not over a hundred thousand!) a day was _absolutely terrifying_. I'm not entirely sure they won though.



I mean there are always odds, all jokes and TV tropes aside sometimes the small country lawyer can beat the big lawfirm I just would not bet the farm on it.


----------



## eyeheartawk

GMforPowergamers said:


> If WotC/Hasbro THINKS they have a case, they have the lawyers to put up a heck of a fight and most 3pp can't fight back at that level MAYBE piazo can... but it will cost them.



Nah

A quick search tells me Paizo yearly revenues are around $35 Million and Hasbro's is close to $9 Billion.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If you want to speak to a journalist anonymously and are worried that your employer will figure out it's you, some suggestions:
> 
> 1) Make a new Gmail account to communicate with the journalist. ONLY access it at the public library, not your home computer, not your phone and definitely not on your work computer.
> 2) Do not send them images or PDFs that you did not create. Print those files out and scan them in (again, at the library).
> 3) If you do send files, make sure (research this part, for your particular devices and software) ALL settings related to your location are turned off.
> 4) If you do not know if you have potentially been given access to a unique version of a document or file intended to flush out leakers (each potential leaker being given a slightly different document, and then your employer will see which one appears in the press, and they then trace it back to you), don't share it, don't even discuss it. Just tell the journalist you can't discuss certain elements because you think some of what you have may be intended to out you to investigators.
> 
> There are still ways someone could find you -- there are post-Oklahoma City microdots on print-outs, for instance -- but unless you are being investigated by the feds, it's not likely they will have the resources to do so.



maybe a bit overboard but all good advice


----------



## GMforPowergamers

eyeheartawk said:


> Nah
> 
> A quick search tells me Paizo yearly revenues are around $35 Million and Hasbro's is close to $9 Billion.



yeah revenue and profit are not the same thing... how much of that are each willing to spend on lawyers... if Hasbro say 1% and Paizo says 10% Hasbro is still out spending them


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe a bit overboard but all good advice



Definitely a bit overboard, but going overboard can make potential leakers feel a lot more confident.


----------



## eyeheartawk

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah revenue and profit are not the same thing... how much of that are each willing to spend on lawyers... if Hasbro say 1% and Paizo says 10% Hasbro is still out spending them



I understand that, but it's just a quick measure of the relative scale of the operations. I'm just saying that I doubt Paizo has the financial wherewithal to sustain a court fight if Hasbro decided to drag it out as long as possible. 

Attritional warfare sucks bigly, but it be real dawg.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Remember when everybody was clowning on Chaosium for their terrible new open license? It's still bad, but man this turned out to be pretty prescient, eh? 

Even if not, if I were them I'd claim I was so I could look really, really smart and cool.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

eyeheartawk said:


> I understand that, but it's just a quick measure of the relative scale of the operations. I'm just saying that I doubt Paizo has the financial wherewithal to sustain a court fight if Hasbro decided to drag it out as long as possible.
> 
> Attritional warfare sucks bigly, but it be real dawg.



okay then I agree same page.

the threat of (I can't remember what the words lawyers call it) burying another lawfirm in extra paperwork and challenges and sub hearing (pre hearing? maybe) and dragging out every dotted i and crossed t, can be enough to make someone question if they are willing to file or peruse a case  even if you are 100% in the right.


----------



## qstor

wingsandsword said:


> Which doesn't matter.
> 
> It's possible for it to be irrevocable because of how other terms in the license are construed, without using that word itself.



I'm an attorney but don't do IP work. Using the world perpetual without irrevocable doesn't necessarily mean forever. There's an English case on point regardingthe word perpetual in a license.  
End.
I don't feel like arguing anymore. It's not ironclad.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ko6ux said:


> They could just double down on the chaos by abolishing the MTG Reserve List at the same time they rescind the OGL.



I wish they would


----------



## ChaosOS

Worth noting that while Hasbro is certainly massive, WotC is what barely a majority of Hasbro's revenue, and D&D is maybe 10% of WotC. Depends on how busy those lawyers are right now, this is ultimately a fight over peanuts.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Paizo wouldn’t have to carry the lawsuit.   I could see multiple companies going in on it.  Maybe even local gaming stores.  My local gaming store sells as much 5E 3PP material as WoTC.  There is no doubt that less 3PP product would be less sales for them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ChaosOS said:


> Worth noting that while Hasbro is certainly massive, WotC is what barely a majority of Hasbro's revenue, and D&D is maybe 10% of WotC. Depends on how busy those lawyers are right now, this is ultimately a fight over peanuts.



more like seeds... it's an argument over a gamble.  Do I have the seeds to an apple tree that will bloom and let me plant an orchard, or do I have seeds to a rose bush that while pretty isn't feeding anyone? Do I argue to protect my seeds not knowing?  The IP COULD be the next MCU it could be toys and comics and cartoons and movies... or it could be an okay 1D&D (still best TTRPG for sales but that isn't doing much) and someday a 6e/7e?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jerryrice4949 said:


> Paizo wouldn’t have to carry the lawsuit.   I could see multiple companies going in on it.  Maybe even local gaming stores.  My local gaming store sells as much 5E 3PP material as WoTC.  There is no doubt that less 3PP product would be less sales for them.



yeah and I work with LGSs all the time, how many of them need to chip in to just MATCH what Piazo could throw? It's possible, but again my advice to Piazo would be go to WotC and make a deal for a X number of years license to continue with better terms.


----------



## Scribe

ko6ux said:


> They could just double down on the chaos by abolishing the MTG Reserve List at the same time they rescind the OGL.




Games value would crater so fast lol.


----------



## Cadence

Scribe said:


> Games value would crater so fast lol.




$5,000 packs of randomized Beta reprints or $250 per single SL dual land doing the most damage?


----------



## martinlochsen

I think this part is the worst, actually:

"You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."

If it means what I think it means.


----------



## Scribe

Cadence said:


> $5,000 packs of randomized Beta reprints or $250 per single SL dual land doing the most damage?




I'll pass on both. Nobody 'needs' the Dual Lands, or as Wizards tried to sell, go over to a printer, and 'make one'.


----------



## OB1

From the statement last month on DnDBeyond OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D a few relevant bits in light of the leaked OGL

_We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.  

If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:  _

_Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale _
_Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year) _
_Include a Creator Product badge on your work _
_For the fewer than 20 creators worldwide who make more than $750,000 in income in a year, we will add a royalty starting in 2024. So, even for the creators making significant money selling D&D supplements and games, no royalties will be due for 2023 and all revenue below $750,000 in future years will be royalty-free._

I'm trying to parse this, but it almost seems like they told us last month that they consider 1.1 to override 1.0.  The question is, I guess, does it really or do they just want creators to believe it does?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

martinlochsen said:


> I think this part is the worst, actually:
> 
> "You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."
> 
> If it means what I think it means.



(not a lawyer) it means they can take anything you put in it and put it in there books exactly or with changes.

I could (in theory) make a new race of feyborn draconic living constructs, give them race stats to PC, and then make a race feat, and 2 magic items based on them or work for only or better for them and give them a huge 10 page history... then WotC with no license no royalty could reprint any or all of it in there next book.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe.  I think it depends on foot print... and remember to us this is a game. to some it's there life's work. If a bunch of creators land on there feet and make morgage payments and have food on the table (even if that means changing gears jobs or even careers) then it will be lessened. If a bunch of people get put out of work (MY BIGGEST FEAR HERE) then DONT land on there feet that outrage can become a tidle wave.




I agree that it is going to depend on a number of things. If the license comes out tomorrow and the language about deauthorizing the old OGL is absent, that would make a big difference. And I agree how many of the big third party publishers, if any, sign on, is also going to make a difference (and how many third publishers end up making out okay on the other side of this). And of course we won't know for sure until we have absolute clarity from WOTC on what the language of the new license is and what they think it means. But I would say also, they've hit on something that I think has not only became a kind of sacred idea and sacred document to a lot of gamers, but also that a whole culture of gaming has been built around (and not just for the OSR, I think a lot of the stuff going with 5E third party and fan publishing, while it isn't identical, has a lot of the same spirit to it and an expectation of WOTC taking a very creator, fan, third party publisher friendly stance).


----------



## martinlochsen

GMforPowergamers said:


> (not a lawyer) it means they can take anything you put in it and put it in there books exactly or with changes.
> 
> I could (in theory) make a new race of feyborn draconic living constructs, give them race stats to PC, and then make a race feat, and 2 magic items based on them or work for only or better for them and give them a huge 10 page history... then WotC with no license no royalty could reprint any or all of it in there next book.



Well yes, that was my interpretation too. But like, if Pathfinder 3e was released under the new OGL? I mean... WotC would have the right to do anything they wanted with it? Even printing and selling their own copies of the game. I know nothing about this stuff definately not a lawyer, but that is what it seems like. That is more wild than the royalties part IMO.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

martinlochsen said:


> I think this part is the worst, actually:
> 
> "You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."
> 
> If it means what I think it means.



It means they don't want to get sued if you produce a PDF that includes pink cat people when they put out a book five years later featuring pink cat people.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> What does "correct" even mean on this basis?
> 
> The understanding is that store owners merely _rank sales_. So if Pathfinder outsold D&D by 50 cents one month, it'd be #1 and 4E #2 (equally vice-versa), which give how little product was produced for 4E in the later days, and that we're talking FLGSes here, not big stores, Amazon, or the like, doesn't tell us very much.
> 
> To me it looks like this is perfectly compatible with 4E outselling Pathfinder, even by a large margin (!!!), especially given @teitan's comment that when there was product, it sold better. I'm not even sure what you're arguing at this point.
> 
> You seem to be basically arguing a circular thing. ICv2's approach, which is purely a sales ranking, and not necessarily reflective of total sales _in any way_, is true to itself and its peculiar methodology, but it's not necessarily very interesting.




I think whether it outsold or didn't the crucial thing is Pathfinder became a serious challenge to WOTC dominance (which was doubly surprising given that Paizo had been handling Dungeon). White Wolf got pretty close too in the 90s if I recall. I don't know the sales numbers in either case but I know when Pathfinder was big, when I'd go to stores or conventions, it looked close to 50-50 people playing 4e or pathfinder.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> (not a lawyer) it means they can take anything you put in it and put it in there books exactly or with changes.
> 
> I could (in theory) make a new race of feyborn draconic living constructs, give them race stats to PC, and then make a race feat, and 2 magic items based on them or work for only or better for them and give them a huge 10 page history... then WotC with no license no royalty could reprint any or all of it in there next book.




And, they could also (after making their own profit on it) license it out further (video games, whatever) and someone else could make money off of it.

_Nice._


----------



## martinlochsen

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It means they don't want to get sued if you produce a PDF that includes pink cat people when they put out a book five years later featuring pink cat people.



Yes, I remember something similar being debated in regards to the dmsguild. I guess that's why they do it, but in principle though, it gives them a lot of power over someone else's creation.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Scribe said:


> And, they could also (after making their own profit on it) license it out further (video games, whatever) and someone else could make money off of it.
> 
> _Nice._



They could do a lot of things. That's absolutely not why this clause is in there. We go through this every time.

It's to prevent someone who put out a product that no one read from suing them claiming WotC stole their idea when they later do something similar.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It means they don't want to get sued if you produce a PDF that includes pink cat people when they put out a book five years later featuring pink cat people.



That's not all it means. That may be the _purpose_. But what it means is that they can take your pink cat people and simply republish them in whatever they want.

Whether they actually would is a separate question.

Also, you can kinda do this under the OGL already, except I think you have say that your pink cat people are OGC, no? Anyway it's more extreme than previous approaches.


----------



## Haplo781

Alzrius said:


> I seem to recall some headlines here about how Pathfinder actually overtook 4E as the #1 RPG for a while.



In ICv2 sales only.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

martinlochsen said:


> Yes, I remember something similar being debated in regards to the dmsguild. I guess that's why they do it, but in principle though, it gives them a lot of power over someone else's creation.



You just have to look at the music industry to see why this is necessary.

This is _not_ going to be used to vacuum up ideas from small companies or fanpro creators. Good ideas aren't the problem for any professional creator -- execution is.


----------



## Scribe

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> They could do a lot of things. That's absolutely not why this clause is in there. We go through this every time.
> 
> It's to prevent someone who put out a product that no one read from suing them claiming WotC stole their idea when they later do something similar.




Totally, but the potential exists is all.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's not all it means. That may be the _purpose_. But what it means is that they can take your pink cat people and simple republish them in whatever they want.
> 
> Whether they actually would is a separate question.
> 
> Also, you can kinda do this under the OGL already, except I think you have say that your pink cat people are OGC, no? Anyway it's more extreme than previous approaches.



I'm not saying any of this is well-written or well-intentioned, but "oh no, my content" is really low down the list of things to be worried about.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> And, they could also (after making their own profit on it) license it out further (video games, whatever) and someone else could make money off of it.
> 
> _Nice._



very true and could base movies comics games and even more on my creation... and never pay me a cent.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Scribe said:


> Totally, but the potential exists is all.



The potential also exists for Morrus to use everyone's account info to drive to our houses and punch each of us in the nose, but it's not a rational thing to worry about. (Well, for _most of us ...)_


----------



## Mistwell

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would think that if it was too close to D&D hasbro would be able to argue (I am NOT a lawyer) that it is the same thing they used to use with the OGL that is now deauthorized and as such can't be... and win or lose I imagine Hasbro law team can out  money Paizo law team




We're not talking about a company (Paizo) which is taking such a meaningful portion of Hasbro's profits where it would be worth hiring an army of attorneys for a protracted legal battle. The army of attorneys costs a lot and when compared to the 20% commission on revenue over $750K for just specifically OGL revenue (and Paizo has plenty of non-OGl revenue and even more they can legit move to non-OGL over time) plus the risk of WOTC losing the lawsuit plus the PR damage to their customer base, I don't know how much this would be worth it versus some sort of early settlement.


----------



## Alzrius

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This is _not_ going to be used to vacuum up ideas from small companies or fanpro creators. Good ideas aren't the problem for any professional creator -- execution is.



For just a moment there, I thought you were talking about the split between Arneson and Gygax.


----------



## June Soler

Bedrockgames said:


> I think whether it outsold or didn't the crucial thing is Pathfinder became a serious challenge to WOTC dominance (which was doubly surprising given that Paizo had been handling Dungeon). White Wolf got pretty close too in the 90s if I recall. I don't know the sales numbers in either case but I know when Pathfinder was big, when I'd go to stores or conventions, it looked close to 50-50 people playing 4e or pathfinder.


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm not saying any of this is well-written or well-intentioned, but "oh no, my content" is really low down the list of things to be worried about.



Right.

If right now you asked 100 people to enter a contest to produce a new base class for 5E, you would get 25 different versions of the Warlord, all created independently but all looking pretty similar.

You'd also get at least one Jester...


----------



## Umbran

qstor said:


> Legal Information :: d20srd.org
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't contain the word irrevocable. Perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable. For instance Texas law disfavors perceptual ie forever contracts as does federal copyright policy.




Remember, the OGL language of OGL v1.0a is over 20 years old.  License language has changed over the past two decades.  

Today, if you were writing a license, and you didn't use the word "irrevocable", you'd be in trouble.  But, a court would be interpreting 20-year old language, and possibly associated intent.


----------



## Mistwell

Tazawa said:


> I believe it may now be an opt-in, but I am almost certain the original plan was to de-authorized OGL 1.0a. The deal with Kickstarter doesn’t make any sense without it.
> 
> All existing 5e-related kickstarters use open game content from the OGL and supply their own Product Identity. The lack of access to WOTC Product Identity hasn’t hindered their successes. If 1.0a was intended to continue, their would be no contractual obligation for royalties on the Kickstarters—they could simply ignore it.




I have no idea. Is the deal with Kickstarter for specifically OneD&D material? Did they even say what it's specific to?


----------



## Scribe

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The potential also exists for Morrus to use everyone's account info to drive to our houses and punch each of us in the nose, but it's not a rational thing to worry about. (Well, for _most of us ...)_




Did I enter my address when I signed up? Hmm...

Also at this point I trust Morrus, more than I do Wizards.


----------



## dbolack

removed


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Alzrius said:


> For just a moment there, I thought you were talking about the split between Arneson and Gygax.



Not a terrible example, honestly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The potential also exists for Morrus to use everyone's account info to drive to our houses and punch each of us in the nose, but it's not a rational thing to worry about. (Well, for _most of us ...)_



sometimes I think he may WANT to do that to me...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Scribe said:


> Did I enter my address when I signed up? Hmm...



Do you use a VPN for ENWorld?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The potential also exists for Morrus to use everyone's account info to drive to our houses and punch each of us in the nose, but it's not a rational thing to worry about. (Well, for _most of us ...)_



I think level of rational worry is pretty hugely different, though. 

Also Morrus would have to get on a plane to punch most of you. I personally live in fear of his knock at any moment, of course!


----------



## darjr

Nvr mind


----------



## dbolack

removed


----------



## June Soler

This is absolutely true. From 2009-2019 I was heavily involved with running pathfinder games at major cons across the country and co-managed PF OP at Origins for 7 years (2012-2019). I can tell you, just on table counts and players playing (not finances) that without a doubt, PF1E eclipsed 4E all the way till 5E came out. Around 2015 we started noticing, across several US regions NE, MW, SE that 5E was catching up and in some places surpassing PF1E, by 2017 5E overtook PF1E OP tables in most spaces.

The same thing occurred in many FLGS that ran games.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

June Soler said:


> This is absolutely true. From 2009-2019 I was heavily involved with running pathfinder games at major cons across the country and co-managed PF OP at Origins for 7 years (2012-2019). I can tell you, just on table counts and players playing (not finances) that without a doubt, PF1E eclipsed 4E all the way till 5E came out. Around 2015 we started noticing, across several US regions NE, MW, SE that 5E was catching up and in some places surpassing PF1E, by 2017 5E overtook PF1E OP tables in most spaces.
> 
> The same thing occurred in many FLGS that ran games.



we were asked to table this on this thread by @Umbran please if you want we can start a diffrent thread to argue edition war V1,000,000


----------



## Tazawa

Mistwell said:


> I have no idea. Is the deal with Kickstarter for specifically OneD&D material? Did they even say what it's specific to?



"SRD-based D&D content" or "SRD-based content" based on the last paragraph of this excerpt:





If One D&D is broadly compatible with the open game content in SRD 5.1 (which is really the only SRD that OGL 1.1 could refer to, as an SRD for One D&D isn't available yet), then OGL 1.0a can be used to support it. These types of restrictions are only possible if OGL 1.0a is somehow revoked.


----------



## Umbran

dbolack said:


> I tried staying out of this particular mess




*Mod note:*
Folks were asked some hours ago to drop this line of discussion about old sales numbers.

We expect it to stay dropped.  Thanks.


----------



## June Soler

GMforPowergamers said:


> we were asked to table this on this thread by @Umbran please if you want we can start a diffrent thread to argue edition war V1,000,000



Thats not edition warring, I actually against that. I was providing my perspective as an organizer of organized play games.


----------



## June Soler

Umbran said:


> *Mod note:*
> Folks were asked some hours ago to drop this line of discussion about old sales numbers.
> 
> We expect it to stay dropped.  Thanks.



got it.


----------



## Umbran

dbolack said:


> It's a private space, not a public server. They can ban talking about Tucker'sKobolds or Flumphs on a whim.
> 
> I agree that the justification is somewhat &_%^(&_ given that the presumed owners of the license have made no comments (that I have seen as of this typing ) that the "leak" is either a fraud or an NDA violation.




If real, that document is almost certainly a contract violation of some sort.  Employee contracts and/or policies include terms about protecting proprietary information.  And folks officially given such a document would be signed to an NDA before seeing it.  

Someone broke an agreement in putting that document out.  Otherwise, you're getting into conspiracy theories of them _intentionally_ leaking this to rile up anger that they could then themselves fix.


----------



## Reynard

Tazawa said:


> "SRD-based D&D content" or "SRD-based content" based on the last paragraph of this excerpt:
> 
> View attachment 271492
> 
> If One D&D is broadly compatible with the open game content in SRD 5.1 (which is really the only SRD that OGL 1.1 could refer to, as an SRD for One D&D isn't available yet), then OGL 1.0a can be used to support it. These types of restrictions are only possible if OGL 1.0a is somehow revoked.



Where did that excerpt come from?


----------



## dbolack

Removed


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think level of rational worry is pretty hugely different, though.



A skim through the most recent products posted at DriveThruRPG and DMs Guild suggests that most of the fanpro sorts shouldn't be worrying about WotC coming for their content. (And no offense intended -- my stuff isn't about to get scooped up by WotC any more than theirs is.)

It's not a rational fear to worry about WotC stealing an idea. They have access to far more ideas than they can develop and publish already. Ideas are the easy part. (See the #Dungeon23 thread for more discussion of this.)


----------



## Mistwell

Tazawa said:


> "SRD-based D&D content" or "SRD-based content" based on the last paragraph of this excerpt:
> 
> View attachment 271492
> 
> If One D&D is broadly compatible with the open game content in SRD 5.1 (which is really the only SRD that OGL 1.1 could refer to, as an SRD for One D&D isn't available yet), then OGL 1.0a can be used to support it. These types of restrictions are only possible if OGL 1.0a is somehow revoked.




Maybe I am not following you, or maybe you're not following me. We're talking about what Tenkar reported, about it being an opt-in now rather than an across the board revocation. IF that is the case, then when applied to what Kickstarter said in their commentary (not that document - which would, presumably, be outdated and updated by the Tenkar news) is it that Kickstarter is saying it applies to their customers who are selling only 1.1 material? Did they specify, in their commentary, that issue?


----------



## dbolack

Removed


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's not a rational fear to worry about WotC stealing an idea. They have access to far more ideas than they can develop and publish already. Ideas are the easy part.



I just don't really believe it's "just about stopping you suing" given the change in wording. They've made it drastically more clear and extended it such that they can just take and reuse ANY of your stuff, whether you like or intend it or not.

I don't think expecting them to trawl through products stealing bits and bobs is reasonable to worry about, but if you have a very successful product or idea, is it entirely possible WotC will decide to do something with it that you don't like? I think it is.


----------



## Morrus

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah it's basically the worst possible time for Paizo on this one. Having dropped a new edition using the OGL only a few years ago.
> 
> If they were later in the edition cycle it might have all lined up better.



I generally assume Paizo and WotC are friends, but WotC does seem to _keep_ yanking that rug out. The magazines, the d20 STL, the GSL, now this.


----------



## Tazawa

Reynard said:


> Where did that excerpt come from?



Leaked to Twitter. Ultimately unknown provenance. Consistent with other leaks.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think expecting them to trawl through products stealing bits and bobs is reasonable to worry about, but if you have a very successful product or idea, is it entirely possible WotC will decide to do something with it that you don't like? I think it is.



Maybe. I think it's clear that the people behind this OGL have a pretty crappy attitude toward the rest of the industry.

Off-hand, I can't think of anything they _would_ have stolen so far in the 5E era, though. And as I pointed out earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread), my 5E stuff is 2:1 third party stuff.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Tazawa said:


> Leaked to Twitter. Ultimately unknown provenance. Consistent with other leaks.



So that begs a real question - what the hell is "OGL: Non-commercial" (OGL: Commercial seeming to be OGL 1.1)? Why would there be an OGL: Non-commercial if the Fan Policy still exists?

The language here runs directly against @Mistwell's guy Tenkar, note - this is language of general deauthorization, not opt-in. Hmmm.


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> So that begs a real question - what the hell is "OGL: Non-commercial" (OGL: Commercial seeming to be OGL 1.1)? Why would there be an OGL: Non-commercial if the Fan Policy still exists?
> 
> The language here runs directly against @Mistwell's guy Tenkar, note - this is language of general deauthorization, not opt-in. Hmmm.



I think this is from the earlier document, not the current one Tenkar references.


----------



## ChaosOS

Regarding "theft", I know of only a SINGLE case of this happening on the dmsguild: Keith and Ruty put out Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, which WotC then re-licensed to DDB without giving them any royalties on _those sales._


----------



## Tazawa

Mistwell said:


> Maybe I am not following you, or maybe you're not following me. We're talking about what Tenkar reported, about it being an opt-in now rather than an across the board revocation. IF that is the case, then when applied to what Kickstarter said in their commentary (not that document - which would, presumably, be outdated and updated by the Tenkar news) is it that Kickstarter is saying it applies to their customers who are selling only 1.1 material? Did they specify, in their commentary, that issue?



I think I'm following you--my assumption is that this excerpt is from the same mid-December document that was viewed by Linda Codega (Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition).

The agreement with Kickstarter would have been made when this version of the document was the plan. If it has changed to opt-in sometime between December and now, it changes the situation of any agreement with Kickstarter.

For Wizard's Kickstarter royalty plans to be successful, they need either OGL 1.0a revoked or Kickstarter to not accept Kickstarters that use 1.0a open game content. If Kickstarter doesn't accept OGL 1.0a campaigns, some other crowd-funding platform would, as these types of campaigns are some of the highest revenue crowd-funding campaigns. The only reason Kickstarter would agree to this type of a deal would be if they believed that OGL 1.0a was revoked.

Postscript: Given that the statement by John Ritter of Kickstarter was made yesterday, it implies that they believed that Wizard's plans were to revoke OGL 1.0a were current as of yesterday. If what Tenkar reported is true, the change to opt-in must have been quite recent or not communicated to Kickstarter.


----------



## dbolack

Umbran said:


> *Mod note:*
> Folks were asked some hours ago to drop this line of discussion about old sales numbers.
> 
> We expect it to stay dropped.  Thanks.



Noted.


----------



## Nikosandros

Morrus said:


> I generally assume Paizo and WotC are friends, but WotC does seem to _keep_ yanking that rug out. The magazines, the d20 STL, the GSL, now this.



I'm sure that the Paizo folks are in a good relationship with a lot of people at WotC. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no relationship with the new leadership at WotC in general and for D&D.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Maybe. I think it's clear that the people behind this OGL have a pretty crappy attitude toward the rest of the industry.
> 
> Off-hand, I can't think of anything they _would_ have stolen so far in the 5E era, though. And as I pointed out earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread), my 5E stuff is 2:1 third party stuff.



Re: stealing, well, up until this whole debacle I would also have said the chances of WotC not having the OGL for 1D&D were pretty low, and the chances of them deleting the OGL from existence would have been totally unbelievable.

And yet here we are.

So "what would they steal" isn't something I've really considered. But I don't think a company willing to basically nuke an industry from orbit is going to be terribly hesitant if they see a good/popular idea, and given they've made it extremely clear in the OGL: Commercial that they can do it, they'll have hordes of defenders/fans saying it's "TOTALLY FINE THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO!!!" and so on.

I also think the whole 3D VTT with microtransactions thing makes stealing cool/zeitgeist-y stuff potentially a lot more attractive. Fortnite has a ton of stuff in it that's zeitgeist-y and inspired by what's going on, for sale as microtransactions. It's got into a few lawsuits over that (won 'em all though) and has a ton of licensed stuff. This would let WotC skip licencing because they already have it. And they don't owe you a penny. If they choose to pay you anything it's out of the pure kindness of their hearts (ahem), or more accurately, because they don't want to look like TOTAL monsters.


----------



## Umbran

dbolack said:


> I am merely saying until a declaration from the presumed ( or actual ) rights-holder to the document make a declaration it is not impossible that this is neither a fraudulent report nor misappropriated property.




That and $4.15 will get you a venti latte and still booted off their discord server.



dbolack said:


> I think it is far more likely they are so full of themselves that they thought releasing it to a journalist would put out the fire than something absurd like that. Or that they failed to properly NDA someone and still sent the files.




We have understanding that some time ago, WotC had meeting with several content producers, and that signing an NDA was necessary.  So, the most likely sources of this are an employee, or someone who was in that meeting who chose to break the NDA.


----------



## ChaosOS

where are you getting a venti latte for only $4.15


----------



## Alzrius

Ruin Explorer said:


> So that begs a real question - what the hell is "OGL: Non-commercial" (OGL: Commercial seeming to be OGL 1.1)? Why would there be an OGL: Non-commercial if the Fan Policy still exists?
> 
> The language here runs directly against @Mistwell's guy Tenkar, note - this is language of general deauthorization, not opt-in. Hmmm.



I've been hearing stuff about how the OGL v1.1 will have "commercial" and "non-commercial" versions; the non-commercial one is supposed to exempt you from reporting sales figures and turning over royalties...but that's kind of expected, since it's for free works (with one minor note: apparently if you make a work freely-available, and set up some sort of tip jar-style way of letting people pay you if they want to, you can release it under the non-commercial OGL v1.1).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ChaosOS said:


> where are you getting a venti latte for only $4.15



Right? That's a great price damn.


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> Right? That's a great price damn.



The amount of money that people in the UK and the USA seem to be willing to spend on coffee-like products never ceases to amaze me...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Alzrius said:


> I've been hearing stuff about how the OGL v1.1 will have "commercial" and "non-commercial" versions; the non-commercial one is supposed to exempt you from reporting sales figures and turning over royalties...but that's kind of expected, since it's for free works (with one minor note: apparently if you make a work freely-available, and set up some sort of tip jar-style way of letting people pay you if they want to, you can release it under the non-commercial OGL v1.1).



That makes zero sense though, see here:









						Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast
					

Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy.




					company.wizards.com
				




WotC already EXPLICITLY let you do exactly that, without signing a damn thing.

The OGL 1.1 info on Beyond said the Fan Content Policy would continue.

So either:

A) WotC changed their mind really recently about the Fan Content Policy (could be either direction!)

or

B) Something wackier is going on.

EDIT - to clarify, Linda Codega says her copy of the OGL is from "mid to late December" (IIRC). WotC's Beyond comments were on December 21st. So it could be WotC decided to drop the "OGL: Non-commercial" and just go Fan Content Policy, or it could be the the reverse. Further confusing the issue is that this wasn't leaked by her, but someone else who claims to have access, so it could be older or newer still than hers and thus could conflict further.


----------



## ChaosOS

From the Fan Content Policy FAQ


> *You cannot incorporate Wizards* patents, *game mechanics (unless your Fan Content is created under the D&D Open Game License)*, logos, or trademarks into your Fan Content without our prior written permission.



Notably this is all of wizards, so this would SEEM to also apply to Custom Magic Cards - for which NOBODY is using the OGL. Not to mention, I never see people include the OGL text when they just write up a Subclass or otherwise use D&D game mechanics. WotC may run into further legal issues with the whole non-commercial bit due to this general negligence in how the Fan Content Policy is applied.


----------



## Tazawa

Ruin Explorer said:


> That makes zero sense though, see here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast
> 
> 
> Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> company.wizards.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WotC already EXPLICITLY let you do exactly that, without signing a damn thing.
> 
> The OGL 1.1 info on Beyond said the Fan Content Policy would continue.
> 
> So either:
> 
> A) WotC changed their mind really recently about the Fan Content Policy (could be either direction!)
> 
> or
> 
> B) Something wackier is going on.



Not quite. Fan content policy doesn't cover rulebooks.

The Non-Commercial OGL 1.1 would allow you to produce SRD-derived content and distribute it for free. Note that, this content does not become open game content. It may allow you to include what would be called Wizard's Product Identity in OGL 1.0a--but that hasn't been confirmed yet.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Tazawa said:


> Not quite. Fan content policy doesn't cover rulebooks.



I'm not seeing anything in the Fan Content Policy to support that viewpoint, and certainly a lot of online rulebooks and the like seem to be covered under it.


----------



## Reynard

ChaosOS said:


> From the Fan Content Policy FAQ
> 
> Notably this is all of wizards, so this would SEEM to also apply to Custom Magic Cards - for which NOBODY is using the OGL. Not to mention, I never see people include the OGL text when they just write up a Subclass or otherwise use D&D game mechanics. WotC may run into further legal issues with the whole non-commercial bit due to this general negligence in how the Fan Content Policy is applied.



Can you link where that is from because it doesn't appear to be on the fan content page previously linked.


----------



## Tazawa

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not seeing anything in the Fan Content Policy to support that viewpoint, and certainly a lot of online rulebooks and the like seem to be covered under it.




It's in the FAQ. Current policy is you can release game mechanics under the OGL but not the fan policy.



> *FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
> 
> What kind of stuff does “Fan Content” cover?*
> 
> Pretty much anything you create based on or incorporating our IP. Fan Content includes fan art, videos, podcasts, blogs, websites, streaming content, tattoos, altars to your cleric’s deity, etc.
> 
> The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards’ IP (_e.g._, *freely distributing D&D® rules content or books*, creating counterfeit/proxy _Magic: The Gathering_® cards, etc.), regardless of whether that content is distributed for free.
> 
> *So, what exactly is Wizards IP?*
> 
> Wizards IP includes the cards, creatures, books, games, gameplay, pictures, stories, logos, animations, artwork, plots, locations, histories, characters, graphics, files, text, and other materials published by Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> *Can I use all of Wizards’ IP?*
> 
> Unfortunately, no. You cannot incorporate Wizards patents, *game mechanics* (unless your Fan Content is created under the _*D&D Open Game License*_), logos, or trademarks into your Fan Content without our prior written permission.


----------



## Reynard

Tazawa said:


> It's in the FAQ



Weird. But I guess it does explain the Non-Commercial aspect of the OGL 1.1.


----------



## Maxperson

jerryrice4949 said:


> So why would anyone opt in?  Do they really need the new SRD?



I can't recall if it was @Morrus (I think it was) or someone else who said that once a new edition or half-edition comes out, even if the old content is still fully compatible, sales tend to fall off considerably as folks look for the new updated logos or mention of compatibility with the new edition/half-edition.  

A lot of people will likely opt in to make more money.  The vast majority of content creators fall beneath the 750k limit where royalties kick in.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> < please imagine me opening my eyes real wide and looking kinda vacant whilst I say this lol >
> 
> But Reynard, there's no edition change, WotC has said so!
> 
> 1D&D is merely some changes to D&D that are entirely compatible with current D&D! Again WotC has said so!
> 
> < back to normal >
> 
> More seriously though, I don't think that's a good analogy you're making, because we really are talking about something that's genuinely largely compatible. It's very hard to see what could possibly be in the 1D&D SRD that would be actually necessary to something like Flee Mortals. What, are they going to change monster stat blocks? I mean, they might change the math, but you don't need the SRD for the math. If they changed saving throws or how attacks worked or what AC was maybe things would get complicated but 1D&D seeks to avoid all that.
> 
> And the problem is even with opt-in deauthorization, it's a hell of a decision, to essentially put yourself at the whims/mercy of WotC (with that "We can change anything about this with 30 days notice" deal). Especially as some big boys will probably get sweeter deals than that.
> 
> Were we talking about a 3E-4E type edition change, well, it might be more convincing, but that didn't work out so great with the GSL lol.



I don't think we are getting a full edition change, but even a half edition change is going to involve enough significant changes that backwards compatibility is going to be gone.  It seems like these changes(and perhaps even why the are making the change at all) is geared towards making older content outdated, forcing content creators to move to the new license in order to continue making money.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Tazawa said:


> It's in the FAQ. Current policy is you can release game mechanics under the OGL but not the fan policy.



I think you're misreading it:

"The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content* does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards’ IP* (_e.g._, _freely distributing D&D® rules content or books_, creating counterfeit/proxy _Magic: The Gathering_® cards, etc.), regardless of whether that content is distributed for free."

I've changed the emphasis to show where I believe it actually lies. They're not talking about your own made-up sourcebook, they're talking about the PHB or the like.

Particularly as WotC has never acted against anyone letting people download free PDFs of original races/monsters/etc. that I'm aware of.


----------



## ChaosOS

Christian Hoffer got some interviews in









						Dungeons & Dragons Community Holds Breath as Wizards of the Coast Prepares New OGL
					

A leaked copy of a new and more restrictive Open Gaming License has put a large portion of the [...]




					comicbook.com


----------



## Kinematics

Tazawa said:


> "SRD-based D&D content" or "SRD-based content" based on the last paragraph of this excerpt:
> 
> View attachment 271492
> 
> If One D&D is broadly compatible with the open game content in SRD 5.1 (which is really the only SRD that OGL 1.1 could refer to, as an SRD for One D&D isn't available yet), then OGL 1.0a can be used to support it. These types of restrictions are only possible if OGL 1.0a is somehow revoked.



This actually sounds like they are not only trying to effectively revoke 1.0a, but that they will likely withdraw it as an ongoing offer. Someone in another thread made the analogy of putting up a wanted poster for a lost dog. If you pull the poster down, you are no longer obligated to pay the reward for anyone returning your dog because you withdrew the offer.

In order for the excerpt to make sense — that you _cannot_ create new content that earns income after the 1.1 goes live if you do not accept the new OGL — they would have to cease to offer their content under the 1.0a OGL.  Now, that's entirely feasible. There's a similar condition in the GPL, where you can cease to offer the software under that license, although you cannot revoke the license of people who have already agreed to it.  But if the licensor no longer agrees to the license, it doesn't seem like it would be valid to become a licensee, either.

This would mean that, while the 1.0a license still _exists_, and would still apply to anything created before the introduction of 1.1, WotC could simply stop offering their SRD under 1.0a, leaving everyone with no option but 1.1. 

That would be the most direct way to "de-authorize" 1.0a.  It's not that the license itself is revoked; just that WotC no longer offers their content under that license. (It's not clear what would happen to downstream sublicensees.)

I'm not entirely sure my interpretation here is correct, and I'm not a lawyer, so usual caveats apply. But this feels like the cleanest way they could accomplish this. If they are, in fact, going this route, expect to see existing OGL documents start disappearing.


----------



## Tazawa

Maxperson said:


> I can't recall if it was @Morrus (I think it was) or someone else who said that once a new edition or half-edition comes out, even if the old content is still fully compatible, sales tend to fall off considerably as folks look for the new updated logos or mention of compatibility with the new edition/half-edition.
> 
> A lot of people will likely opt in to make more money.  The vast majority of content creators fall beneath the 750k limit where royalties kick in.



The people who will opt in are likely the same people who currently publish through DMs Guild. The Kickstarter route could indeed be a better deal than DMs Guild royalties (20% over 750K vs. 50%).

But for the independent publishing companies than use OGL 1.0a in concert with their own IP (product identity), the deal really sucks (20% over 750K vs. 0%). They will not sign up if they can help it.


----------



## ChaosOS

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think you're misreading it:
> 
> "The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content* does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards’ IP* (_e.g._, _freely distributing D&D® rules content or books_, creating counterfeit/proxy _Magic: The Gathering_® cards, etc.), regardless of whether that content is distributed for free."
> 
> I've changed the emphasis to show where I believe it actually lies. They're not talking about your own made-up sourcebook, they're talking about the PHB or the like.
> 
> Particularly as WotC has never acted against anyone letting people download free PDFs of original races/monsters/etc. that I'm aware of.



To extend the Custom Magic Card point though, WotC also has a LONG blind eye towards people using the mana symbols, which are highlighted as key IP.


----------



## ChaosOS

Tazawa said:


> The people who will opt in are likely the same people who currently publish through DMs Guild. The Kickstarter route could indeed be a better deal than DMs Guild royalties (20% over 750K vs. 50%).
> 
> But for the independent publishing companies than use OGL 1.0a in concert with their own IP (product identity), the deal really sucks (20% over 750K vs. 0%). They will not sign up if they can help it.



Let's clear some things up: The _GUILD_ has always been a terrible deal if you're a serious publisher who's not married to WotC IP (i.e. Keith Baker, Ed Greenwood). The guild is nice because there's no barrier to entry with decent visibility so it's a great way to farm talent from amateur writer to part-time freelancer. If you're a serious publisher but don't have your own web store, you publish to _DTRPG_, because then you're only paying _that_ cut (30% for an exclusive title). Furthermore, you've never been able to crowdfund work that gets published to the guild, because you have no legal way to distribute backer copies.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> But it harms the D&D community when censoring the discussion until it is legally too late to remedy.



There's quite literally nothing to legally remedy now.  Nothing has been released that changes anything, so no potential damages have occurred.


----------



## overgeeked

Maxperson said:


> There's quite literally nothing to legally remedy now.  Nothing has been released that changes anything, so no potential damages have occurred.



Here’s a list of damages…


ChaosOS said:


> Christian Hoffer got some interviews in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Community Holds Breath as Wizards of the Coast Prepares New OGL
> 
> 
> A leaked copy of a new and more restrictive Open Gaming License has put a large portion of the [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comicbook.com



Even the rumor has caused financial harm to people.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Here’s a list of damages…
> 
> Even the rumor has caused financial harm to people.



so who do you sue? the reporter that broke the story? the person that leaked it? the people spreading it on the internet (yikes thats me)?


----------



## S'mon

Nikosandros said:


> The amount of money that people in the UK and the USA seem to be willing to spend on coffee-like products never ceases to amaze me...




Ours are still a lot cheaper than theirs!


----------



## Tazawa

ChaosOS said:


> Let's clear some things up: The _GUILD_ has always been a terrible deal if you're a serious publisher who's not married to WotC IP (i.e. Keith Baker, Ed Greenwood). The guild is nice because there's no barrier to entry with decent visibility so it's a great way to farm talent from amateur writer to part-time freelancer. If you're a serious publisher but don't have your own web store, you publish to _DTRPG_, because then you're only paying _that_ cut (30% for an exclusive title). Furthermore, you've never been able to crowdfund work that gets published to the guild, because you have no legal way to distribute backer copies.



I expect the intention of the new OGL 1.1 arrangement is to replace DMs Guild on OpenBookstore with D&D Beyond. When you agree to OGL 1.1, you do it through D&D Beyond.

D&D Beyond replaces DMs Guild. There's no point having two walled gardens. Offering slightly better terms in the new walled garden may help move people over.

Of course, the terms of the new walled garden can change with 30 days notice, so the terms may not be better in the long run.

Better to stay out of the walled garden altogether and support via an open license.


----------



## ChaosOS

Tazawa said:


> I expect the intention of the new OGL 1.1 arrangement is to replace DMs Guild on OpenBookstore with D&D Beyond. When you agree to OGL 1.1, you do it through D&D Beyond.
> 
> D&D Beyond replaces DMs Guild. There's no point having two walled gardens. Offering slightly better terms in the new walled garden may help move people over.



None of what you've suggested was in the 1.1 OGL draft. I'd _love_ to start seeing some more serious carrots come from WotC, but right now the dmsguild staff have confirmed there's no planned changes on their end.


----------



## Nikosandros

I was wondering if someone who has seen the full text has clarified what is the specific verbiage about the  OGL 1.0(a) becoming unauthorized.


----------



## Tazawa

ChaosOS said:


> None of what you've suggested was in the 1.1 OGL draft. I'd _love_ to start seeing some more serious carrots come from WotC, but right now the dmsguild staff have confirmed there's no planned changes on their end.



Why would you register at D&D Beyond to publish at DMs Guild?

Why would WOTC tell DMs Guild/One Bookshelf what their plans are?

It might not happen immediately, but there is no reason to think that WOTC's long-term plans include One Bookshelf.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> so who do you sue? the reporter that broke the story? the person that leaked it? the people spreading it on the internet (yikes thats me)?



no one, you are not owed good news


----------



## mamba

Tazawa said:


> I expect the intention of the new OGL 1.1 arrangement is to replace DMs Guild on OpenBookstore with D&D Beyond. When you agree to OGL 1.1, you do it through D&D Beyond.
> 
> D&D Beyond replaces DMs Guild. There's no point having two walled gardens. Offering slightly better terms in the new walled garden may help move people over.



I am not sure the OGL terms are in fact better


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Nikosandros said:


> I was wondering if someone who has seen the full text has clarified what is the specific verbiage about the  OGL 1.0(a) becoming unauthorized.



All we have is this:




I don't think someone who doesn't work for WotC can necessarily "clarify" it further.

Tenkar said it was opt-in, but if you look at the language here, that doesn't really seem very plausible. You'd expect a "for you" at the end of the second sentence there, or something. The rest of the language we've seen is pretty clear, and the obvious/clear interpretation here is that this is a general deauthorization, i.e. that you simply cannot rely on the OGL 1.0a for new products at all past the 13th.


----------



## Greg Benage

Yeah, that doesn't look like "opt-in."


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> All we have is this:
> 
> View attachment 271517
> I don't think someone who doesn't work for WotC can necessarily "clarify" it further.
> 
> Tenkar said it was opt-in, but if you look at the language here, that doesn't really seem very plausible. You'd expect a "for you" at the end of the second sentence there, or something. The rest of the language we've seen is pretty clear, and the obvious/clear interpretation here is that this is a general deauthorization, i.e. that you simply cannot rely on the OGL 1.0a for new products at all past the 13th.



Thanks, I hadn't seen this one. Was it shared on the Twitter thread?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Nikosandros said:


> Thanks, I hadn't seen this one. Was it shared on the Twitter thread?



Errrr I don't remember even though I literally just went and got it. Some part of my brain knew where it was. Temporarily! ADHD is a hell of a drug.


----------



## Tazawa

mamba said:


> I am not sure the OGL terms are in fact better



The royalty terms for OGL 1.1 _might_ be better than DMs Guild.

Hard to say if the IP terms are better or worse only because the DMs Guild IP terms are really quite horrible and we don't have the complete text of OGL 1.1.


----------



## Maxperson

overgeeked said:


> Here’s a list of damages…
> 
> Even the rumor has caused financial harm to people.



They are not responsible for rumor.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> Errrr I don't remember even though I literally just went and got it. Some part of my brain knew where it was. Temporarily! ADHD is a hell of a drug.



Yeah.  I don't know how it is on your side of the pond, but here in the U.S. the Adderrall shortage is killing me.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> All we have is this:
> 
> View attachment 271517
> I don't think someone who doesn't work for WotC can necessarily "clarify" it further.
> 
> Tenkar said it was opt-in, but if you look at the language here, that doesn't really seem very plausible. You'd expect a "for you" at the end of the second sentence there, or something. The rest of the language we've seen is pretty clear, and the obvious/clear interpretation here is that this is a general deauthorization, i.e. that you simply cannot rely on the OGL 1.0a for new products at all past the 13th.



We really need to see all of the new OGL.  For all we know "SRD based content" is defined as content from the new SRD that comes with the OGL.  If a new SRD is released.  We just don't know.


----------



## Maxperson

eyeheartawk said:


> Nah
> 
> A quick search tells me Paizo yearly revenues are around $35 Million and Hasbro's is close to $9 Billion.



35 million will buy a LOT of good legal services. Hell, spending 1 million will buy a lot of it. 9 billion is a whole lot of overkill and just looks impressive. Paizo has plenty enough to fight back against WotC if it has to go down that road.

The ones who are vulnerable to muscle are the 99.9% of content creators who make 10k, 15k, 50k or even 100k a year.  After life expenses they just don't have enough to hire a lawyer to fight back.


----------



## jerryrice4949

I am kind of surprised WoTC has not released a statement yet.  Especially since the it was supposed to go live a week from today.

I am also wondering when we will find out if anyone opted in.  I assuming not.


----------



## Scribe

jerryrice4949 said:


> I am kind of surprised WoTC has not released a statement yet.  Especially since the it was supposed to go live a week from today.




3pm on a Friday, Pacific.

Will be interesting to see if something comes out Monday, assuming silence over the weekend.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Kinematics said:


> In order for the excerpt to make sense — that you _cannot_ create new content that earns income after the 1.1 goes live if you do not accept the new OGL — they would have to cease to offer their content under the 1.0a OGL.  Now, that's entirely feasible. There's a similar condition in the GPL, where you can cease to offer the software under that license, although you cannot revoke the license of people who have already agreed to it.  But if the licensor no longer agrees to the license, it doesn't seem like it would be valid to become a licensee, either.



I believe this has been tried a couple of times with GPL sofware, and each time the end result was that even though the original developer had stopped offering the code under the GPL, the licence explicitly permits anyone who already has the software to share it with others under the same licence.

The intention behind the OGL was the same according to Dancey, but it hasn't been tested (yet) so we can't be certain how the result would turn out.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jerryrice4949 said:


> I am kind of surprised WoTC has not released a statement yet.  Especially since the it was supposed to go live a week from today.
> 
> I am also wondering when we will find out if anyone opted in.  I assuming not.



I assume (not a lawyer) that they are seeing if this blows over or blows up.  I have seen about 1/3 to 1/4 of the number 'reactions' on tic tok as spell jammer got. I do see Twitter a hashtag trending... but I see hatespeach on it too. My facebook groups are still silent on it, and I have seen only a few 'pro this change'.


----------



## jerryrice4949

GMforPowergamers said:


> I assume (not a lawyer) that they are seeing if this blows over or blows up.  I have seen about 1/3 to 1/4 of the number 'reactions' on tic tok as spell jammer got. I do see Twitter a hashtag trending... but I see hatespeach on it too. My facebook groups are still silent on it, and I have seen only a few 'pro this change'.



Seems strange anyone would be pro the change.  I don’t really have issues with some elements but the 25% royalties are obscene as are some of the other parts.  This is all stick no carrot.  Feels like they over played their hand.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

jerryrice4949 said:


> Seems strange anyone would be pro the change.



We have people on these threads here who are in favor of the change, viewing all third party folks as "free riders" who contribute nothing to D&D, which is presumably the same sort of disconnect the folks pushing the new OGL have.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jerryrice4949 said:


> Seems strange anyone would be pro the change.  I don’t really have issues with some elements but the 25% royalties are obscene as are some of the other parts.  This is all stick no carrot.  Feels like they over played their hand.



I thought I was the most anti 3pp because i though this MIGHT in long run help but I have seen people be nasty about it today


----------



## darjr

$4.15 coffee? In the US?

I wouldn’t drink that. For your own safety.

I dint drink coffee anyways.


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> $4.15 coffee? In the US?
> 
> I wouldn’t drink that. For your own safety.
> 
> I dint drink coffee anyways.



So, is $4.15 actually _cheap_?


----------



## Reynard

ChaosOS said:


> Christian Hoffer got some interviews in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Community Holds Breath as Wizards of the Coast Prepares New OGL
> 
> 
> A leaked copy of a new and more restrictive Open Gaming License has put a large portion of the [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comicbook.com



This is a good article. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Kinematics

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I believe this has been tried a couple of times with GPL sofware, and each time the end result was that even though the original developer had stopped offering the code under the GPL, the licence explicitly permits anyone who already has the software to share it with others under the same licence.
> 
> The intention behind the OGL was the same according to Dancey, but it hasn't been tested (yet) so we can't be certain how the result would turn out.



The thing to keep in mind is that the GPL was designed explicitly with that purpose in mind, but that that isn't the case for most open source licenses (eg: Apache, MIT, BSD, etc), and doesn't seem to be the case in the design of the OGL.

As for the OGL, a brief review doesn't seem to carry the same contagious effect. In fact it basically says that you have to be the original copyright holder in order to offer Open Game Content material via this license, meaning there's no downstream sub-licensing.  Anyone accepting the license is doing so with the original publisher (WotC in this case).

Again, brief, non-lawyerly overview of the text.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> $4.15 coffee? In the US?
> 
> I wouldn’t drink that. For your own safety.
> 
> I dint drink coffee anyways.



I mean, if you just drink actual coffee, $4.15 is highway robbery.


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> I am not sure the OGL terms are in fact better



As far as we know, the OGL 1.1 does not require you to sell your content exclusively through one merchant. Content published on the DM’s Guild can _only_ be published there.


----------



## Xyxox

wingsandsword said:


> Which doesn't matter.
> 
> It's possible for it to be irrevocable because of how other terms in the license are construed, without using that word itself.



Problem here is the fact that it IS revocable and lays out the conditions for revoking the license which is basically violating the terms of the license. That's the only way you can revoke the license.


----------



## gnarlygninja

Nikosandros said:


> So, is $4.15 actually _cheap_?



Depends on the drink.  For just coffee it would be very expensive to somewhat reasonable depending on the size and some other factors in my neck of the woods.


----------



## mamba

jerryrice4949 said:


> I am also wondering when we will find out if anyone opted in.  I assuming not.



at the latest when they use the logo


----------



## Yaarel

jerryrice4949 said:


> I am also wondering when we will find out if anyone opted in.  I assuming not.



Perhaps Kickstarter has opted in − in the context of the better royalty arrangement?

This is serious. Because Kickstarter itself would become an agent of Hasbro removing OGL 1.0a projects from the Kickstarter website.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> They are not responsible for rumor.



If you read the article, you'll note some of the people changing course are not reacting based on "the rumour" but on having seen the OGL. However those people are under NDA, so they're only referred to, rather than being quoted.

Also, note, it would actually be considerably worse without "the rumour" unless WotC change their mind. If WotC don't, and "the rumour" becomes "the reality", then any companies that hadn't acted based on "the rumour" would be even worse off, because they'd have invested further into products that they were scrambling to see if the had a way to sell.

In the end, the buck stops with WotC. They are the ones making changes to the OGL. I don't think we can even say "allegedly" - the current plan clearly is to make them - whether that will be the plan, say, on Monday morning Pacific, I'm not so sure.


----------



## Xyxox

Umbran said:


> Remember, the OGL language of OGL v1.0a is over 20 years old.  License language has changed over the past two decades.
> 
> Today, if you were writing a license, and you didn't use the word "irrevocable", you'd be in trouble.  But, a court would be interpreting 20-year old language, and possibly associated intent.



And what WotC currently infers was original intent is quite the opposite of what was going on more than two decades ago. While they were working on the original OGL they were literally giving away material to competitors to equip them so as to be ready to begin relasing material IMMEDIATELY upon the release of 3E. There will have to be some majorly successful judge shopping for WotC to come out on top in any court case regarding the "unauthorization" of OGL 1.0a given the actual history and intentions.

Heck, there are actual entire game systems released under OGL 1.0a that have never used anything from any WotC published Systems Reference Document. Are WotC going to claim the right to take everything from the Dr. Who RPG as their IP under this alleged "unauthorization"? How will the BBC react to Hasbro saying it now owns Cybermen and Daleks?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> We really need to see all of the new OGL.  For all we know "SRD based content" is defined as content from the new SRD that comes with the OGL.  If a new SRD is released.  We just don't know.



I mean, it's hard to see how that would change the key issue, which is the de-authorization of the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## Nikosandros

Xyxox said:


> Heck, there are actual entire game systems released under OGL 1.0a that have never used anything from any WotC published Systems Reference Document. Are WotC going to claim the right to take everything from the Dr. Who RPG as their IP under this alleged "unauthorization"? How will the BBC react to Hasbro saying it now owns Cybermen and Daleks?



While I haven't read the Dr. Who rpg, I'm quite sure that any IP from BBC is not open gaming content.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Xyxox said:


> Heck, there are actual entire game systems released under OGL 1.0a that have never used anything from any WotC published Systems Reference Document. Are WotC going to claim the right to take everything from the Dr. Who RPG as their IP under this alleged "unauthorization"? How will be BBC react to Hasbro saying it now owns Cybermen and Daleks?



That's not an issue.

Daleks and Cybermen will not be OGC unless, for some bizarre reason, the company which made the RPG declared they were OGC. And the BBC would presumably have to have authorized them to do that.

Their statblocks would be OGC, but not anything else - no descriptions, not even a name, as far as I know.

If the OGL 1.1 was used (which it wasn't, but imagining the future), it would appear that WotC would get rights over them, which presumably suggests that either:

A) That interpretation is invalid.

B) WotC's wording/drafting is bad and needs to be fixed.

or

C) The OGL 1.1 will never be suitable for any kind of licensed IP RPG.

What's the under/over on a complete version of the OGL 1.1 leaking over the weekend? I'd say about 2/1 against myself, but it's far from impossible.


----------



## sigfried

Kinematics said:


> As for the OGL, a brief review doesn't seem to carry the same contagious effect. In fact it basically says that you have to be the original copyright holder in order to offer Open Game Content material via this license, meaning there's no downstream sub-licensing.  Anyone accepting the license is doing so with the original publisher (WotC in this case).




That is partly the case.  The OGL addresses two kinds of content.
1. PI (Product Identity) is copyrighted material you reserve only for yourself
2. OGC (Open Gaming Content) consists of two types, but both treated equally under the license
  a. Content that you wrote and want to share with all license users
  b. Content others wrote and decided to share with all license users

The license is an agreement between all users of the license; if you publish with it, you can use OGC from other publishers, but you agree to share the OGC you publish under the license.  

The prescription against copyrighted material is to say that you don't have permission to add anyone else's work, that is not already covered by the license into the license.  AKA I can't take some other companies' stuff and declare it is OGC.  But if they already published it as OGC, it's fair game to use.

WOTC published the SRD document as OGC, so everything in there becomes available to everyone under the license, but each company using the license is also adding material for everyone to use.


----------



## humble minion

Xyxox said:


> Problem here is the fact that it IS revocable and lays out the conditions for revoking the license which is basically violating the terms of the license. That's the only way you can revoke the license.




Terminating the licence for a licence-user who violates the terms is a profoundly different matter to a blanket revocation of the licence in its entirety, of course.  

The bigger issue is that WotC is asserting that they have the at-will power to render the past licence no longer usable, and it seems inevitable to me that if they succeed in this claim, they'll assign themselves the right to revoke 1.1 and any subsequent licence on the same terms.  A licence that's revocable at will is no licence at all.  You can't be a serious publisher and invest time and effort for a year plus developing a 400 page hardback setting when WotC could arbitrarily cut the foundations out from under your business at any time with a stroke of a pen.


----------



## darjr

Delta Green is out.



	
		With hints that WOTC may attempt to revoke the OGL or impose more onerous terms in a new version, the OGL serves no useful purpose. We will remove that page—the text of the license—from our games.
		
	






						Delta Green Without the OGL – Arc Dream Publishing
					






					arcdream.com


----------



## rgard

I haven't read all 41 pages of this, but if this has not been mentioned...

If you have any products in your online libraries (drivethrurpg, dmsguild, etc) that have the OGL 1.0a, I suggest you download them before the 13th. We could wake on the 14th and find that all of those products have been taken down for being in violation of the new OGL.  

A few years ago, the TSR/WotC products I had purchased at drivethrurpg disappeared for some length of time when WotC told them to make them unavailable.


----------



## Reynard

rgard said:


> If you have any products in your online libraries (drivethrurpg, dmsguild, etc) that have the OGL 1.0a, I suggest you download them before the 13th. We could wake on the 14th and find that all of those products have been taken down for being in violation of the new OGL.



This is a highly unlikely scenario.
That said, has DTRPG/OneBookShelf made any statements?


----------



## Nikosandros

rgard said:


> A few years ago, the TSR/WotC products I had purchased at drivethrurpg disappeared for some length of time when WotC told them to make them unavailable.



True. And the PDFs that I bought from Paizo (at the time they also sold PDFs of TSR products) never came back online. I had backed-up copies of all of them, luckily.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> This is a highly unlikely scenario.
> That said, has DTRPG/OneBookShelf made any statements?



Not that I know of.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

rgard said:


> I haven't read all 41 pages of this, but if this has not been mentioned...
> 
> If you have any products in your online libraries (drivethrurpg, dmsguild, etc) that have the OGL 1.0a, I suggest you download them before the 13th. We could wake on the 14th and find that all of those products have been taken down for being in violation of the new OGL.
> 
> A few years ago, the TSR/WotC products I had purchased at drivethrurpg disappeared for some length of time when WotC told them to make them unavailable.



Oh, this has been on my to do list for quite a while. Guess it just got more urgent...


----------



## jerryrice4949

rgard said:


> I haven't read all 41 pages of this, but if this has not been mentioned...
> 
> If you have any products in your online libraries (drivethrurpg, dmsguild, etc) that have the OGL 1.0a, I suggest you download them before the 13th. We could wake on the 14th and find that all of those products have been taken down for being in violation of the new OGL.
> 
> A few years ago, the TSR/WotC products I had purchased at drivethrurpg disappeared for some length of time when WotC told them to make them unavailable.



This would most certainly lead to a class action lawsuit.  I am not concerned about this scenario in the least.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> Delta Green is out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With hints that WOTC may attempt to revoke the OGL or impose more onerous terms in a new version, the OGL serves no useful purpose. We will remove that page—the text of the license—from our games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta Green Without the OGL – Arc Dream Publishing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arcdream.com



This is likely to happen a lot. people are just going to drop the whole idea of Open Gaming because WotC poisoned the well.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> This is likely to happen a lot. people are just going to drop the whole idea of Open Gaming because WotC poisoned the well.



It would be great if some or all of them came up with an alternative license. A whole generation of gamers has grown up in an open gaming universe and we would not have many of the games we have today without what Dancey and WotC did back with 3E.

I cannot imagine gamers are less sophisticated about open source licensing than they were almost 20 years ago and I have to imagine creating a new open gaming license that WotC is not involved in is an impossible task. It's certainly a worthwhile one.


----------



## Xyxox

One thing I can say for absolute certain, if Kickstarter refuses to allow any project using OGL 1.0a, I'll have backed my last Kickstarter ever with the one that just ended. Will wait to see before backing another.


----------



## darjr

Xyxox said:


> One thing I can say for absolute certain, if Kickstarter refuses to allow any project using OGL 1.0a, I'll have backed my last Kickstarter ever with the one that just ended. Will wait to see before backing another.



Backer kit hasn't made a statement yet. I wonder what their stance will be?


----------



## Nikosandros

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It would be great if some or all of them came up with an alternative license. A whole generation of gamers has grown up in an open gaming universe and we would not have many of the games we have today without what Dancey and WotC did back with 3E.
> 
> I cannot imagine gamers are less sophisticated about open source licensing than they were almost 20 years ago and I have to imagine creating a new open gaming license that WotC is not involved in is an impossible task. It's certainly a worthwhile one.



The thing is that the new license would be good, but there is also a ton of value in the openness of the D&D rules themselves.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Delta Green is out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With hints that WOTC may attempt to revoke the OGL or impose more onerous terms in a new version, the OGL serves no useful purpose. We will remove that page—the text of the license—from our games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta Green Without the OGL – Arc Dream Publishing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arcdream.com



That could be a source of lawsuits, too. Delta Green is based on OGC, specifically Chaosium’s BRP. If the OGL is revoked and publishers keep the content but remove the license, we’ll have all kinds of legit copyright claims as a result.

ETA: It’s based on Legends, which is derived from BRP, but not BRP directly.


----------



## darjr

M.T. Black pauses Kickstarters.


link


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It would be great if some or all of them came up with an alternative license. A whole generation of gamers has grown up in an open gaming universe and we would not have many of the games we have today without what Dancey and WotC did back with 3E.
> 
> I cannot imagine gamers are less sophisticated about open source licensing than they were almost 20 years ago and I have to imagine creating a new open gaming license that WotC is not involved in is an impossible task. It's certainly a worthwhile one.



I don't know. It has been 20 years of people learning to sign their rights and data away, of microtransactions and ever more consolidated entertainment. Sure, the world is one demand and there's so much out there no one could ever absorb it all, but it's not really an "open" world so much as one full of people racing for their chance at influencer status.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Nikosandros said:


> The thing is that the new license would be good, but there is also a ton of value in the openness of the D&D rules themselves.



Of course. I think a good enough version of the rules can be created without WotC involvement as part of a new license, even if some of the terminology has to change.


----------



## mamba

overgeeked said:


> That could be a source of lawsuits, too. Delta Green is based on OGC, specifically Chaosium’s BRP. If the OGL is revoked and publishers keep the content but remove the license, we’ll have all kinds of legit copyright claims as a result.



If it is based on BRP (their announcement said no such thing), then the OGL is not needed, in fact it probably would be a violation of the license the BRP is under.


----------



## Nikosandros

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Of course. I think a good enough version of the rules can be created without WotC involvement as part of a new license, even if some of the terminology has to change.



Fair enough.


----------



## overgeeked

mamba said:


> If it is based on BRP (their announcement said no such thing), then the OGL is not needed, in fact it probably would be a violation of the license the BRP is under.



Ah. My mistake. It's not technically BRP, it's based on the Legends OGC released by Mongoose. It's still basically a BRP game though as the mechanics are nearly identical, hence my confusion.

Still. It uses OGC, which is to say content it doesn't own, content it only had a license to use due to the OGL and Mongoose releasing Legends. So if they pull the OGL but continue to print books without changing the rules, they could have legal trouble on their hands.


----------



## mamba

overgeeked said:


> Still. It uses OGC, which is to say content it doesn't own, content it only had a license to use due to the OGL and Mongoose releasing Legends. So if they pull the OGL but continue to print books without changing the rules, they could have legal trouble on their hands.



Not according to their own press release

"The intellectual property known as Delta Green is a trademark and copyright owned by the Delta Green Partnership. The OGL never covered nor facilitated the Delta Green intellectual property"


----------



## Umbran

Xyxox said:


> Heck, there are actual entire game systems released under OGL 1.0a that have never used anything from any WotC published Systems Reference Document. Are WotC going to claim the right to take everything from the Dr. Who RPG as their IP under this alleged "unauthorization"? How will the BBC react to Hasbro saying it now owns Cybermen and Daleks?




Can't happen, for two reasons.
1) Cybermen and Daleks are PI for the BBC.  The game devs could not have made it OGC, as they don't have the right to do so.  So Hasbro can't take it.
2) Even if they revoke v1.0a, they cannot _assume_ you pick up v1.1.  The game publishers would have to willfully republish under the new license.


----------



## darjr

The Arcane Library is moving away from the OGL


----------



## overgeeked

mamba said:


> Not according to their own press release
> 
> "The intellectual property known as Delta Green is a trademark and copyright owned by the Delta Green Partnership. The OGL never covered nor facilitated the Delta Green intellectual property"



That’s a cool press release and all but the mechanics of their game as published uses a lot of OGC. I’m not sure how that’s going to shake out going forward.


----------



## Scribe




----------



## darjr

I think it's probably bad that a lot of formerly OGL creators are coming to the conclusion they don't need the OGL. Regardless of what WotC does even if they walk back all of this. Bad for WotC anyway in a strategic "market leader in the community" kind of way.


----------



## Greg Benage

darjr said:


> I think it's probably bad that a lot of formerly OGL creators are coming to the conclusion they don't need the OGL.



The value was always and only in the safe harbor, and I can't imagine anyone will feel safe in the harbor after this.


----------



## darjr

Greg Benage said:


> The value was always and only in the safe harbor, and I can't imagine anyone will feel safe in the harbor after this.



Yea, no matter what WotC does. That door is closed.


----------



## Scribe

darjr said:


> I think it's probably bad that a lot of formerly OGL creators are coming to the conclusion they don't need the OGL. Regardless of what WotC does even if they walk back all of this. Bad for WotC anyway in a strategic "market leader in the community" kind of way.




Yeah, nothing like a self inflicted wound or 2, and giving up ones position as a leader within the segment at least figuratively, just because one wants an even bigger piece of the pie.

Not another penny from me, and at this point I've just got a lot of bitterness and spite towards Wizards.

I can only hope that other (better btw, even if people didnt want to admit it) companies and games are not harmed further.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> The value was always and only in the safe harbor, and I can't imagine anyone will feel safe in the harbor after this.





darjr said:


> Yea, no matter what WotC does. That door is closed.



if ANY attempt to do away with the OGL would make it not safe, the 4e poison pill would have. The fact that people trusted them for 5e at all shows that SOME people will still trust them.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> if ANY attempt to do away with the OGL would make it not safe, the 4e poison pill would have. The fact that people trusted them for 5e at all shows that SOME people will still trust them.




Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue is that the 4e version was a different license, this is Wizards (Hasbro) retroactively going back to remove what has existed for 20+ years.


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> if ANY attempt to do away with the OGL would make it not safe, the 4e poison pill would have.



Even the GSL didn't try to revoke OGL 1.0a. That's sorta crossing the Rubicon, as far as "safe harbors" are concerned.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue is that the 4e version was a different license, this is Wizards (Hasbro) retroactively going back to remove what has existed for 20+ years.



yes but it was the first attempt (I know of) to remove it by putting the 'poison pill' of if you use the GSL you promise to never again use the oGL.
The assumption I have made since 2009ish is that WotC would love to put the genie back in the bottle but couldd not.  I don't know what changed, but someone figure they now today can.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> Even the GSL didn't try to revoke OGL 1.0a. That's sorta crossing the Rubicon, as far as "safe harbors" are concerned.



I don't know I would think if they try and fail it would show how safe it is.


----------



## jerryrice4949

darjr said:


> The Arcane Library is moving away from the OGL



Didn’t watch this but what does it mean practically speaking?  If it’s not compatible with 5E I wouldn’t purchase it.  Just curious.  Is this posturing or are they changing their product?


----------



## darjr

I mean the only thing that would work is to make an SRD and put it in the public domain. Flat out.


----------



## darjr

jerryrice4949 said:


> Didn’t watch this but what does it mean practically speaking?  If it’s not compatible with 5E I wouldn’t purchase it.  Just curious.  Is this posturing or are they changing their product?



Everything they did, 5e stuff and not, was OGL. Not anymore.

It's even in that draft book they are holding.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Eyes of Nine said:


> Oh, this has been on my to do list for quite a while. Guess it just got more urgent...



Welcome to the wonders of digital “ownership”.


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know I would think if they try and fail it would show how safe it is.



C'mon, man. :-/


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> The value was always and only in the safe harbor, and I can't imagine anyone will feel safe in the harbor after this.



Yeah. Even if they walk it back, they tipped their hand and they can't be trusted.

I'm a little sad tis is probably going to mean less freelance for me. I mean, don't get me wrong, many other folks will have it worse because I don't rely on it for anything. It is something I really enjoy and that (I think) I am good at, but the money is for buying game books and going to cons, not putting food on my table or making rent. Even so, it's one of my favorite things to do.


----------



## Greg Benage

jerryrice4949 said:


> Didn’t watch this but what does it mean practically speaking? If it’s not compatible with 5E I wouldn’t purchase it. Just curious. Is this posturing or are they changing their product?



It's honestly kinda weird. I've purchased one of her products (Skyhorn Lighthouse)...from DM's Guild. If her stuff is available on DM's Guild, I'm not sure why she's worried about OGL 1.1. She doesn't explain, just states that her "5e stuff is probably going away." She apparently is planning to publish her own game.


----------



## jerryrice4949

darjr said:


> Everything they did, 5e stuff and not, was OGL. Not anymore.
> 
> It's even in that draft book she is holding.



I understand that part but I don’t exactly understand what that means for the actual product.  What system will it user etc.


----------



## jerryrice4949

I personally see a more bifurcated market.   Contraction of overall projects and content.  I don’t want to support WoTC but I also don’t want to buy into a lot of games with different systems and have to learn them all.  End results is I will spend less and back fewer projects.  At least that is how i see it playing out for me.


----------



## darjr

jerryrice4949 said:


> I understand that part but I don’t exactly understand what that means for the actual product.  What system will it user etc.



She's making her own game. Was already looking into doing it. Was going to make it OGL. As part of the companies portfolio.

not now. Now the 5e stuff comes to an end and they will strip the OGL out of the new game.


----------



## Xyxox

jerryrice4949 said:


> Didn’t watch this but what does it mean practically speaking?  If it’s not compatible with 5E I wouldn’t purchase it.  Just curious.  Is this posturing or are they changing their product?



Changing the product, or rather developing the product into an entirely new product that stands on its own.


----------



## Cadence

darjr said:


> She's making her own game. Was already looking into doing it. Was going to make it OGL. As part of the companies portfolio.
> 
> not now. Now the 5e stuff comes to an end and they will strip the OGL out of the new game.



And it sounds like some of the stuff she was doing might have leaned on the OGL and will need to be changed... resulting in new layout and possibly needing a bit of different art depending on how spacing changes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> C'mon, man. :-/



I don't think it will work... BUT people WAY smarter and more trained in law still think that if this went to court WotC might lose. IF WOTC LOSES then the OGL is pretty much untouchable.

The more likely outcome is that no one dare poke the 800lbs gorilla, and this passes into working because nobody tries to challenge it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> The Arcane Library is moving away from the OGL



She's been working on her own system for a while, but this is a loss. She is an extremely good and prolific adventure writer. (And other writers who haven't should pick up her works, as she prioritizes ease of play at the table, with formats that others can learn from.)


----------



## darjr

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> She's been working on her own system for a while, but this is a loss. She is an extremely good and prolific adventure writer. (And other writers who haven't should pick up her works, as she prioritizes ease of play at the table, with formats that others can learn from.)



She is good.

She's also going to incur lawyer fees she didn't anticipate.

Also, she didn't say, and I don't know, but I bet you donuts she was in meetings with WotC.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> Yeah. Even if they walk it back, they tipped their hand and they can't be trusted.



Yeah. That is the central issue for me.

How can I trust WotC?


----------



## JEB

jerryrice4949 said:


> This would most certainly lead to a class action lawsuit.  I am not concerned about this scenario in the least.



DTRPG doesn't leave products available for sale when their license ends. So if OGL 1.0/1.0a material is no longer licensed under the terms of OGL 1.1, it could be argued that they'd be obliged to remove it. Hard to say, though, this would be an unprecedented situation.

The only saving grace is that DTRPG usually allows purchasers to continue downloading material they purchased even if it's no longer available for sale. (Though a notable exception was Wizards' removed D&D PDFs during the 4E era...)


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> IF WOTC LOSES then the OGL is pretty much untouchable.



Or they decide to try again, with a "better argument," only _this_ time they sue me. Okay, I'm not in the game anymore, but if publishers above the "beer money" level _know_ that Hasbro wants to revoke the license, I think they'd be absolutely nuts to build a business on it going forward. You're making your business a "Ralph in Danger" meme.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Greg Benage said:


> It's honestly kinda weird. I've purchased one of her products (Skyhorn Lighthouse)...from DM's Guild. If her stuff is available on DM's Guild, I'm not sure why she's worried about OGL 1.1. She doesn't explain, just states that her "5e stuff is probably going away." She apparently is planning to publish her own game.



Most of her stuff is sold through her own website, not DMs Guild.


----------



## Branduil

The OGL is dead. We're living in a post-OGL era now, regardless of what WotC decides to do now. You can't put the "Well we might decide to destroy your material forever" genie back in the bottle.

I think it would be prudent for 3PPs to focus on creating a new, true OGL which is not owned by WotC and thus can't possibly be rescinded by them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Branduil said:


> The OGL is dead. We're living in a post-OGL era now, regardless of what WotC decides to do now. You can't put the "Well we might decide to destroy your material forever" genie back in the bottle.
> 
> I think it would be prudent for 3PPs to focus on creating a new, true OGL which is not owned by WotC and thus can't possibly be rescinded by them.



a new system, that sounds amazing. A fantasy system that isn't based on 3e or 5e D&D sounds like something i would love to read


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

GMforPowergamers said:


> A fantasy system that isn't based on 3e or 5e D&D sounds like something i would love to read



There are a ton of third party publishers yelling at their screen right now. Go check their stuff out!


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> a new system, that sounds amazing. A fantasy system that isn't based on 3e or 5e D&D sounds like something i would love to read



And no one will buy it. there are a hundred amazing, innovative, fun fantasy RPGs out there not based on another core system -- and most of them languish in obscurity and even the well known ones are orders of magnitude less popular than D&D. I don't think there is a world in which an Open Gaming movement emerges around a single system to rival D&D. If anything, Open Gaming creates a dozen or so  "PbtAs" -- that is, a handful of games that get a lot of attention and variants, but none that are true industry leaders.


----------



## Cadence

Branduil said:


> The OGL is dead. We're living in a post-OGL era now, regardless of what WotC decides to do now. You can't put the "Well we might decide to destroy your material forever" genie back in the bottle.
> 
> I think it would be prudent for 3PPs to focus on creating a new, true OGL which is not owned by WotC and thus can't possibly be rescinded by them.




I mean, they could make a 1.0b that was the same as 1.0a but said irrevocable and not unauthorizable.     I'm not holding my breath :-/


----------



## darjr

JEB said:


> DTRPG doesn't leave products available for sale when their license ends. So if OGL 1.0/1.0a material is no longer licensed under the terms of OGL 1.1, it could be argued that they'd be obliged to remove it. Hard to say, though, this would be an unprecedented situation.
> 
> The only saving grace is that DTRPG usually allows purchasers to continue downloading material they purchased even if it's no longer available for sale. (Though a notable exception was Wizards' removed D&D PDFs during the 4E era...)



There are other exceptions, I think.


----------



## darjr

Forget the core system. Give me a core LICENSE!


----------



## darjr

Cadence said:


> I mean, they could make a 1.0b that was the same as 1.0a but said irrevocable and not unauthorizable.     I'm not holding my breath :-/



I'd never trust them. Would you?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> There are a ton of third party publishers yelling at their screen right now. Go check their stuff out!



I have bookshelfs full of there stuff (when my fiancé moved in last year I found I had games from my 99 Gen Con trip and my 2001 Gen con trip that I have never played but still had the books on the shelf) I don't know fate/fudge but they are on my list to look into. Other then that I am ALWAYS up for checking out a new game.


----------



## Cadence

darjr said:


> I'd never trust them. Would you?



If the lawyers who don't agree on anything in public all agree those are the magic words I'd feel ok trusting the wording.


----------



## Lidgar

It like the entire industry is living this meme right now.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> And no one will buy it.



Hi I'm nobody. 


Reynard said:


> there are a hundred amazing, innovative, fun fantasy RPGs out there not based on another core system -- and most of them languish in obscurity and even the well known ones are orders of magnitude less popular than D&D. I don't think there is a world in which an Open Gaming movement emerges around a single system to rival D&D. If anything, Open Gaming creates a dozen or so  "PbtAs" -- that is, a handful of games that get a lot of attention and variants, but none that are true industry leaders.



and I want to buy (even if I never buy but never get to play) them and read them...


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> Hi I'm nobody.
> 
> and I want to buy (even if I never buy but never get to play) them and read them...



Obviously I did not mean literally nobody. I just don't think there is a magical game waiting in the wings to replace D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> Obviously I did not mean literally nobody. I just don't think there is a magical game waiting in the wings to replace D&D.



I was being funny. Yeah there isn't.

There MIGHT be another Vampire out there that could catch on and bring a new type of player in and grab some D&D players and make a big splash... but that's a one in a million.

I'm not looking for pathfinder or vampire to be #2 and closing.  I am looking for best sellers number 11 13 17 and 22 that each have a uniqe hook and idea with some cool mechanics.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> I just don't think there is a magical game waiting in the wings to replace D&D.



For years, I have been a D&D-only gamer. I like where the 5e game engine is going.

But how can I use the D&D system if I no longer trust its custodians?

I am curious about some systems, including Cortex Prime, Year Zero Engine, and Shadow of the Demon Lord.

At this point, I need a rock-solid irrevocable legal right to use (and modify) the content, enough to use for my own content. So, I will scrutinize what the legal contracts look like − something I have never felt the need to do earlier.

Maybe a new game that is public domain or irrevocable open source can come from cloudsourcing, a collaborative work evolving in a wiki format?

Whether I like it or not, there seems little choice but to find something to replace D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> For years, I have been a D&D-only gamer. I like where the 5e game engine is going.
> 
> But how can I use the D&D system if I no longer trust its custodians?
> 
> I am curious about some systems, including Cortex Prime, Year Zero Engine, and Shadow of the Demon Lord.
> 
> At this point, I need a rock-solid irrevocable legal right to use (and modify) the content, enough to use for my own content. So, I will scrutinize what the legal contracts look like − something I have never felt the need to do earlier.
> 
> Maybe a new game that is public domain or irrevocable open source can come from cloudsourcing, a collaborative work evolving in a wiki format?
> 
> Whether I like it or not, there seems little choice but to find something to replace D&D.



I haven't read through it yet but I think Fate might fit. I personally like TORG (But they are not Open at all really) and SAVAGE WORLDS is amazing (one day I will run savage rifts)


----------



## darjr

Yea if history is anything to go by the best D&D replacement is another D&D.

Edit: and yea, given the caveats of all the advantages Pathfinder 1.0 and Paizo had .


----------



## rknop

There already are fully open game systems.  FATE, for instance, is available under a Creative Commons license, although FATE is an _extremely_ different system from D&D, and while loved by some, is not everybody's ball of wax.


----------



## SkidAce

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not dismissing all fans. I am dismissing the few 40+ year old D&D players on enworld that just are not the main revenue stream anymore even for the books let alone the movie.



Why am I being dismissed?


----------



## rknop

I'm also amused that 40 is considered old, as in, beyond the pale old.

I still buy a lot of stuff -- Starfinder has been most, though not all, of what I buy recently.

But I do remember waiting for the release of the DM's Guide... the first one.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Reynard said:


> And no one will buy it. there are a hundred amazing, innovative, fun fantasy RPGs out there not based on another core system -- and most of them languish in obscurity and even the well known ones are orders of magnitude less popular than D&D. I don't think there is a world in which an Open Gaming movement emerges around a single system to rival D&D. If anything, Open Gaming creates a dozen or so  "PbtAs" -- that is, a handful of games that get a lot of attention and variants, but none that are true industry leaders.



Yeah this.  Maybe not no one but most these  publishers considering moving forward with their own system are in for a surprise.  A couple will do well and most will find their sales fall  off a cliff when they move away from the OGL.


----------



## Incenjucar

Being 40 just means you're likely to have a new generation to introduce to the game.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> I just don't think there is a magical game waiting in the wings to replace D&D.



Needs must.


----------



## darjr

rknop said:


> I'm also amused that 40 is considered old, as in, beyond the pale old.
> 
> I still buy a lot of stuff -- Starfinder has been most, though not all, of what I buy recently.
> 
> But I do remember waiting for the release of the DM's Guide... the first one.



Ha! I told a kid I was 53 at the gym. After that he'd pause and watch while I lifted heavy, I guess just in case I died of old age or something. Dang kids these days.

He's 30.


----------



## Branduil

Reynard said:


> Obviously I did not mean literally nobody. I just don't think there is a magical game waiting in the wings to replace D&D.



I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Obviously the most valuable part of the OGL was D&D content being in it, but that does not demean the value of a new TOGL (True Open Gaming License). You need the license before you can put anything valuable in it. Again, obviously it wouldn't be the same without D&D in it, but I can certainly imagine Paizo participating in it. A TOGL with Pathfinder content in it is not as valuable as the OGL in dollar terms, but if it's written such that it isn't owned by anybody (and thus truly irrevocable), I think we can see now the value in that.

Right now we're seeing publishers just cut out the OGL entirely, and I think that's unfortunate, because remember, the OGL is not just D&D content, if you release under the OGL you're also contributing your own content. If the OGL is dead, there needs to be an alternative for open gaming content.


----------



## Xyxox

rknop said:


> I'm also amused that 40 is considered old, as in, beyond the pale old.
> 
> I still buy a lot of stuff -- Starfinder has been most, though not all, of what I buy recently.
> 
> But I do remember waiting for the release of the DM's Guide... the first one.




Heck, I had already spent two years in the Army Guard when you were born. You are just a youngun'.


----------



## Sidhanei

Branduil said:


> Right now we're seeing publishers just cut out the OGL entirely, and I think that's unfortunate, because remember, the OGL is not just D&D content, if you release under the OGL you're also contributing your own content. If the OGL is dead, there needs to be an alternative for open gaming content.



This. I think the non-dnd side of the OGL is getting lost in some of the discussions I’ve seen.

A gem of an explanation from Michael Sayre surfaced on the pf2e reddit about why they choose to used the OGL for 2e. While it comes from early last year, it elaborates on why the OGL was favored very well.



> Considerations like keeping the game approachable for 3pp publishers, the legal costs of establishing a separate Paizo-specific license, concerns about freelancers not paying attention to key differences between Paizo and WotC IP, etc., all played a bigger role in PF2's continued use of the OGL than any need to keep the system under it. Not using the OGL was a serious consideration for PF2 but it would have significantly increased the costs related to releasing the new edition and meant that freelancer turnovers would have required an extra layer of scrutiny to make sure people weren't (unintentionally or otherwise) slipping their favorite D&Disms into Pathfinder products. It would have also meant all the 3pps needed to relearn a new license and produce their content under different licenses depending on the edition they were producing for, a level of complication deemed prohibitive to the health of the game.
> 
> It's possible and even likely that the next edition doesn't use the OGL at all but instead uses its own license specific to Paizo and the Pathfinder/Starfinder brands. It's just important to the company that they be approachable to a wide audience of consumers and 3pps; this time around the best way to do that was to continue operating under the same OGL as the first edition of the game.



source:


----------



## Branduil

Sidhanei said:


> This. I think the non-dnd side of the OGL is getting lost in some of the discussions I’ve seen.
> 
> A gem of an explanation from Michael Sayre surfaced on the pf2e reddit about why they choose to used the OGL for 2e. While it comes from early last year, it elaborates on why the OGL was favored very well.
> 
> 
> source:



This is good information. I have to imagine WotC's actions may greatly accelerate the move to a new OGL. I hope that it's a "TOGL" and not just Paizo-specific, because it would be a shame to have a bunch of balkanized TTRPG licenses.


----------



## Haplo781

Reynard said:


> And no one will buy it. there are a hundred amazing, innovative, fun fantasy RPGs out there not based on another core system -- and most of them languish in obscurity and even the well known ones are orders of magnitude less popular than D&D.



Until Critical Role starts using one of them.


----------



## Echohawk

SkidAce said:


> View attachment 271542



Please, please, please move _Exploring Eberron_ to the end of the set of 5e books and take another picture. My eyelid isn't going to stop twitching until the tops of those books line up properly...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Haplo781 said:


> Until Critical Role starts using one of them.



Their Monsterhearts 2 one-shot (a great episode) caused that game to sell out immediately.


----------



## SkidAce

Echohawk said:


> Please, please, please move _Exploring Eberron_ to the end of the set of 5e books and take another picture. My eyelid isn't going to stop twitching until the tops of those books line up properly...



Better?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

If I may, what's with the multiple starter and essentials boxes still in their shrink wrap? Do you give them out to folks? (Which would be awesome.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> Ha! I told a kid I was 53 at the gym. After that he'd pause and watch while I lifted heavy, I guess just in case I died of old age or something. Dang kids these days.
> 
> He's 30.



I did the Matt Damon Saving Private Ryan ageing meme a few minutes ago because I saw a guide to making your Elden Ring character look like Arnold Schwarzenegger and thought oh cool, opened it up, and... the first thing the guy did was explain who that was in case you didn't know, because he was only in "old movies".


----------



## overgeeked

Haplo781 said:


> Until Critical Role starts using one of them.



Yeah. And how many systems have they played on the stream? I count four six. 5E. Honey Heist. Call of Cthulhu. Monsterhearts. A Familiar Problem. And the Mothership-Aliens hybrid for Ashley’s one shot.


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. And how many systems have they played on the stream? I count four. 5E. Honey Heist. Call of Cthulhu. And the Mothership-Aliens hybrid for Ashley’s one shot.



There was that one page rpg for Free RPG Day. Inspired it is. I ran several games of it that day.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> There was that one page rpg for Free RPG Day. Inspired it is. I ran several games of it that day.



Right. I forgot about that one. So six systems in all the years they’ve streamed. The chances of someone writing an indie game and lucking out that CR will stream it is about on par with winning the lottery.


----------



## Haplo781

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Their Monsterhearts 2 one-shot (a great episode) caused that game to sell out immediately.



Now imagine if they did a full campaign of something.


----------



## Haplo781

overgeeked said:


> Right. I forgot about that one. So six systems in all the years they’ve streamed. The chances of someone writing an indie game and lucking out that CR will stream it is about on par with winning the lottery.



Matt's hinted or outright stated that campaign 3 will be the end of CR as we know it. Good chance they start doing shorter campaigns and more one-shots and mixing up the systems more a la Dimension 20.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

jerryrice4949 said:


> Didn’t watch this but what does it mean practically speaking?  If it’s not compatible with 5E I wouldn’t purchase it.  Just curious.  Is this posturing or are they changing their product?



Shadowdark was never compatible with 5E. It's a fascinating game, and one of the very few modern fantasy RPGs I'd call an honest-to-god "Fantasy Heartbreaker", because it's similar enough to D&D and OSR games that you'd need a specific reason to play it, and it has a ton of really passionately expressed and interesting ideas, but really not all of them seem like good ideas _at all_.


----------



## overgeeked

Haplo781 said:


> Matt's hinted or outright stated that campaign 3 will be the end of CR as we know it. Good chance they start doing shorter campaigns and more one-shots and mixing up the systems more a la Dimension 20.



I’d want a source on that. I remember them saying things going into C3 that fans shouldn’t have any expectations or preconceived idea, but that’s it.

Though something like a rotating schedule would be great. Four episodes a month but only one main campaign run by Matt. The other three are one shots or short once-a-month campaigns run by the rest of the cast and/or guest referees.


----------



## Echohawk

SkidAce said:


> Better?



I (and my eyelid) thank you profusely!


----------



## Jadeite

I'm wondering how this will affect funded Kickstarters. I suspect at least one (about a city of bards) could try to use this as an excuse to stop working (if they have started to work at all).


----------



## humble minion

Jadeite said:


> I'm wondering how this will affect funded Kickstarters. I suspect at least one (about a city of bards) could try to use this as an excuse to stop working (if they have started to work at all).




I'm only speculating, but it seems likely to me that MCDM, as a prominent and financially successful 3pp, would likely have been invited to WotCs cozy little NDA party, and they have at least one big $ funded kickstarter awaiting completion.  Kobold Press are in the same boat, they've got a few kickstarter books in the pipeline, and them being part of WotCs forum is pretty much a certainty given the close relationship between WotC and KP.

So I'm sure the question has been raised.  It'd be a matter of very pressing interest to those two companies, at least, who've got significant sunk costs in pending products that'd be exposed to any upcoming licence changes.  Of course in a worst-case scenario, the answer may be 'KP and MCDM strike private deals with WotC and the rest of the KS sector has to fend for themselves', but I suspect we're not going to find out for a while.


----------



## S'mon

rgard said:


> I haven't read all 41 pages of this, but if this has not been mentioned...
> 
> If you have any products in your online libraries (drivethrurpg, dmsguild, etc) that have the OGL 1.0a, I suggest you download them before the 13th. We could wake on the 14th and find that all of those products have been taken down for being in violation of the new OGL.
> 
> A few years ago, the TSR/WotC products I had purchased at drivethrurpg disappeared for some length of time when WotC told them to make them unavailable.




Here's the drivethru client to sync to your PC DriveThruRPG.com


----------



## S'mon

If I get a sick feeling in my stomach running 5e D&D, apart from old & OSR D&D I think I'll be going over to running Mini Six, which is a great D6 System game for multi genre play - Mini Six: Bare Bones Edition - AntiPaladin Games | DriveThruRPG.com I found it does fantasy very well, ran it for most of 2020 online (often in lockdown) when I was tired of 5e for awhile. And they apparently have a new edition coming out this year, good timing - Mini-six 2nd edition coming this year
It has stats for lots of fantasy, pulp & sf monsters and I found it was very easy to use it for D&D adventures such as Palace of the Silver Princess, Halls of Tizun Thane & The Licheway. In a year the only problem I encountered was that Mini Six skeletons proved too weak to threaten very experienced PCs, even in vast numbers - I had to turn them into a terrain feature.


----------



## Aldarc

GMforPowergamers said:


> a new system, that sounds amazing. A fantasy system that isn't based on 3e or 5e D&D sounds like something i would love to read





GMforPowergamers said:


> I have bookshelfs full of there stuff (when my fiancé moved in last year I found I had games from my 99 Gen Con trip and my 2001 Gen con trip that I have never played but still had the books on the shelf) I don't know fate/fudge but they are on my list to look into. Other then that I am ALWAYS up for checking out a new game.



It really depends on what you want out of a "fantasy system." While I do like Fate, for example, it's probably not in my Top 10 systems that I would pick up if I wanted to run a game of D&D-esque fantasy adventure or dungeon-crawling.



Yaarel said:


> For years, I have been a D&D-only gamer. I like where the 5e game engine is going.
> 
> But how can I use the D&D system if I no longer trust its custodians?
> 
> I am curious about some systems, including Cortex Prime, Year Zero Engine, and Shadow of the Demon Lord.
> 
> At this point, I need a rock-solid irrevocable legal right to use (and modify) the content, enough to use for my own content. So, I will scrutinize what the legal contracts look like − something I have never felt the need to do earlier.
> 
> Maybe a new game that is public domain or irrevocable open source can come from cloudsourcing, a collaborative work evolving in a wiki format?
> 
> Whether I like it or not, there seems little choice but to find something to replace D&D.



Considering how often you talk about having four character attributes, you may want to look into either _Shadow of the Demon Lord_ (and its up coming successor, _Shadow of the Weird Wizard_), _Forbidden Lands_, or even _Fabula Ultima_.


----------



## wellis

How are Hasbro & WotC responding to all this negative publicity? I get the feeling this leak was done before they could try to massage anything so is there any damage control, or any responses in general, from WotC or Hasbro?


----------



## humble minion

wellis said:


> How are Hasbro & WotC responding to all this negative publicity? I get the feeling this leak was done before they could try to massage anything so is there any damage control, or any responses in general, from WotC or Hasbro?



They're not responding at all, at this point.  But to be honest, that's to be expected.  They tend to be slow on their feet over this sort of thing - I'm thinking of the hadozee business, and the War of the Spark novel controversy.  Couple of days to see whether the outrage lasts, couple of days to argue about what to do, couple of days to get an opinion from legal, then couple of days to get everyone to sign off on the course of action.  And obviously making a genuine and significant course change on the OGL would be a much bigger decision than apologising for creative blunders of the sort I referenced above, so they'll resist it harder, and it'll take longer to chart a new course even if they do rethink.


----------



## wellis

Were Hasbro & WotC always like this? I recall it was WotC that saved D&D from TSR's implosion and poor management.

And frankly, weren't they making lots of money with the licensing they already had for 5e?


----------



## S'mon

wellis said:


> Were Hasbro & WotC always like this? I recall it was WotC that saved D&D from TSR's implosion and poor management.




They've gone back and forth on open gaming over time, but this is by far the worst I've ever seen. There seems to have been a big culture shift recently when they replaced their leadership with former Microsoft execs. If I had to guess, this initiative is likely coming primarily from Cynthia Williams who now heads WoTC, since Chris Cocks who now heads Hasbro was head of WoTC for a while, and nothing like this was ever intimated at the time. But both are from Microsoft.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

S'mon said:


> They've gone back and forth on open gaming over time, but this is by far the worst I've ever seen. There seems to have been a big culture shift recently when they replaced their leadership with former Microsoft execs. If I had to guess, this initiative is likely coming primarily from Cynthia Williams who now heads WoTC, since Chris Cocks who now heads Hasbro was head of WoTC for a while, and nothing like this was ever intimated at the time. But both are from Microsoft.



I would say it is even more likely a board level thing. Outside analyst at big shareholders looking at D&D financials once it began to gain prominence at board and investor levels.


----------



## Morrus

Xyxox said:


> And what WotC currently infers was original intent is quite the opposite of what was going on more than two decades ago. While they were working on the original OGL they were literally giving away material to competitors to equip them so as to be ready to begin relasing material IMMEDIATELY upon the release of 3E. There will have to be some majorly successful judge shopping for WotC to come out on top in any court case regarding the "unauthorization" of OGL 1.0a given the actual history and intentions.
> 
> Heck, there are actual entire game systems released under OGL 1.0a that have never used anything from any WotC published Systems Reference Document. Are WotC going to claim the right to take everything from the Dr. Who RPG as their IP under this alleged "unauthorization"? How will the BBC react to Hasbro saying it now owns Cybermen and Daleks?



No. C7 isn’t empowered to sublicense BBC IP to third parties. Even if they signed a contract like the new OGL which did so, it would not be valid. You can’t grant rights you don’t have the power to grant.


----------



## S'mon

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would say it is even more likely a board level thing. Outside analyst at big shareholders looking at D&D financials once it began to gain prominence at board and investor levels.




Q: "Hasbro stock has crashed 40% in a year! How do we fix this?"
A: "I know! 1. Nuke the Open Gaming License! 2. ? 3. Profit!"


----------



## S'mon

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would say it is even more likely a board level thing. Outside analyst at big shareholders looking at D&D financials once it began to gain prominence at board and investor levels.




My own wild guess would be that the 2022 M:TG disaster and subsequent fall in Hasbro share value weakened Cocks's position as CEO of Hasbro, which gave recent appointee Williams the opportunity to push for a change in strategy for D&D.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

S'mon said:


> My own wild guess would be that the 2022 M:TG disaster and subsequent fall in Hasbro share value weakened Cocks's position as CEO of Hasbro, which gave recent appointee Williams the opportunity to push for a change in strategy for D&D.



I mean anything is possible but Cocks would at least be aware of the 4e situation, that is where I am basing my "its the board". The board has the power to push on both or Cocks if Williams is on board.


----------



## WisdomOfWombats

To me this all looks terribly self-inflicted by the creative companies. Everyone currently is/was jumping on the train to profit from D&D 5e. On the positive side, using D&D 5e as vehicle increased the customer base. Kickstarters who would have struggled to get a five digit pledge amount could easily generate 6 digit amounts by catering to the D&D 5e crowd. Even companies with their own strong and unique properties felt the need to create a 5e version of their products to gain market shares. On the negative side, the SRD/OGL is stifling creativity. Instead of a plurality of RPG systems, the customers get the same system applied over and over again. Even if levels and classes are not a good fit for the setting.

Now everyone blames WotC/Hasbro on what they supposedly intend to do (as the final version of OGL 1.1 has not been published anywhere at all), instead of looking at their own business decisions that got them into that place. Business and influencers have *chosen* to play in WotC‘s pond in order to get more customers/viewers/whatever. Now WotC/Hasbro seems to have figured out a way to change the rules and everybody is scrambling.

Worst outcome: the D&D 5e community fractures into lots of tiny niche games. Best outcome: the major publishers get together, create a new version of a truly free OGL and an accompanying SRD that isn‘t even remotely D&D based.

To me this all looks like the vaunted free market economy at it‘s best/worst. Deal with it. The publishers can always chose to fall in line instead of risking their business model. And I bet, that is what the higher-ups at WotC/Hasbro are betting on. Especially, since this outcry probably has next to no effect on the sales numbers of D&D,


----------



## Xyxox

Morrus said:


> No. C7 isn’t empowered to sublicense BBC IP to third parties. Even if they signed a contract like the new OGL which did so, it would not be valid. You can’t grant rights you don’t have the power to grant.



Agreed, which leads me to believe that lawfare isn't what WotC/Hasbro are up to here. At this point I have to believe the intention of the leaked portion is that accepting OGL 1.;1 and releasing content under it binds you to OGL 1.1 and that content can never go back to OGL 1.0a. To put it simply, OGL 1.0a is not an authorized license for anything that is released under OGL 1.1.


----------



## Xyxox

S'mon said:


> They've gone back and forth on open gaming over time, but this is by far the worst I've ever seen. There seems to have been a big culture shift recently when they replaced their leadership with former Microsoft execs. If I had to guess, this initiative is likely coming primarily from Cynthia Williams who now heads WoTC, since Chris Cocks who now heads Hasbro was head of WoTC for a while, and nothing like this was ever intimated at the time. But both are from Microsoft.



If lawfare is the plan for WotC/Hasbro, then Cynthia Williams is the corporate reincarnation of Lorraine Williams with ten thousand times the evil.


----------



## BRayne

overgeeked said:


> I’d want a source on that. I remember them saying things going into C3 that fans shouldn’t have any expectations or preconceived idea, but that’s it.
> 
> Though something like a rotating schedule would be great. Four episodes a month but only one main campaign run by Matt. The other three are one shots or short once-a-month campaigns run by the rest of the cast and/or guest referees.




He said in an interview with Phillip DeFranco that he'd eventually like to take their game back in private after being specifically asked about it and then followed up with saying that people will probably take that out of context. Guess what happened next.



overgeeked said:


> Yeah. And how many systems have they played on the stream? I count four six. 5E. Honey Heist. Call of Cthulhu. Monsterhearts. A Familiar Problem. And the Mothership-Aliens hybrid for Ashley’s one shot.




VtM (albeit a fairly early playtest version of V5), Deadlands (two separate times, a charity oneshot and Undeadwood), Pathfinder 1e, Honey Heist, Mothership-Alien hybrid, Call of Cthulhu, Crash Pandas, Monsterhearts 2, Tails of Equestria, Bunkers & Badasses, and A Familiar Problem so eleven.


----------



## S'mon

Xyxox said:


> If lawfare is the plan for WotC/Hasbro, then Cynthia Williams is the corporate reincarnation of Lorraine Williams with ten thousand times the evil.




The name thing is a weird parrallel. People pointed it out at the time, but I didn't think much of it. It's starting to seem like quite an eerie coincidence.


----------



## Reynard

Haplo781 said:


> Until Critical Role starts using one of them.



They won't. CR and WotC have an excellent business relationship. WotC has put out more CR books than Darlington Press. Beyond is a major sponsor. This idea that CR is going to go back to Pathfinder or whatever has no basis.


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> They won't. CR and WotC have an excellent business relationship. WotC has put out more CR books than Darlington Press. Beyond is a major sponsor. This idea that CR is going to go back to Pathfinder or whatever has no basis.




Critical Role are very dependent on the good will of their fans, though. If WoTC become moral lepers in the community then it may well make sense for CR to cut ties with them. CR don't need any OGLs for their main product, their streaming shows.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would say it is even more likely a board level thing. Outside analyst at big shareholders looking at D&D financials once it began to gain prominence at board and investor levels.



D&D being successful is awesome. D&D being successful enough to draw the attention of the board is bad.


----------



## Staffan

WisdomOfWombats said:


> Business and influencers have *chosen* to play in WotC‘s pond in order to get more customers/viewers/whatever. Now WotC/Hasbro seems to have figured out a way to change the rules and everybody is scrambling.



They chose to play in WOTC's pond because the water was fine and WOTC promised them it was safe. Now WOTC seem to be dragging a hose connected to a tank labeled "Toxic Waste" over to the pool, and are holding their hands near the lever labeled "SHARKS".


----------



## Morrus

WisdomOfWombats said:


> Business and influencers have *chosen* to play in WotC‘s pond in order to get more customers/viewers/whatever. Now WotC/Hasbro seems to have figured out a way to change the rules and everybody is scrambling.



It was a two-way street. WotC doesn't allow third party support out of _generosity_, but because it benefits them. It is a mutually beneficial license. And when two parties enter into a mutually beneficial arrangement, and depend on that arrangement, and then one party changes the rules, that's not generally seen as good faith.


----------



## Xyxox

Staffan said:


> They chose to play in WOTC's pond because the water was fine and WOTC promised them it was safe. Now WOTC seem to be dragging a hose connected to a tank labeled "Toxic Waste" over to the pool, and are holding their hands near the lever labeled "SHARKS".





> I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> Critical Role are very dependent on the good will of their fans, though. If WoTC become moral lepers in the community then it may well make sense for CR to cut ties with them. CR don't need any OGLs for their main product, their streaming shows.



True. It's hard to get a sense of exactly how widespread the anger is, of course, because of the nature of click media. Polygon, a site usually happy to criticize WotC, seems to be spinning this pro-WotC. I don't trust YouTube, Facebook or Reddit to give a realistic sense of community response since algorithms push outrage (and I don't use Twitter).

In general, though, I admit to being on the cynical side when it comes to guessing what people do in business. Very few take a real stand and most ultimately choose profit.


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> True. It's hard to get a sense of exactly how widespread the anger is, of course, because of the nature of click media. Polygon, a site usually happy to criticize WotC, seems to be spinning this pro-WotC.




Polygon current coverage looks neutral to me - D&D’s stricter licensing rules might impact some beloved RPGs


----------



## kenada

Sidhanei said:


> This. I think the non-dnd side of the OGL is getting lost in some of the discussions I’ve seen.
> 
> A gem of an explanation from Michael Sayre surfaced on the pf2e reddit about why they choose to used the OGL for 2e. While it comes from early last year, it elaborates on why the OGL was favored very well.
> 
> 
> source:



If that’s the case, I wish they had dropped the 3e SRD from PF2. That would have given everyone a D&D-like they could use as a base instead of the 5.1 SRD. Since the copyright is entirely theirs, it makes me wonder if Paizo could (and should) relicense PF2 to a non-OGL license.


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> Polygon current coverage looks neutral to me - D&D’s stricter licensing rules might impact some beloved RPGs



I should have said "not spinning it anti-WotC."


----------



## Reynard

kenada said:


> If that’s the case, I wish they had dropped the 3e SRD from PF2. That would have given everyone a D&D-like they could use as a base instead of the 5.1 SRD. Since the copyright is entirely theirs, it makes me wonder if Paizo could (and should) relicense PF2 to a non-OGL license.



But 5e people aren't going to go to PF2 in droves. PF2 is a great game but it is a lot more complex and tightly designed than 5E, which is a mark against it for the majority of new, casual D&D players.


----------



## DaveMage

SkidAce said:


> Why am I being dismissed?
> 
> View attachment 271542




Trapper Keeper!!!!


----------



## kenada

Reynard said:


> But 5e people aren't going to go to PF2 in droves. PF2 is a great game but it is a lot more complex and tightly designed than 5E, which is a mark against it for the majority of new, casual D&D players.



They’re moving to custom systems, so whatever they’re doing will already be not-5e. This would be an opportunity for Paizo to position Pathfinder as the foundation of the industry like D&D was for the last twenty years.


----------



## humble minion

kenada said:


> They’re moving to custom systems, so whatever they’re doing will already be not-5e. This would be an opportunity for Paizo to position Pathfinder as the foundation of the industry like D&D was for the last twenty years.



Paizo have spent the majority of Pathfinder's lifetime catering to a very specific market segment, one that enjoys system mastery, the character building metagame, and completionism.  And they do what they do very well, but while Pathfinder offers far more character options and customisation than 5e does, it's not so beginner-friendly, which is important for a 'foundation' system.

Mind you, I'm still of the opinion that no matter what scumbaggery WotC pulls off, nothing's going to dethrone D&D as everyone's default and first RPG for a long time yet, on sheer name recognition.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> I should have said "not spinning it anti-WotC."



Reading the article, It looks an awful lot like complacency or fundamentally not understanding the issue, to me. That writer has form for downplaying issues (with WotC but not just with WotC) in general before.


----------



## kenada

humble minion said:


> Paizo have spent the majority of Pathfinder's lifetime catering to a very specific market segment, one that enjoys system mastery, the character building metagame, and completionism. And they do what they do very well, but while Pathfinder offers far more character options and customisation than 5e does, it's not so beginner-friendly, which is important for a 'foundation' system.



Pathfinder 2e does not share the problems Pathfinder 1e had. Paizo fixed balance. Encounters are as dangerous as the guidelines for encounter building suggest, and you can’t win before you play anymore via char ops or system mastery. Players can pick options that fit their characters, and they don’t have to worry about whether they ruined their characters. The action economy is regular, so there are very few (if any) exceptions baked into the core rules. All of this adds up to a system that should be very approachable to new players—and is from what I understand.

And yes, PF2 has its share of warts. The game should use the VP subsystem by default instead of an enumerated list of skill actions. Out of combat healing is poorly implemented. Bulk is a little too clunky compared to other, slot-based inventory systems. Those are fixable things, and 3PP using PF2 as a base would be under no obligation to do things the same way that Paizo did.

Edit: I should add any further discussion on Pathfinder as a base should probably go in the Pathfinder forum here. I don’t want to risk derailing this thread.


----------



## Art Waring

WisdomOfWombats said:


> To me this all looks terribly self-inflicted by the creative companies. Everyone currently is/was jumping on the train to profit from D&D 5e. On the positive side, using D&D 5e as vehicle increased the customer base. Kickstarters who would have struggled to get a five digit pledge amount could easily generate 6 digit amounts by catering to the D&D 5e crowd. Even companies with their own strong and unique properties felt the need to create a 5e version of their products to gain market shares. On the negative side, the SRD/OGL is stifling creativity. Instead of a plurality of RPG systems, the customers get the same system applied over and over again. Even if levels and classes are not a good fit for the setting.
> 
> Now everyone blames WotC/Hasbro on what they supposedly intend to do (as the final version of OGL 1.1 has not been published anywhere at all), instead of looking at their own business decisions that got them into that place. Business and influencers have *chosen* to play in WotC‘s pond in order to get more customers/viewers/whatever. Now WotC/Hasbro seems to have figured out a way to change the rules and everybody is scrambling.
> 
> Worst outcome: the D&D 5e community fractures into lots of tiny niche games. Best outcome: the major publishers get together, create a new version of a truly free OGL and an accompanying SRD that isn‘t even remotely D&D based.
> 
> To me this all looks like the vaunted free market economy at it‘s best/worst. Deal with it. The publishers can always chose to fall in line instead of risking their business model. And I bet, that is what the higher-ups at WotC/Hasbro are betting on. Especially, since this outcry probably has next to no effect on the sales numbers of D&D,



You seem to be blaming 3pp publishers, but wotc profited from the OGL for many many years as the top dog of the ttrpg industry (only being supplanted by Pathfinder for a short time when they tried to eliminate the OGL back in 2008).

It was beneficial to both sides, please stop placing all the blame on content creators.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Reynard said:


> But 5e people aren't going to go to PF2 in droves. PF2 is a great game but it is a lot more complex and tightly designed than 5E, which is a mark against it for the majority of new, casual D&D players.



Yup.  I run a game with my brother and my and his kids (all teens and tweens) and we are not going to go over to PF2.  We looked at it before and the kids did not want that level of complexity.


----------



## Haplo781

S'mon said:


> They've gone back and forth on open gaming over time, but this is by far the worst I've ever seen. There seems to have been a big culture shift recently when they replaced their leadership with former Microsoft execs. If I had to guess, this initiative is likely coming primarily from Cynthia Williams who now heads WoTC, since Chris Cocks who now heads Hasbro was head of WoTC for a while, and nothing like this was ever intimated at the time. But both are from Microsoft.



Never put a Williams in charge of D&D.


----------



## ersatzphil

humble minion said:


> Mind you, I'm still of the opinion that no matter what scumbaggery WotC pulls off, nothing's going to dethrone D&D as everyone's default and first RPG for a long time yet, on sheer name recognition.



in fairness, I’ve been running a Black Hack game for five months - with some first time players - and everyone in the group refers to what we do once a week as ‘playing D&D’. We are a bunch of Olds, however.


----------



## Xyxox

Haplo781 said:


> Never put a Williams in charge of D&D.



I said it earlier, Cynthia Williams may be the corporate reincarnation of Lorraine Williams only 1000 times more evil.


----------



## Reynard

Haplo781 said:


> Never put a Williams in charge of D&D.



Lol. A few months ago this board was over the moon for Lorraine Williams, whose reputation Ben Riggs  saved in his book. Now she's evil again.


----------



## rcade

Art Waring said:


> You seem to be blaming 3pp publishers, but wotc profited from the OGL for many many years as the top dog of the ttrpg industry (only being supplanted by Pathfinder for a short time when they tried to eliminate the OGL back in 2008).
> 
> It was beneficial to both sides, please stop placing all the blame on content creators.




WOTC/Hasbro made a ton of money because of publishers using the OGL. Ryan Dancey said that the network effects of fostering an open gaming movement would expand the number of people playing D&D and sell a lot more copies of the PHB, DMG and MM, and he was right.


----------



## overgeeked

BRayne said:


> He said in an interview with Phillip DeFranco that he'd eventually like to take their game back in private after being specifically asked about it and then followed up with saying that people will probably take that out of context. Guess what happened next.



At a guess, people took it out of context. Like you seem to have because “eventually” doesn’t equate to “Matt's hinted or outright stated that campaign 3 will be the end of CR as we know it.” Absolutely could be, but that’s not the 1-to-1 correlation you seem to think it is. 


BRayne said:


> VtM (albeit a fairly early playtest version of V5), Deadlands (two separate times, a charity oneshot and Undeadwood), Pathfinder 1e, Honey Heist, Mothership-Alien hybrid, Call of Cthulhu, Crash Pandas, Monsterhearts 2, Tails of Equestria, Bunkers & Badasses, and A Familiar Problem so eleven.



When did they do Pathfinder? I know they played that pre-stream, but when did they play that on the stream?


----------



## Welverein

Tazawa said:


> "SRD-based D&D content" or "SRD-based content" based on the last paragraph of this excerpt:
> 
> View attachment 271492
> 
> If One D&D is broadly compatible with the open game content in SRD 5.1 (which is really the only SRD that OGL 1.1 could refer to, as an SRD for One D&D isn't available yet), then OGL 1.0a can be used to support it. These types of restrictions are only possible if OGL 1.0a is somehow revoked.



First time I actually see a screenshot of the actual source. As someone producing document under NDA I would advice NOT to do that and use quotation , even breaking the wording. We have funny tricks to track source just by looking at the text (font, spacing, wording, paragraph order to name a few.)


----------



## Art Waring

overgeeked said:


> When did they do Pathfinder? I know they played that pre-stream, but when did they play that on the stream?



I havent seen all of it, but season 1 is all pathfinder until they change over to 5e, not sure when they did change over cause I don't really get to watch CR these days, no free time.


----------



## Velderan

@Ruin Explorer continuing from the + thread..

I wonder how long this OGL 1.1 conversation has been going on internally within WotC, because I wouldn't be overly surprised at this point to learn it was a factor in Ray Winninger leaving quietly last year. I don't really have anything to base that off of of course.


----------



## BRayne

overgeeked said:


> At a guess, people took it out of context. Like you seem to have because “eventually” doesn’t equate to “Matt's hinted or outright stated that campaign 3 will be the end of CR as we know it.” Absolutely could be, but that’s not the 1-to-1 correlation you seem to think it is.
> 
> When did they do Pathfinder? I know they played that pre-stream, but when did they play that on the stream?




 I wasn't the one who said that "Matt's hinted or stated that campaign 3 will be the end of CR as we know" and I very specifically was saying that they took it out of context. As for Pathfinder they did this one-shot:


----------



## Helena Real

Art Waring said:


> I havent seen all of it, but season 1 is all pathfinder until they change over to 5e, not sure when they did change over cause I don't really get to watch CR these days, no free time.



They didn't play PF1 on stream on C1. The very first stream was already with all the PCs converted to 5e


----------



## jerryrice4949

The story is gaining some traction. I now see at least a half dozen articles about OGL 1.1 but yet to see a major news outlet or publisher cover it.  Just more the niche gaming sites or publications.  Now if only the Washington Post or similar organization action would pick it up.


----------



## Composer99

Forbes has (had?) someone who regularly wrote about D&D. Maybe they'd write something about things?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Welverein said:


> First time I actually see a screenshot of the actual source. As someone producing document under NDA I would advice NOT to do that and use quotation , even breaking the wording. We have funny tricks to track source just by looking at the text (font, spacing, wording, paragraph order to name a few.)



I mean, it's possible they already did that. There's a slight gradient to it from 255/255/255 for most of the top half down to 198-ish by the bottom, and it's really even which suggests this isn't a scan or photograph or Snipping Tool thing straight from the document, but rather that this was processed before that.

If it was me I'd have taken the text, and put it into something else, before snipping it. That seems pretty basic.


Velderan said:


> @Ruin Explorer continuing from the + thread..
> 
> I wonder how long this OGL 1.1 conversation has been going on internally within WotC, because I wouldn't be overly surprised at this point to learn it was a factor in Ray Winninger leaving quietly last year. I don't really have anything to base that off of of course.



I mean, I think it's quite likely.

He was also a "Microsoft guy", but before his career there worked for several RPG publishers, including ones that were on the wrong end of at least one TSR lawsuit. Given he's a Microsoft guy, though, and thus "part of the club", it's hard to see why he'd be suddenly exiled if there wasn't some kind of disagreement over direction. I mean, a lot of things are possible, and we shouldn't proclaim people martyrs for the cause without evidence, but it's kind of interesting time, especially given his background.


----------



## Welverein

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It would be great if some or all of them came up with an alternative license. A whole generation of gamers has grown up in an open gaming universe and we would not have many of the games we have today without what Dancey and WotC did back with 3E.
> 
> I cannot imagine gamers are less sophisticated about open source licensing than they were almost 20 years ago and I have to imagine creating a new open gaming license that WotC is not involved in is an impossible task. It's certainly a worthwhile one.



DMDave said they have already prepared a new open ruleset and related OGL.


			https://www.patreon.com/posts/re-1-1-open-76837590


----------



## overgeeked

Art Waring said:


> I havent seen all of it, but season 1 is all pathfinder until they change over to 5e, not sure when they did change over cause I don't really get to watch CR these days, no free time.



Not so much. They switched to 5E _before_ they starting the stream specifically because 5E was easier and they were gearing up for the stream. They talk about that in a few places.


----------



## overgeeked

Welverein said:


> DMDave said they have already prepared a new open ruleset and related OGL.
> 
> 
> https://www.patreon.com/posts/re-1-1-open-76837590



Here's to hoping this will be the start of a proper open gaming movement.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Here's to hoping this will be the start of a proper open gaming movement.



um arent there already other open games?  start is a weird choice of words


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> um arent there already other open games?  start is a weird choice of words



I don't think it's weird. A movement is quite different from just a number of games doing a thing. What we really need is something more organised. I'm skeptical that dozens of different companies making their own versions of the OGL is going to be helpful - it'd be better to see the industry get together and come up with a broader standard.


----------



## MGibster

I saw this meme today and couldn't help but laugh.  With WotC's talk of monetizing D&D, trying to make us spend more money, and now with the whole OGL debacle this is pretty much encapsulates what I've been thinking.


----------



## Xyxox

MGibster said:


> I saw this meme today and couldn't help but laugh.  With WotC's talk of monetizing D&D, trying to make us spend more money, and now with the whole OGL debacle this is pretty much encapsulates what I've been thinking.
> 
> View attachment 271573



 If lawfare is what they are up to, then WotC/Hasbro has become the Games Workshop of Parker Brothers.


----------



## Art Waring

overgeeked said:


> Not so much. They switched to 5E _before_ they starting the stream specifically because 5E was easier and they were gearing up for the stream. They talk about that in a few places.



Ok gotcha, like I said I don't have much free time to watch longplay streams, but thank you for the clarification.


----------



## mamba

Velderan said:


> @Ruin Explorer continuing from the + thread..
> 
> I wonder how long this OGL 1.1 conversation has been going on internally within WotC, because I wouldn't be overly surprised at this point to learn it was a factor in Ray Winninger leaving quietly last year. I don't really have anything to base that off of of course.



in hindsight that might very well have been the reason, never really had an explanation before.

Well I am curious what he and the 3PPs do. I am much more likely to stay in their camp than to follow WotC into the rabbit hole


----------



## UngeheuerLich

SkidAce said:


> Why am I being dismissed?
> 
> View attachment 271542




You seem to have a very short memory... you bought the starter set not twice but thrice...

edit: found a fourth one on the picture...


----------



## rcade

UngeheuerLich said:


> You seem to have a very short memory... you bought the starter set not twice but thrice...
> 
> edit: found a fourth one on the picture...



He should be more organized than that -- he has a Trapper Keeper.


----------



## mangamuscle

Just a quick comment, if WotC is allowed to deauthorize the 1.0a with 1.1 then there is nothing preventing WotC from doing a 1.2, 1.3 and so forth, every time tightening their grip further.
IMO 1.1 should be challenged and maybe convince some authors to further challenge OGC, the displacer beast should never have been in said list, for starters.


----------



## overgeeked

mangamuscle said:


> Just a quick comment, if WotC is allowed to deauthorize the 1.0a with 1.1 then there is nothing preventing WotC from doing a 1.2, 1.3 and so forth, every time tightening their grip further.
> IMO 1.1 should be challenged and maybe convince some authors to further challenge OGC, the displacer beast should never have been in said list, for starters.



They wouldn’t need to as 1.1 (according to the leak) permits WotC to change the terms at will with 30 days’ notice.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

mamba said:


> Well I am curious what he and the 3PPs do.



Yeah he's said he'll be back in gaming - which is interesting, given the long corporate career before he got back to games with WotC - and that's he taking a Long Rest (his capitalization!). Also some of his recent Twitter posts have been very on-brand for the guy who made Underground - he loves The Boys, which is unsurprising given how similar it is to Underground, tonally/conceptually.

IANAL but I do see a shocking number of employment contracts and so on for high-end corporate execs (and similar), including some US law ones, in the course of my work (not filled-in ones, to be clear!), and need to understand how they work, and it seems that, he may be in one of two situations right now:

1) Still technically employed by WotC but not actually doing any work for them ("gardening leave"), for some period, to ensure he's bound by anything he signed on to when he joined, but which would terminate when you leave (you'd be surprised how many companies are willing to hire execs without making them sign perpetual NDAs etc. - sometimes I feel like there's a fear similar to why some people don't do pre-nups even when they maybe should!).

2) No longer employed them, but bound by a whole bunch of stuff agreed as part of severance package (NDAs, non-competes, non-disparagement etc.). He may even have been paid a lump sum to not get another job for X period, I've seen it done. I think non-competes are largely disallowed in California though so maybe not that? Usually there's a significant payment involved as consideration here.

Certainly if I were WotC, and I was planning a potentially-controversial change, and someone major was leaving shortly before that, whether they protested about it or were fine with it, I'd want to put them under a whole bunch of restrictions for a few months at least (and hey that usually means a much larger severance package!).

So I'd be surprised if we didn't hear about his projects by mid-late next year. But I'd also be surprised if he's at liberty to comment on this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MGibster said:


> I saw this meme today and couldn't help but laugh.  With WotC's talk of monetizing D&D, trying to make us spend more money, and now with the whole OGL debacle this is pretty much encapsulates what I've been thinking.
> 
> View attachment 271573



you remember Games Workshop and when them being jerks and money grubbing drove them out of business'... good times.

I'm sure Hasbro doesn't have a better shot then games workshop


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah he's said he'll be back in gaming - which is interesting, given the long corporate career before he got back to games with WotC - and that's he taking a Long Rest (his capitalization!). Also some of his recent Twitter posts have been very on-brand for the guy who made Underground - he loves The Boys, which is unsurprising given how similar it is to Underground, tonally/conceptually.
> 
> IANAL but I do see a shocking number of employment contracts and so on for high-end corporate execs (and similar), including some US law ones, in the course of my work (not filled-in ones, to be clear!), and need to understand how they work, and it seems that, he may be in one of two situations right now:
> 
> 1) Still technically employed by WotC but not actually doing any work for them ("gardening leave"), for some period, to ensure he's bound by anything he signed on to when he joined, but which would terminate when you leave (you'd be surprised how many companies are willing to hire execs without making them sign perpetual NDAs etc. - sometimes I feel like there's a fear similar to why some people don't do pre-nups even when they maybe should!).
> 
> 2) No longer employed them, but bound by a whole bunch of stuff agreed as part of severance package (NDAs, non-competes, non-disparagement etc.). He may even have been paid a lump sum to not get another job for X period, I've seen it done. I think non-competes are largely disallowed in California though so maybe not that? Usually there's a significant payment involved as consideration here.
> 
> Certainly if I were WotC, and I was planning a potentially-controversial change, and someone major was leaving shortly before that, whether they protested about it or were fine with it, I'd want to put them under a whole bunch of restrictions for a few months at least (and hey that usually means a much larger severance package!).
> 
> So I'd be surprised if we didn't hear about his projects by mid-late next year. But I'd also be surprised if he's at liberty to comment on this.



My headcanon is that Ray left in protest to the OGL change. I don’t know him so it’s pure speculation.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> you remember Games Workshop and when them being jerks and money grubbing drove them out of business'... good times.
> 
> I'm sure Hasbro doesn't have a better shot then games workshop



Games Workshop has a bit more of a captive audience, I'd suggest. Literally from the late '80s to until about 2016 D&D has enough competition/alternatives that it's never been in the same "catbird seat" that WotC got into with 5E. Ironically the OGL helped both maintain that competition AND get WotC into that "catbird seat"*.

When GW started to get into the really bad behaviour in the late '90s and onwards, they'd already basically wiped out all competition and there was no culture, at all, certainly with 40K players, of even considering other TT minis games. People kept trying to break into the industry, but it was very hard, because you just didn't have 40K players talking about other TT minis games at all in so many cases, and one thing that really helped GW there was the earlier purge of non-GW products form GW stores. I mean, I bought all my initial 2E AD&D stuff from a GW store. But quite soon after that they became GW-only.

And in the UK at least, those stores would be on the high street and stuff. So I kid might come into one, and be introduced to this amazing world, and they'd literally never know other minis games even existed. You had to go to hyperspecialist stores, which were few in number, and often primarily (in the '90s) dedicated to historical wargaming - rather than SF or fantasy, and where the other customers were guys in their 30s and older who smelled of pipe tobacco! Rather than fellow kids and conventional nerds.

This situation allowed GW to get away with a ton. And WHFB didn't quite have the same culture, and that DID in fact lose people to other wargames, because of that combined with GW's bad behaviour. That's part of why WHFB started flagging (by GW standards), and got remade into AoS, which was designed to be much more marketable in a 40K-ish fashion.

Also GW have just done a lot of really clever little manuevers, not all of them evil, which no version of WotC has ever done.

So what am I saying?

I don't think Hasbro/WotC are in quite the same position. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think with the prevalence of social media (and how important stuff like CR has been to D&D's success), the fact that D&D players skew young, optimistic and open-minded (rather than many idolizing space-fascists as all too many 40K fans do - c.f. GW's own statement on the matter!), and the fact that TTRPGs have a much much longer tradition of coexisting and existing as alternatives to each other - something I've been increasingly seeing discussed on places like the 5E reddit and the D&D reddit, even before this - all adds up to WotC being in a significantly softer position than GW was in in the '90s and '00s.



*  = One subtle point I'd like to make here is, if there was no or a weak tradition of making 3PP material for D&D, as was the case in the 1990s thanks to They Sue Regularly, then there probably wouldn't have been any big Kickstarters for D&D material, and people like Critical Role would have been less invested, because they'd have been in a riskier position if they wanted to ever monetize certain aspects of their business. And I think the combination of those two things, in geek/nerd culture - being able to Kickstart "cool stuff" for the game you like, together with there being tons of creative nerd stuff for/about it - has really significantly helped ensure D&D got huge.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Welverein said:


> DMDave said they have already prepared a new open ruleset and related OGL.
> 
> 
> https://www.patreon.com/posts/re-1-1-open-76837590



I just don’t see a lot of casual gamers, which make up the majority, following companies to a new gaming system.  I am sure that is WoTC feeling as well.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

jerryrice4949 said:


> I just don’t see a lot of casual gamers, which make up the majority, following companies to a new gaming system.  I am sure that is WoTC feeling as well.



One advantage companies have with convincing people to change systems, over, for example, videogames, is that you only really need to convince one person in five or so, and that person is the DM. If you convince enough DMs - who tend to be significantly less "casual" than the rest of the players, and much more likely to be aware of D&D news, other RPGs, etc. - they can do most of the job of convincing the players.

I very much doubt WotC really considered that. And DMs are thus also the most likely to be cheesed off by this move.

To me, this whole thing is premature on WotC's part. The main reason to stick with D&D is that you love the brand/lifestyle. WotC/Hasbro have been working to push D&D more and more into being a brand/lifestyle. That gives people a special kind of loyalty that you can't get merely from being the "preferred system". You see it with Apple in computing products - a lot of people aren't buying them because they're "better" - or even because they're familiar - but because they're part of a lifestyle/brand/ecosystem.

But I don't D&D is far enough along that road for this move to rely on that. Things like a mainstream-success D&D movie, D&D TV shows, etc. could all have really helped push that brand/lifestyle angle. But I think we're like 2-5 years away from the "critical mass" there. I could be wrong - maybe we're already across the rubicon, but I don't think so.

I get that WotC, from a practical perspective, probably couldn't wait too long, and didn't want to derail the launch of 1D&D/3D VTT in 2024 by doing this closer to the time, but I just think they're gone too hard, too early.


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> Games Workshop has a bit more of a captive audience, I'd suggest.



I'd suggest the executives at Hasbro really don't see it that way. Or if they do, changing that is a core part of their product strategy. I think this was evident even before the OGL kerfuffle. Full disclosure, I was reasonably happy in principle to be captured before all this. I was one of those in the subscription thread saying I'd pay $500/year if they give me enough value for it.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Ruin Explorer said:


> One advantage companies have with convincing people to change systems, over, for example, videogames, is that you only really need to convince one person in five or so, and that person is the DM. If you convince enough DMs - who tend to be significantly less "casual" than the rest of the players, and much more likely to be aware of D&D news, other RPGs, etc. - they can do most of the job of convincing the players.
> 
> I very much doubt WotC really considered that. And DMs are thus also the most likely to be cheesed off by this move.
> 
> To me, this whole thing is premature on WotC's part. The main reason to stick with D&D is that you love the brand/lifestyle. WotC/Hasbro have been working to push D&D more and more into being a brand/lifestyle. That gives people a special kind of loyalty that you can't get merely from being the "preferred system". You see it with Apple in computing products - a lot of people aren't buying them because they're "better" - or even because they're familiar - but because they're part of a lifestyle/brand/ecosystem.
> 
> But I don't D&D is far enough along that road for this move to rely on that. Things like a mainstream-success D&D movie, D&D TV shows, etc. could all have really helped push that brand/lifestyle angle. But I think we're like 2-5 years away from the "critical mass" there. I could be wrong - maybe we're already across the rubicon, but I don't think so.
> 
> I get that WotC, from a practical perspective, probably couldn't wait too long, and didn't want to derail the launch of 1D&D/3D VTT in 2024 by doing this closer to the time, but I just think they're gone too hard, too early.



I agree WoTC made a mistake and underestimated the damage to their brand but likewise 3PP should be wary when estimating how many people will come over to a new system.  I think it will be low in the long run especially if the movie is a huge success.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> One advantage companies have with convincing people to change systems, over, for example, videogames, is that you only really need to convince one person in five or so, and that person is the DM. If you convince enough DMs - who tend to be significantly less "casual" than the rest of the players, and much more likely to be aware of D&D news, other RPGs, etc. - they can do most of the job of convincing the players.



as a DM that is not a fan of 5e (it is in my top 10 but not really my fav system) I can't get players to move to 4e, or Vampire, or Torg easily. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> I very much doubt WotC really considered that. And DMs are thus also the most likely to be cheesed off by this move.



I'm sure that WotC knows they have the power. They will expect to lose SOME groups, but they are betting on what people have been saying for the last 10 years... All games are D&D.


Ruin Explorer said:


> But I don't D&D is far enough along that road for this move to rely on that. Things like a mainstream-success D&D movie, D&D TV shows, etc. could all have really helped push that brand/lifestyle angle. But I think we're like 2-5 years away from the "critical mass" there. I could be wrong - maybe we're already across the rubicon, but I don't think so.



yeah I don't know if they count as main stream yet... but I can't imagine that the OGL is going to be the first thing someone not in the main hardcore D&D fan base will think of... they will think of stranger things or big bang, or critical role...


Ruin Explorer said:


> I get that WotC, from a practical perspective, probably couldn't wait too long, and didn't want to derail the launch of 1D&D/3D VTT in 2024 by doing this closer to the time, but I just think they're gone too hard, too early.



that is the BIGEST thing... they want us rageing in 2023 and ready to "Come back" for 2024


----------



## mamba

Ruin Explorer said:


> I get that WotC, from a practical perspective, probably couldn't wait too long, and didn't want to derail the launch of 1D&D/3D VTT in 2024 by doing this closer to the time, but I just think they're gone too hard, too early.



Why did they have to act now? I do not seem then running out of time, with someone else about to eat their lunch. If anything, this endangers 1DD more than doing nothing.

I agree that if you do it regardless, the sooner is the better, but I still do not see it being needed or even beneficial at all.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> Why did they have to act now? I do not seem then running out of time, with someone else about to eat their lunch. If anything, this endangers 1DD more than doing nothing.



again, if they did this 3 months before 1D&D people would still be mad... they are assuming (right or wrong) that 1 year from now with a full year of getting used to this, we will forget and be ready to go back.


----------



## Reynard

jerryrice4949 said:


> I agree WoTC made a mistake and underestimated the damage to their brand but likewise 3PP should be wary when estimating how many people will come over to a new system.  I think it will be low in the long run especially if the movie is a huge success.



I mean, there's a case study: the return, in droves, from PF to 5E.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

jerryrice4949 said:


> I agree WoTC made a mistake and underestimated the damage to their brand but likewise 3PP should be wary when estimating how many people will come over to a new system.  I think it will be low in the long run especially if the movie is a huge success.



Oh I think it'll be low too, but once the drift starts people start seeing people they follow on Twitch, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and so on playing games that aren't D&D that sound cool, we might easily end up back in '90s-type situation where D&D remains the single-most-played game, but that is increasingly declining.


GMforPowergamers said:


> as a DM that is not a fan of 5e (it is in my top 10 but not really my fav system) I can't get players to move to 4e, or Vampire, or Torg easily.



I'd say Vampire and TORG are such huge jumps of tone and subject that it doesn't surprise me with those two, and 4E has been propagandized against so extremely effectively online that loads of people who've never played it immediately say "Oh that's the edition that sucks, right?" whenever it comes up (interestingly people often say "No actually" and explain, but still, it's the default understanding). You see this on videogame sites and stuff. People who've never even played TTRPGs say it! So it's very easy to see that people who hadn't played it, or maybe only played 5E ("why would we go back an edition?"), or played it and disliked it, would be hard to convert to it.

I suspect any RPG that does get_ significant_ traction would probably be:

1) Very pretty and modern and full-colour, art-wise.

2) At least as accessible player-side as 5E.

And I'm sorry PF2 fans, it's a cool game, but it vastly more overwhelming than 5E, player-side and in terms of what you perceive yourself as needing to learn. Rules Lawyer (the YouTuber) made some excellent intro videos but it's like, if those were 5E, they could be literally 30-50% the length and require far fewer diagrams and explanations! The trade-off is that PF2 does let you do what I'd argue were more interesting and tactical stuff in combat, and perhaps even slightly more naturalistic stuff in exploration/social, but it's a trade-off.

3) Species/class/level-based.

4) Capable of handling multiple settings, not hard-married to one (PF2 is very close to being hard-married to Golarion, as it doesn't have "generic" options for race or the like, something even Worlds Without Number has.)

5) Fantasy setting, though I'd be very unsurprised if a significantly more "techno-magic" or "steampunk" default/implied setting.

Probably also d20-based. Bonus points if there's some way to "convert your characters", no matter how dubious it actually is.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> I mean, there's a case study: the return, in droves, from PF to 5E.



They return to a new system made as an "apology edition" specifically targeting them (and other lapsed older-edition players), but they don't go back to the same one they left because of, though, note.


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> They return to a new system made as an "apology edition" specifically targeting them (and other lapsed older-edition players), but they don't go back to the same one they left because of, though, note.



My point is that a "good" D&D is significantly more important than a "great" anything else.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

mamba said:


> Why did they have to act now? I do not seem then running out of time, with someone else about to eat their lunch. If anything, this endangers 1DD more than doing nothing.
> 
> I agree that if you do it regardless, the sooner is the better, but I still do not see it being needed or even beneficial at all.



I mean, I don't know why they acted SO soon, I have to say.

There could be a million reasons, either relating to timing of upcoming projects, information about or alpha/beta-testing of the 3D VTT, or relating to internal pressures (like best to have any losses from this offset by the profits from the D&D movie). It's also possible that they felt that if they waited too long the plans would definitely leak, and if they weren't already negotiating with 3PPs by the time they did, that could be a lot more dangerous.

The timing which would have made more sense to me would have been to:

A) Wait until well past the movie.

B) Wait until the 3D VTT is much further along and plans for Beyond, especially re: 3PP involvement, are a lot clearer, and a lot more set in stone. Yeah you don't want to wait until GSL late, but like, late 2023? I could see that.

Then you can have D&D even more mainstream/lifestyle-y, and can offer 3PPs are more certain carrot in the form of fabulous profits via the Beyond store and perhaps a tiny cut of licenced virtual minis linked to their IP in the 3D VTT.

Note I think that'd have still been too early for the lifestyle lock-in to really have worked, but they'd already announced 1D&D and so on.


----------



## mamba

Ruin Explorer said:


> I suspect any RPG that does get_ significant_ traction would probably be:



agree on all these,, just curious who goes for it


----------



## mamba

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I don't know why they acted SO soon, I have to say.



I think I initially misunderstood you, I agree with doing it the sooner the better before 1DD comes along, hoping that people will forget


Ruin Explorer said:


> The timing which would have made more sense to me would have been to:
> 
> A) Wait until well past the movie.
> 
> B) Wait until the 3D VTT is much further along and plans for Beyond, especially re: 3PP involvement, are a lot clearer, and a lot more set in stone. Yeah you don't want to wait until GSL late, but like, late 2023? I could see that



A seems to be the most exposed here, don't think we get B this year


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> My point is that a "good" D&D is significantly more important than a "great" anything else.



I'm not convinced. If that was fully true 4E wouldn't have caused such division.

I don't think anyone who went to PF and then came back to 5E came back because 5E has "D&D" written on it. I think they came back because 5E's design is more like the kind of game they want to play than PF1's design. I think one of the major reasons people left when 4E got made was that PF1's design was more like what they wanted to play than 4E was, or such was their perception (terrible PR and marketing was another major factor, anyway, that's a separate discussion).


----------



## delericho

Greg Benage said:


> I'd suggest the executives at Hasbro really don't see it that way. Or if they do, changing that is a core part of their product strategy.



I'm reasonably sure this is it. Financially, there just isn't enough gain here for them - with D&D aiming to be a lifestyle brand even the RPG as a whole is almost an irrelevance, never mind the OGL-based offshoot. So my guess would be that someone, or multiple someones, over at WotC _really_ doesn't like the concept of open gaming, and so they're willing to take whatever hit is needed to bring it to an end.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not convinced. If that was fully true 4E wouldn't have caused such division.



IF 4e was around for critical role stranger things and the pandemic we might have seen it bloom too (I would hope actually we would still be in a 5e just a very diffrent 5e growing from 4e with fixes)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> IF 4e was around for critical role stranger things and the pandemic we might have seen it bloom too (I would hope actually we would still be in a 5e just a very diffrent 5e growing from 4e with fixes)



Sure, but that's such a what if it's hard to be sure about. My personal feeling is that once, say, Critical Role got into the Paragon tier there'd be so many Interrupts, Immediate Actions, and Reactions flying around in combat that it'd get frustrating to watch/listen to whenever they got into combat, though maybe Mercer is such a good DM he'd anticipate that and convince everyone to have a sort of "détente" on those kind of abilities.

(That said, whilst this is off-topic, and perhaps worthy of another thread, a 5E based primarily on 4E would likely have had reducing that issue with the game as one of the big mechanical changes, imho.)


----------



## S'mon

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not convinced. If that was fully true 4E wouldn't have caused such division.
> 
> I think anyone who went to PF and then came back to 5E didn't come back because 5E has "D&D" written on it. I think they came back because 5E's design is more like the kind of game they want to play than PF1's design. I think one of the major reasons people left when 4E got made was that PF1's design was more like what they wanted to play than 4E was, or such was their perception (terrible PR and marketing was another major factor, anyway, that's a separate discussion).




I definitely liked the design of 5e a lot, I think it is a very good game, close to great. While I like 4e for a very particular kind of game, 5e is great for semi-generic fantasy driftable to all sorts of campaign styles.


----------



## wellis

Do you guys think Hasbro/WotC might attempt to paint fan resistance to this as "toxic" or "racist" or whatever?

I've heard it called "fan baiting." Where essentially a company tries to paint opposition as nasty or whatever to cover up their own failings in writing, plot, etc.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

wellis said:


> Do you guys think Hasbro/WotC might attempt to paint fan resistance to this as "toxic" or "racist" or whatever?



No. What a weird thing to say.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

wellis said:


> Do you guys think Hasbro/WotC might attempt to paint fan resistance to this as "toxic" or "racist" or whatever?



I honestly don't think so.

My opinion of Hasbro/WotC is extremely low right now, but I don't believe they're likely to resort to that particular angle, because there's no question it would backfire massively, especially given that an awful lot of TTRPG people who aren't the biggest fans of WotC are minorities. They're not that dumb.

There are videogame companies that dumb, but none of them are big, corporate ones. It's the midsize and down ones with CEOs and the like with "oversized personalities" (i.e. an ego the size of Jupiter) who tend to end up saying incredibly idiotic things about fans/detractors.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

And the Troll Lords are out.


----------



## wellis

Hopefully they won't claim fans are being "grognards" or something about these changes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

wellis said:


> Hopefully they won't claim fans are being "grognards" or something about these changes.



I really think you don't need to worry much about anyone being called names over opposing the OGL 1.1 lol.


----------



## wellis

I wonder how this will affect the D&D movie. I really hope it succeeds but Jesus, what Hasbro & WotC are doing could very well destroy it now.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

wellis said:


> I wonder how this will affect the D&D movie. I really hope it succeeds but Jesus, what Hasbro & WotC are doing could very well destroy it now.



Maybe this is why Ezra Miller has been so quiet recently: He's working for Hasbro corporate until the Flash movie comes out.


----------



## S'mon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And the Troll Lords are out.




C&C has a lot of D&D DNA. I'm not sure how it can function without the OGL. Rejecting WoTC's spurious claim to be able to revoke the OGL 1.0 seems to me a much much stronger case than claiming that C&C _sans_ OGL doesn't infringe WoTC copyright.

Edit: But a mixed approach with an OGL game and non-OGL adventures & sourcebooks could certainly work.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

S'mon said:


> C&C has a lot of D&D DNA. I'm not sure how it can function without the OGL. Rejecting WoTC's spurious claim to be able to revoke the OGL 1.0 seems to me a much much stronger case than claiming that C&C _sans_ OGL doesn't infringe WoTC copyright.
> 
> Edit: But a mixed approach with an OGL game and non-OGL adventures & sourcebooks could certainly work.



Well, it's supposed to be a first stage. I would guess that the Troll Lords are about to change a bunch of terminology in their next printing.

But the DNA goes both ways. 5E has a _lot_ of C&C in it. In fact, I don't think 5E would exist in its current form if C&C hadn't existed first.


----------



## Xyxox

wellis said:


> I wonder how this will affect the D&D movie. I really hope it succeeds but Jesus, what Hasbro & WotC are doing could very well destroy it now.



I had planned to go see it. Not any more, won't see it now.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And the Troll Lords are out.



This seems like a giant overreaction to me at this point.  It is probably a pretty easy decision since little of their revenue comes from 5E but good for them.  I tried to get into Castles and Crusades but didn’t care for the production value.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

jerryrice4949 said:


> This seems like a giant overreaction to me at this point.



As they say in their Twitter threads, they feel like 5E lifted a lot from C&C (and coming from C&C to 5E, it was shocking/hilarious to me and my group how much of C&C is in 5E). Now, having benefited from the OGL in the creation of their most popular edition, WotC is now pretty clearly trying to kill off anyone above the part-time fanpro creators in the OGL scene. If I were the Troll Lords, I would feel pretty badly betrayed.


----------



## mamba

wellis said:


> I wonder how this will affect the D&D movie. I really hope it succeeds but Jesus, what Hasbro & WotC are doing could very well destroy it now.



I hope it fails miserably, the worse it does, the better.


----------



## S'mon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> But the DNA goes both ways. 5E has a _lot_ of C&C in it. In fact, I don't think 5E would exist in its current form if C&C hadn't existed first.




While I agree with that, I think probably WoTC could successfully claim that they were merely inspired by Troll Lord's non-protectable game mechanics, while C&C includes protectable creative expression from D&D. I have to say that were I the judge, I think I'd probably rule that way. OTOH I certainly would not rule that the OGL 1.0 could be revoked from use.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> As they say in their Twitter threads, they feel like 5E lifted a lot from C&C (and coming from C&C to 5E, it was shocking/hilarious to me and my group how much of C&C is in 5E). Now, having benefited from the OGL in the creation of their most popular edition, WotC is now pretty clearly trying to kill off anyone above the part-time fanpro creators in the OGL scene. If I were the Troll Lords, I would feel pretty badly betrayed.



I'm not familiar with C&C. What elements of 5e were "inspired" by it?


----------



## mamba

S'mon said:


> C&C has a lot of D&D DNA. I'm not sure how it can function without the OGL. Rejecting WoTC's spurious claim to be able to revoke the OGL 1.0 seems to me a much much stronger case than claiming that C&C _sans_ OGL doesn't infringe WoTC copyright.
> 
> Edit: But a mixed approach with an OGL game and non-OGL adventures & sourcebooks could certainly work.



PF2 thinks it has only a few things to clean up to not need the OGL, C&C thinks they are there already. I assume others are looking long and hard at theirs and realizing the same.

I think the importance of the OGL as a license needed for the game content is far overrated, more than anything it was a convention to include it. With WotC now going berserk, there is no reason to include it any more, and possibly no ability.


----------



## S'mon

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm not familiar with C&C. What elements of 5e were "inspired" by it?




The 5e universal Proficiency Bonus system in practice is very similar to the C&C Primes system. I noticed how similar the two felt when I started on 5e.


----------



## mhd

S'mon said:


> The 5e universal Proficiency Bonus system in practice is very similar to the C&C Primes system.



Doesn't C&C just give a straight +6 "proficiency bonus" from the very start?


----------



## S'mon

mhd said:


> Doesn't C&C just give a straight +6 "proficiency bonus" from the very start?




Yup, and DC & bonus both go up +1 per level. Still the general approach of C&C and 5e is much more similar to each other than either is to 3e.


----------



## overgeeked

wellis said:


> Do you guys think Hasbro/WotC might attempt to paint fan resistance to this as "toxic" or "racist" or whatever?
> 
> I've heard it called "fan baiting." Where essentially a company tries to paint opposition as nasty or whatever to cover up their own failings in writing, plot, etc.



That's the thought in the OSR reddit. There was a recent article about how the OSR attracts more...reactionary types...generally speaking, despite years to OSR fans trying to push the bigots out. A few days later the 1.1 news broke loose and people started putting those together. The theory being that is was a smear piece ahead of the news so when the OSR crowd objected (because almost everything they do is OGL based) that WotC could then paint them as being toxic and racist and reacting against the not bigotry clause.


----------



## S'mon

overgeeked said:


> That's the thought in the OSR reddit. There was a recent article about how the OSR attracts more...reactionary types...generally speaking, despite years to OSR fans trying to push the bigots out. A few days later the 1.1 news broke loose and people started putting those together. The theory being that is was a smear piece ahead of the news so when the OSR crowd objected (because almost everything they do is OGL based) that WotC could then paint them as being toxic and racist and reacting against the not bigotry clause.



I can imagine that that PBS article might have been intended to prepare the ground, yes. However Ruin Explorer says that reactionary authoritarian types like Games Workshop fans are_ less_ likely to object to bad corporate behaviour than are lovely fluffy pink-hued 5e D&D fans.


----------



## overgeeked

S'mon said:


> I can imagine that that PBS article might have been intended to prepare the ground, yes. However Ruin Explorer says that reactionary authoritarian types like Games Workshop fans are_ less_ likely to object to bad corporate behaviour than are lovely fluffy pink-hued 5e D&D fans.



Yeah. I'm not saying I agree with their interpretation, just reporting what their interpretation is. The OSR crowd seems decidedly...anti-authoritarian while the worst elements of GW fandom seem to embrace authoritarianism.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

S'mon said:


> I can imagine that that PBS article might have been intended to prepare the ground, yes. However Ruin Explorer says that reactionary authoritarian types like Games Workshop fans are_ less_ likely to object to bad corporate behaviour than are lovely fluffy pink-hued 5e D&D fans.



OSR is actually super-weird because it has both some reactionaries, but it also has plenty of people at the exact other end of the spectrum. It's kind of surprising and fascinating. Like, I mean, I'm probably the opposite of a reactionary in a lot of ways, but a lot of the games I've loved have been technically OSR games. My #1 favourite game right now Worlds Without Number comes out of the OSR.

I think it's more like do you things which are grimy, maybe grim, maybe a bit punk, maybe a bit scary? And you get people from all over who like that. It's a lot about mechanics and vibe these days.

I will say when the OSR was just retroclones, it was a bit different - but it still wasn't "mostly reactionaries" or anything - it was if anything primarily people seeking play styles that were less complex and more fun.


overgeeked said:


> Yeah. I'm not saying I agree with their interpretation, just reporting what their interpretation is. The OSR crowd seems decidedly...anti-authoritarian while the worst elements of GW fandom seem to embrace authoritarianism.



I'd largely agree with that.


overgeeked said:


> That's the thought in the OSR reddit. There was a recent article about how the OSR attracts more...reactionary types...generally speaking, despite years to OSR fans trying to push the bigots out. A few days later the 1.1 news broke loose and people started putting those together. The theory being that is was a smear piece ahead of the news so when the OSR crowd objected (because almost everything they do is OGL based) that WotC could then paint them as being toxic and racist and reacting against the not bigotry clause.



I think it's paranoia because some OSR people have been abused that way, but it's such a silly and outdated thing to be afraid of, and in fact there's even better reason it's silly:

Do they seriously think the kind of people at WotC who could authorize such an aggressive statement even know what the OSR is?

Because they don't. They just don't. You think Chris Cocks, Cynthia Williams or Dan Rawson knows what "OSR" means? I don't for one second think they do. Nor others who could authorize a statement like that.

They only know Paizo, Critical Role, stuff like that. These are Microsoft people. One D&D setting looks much the same as another to them. They can't differentiate Dungeon Crawl Classics and Pathfinder 1E, except to say maybe "Ohh the art is very different in this one!" and "Oh that company makes a lot less money!".

It's like, you guys just aren't that big a deal. So stop being paranoid!


----------



## humble minion

Mind you, if WotC does end up deciding to ignore all the criticism and push ahead with OGL 1.1 in its leaked form, I expect that if they get any questions about it from media outlets, they'll push the anti bigotry clause as to the reason that the OGL needed to be updated, and the lack of one as the reason that 1.0a needed to be retired.  They'll try to make that clause the focus of debate rather than all the rest of the changes.


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think it's paranoia because some OSR people have been abused that way, but it's such a silly and outdated thing to be afraid of, and in fact there's even better reason it's silly:
> 
> Do they seriously think the kind of people at WotC who could authorize such an aggressive statement even know what the OSR is?
> 
> Because they don't. They just don't. You Chris Cocks, Cynthia Williams or Dan Rawson knows what "OSR" means? I don't for one second think they do. Nor others who could authorize a statement like that.
> 
> They only know Paizo, Critical Role, stuff like that. These are Microsoft people. One D&D setting looks much the same as another to them. They can't different Dungeon Crawl Classics and Pathfinder, except to say maybe "Ohh the art is very different in this one!" and "Oh that company makes a lot less money!".
> 
> It's like, you guys just aren't that big a deal. So stop being paranoid!



The thing to keep in mind is that those people you named are in charge, but they're not the ones actively doing things. They're upper management. They have teams of employees for doing the actual work. They don't need to know anything other than the fact that the OGL exists and they want it gone, so they task someone else to head up the team to nuke it from orbit. At most those names will sign off on the plan once it's created. They don't need to know what the OSR is. But you can bet someone (or multiple someones) lower down do know what it is, likely because it's their job to know. Not because the OSR is big or scary or particularly worth watching, but rather it's likely someone's job to know about all the folks using the OGL. Likely several people's jobs. Someone somewhere had to troll through Kickstarter to track all the projects and all the dollar amounts. Someone had to track various publishers to see roughly how many were out there profiting off the OGL, etc.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

S'mon said:


> While I agree with that, I think probably WoTC could successfully claim that they were merely inspired by Troll Lord's non-protectable game mechanics, while C&C includes protectable creative expression from D&D. I have to say that were I the judge, I think I'd probably rule that way. OTOH I certainly would not rule that the OGL 1.0 could be revoked from use.



I'm not addressing the legalities. I'm talking about, from a practical standpoint, WotC has benefited from 5E by effectively outsourcing game design so that there is a _lot_ more experimentation with d20 systems and D&D-flavored games than there would be otherwise.

Castles & Crusades was born out of the OGL -- although, as they note on Twitter, their first game was published in 1999 -- and WotC benefited from it by then providing things the designers clearly said "huh, that's a good approach" and offering their own take on what the Troll Lords did.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

wellis said:


> I wonder how this will affect the D&D movie. I really hope it succeeds but Jesus, what Hasbro & WotC are doing could very well destroy it now.



It won’t.

Also I don’t think people using the OGL should step out until the actual release.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> The thing to keep in mind is that those people you named are in charge, but they're not the ones actively doing things. They're upper management. They have teams of employees for doing the actual work. They don't need to know anything other than the fact that the OGL exists and they want it gone, so they task someone else to head up the team to nuke it from orbit. At most those names will sign off on the plan once it's created. They don't need to know what the OSR is. But you can bet someone (or multiple someones) lower down do know what it is, likely because it's their job to know. Not because the OSR is big or scary or particularly worth watching, but rather it's likely someone's job to know about all the folks using the OGL. Likely several people's jobs. Someone somewhere had to troll through Kickstarter to track all the projects and all the dollar amounts. Someone had to track various publishers to see roughly how many were out there profiting off the OGL, etc.



I'm sorry dude, worrying about WotC "calling out" the OSR for being "racists" is paranoia of the first order.

Think about it a bit harder.

Anyone who know enough about gaming politics to even try that move, ALSO knows enough to know it's a DUMB move that will loudly backfire. People would rally around the OSR. There are plenty of minority and leftist creatives and fans in the OSR.

TLDR: Anyone who knows enough to do it knows enough to know it'd be a mistake.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> View attachment 271616



Wow shots fired.

That's a very direct and strong claim.


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm sorry dude, worrying about WotC "calling out" the OSR for being "racists" is paranoia of the first order.
> 
> Think about it a bit harder.
> 
> Anyone who know enough about gaming politics to even try that move, ALSO knows enough to know it's a DUMB move that will loudly backfire. People would rally around the OSR. There are plenty of minority and leftist creatives and fans in the OSR.
> 
> TLDR: Anyone who knows enough to do it knows enough to know it'd be a mistake.



I wasn't actually talking about calling out the OSR as racists with that post, but okay.

Besides, a week ago everyone also knew how DUMB of a move it would be to try to kill the OGL...yet here we are.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> View attachment 271616



I hope they have a good lawyer. Sounds like they just broke their NDA.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

darjr said:


> View attachment 271616



Leaving 1.0a alone would probably be the best move PR wise.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm sorry dude, worrying about WotC "calling out" the OSR for being "racists" is paranoia of the first order.
> 
> Think about it a bit harder.
> 
> Anyone who know enough about gaming politics to even try that move, ALSO knows enough to know it's a DUMB move that will loudly backfire. People would rally around the OSR. There are plenty of minority and leftist creatives and fans in the OSR.
> 
> TLDR: Anyone who knows enough to do it knows enough to know it'd be a mistake.



Yes.  This.


----------



## jerryrice4949

overgeeked said:


> I hope they have a good lawyer. Sounds like they just broke their NDA.



Acknowledging receipt does not necessarily break an NDA.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

humble minion said:


> Mind you, if WotC does end up deciding to ignore all the criticism and push ahead with OGL 1.1 in its leaked form, I expect that if they get any questions about it from media outlets, they'll push the anti bigotry clause as to the reason that the OGL needed to be updated, and the lack of one as the reason that 1.0a needed to be retired.  They'll try to make that clause the focus of debate rather than all the rest of the changes.



You're really underestimating even journalists here.

This whole story was blown open by Linda Codega, a femme-presenting non-binary person who primary journalistic beat is RPG news, but with a specialization in queer RPGs. They made very clear in their article that whilst the anti-bigotry was potentially positive (or not), the rest of what this did does not look at all good for a lot of RPGs and for the industry in general.

And the people who are mad at WotC are: EVERYONE.

Black, white, latino, atheist, catholic, muslim, leftist, centrist, rightist, libertarians, commies.





A lot of journalists may be kind of ineffectual (often due to time pressure and poor editorial policies), or not seek many sources, but in general they seek at least a few, and if they ask almost anyone, they're going to get "WotC's full of crap".

And then they'll be like "Ohhhh, this has potential", you'll get an article where a bunch of minority RPG authors are coming together against WotC and the OGL 1.1, and WotC is obviously lying about the anti-bigotry clause being the "only reason", and WotC will look even worse than they already did!

I feel like there's a lot of paranoia here, and it's getting silly.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

overgeeked said:


> I hope they have a good lawyer. Sounds like they just broke their NDA.



Not necessarily they could have learned this from someone else.


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow shots fired.
> 
> That's a very direct and strong claim.



It is. I have no reason to disbelieve it.


----------



## overgeeked

jerryrice4949 said:


> Acknowledging receipt does not necessarily break an NDA.



Verifying the contents of 1.1 while still under an NDA regarding the contents of 1.1.


----------



## Shardstone

The OGL, IMO, is not safe for any 3PP currently using it. Even if the leaks get walked back 100%, WotC has proven themselves a bad actor in the marketplace. To tell Troll Lords etc that we are foolish for pivoting hard away from D&D because WotC has proven themselves unreliable and dangerous for business is absurd, to say the least.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> I hope they have a good lawyer. Sounds like they just broke their NDA.



You really think, in the middle of a nuclear-grade PR crapstorm, WotC are going to decide to compound the problem, by suing an incredibly popular and obviously nice person, one with so many fans he made 1.2m in his Kickstarter, and who makes a product that has particularly mainstream appeal within D&D?

Because WotC are dumb, right, but they're not _that_ dumb. And don't tell me something like "Unless you sue NDA breakers more people will break them!", because companies opt not to sue NDA breakers constantly. Especially people where the blowback would be worse than benefit. You might as well sue a little fluffy puppy in this case!

"WotC sues friendliest fluffy puppy, demands huge damages"

Yeah that's definitely the headline WotC is looking for right now.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow shots fired.
> 
> That's a very direct and strong claim.



I don't know if Griffon's Saddlebag is the biggest D&D creator on Patreon, but he's up there. But even he is a tiny grain of sand compared to WotC. Targeting guys like him is so stupid and wasteful, especially since none of his content _works_ without theirs. No one is getting the Saddlebag books instead of the DMG.


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> You really think, in the middle of a nuclear-grade PR crapstorm, WotC are going to decide to compound the problem, by suing an incredibly popular and obviously nice person, one with so many fans he made 1.2m in his Kickstarter, and who makes a product that has particularly mainstream appeal within D&D?



I don't think logic and reason enter into it with WotC at the moment.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Because WotC are dumb, right, but they're not _that_ dumb. And don't tell me something like "Unless you sue NDA breakers more people will break them!", because companies opt not to sue NDA breakers constantly. Especially people where the blowback would be worse than benefit. You might as well sue a little fluffy puppy in this case!



You mean they're afraid of blowback for their actions? Looking around the RPG-sphere it really, really, really doesn't seem to be the case.


Ruin Explorer said:


> "WotC sues friendliest fluffy puppy, demands huge damages"
> 
> Yeah that's definitely the headline WotC is looking for right now.



As opposed to the other ones like "WotC nukes its own fanbase" and the like?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't know if Griffon's Saddlebag is the biggest D&D creator on Patreon, but he's up there. But even he is a tiny grain of sand compared to WotC. Targeting guys like him is so stupid and wasteful, especially since none of his content _works_ without theirs. No one is getting the Saddlebag books instead of the DMG.



Exactly. Which is what shows this whole thing is absolute Corporate Madness. This is something that's come from On High, and that has totally failed to be subjected to any kind of sanity check (and not talking the CoC kind!). Like you seriously want to beat up on a dude who is basically doing your game a massive favour. Saddlebag particularly is essentially a "D&D fandom" thing, like it reinforces D&D's brand, if anything. Particularly it plugs a weird hole WotC seems to have intentionally left in 5E (items and magic items - every previous edition of D&D wanted to throw item books and magic item books at us on the reg - whereas 5E has just shrugged). If WotC had a item/magic item book on the way in 2023 I guess I could see it, but it doesn't, and I'd bet money there isn't one in 2024 and probably not 2025 either (because they'll be bringing out books essentially updating stuff for a while).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> You mean they're afraid of blowback for their actions? Looking around the RPG-sphere it really, really, really doesn't seem to be the case.



If they weren't afraid of blowback, they wouldn't have lied in the Beyond post (in multiple ways), and NDA'd everyone to hell and back. Also the weird defensive language in the OGL 1.1 wouldn't be there. It'd just be legalese like the original OGL and virtually every licence out there.


overgeeked said:


> As opposed to the other ones like "WotC nukes its own fanbase" and the like?



They certainly don't want both stories of how they're destroying the game, and LITERALLY destroying the lives of people involved with the game. Bloody hell mate. I've heard "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat" but there's a limit.


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> Exactly. Which is what shows this whole thing is absolute Corporate Madness. This is something that's come from On High, and that has totally failed to be subjected to any kind of sanity check (and not talking the CoC kind!). Like you seriously want to beat up on a dude who is basically doing your game a massive favour. Saddlebag particularly is essentially a "D&D fandom" thing, like it reinforces D&D's brand, if anything. Particularly it plugs a weird hole WotC seems to have intentionally left in 5E (items and magic items - every previous edition of D&D wanted to throw item books and magic item books at us on the reg - whereas 5E has just shrugged).



That's literally what this whole thing is about. Beating up on the people who are doing WotC massive favors and carrying the 5E fandom. That's who WotC is already attacking by fiddling with the OGL. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> If they weren't afraid of blowback, they wouldn't have lied in the Beyond post (in multiple ways), and NDA'd everyone to hell and back. Also the weird defensive language in the OGL 1.1 wouldn't be there. It'd just be legalese.
> 
> They certainly don't want both stories of how they're destroying the game, and LITERALLY destroying the lives of people involved with the game. Bloody hell mate. I've heard "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat" but there's a limit.



They're _already_ destroying people's lives with this and unless they about face they're going to destroy a lot of people's lives. Given all that, what's a little more collateral damage?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> They're _already_ destroying people's lives with this and unless they about face they're going to destroy a lot of people's lives. Given all that, what's a little more collateral damage?



Corporate America doesn't move fast enough to have responded yet. Their lack of response doesn't mean there aren't frantic conversations happening right now inside WotC and Hasbro. I suspect things are frantic right now in-house.


----------



## mamba

overgeeked said:


> Verifying the contents of 1.1 while still under an NDA regarding the contents of 1.1.



If I am not under the NDA, that makes no difference


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Corporate America doesn't move fast enough to have responded yet. Their lack of response doesn't mean there aren't frantic conversations happening right now inside WotC and Hasbro. I suspect things are frantic right now in-house.



That said, I look forward to the next episode of Dragon Talk instead spending an hour talking about how a random houseplant influencer on Instagram plays D&D and how the two relate to each other.


----------



## overgeeked

mamba said:


> If I am not under the NDA, that makes no difference



The person we're talking about is. You know. The one who publicly posted that they saw 1.1 and verified that the leak is real.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> They're _already_ destroying people's lives with this and unless they about face they're going to destroy a lot of people's lives. Given all that, what's a little more collateral damage?



Hahaha, I guess that's one very bloody-minded way to see it.

I just don't think WotC will see it like that. I've seen games companies deal with unfortunate leaks before, from NDA'd people, and it's pretty reliable - if the NDA'd person broke the NDA severely and obviously, and especially if they tried to parlay fame out of it, they usually get sued. If the person either only questionably broke it, or is just a popular person already, they don't. Both of the latter apply here.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> The person we're talking about is. You know. The one who publicly posted that they saw 1.1 and verified that the leak is real.



You mean Jon Ritter, the guy from Kickstarter who _already confirmed that_? You think WotC are going to sue a guy who works for Kickstarter? That'll go great for them. Love to go after guys who work for super-popular uncontroversial businesses that benefit creatives lol.


----------



## Drake2000

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Corporate America doesn't move fast enough to have responded yet. Their lack of response doesn't mean there aren't frantic conversations happening right now inside WotC and Hasbro. I suspect things are frantic right now in-house.



Hasbro's stock has been on a steady rise all week (and for the last 2 weeks or so after a pre-Christmas lull). That's probably the only conversation of note happening right now.


----------



## wellis

Ruin Explorer said:


> You mean Jon Ritter, the guy from Kickstarter who _already confirmed that_? You think WotC are going to sue a guy who works for Kickstarter? That'll go great for them. Love to go after guys who work for super-popular uncontroversial businesses that benefit creatives lol.



They were dumb enough to have this really terrible license created. Who knows what their thinking really is.


----------



## overgeeked

Ruin Explorer said:


> You mean Jon Ritter, the guy from Kickstarter who _already confirmed that_? You think WotC are going to sue a guy who works for Kickstarter? That'll go great for them. Love to go after guys who work for super-popular uncontroversial businesses that benefit creatives lol.



No. The Saddlebag guy up thread that confirmed on twitter that the leak is genuine.


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hahaha, I guess that's one very bloody-minded way to see it.
> 
> I just don't think WotC will see it like that. I've seen games companies deal with unfortunate leaks before, from NDA'd people, and it's pretty reliable - if the NDA'd person broke the NDA severely and obviously, and especially if they tried to parlay fame out of it, they usually get sued. If the person either only questionably broke it, or is just a popular person already, they don't. Both of the latter apply here.



There is a non-zero group of people who think WotC is going to go 80's slasher on everyone. It's unfortunately kicking up enough dust to make these conversations difficult. 

A current conversation making the rounds on SM is that WotC is going to claim Star Wars because KotOR used the d20 Modern SRD and Disney will come in to destroy Hasbro. The stupid burns so bad on this one.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> No. The Saddlebag guy up thread that confirmed on twitter that the leak is genuine.



Buddy, I'm sorry, I was being sarcastic because he wasn't the first. Jon Ritter did it days ago. Ain't nobody going to get sued for saying something like that.

If he'd posted the OGL 1.1 in full or something, sure, maybe.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> There is a non-zero group of people who think WotC is going to go 80's slasher on everyone. It's unfortunately kicking up enough dust to make these conversations difficult.



Right? Like, I've never been remotely this mad with WotC, for like, any reason. But they're not some kind of psycho murderers.

I went and read the OSR reddit and oh god the poor grogs are losing their poor minds, but at least the mods there seem to have it in hand.


Remathilis said:


> A current conversation making the rounds on SM is that WotC is going to claim Star Wars because KotOR used the d20 Modern SRD and Disney will come in to destroy Hasbro. The stupid burns so bad on this one.



What's SM? I know it'll be something I should know lol.

But wow holy crap wow. That's just hahahaha wow. Damn.

EDIT - Probably Social Media. Duuuuuh Ruin!


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> Right? Like, I've never been remotely this mad with WotC, for like, any reason. But they're not some kind of psycho murderers.
> 
> I went and read the OSR reddit and oh god the poor grogs are losing their poor minds, but at least the mods there seem to have it in hand.
> 
> What's SM? I know it'll be something I should know lol.
> 
> But wow holy crap wow. That's just hahahaha wow. Damn.



SM = Social Media.

Believe me, I've been avoiding all the usual RPG spaces right now because the signal to noise ratio is off the charts, but that one got reposted in a close friend group and I couldn't believe it.


----------



## Reynard

Looks like it's going to be a forest of D&D descended game systems. The balkanization has begun.


----------



## darjr

Someone on discord noted the irony that they may have created a thousand competing games, many of which may be compatible enough to be almost interchangeable. Like many OSR games.

None of them OGL or D&D anymore.

A swarm of targets.

What’s more is that it looks like a lot of publishers are starting to like the idea regardless of what WotC does from now on.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> "WotC sues friendliest fluffy puppy, demands huge damages"



Heh, I suspect Hasbro-WotC planned to inflict the legal warfare incrementally, then kill the puppies last, when nobody could stop them.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> Someone on discord noted the irony that they may have created a thousand competing games, many of which may be compatible enough to be almost interchangeable. Like many OSR games.
> 
> None of them OGL or D&D anymore.



But they won't be, because they are all going to change their games in different ways to make it so those games aren't OGL descended. So they are making 1000 competing fantasy heartbreakers.


----------



## dbolack

Incenjucar said:


> Being 40 just means you're likely to have a new generation to introduce to the game.




There is also a bit of your kids bragging about which editions of Shadowrun, etc. you own.


----------



## Alzrius

Shardstone said:


> The OGL, IMO, is not safe for any 3PP currently using it. Even if the leaks get walked back 100%, WotC has proven themselves a bad actor in the marketplace. To tell Troll Lords etc that we are foolish for pivoting hard away from D&D because WotC has proven themselves unreliable and dangerous for business is absurd, to say the least.



Assuming you want to publish compatible content for an OGL-based game (be it 5E or something else), we have an actual lawyer telling us that it's safer to do so under the OGL v1.0a than to simply not use a license at all (presumably under the "you can't copyright game mechanics" idea, which is a lot less expansive than I think a lot of people are assuming).


----------



## Scribe

Reynard said:


> Looks like it's going to be a forest of D&D descended game systems. The balkanization has begun.






darjr said:


> Someone on discord noted the irony that they may have created a thousand competing games, many of which may be compatible enough to be almost interchangeable. Like many OSR games.
> 
> None of them OGL or D&D anymore.
> 
> A swarm of targets.
> 
> What’s more is that it looks like a lot of publishers are starting to like the idea regardless of what WotC does from now on.



See, and here is one more reason why this all sucks.

Picking up rules sets, is absolutely a barrier to entry for a ton of people. A lot of people dont care to learn new systems, dont want to learn new systems, and develop unreasonable attachment to various things.

Races, Classes, Feats, Archetypes, Settings, whatever!

What having a shared, or at least 'like' enough system in the OGL provides (among many other things!) is shared language. People can understand what is going on, pretty intuitively, within this shared system.

Obviously, the prior feeling of shared creativity, of amateur or fan creators feeling they can contribute something, even if its never read, or lead to 'hey maybe I can actually do this' is (was??) also something that cannot be overstated for leading to increased engagement with the hobby that is D&D and/or RPGs.

The long and short of it is, this is COSMIC levels of short sighted greed, and I'm sputtering to myself how naughty word STUPID Wizards/Hasbro are to do this.

They are Acti-Blizz levels of vile to me now.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Shardstone said:


> The OGL, IMO, is not safe for any 3PP currently using it. Even if the leaks get walked back 100%, WotC has proven themselves a bad actor in the marketplace. To tell Troll Lords etc that we are foolish for pivoting hard away from D&D because WotC has proven themselves unreliable and dangerous for business is absurd, to say the least.



The OGL is as safe and probably safer than any alternative. Nothing that is not actually tested in court is actually safe.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> But they won't be, because they are all going to change their games in different ways to make it so those games aren't OGL descended. So they are making 1000 competing fantasy heartbreakers.



Most of them are not going to be that different. Despite the gnashing of teeth on this board in particular, it's not hard to convert between most games already, unless you're deliberately picking the most far-apart choices or, at the very least, use material as sourcebooks and the bases for homebrewing with your main system.


----------



## Quickleaf

darjr said:


> Someone on discord noted the irony that they may have created a thousand competing games, many of which may be compatible enough to be almost interchangeable. Like many OSR games.
> 
> None of them OGL or D&D anymore.
> 
> A swarm of targets.
> 
> What’s more is that it looks like a lot of publishers are starting to like the idea regardless of what WotC does from now on.



Yeah, the prolific 5e adventure writer Kelsey Dionne (Arcane Forge) of all people put out a video about how she's now going ahead with separating her future works from the OGL out of anxiety around what WotC is going to do. I couldn't believe that. She's one of the most sober thoughtful creators out there, imho.

But her Shadowdark RPG looked good before, so I'll definitely be keeping my ear to what she's doing going forward.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Quickleaf said:


> Yeah, the prolific 5e adventure writer Kelsey Dionne (Arcane Forge) of all people put out a video about how she's now going ahead with separating her future works from the OGL out of anxiety around what WotC is going to do. I couldn't believe that. She's one of the most sober thoughtful creators out there, imho.



But she's also been working on a distinctly different RPG for more than a year. I've been watching her adventure-writing livestream clinics (really great watches, btw) and she has repeatedly mentioned it.

She was already in the process of slow-walking away from D&D.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Most of them are not going to be that different. Despite the gnashing of teeth on this board in particular, it's not hard to convert between most games already, unless you're deliberately picking the most far-apart choices or, at the very least, use material as sourcebooks and the bases for homebrewing with your main system.



I just saw a post on the OSE Facebook page where someone was using something OSR and couldn't figure out what Saves: F2 means. Now imagine that five different companies put out new editions or printings using 5 different terms for "saving throw."

Gamers already embedded in D&D could pick it up. Sure. But it's still a bunch of different games that will silo themselves and be irrelevant to WotC's bottom line.


----------



## Drake2000

Remathilis said:


> A current conversation making the rounds on SM is that WotC is going to claim Star Wars because KotOR used the d20 Modern SRD and Disney will come in to destroy Hasbro. The stupid burns so bad on this one.




Me, upon hearing the "Disney as White Knight" theory:


----------



## dbolack

Ruin Explorer said:


> OSR is actually super-weird because it has both some reactionaries, but it also has plenty of people at the exact other end of the spectrum. It's kind of surprising and fascinating. Like, I mean, I'm probably the opposite of a reactionary in a lot of ways, but a lot of the games I've loved have been technically OSR games. My #1 favourite game right now Worlds Without Number comes out of the OSR.



My mind remembers Worlds without Number and all coming from the period before everything was OSR when we were using the term retroclone (like 4C) and there seemed to be a lot less cranky-old gatekeeper problems with that base. Perhaps I am wrong/optimistic there.


----------



## ChaosOS

I think the more obvious approach for most 3PP in the 5e space, if they choose to exit its orbit, is to instead go to an existing system like PF2. I've personally enjoyed using Savage Worlds for my two-years-and-running Dark Sun game and would love to see more people get into _that_ space. Some, of course, may choose to publish their own system, but that's an ENORMOUS undertaking with a ton of risk.


----------



## Remathilis

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Most of them are not going to be that different. Despite the gnashing of teeth on this board in particular, it's not hard to convert between most games already, unless you're deliberately picking the most far-apart choices or, at the very least, use material as sourcebooks and the bases for homebrewing with your main system.



Different enough is all that matters. Already people complain about not finding local games for things like PF, I can't imagine how easy it will be to convince someone who owns the core book to D&D, PF, DCC, etc to go buy yet another core book because we run New Fantasy RPG Variant #1702.


----------



## Remathilis

ChaosOS said:


> I think the more obvious approach for most 3PP in the 5e space, if they choose to exit its orbit, is to instead go to an existing system like PF2. I've personally enjoyed using Savage Worlds for my two-years-and-running Dark Sun game and would love to see more people get into _that_ space. Some, of course, may choose to publish their own system, but that's an ENORMOUS undertaking with a ton of risk.



What I think you'll see is the main players move towards more unique versions of their current games, with terminology changes and rule edits to avoid running a foul of WotC. Smaller publishers will have to hitch their wagon to one of them or try to make their own unique variant.


----------



## Welverein

overgeeked said:


> Verifying the contents of 1.1 while still under an NDA regarding the contents of 1.1.



They acknowledged receipt of the document 2 weeks ago. They made a video about it saying some terms were problematic even before the leak, on their instagram. And they have consulted lawyers about it even before acknowledging receipt.

EDIT: Also they didn't confirm or infirm the document they received is the same as the Leaked one , in particular because based on the different leaks, there are at least 2 versions out there, one from around mid december, one from end december.
They just said that the document in their hands is NOT a draft.


----------



## jerryrice4949

If I were a publisher I wouldn’t make any decisions until the dust settles.  A lot of the people moving towards their own system are going to find a tepid response.  Many have benefited from some sort of note suggesting compatibility with D&D however they phrase it.  while I think there is room for niche systems the sales may end up heavily divided.  Some of the big winners may be 3PP who stay with 5E/One since there may be a lot less competition for D&D compatible material.


----------



## mamba

jerryrice4949 said:


> If I were a publisher I wouldn’t make any decisions until the dust settles.



sound advice


jerryrice4949 said:


> A lot of the people moving towards their own system are going to find a tepid response.  Many have benefited from some sort of note suggesting compatibility with D&D however they phrase it.  while I think there is room for niche systems the sales may end up heavily divided.  Some of the big winners may be 3PP who stay with 5E/One since there may be a lot less competition for D&D compatible material.



not sure this actually makes any difference whatsoever


----------



## Branduil

ChaosOS said:


> I think the more obvious approach for most 3PP in the 5e space, if they choose to exit its orbit, is to instead go to an existing system like PF2. I've personally enjoyed using Savage Worlds for my two-years-and-running Dark Sun game and would love to see more people get into _that_ space. Some, of course, may choose to publish their own system, but that's an ENORMOUS undertaking with a ton of risk.



Much as Paizo benefited greatly from the 4e controversy, I feel it would be very smart for Paizo to work with 3PPs on a new open gaming license which isn't controlled by anybody. Paizo could then essentially supplant WotC as the "safe harbor" for smaller 3PPs to orbit around.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> What I think you'll see is the main players move towards more unique versions of their current games, with terminology changes and rule edits to avoid running a foul of WotC. Smaller publishers will have to hitch their wagon to one of them or try to make their own unique variant.



Sad but true.  I hope they're too different. It's nice to be able to talk about more or less the same game with a community.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Branduil said:


> Much as Paizo benefited greatly from the 4e controversy, I feel it would be very smart for Paizo to work with 3PPs on a new open gaming license which isn't controlled by anybody. Paizo could then essentially supplant WotC as the "safe harbor" for smaller 3PPs to orbit around.



The problem is, I don't think PF2 is the game everybody can live with the way 5e was.


----------



## mamba

Micah Sweet said:


> The problem is, I don't think PF2 is the game everybody can live with the way 5e was.



maybe not, but they can work towards that. Biggest potential opening they had in years


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> maybe not, but they can work towards that. Biggest potential opening they had in years



Maybe.  I'm sticking with Level Up, no matter what happens.  I can make my own content if I have to.


----------



## Branduil

Micah Sweet said:


> The problem is, I don't think PF2 is the game everybody can live with the way 5e was.



I don't think it needs to be, it just needs to have an open license and an SRD to build off of. I think it would be quite possible to make a "rules-lite" PF 2e variant game... heck, the 3-action economy in PF 2e is, in many ways, easier to grok than 5e's action economy. What makes PF 2e more complex is the endless feat lists, but that's a pretty easy thing to file off.


----------



## mamba

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe.  I'm sticking with Level Up, no matter what happens.  I can make my own content if I have to.



What do you prefer about LevelUp ? Haven't taken a look at either yet, but bought both recently


----------



## overgeeked

Branduil said:


> Much as Paizo benefited greatly from the 4e controversy, I feel it would be very smart for Paizo to work with 3PPs on a new open gaming license which isn't controlled by anybody. Paizo could then essentially supplant WotC as the "safe harbor" for smaller 3PPs to orbit around.



The trouble being that Pathfinder would risk the same thing they did happening to them. Not likely they'll risk that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> What do you prefer about LevelUp ? Haven't taken a look at either yet, but bought both recently



Level Up explicitly adjusts elements of 5e that I found lacking.  More character choices, lots of noncombat options, much more interesting monsters, an amazing character creation system with four aspects (heritage, culture, background and destiny), and a fantastic exploration and travel system.  And that's just off the top of my head.  On top of that, it does all this without changing how 5e works, which makes it much less intimidating to my 5e players.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Branduil said:


> I don't think it needs to be, it just needs to have an open license and an SRD to build off of. I think it would be quite possible to make a "rules-lite" PF 2e variant game... heck, the 3-action economy in PF 2e is, in many ways, easier to grok than 5e's action economy. What makes PF 2e more complex is the endless feat lists, but that's a pretty easy thing to file off.



Yup. Take PF2 as a base, find a way to use advantage/disadvantage to remove the plethora of small bonuses and trim the fat of the feat list (maybe by merging some of them) to keep only 5-6 racial ones for each race, 5-6 class specific ones for each class and maybe 20 of the most impactful generic ones and you are all set. 

Customization and innovation is the word for PF2, but the math-galore makes it overwhelming for many casual gamers who just want to roll some dice.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> The trouble being that Pathfinder would risk the same thing they did happening to them. Not likely they'll risk that.



okay that would be both sad and funny if they made a new Open Game and then someone took 20-30% of there fans and made them switch to a "not pathfinder"


----------



## overgeeked

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yup. Take PF2 as a base, find a way to use advantage/disadvantage to remove the plethora of small bonuses and trim the fat of the feat list (maybe by merging some of them) to keep only 5-6 racial ones for each race, 5-6 class specific ones for each class and maybe 20 of the most impactful generic ones and you are all set.
> 
> Customization and innovation is the word for PF2, but the math-galore makes it overwhelming for many casual gamers who just want to roll some dice.



Yeah, PF is way too heavy of a system to be the default for a lot of players. Something drastically trimmed down might do better. 

Just call dis/advantage something different. Rolling an extra die and taking the better or worse one is something incredibly prevalent in games now. Boon/bane. Bonus/penalty. Etc.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay that would be both sad and funny if they made a new Open Game and then someone took 20-30% of there fans and made them switch to a "not pathfinder"



if they got 5-10% of 5e players in return, they would gladly make that trade


----------



## mamba

overgeeked said:


> Yeah, PF is way too heavy of a system to be the default for a lot of players. Something drastically trimmed down might do better.
> 
> Just call dis/advantage something different. Rolling an extra die and taking the better or worse one is something incredibly prevalent in games now. Boon/bane. Bonus/penalty. Etc.



or just add a flat +4, mathematically that is close enough in practice


----------



## Branduil

overgeeked said:


> The trouble being that Pathfinder would risk the same thing they did happening to them. Not likely they'll risk that.



If Paizo was concerned about that they never would have released PF 2e as OGL with an srd in the first place.


----------



## mamba

Branduil said:


> If Paizo was concerned about that they never would have released PF 2e as OGL with an srd in the first place.



Don't they need the OGL because they are derivative of 3e?


----------



## Reynard

I don't quite understand why people think there is going to be a mass exodus of D&D players over this. I don't see it. Some people, sure (me, in fact). But in the end people aren't individually playing 5E because it is an Open game, so I don't think they will leave it if is Closes -- even if they think WotC was sort of being jerks doing so. I mean, WotC has already done some things that many people do not find acceptable (some freelance treatment, missing blatant racist imagery in recent releases, etc) , and yet they are still on top.

I could be wrong, of course.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> I don't quite understand why people think there is going to be a mass exodus of D&D players over this. I don't see it. Some people, sure (me, in fact). But in the end people aren't individually playing 5E because it is an Open game, so I don't think they will leave it if is Closes



Define mass, even 5% leaving is a significant number to other TTRPGs


----------



## Branduil

mamba said:


> Don't they need the OGL because they are derivative of 3e?



I believe they've said they don't really need it any more (and I can believe that, unlike PF 1e, which really felt like a modded version of 3.5, 2e is a vastly different game, with entirely new math), they used it because it's convenient. And they already suggested they might move off of the OGL in the future, I imagine recent events are greatly accelerating that decision.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> I don't quite understand why people think there is going to be a mass exodus of D&D players over this. I don't see it.



I agree there will not be a 20-30% abandonment rate... they would be lucky to get 5% but the point is to show it off.


Reynard said:


> in the end people aren't individually playing 5E because it is an Open game, so I don't think they will leave it if is Closes



I agree, this will be a big jerk move and will make some leave forever and some leave for a bit and some shake there fist and still not leave D&D... and come 2024 some of all of them will buy the PHB


----------



## SkidAce

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If I may, what's with the multiple starter and essentials boxes still in their shrink wrap? Do you give them out to folks? (Which would be awesome.)



That is exactly what I do.  

Kids of co workers, random people I strike conversations with in the bookstore, a library in a school, etc.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> Don't they need the OGL because they are derivative of 3e?



PF2 is pretty different.

But beyond that, Paizo has always been a champion of open gaming. Look no further than Starfinder. There was literally no reason to release Starfinder under an Open license. They could have easily built that game to not be OGL adjacent. it isn't like it is the same system as PF1 or PF2. But they made it an Open game anyway because Paizo believes in open gaming. Obviously paizo believed the OGL 1.0a was a permanent fixture, otherwise they would have used or created a different license (which may incidentally make them the best ones to oppose the "de-authorization" of OGL 1.0a -- not because they have the deepest pockets but because their entire business model is a testament to the intentionally permanent nature of the OGL).


----------



## Mecheon

Reynard said:


> I don't quite understand why people think there is going to be a mass exodus of D&D players over this. I don't see it. Some people, sure (me, in fact). But in the end people aren't individually playing 5E because it is an Open game, so I don't think they will leave it if is Closes -- even if they think WotC was sort of being jerks doing so. I mean, WotC has already done some things that many people do not find acceptable (some freelance treatment, missing blatant racist imagery in recent releases, etc) , and yet they are still on top.



I'd argue a lot of 5E's growth is due to all of the positve press its had out there. Be it Twitch streamers, Youtube videos or Tiktoks, a lot of the advertising for the game has sort of been on that word of mouth that's spread

And now WotC is taking aim at all of that. Anyone who's aware of this is going to turn that word of mouth to negative. Folks are downright spiteful, and if it continues, all of those channels previously giving D&D good press will be instead turning it to negative. I doubt these folks are just going to knuckle down and bear it, they're going to actively become detractors because if anything sells on the various platforms, its outrage content

I doubt a massive exodus, but I suspect there'll be significant movement against it and the internet's general opinion on D&D will basically go negative


----------



## Reynard

Mecheon said:


> I doubt a massive exodus, but I suspect there'll be significant movement against it and the internet's general opinion on D&D will basically go negative



I mean, it's possible, but I would be surprised if the OGL was something anyone under 25 gave a fig about -- or even knew existed, let alone understood.


----------



## SkidAce

DaveMage said:


> Trapper Keeper!!!!



I started to crop that out of the picture.     Used it to carry DM notes before I had a laptop/computer.


----------



## overgeeked

SkidAce said:


> I started to crop that out of the picture.     Used it to carry DM notes before I had a laptop/computer.
> 
> View attachment 271647



Definitely could be spray painted on the side of a van.


----------



## SkidAce

Haplo781 said:


> Never put a Williams in charge of D&D.



"You fell victim to one of the three classic blunders - the most famous of which are "*never get involved in a land war in Asia*" and "*Never put a Williams in charge of D&D*" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!


----------



## Mecheon

Reynard said:


> I mean, it's possible, but I would be surprised if the OGL was something anyone under 25 gave a fig about -- or even knew existed, let alone understood.



Don't really need to understand it

Just gotta post a video "WOTC IS KILLING CRITICAL ROLE/THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS" and that's all folks really need to know to get outraged. Not even necessarily the most wrong statement


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> I mean, it's possible, but I would be surprised if the OGL was something anyone under 25 gave a fig about -- or even knew existed, let alone understood.



I think the folks who have grown up in a world with open content understand how it works better than you think. Better than Hasbro execs, for sure.


----------



## SkidAce

UngeheuerLich said:


> You seem to have a very short memory... you bought the starter set not twice but thrice...
> 
> edit: found a fourth one on the picture...



Its age.  _waves cane_  See the post above about donating.


----------



## Cistern

I'm a high school teacher who runs a 30+ member D&D Club.  I know we'll be having a long discussion about this topic at our next meeting.  If young people start to put WOTC in the same category as Facebook, they're done.  Nearly all of my kids get their news from TikTok and with a few good vids and memes on there ripping WOTC, Wizards and all of their dreams of being a lifestyle brand to the kiddos is sunk.


----------



## Reynard

Mecheon said:


> Don't really need to understand it
> 
> Just gotta post a video "WOTC IS KILLING CRITICAL ROLE/THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS" and that's all folks really need to know to get outraged. Not even necessarily the most wrong statement



Sure but clickbait outrage rarely lasts long and rarely accomplishes much.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Sure but clickbait outrage rarely lasts long and rarely accomplishes much.



The problem we're already running into is people are practically demanding whatever the "next big game" is to be utterly perfect for everyone always. There is no magic bullet. No perfect solution. The fans that are going to leave will diaspora. There is not and will not be a single game to hoover up all those dissatisfied fans because 5E is a big tent holding a dozen or so vaguely connected gamer factions together. If that tent collapses, they will scatter to different games because they want different things from their games. But, more than likely, D&D will still be the dominant player unless they happen to lose something like 50% of their fans.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I would wait until the actual release before assuming anything.

I don’t think people will abandon on mass, this does not affect most people.


----------



## Yaarel

Branduil said:


> I believe they've said they don't really need it any more (and I can believe that, unlike PF 1e, which really felt like a modded version of 3.5, 2e is a vastly different game, with entirely new math), they used it because it's convenient. And they already suggested they might move off of the OGL in the future, I imagine recent events are greatly accelerating that decision.



If Paizo successfully extricates the OGL, and supplies instead their own irrevocable license, they will be poised to take on all of the refugees from Hasbro-D&D.

Heh, again.



I am unfamiliar with Pathfinder. My impression is, the main difference between PF2 and 5e is, smaller versus bigger feats.

If ex-5e creators can use the PF2 math, while rearranging the character advancement table to consolidate bigger feats, at least for certain classes, and maybe creating new settings, that would probably meet the needs of most 5e players?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> I don't quite understand why people think there is going to be a mass exodus of D&D players over this. I don't see it. Some people, sure (me, in fact). But in the end people aren't individually playing 5E because it is an Open game, so I don't think they will leave it if is Closes -- even if they think WotC was sort of being jerks doing so. I mean, WotC has already done some things that many people do not find acceptable (some freelance treatment, missing blatant racist imagery in recent releases, etc) , and yet they are still on top.
> 
> I could be wrong, of course.



To be fair none of those things affect the amount of content available moving forward.  Consumers tend to care about that.  More importantly, there's an issue of scale that directly affects a lot of people's livelihoods.


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> Define mass, even 5% leaving is a significant number to other TTRPGs



This affects everyone who wants something from D&D WotC doesn't provide.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Micah Sweet said:


> To be fair none of those things affect the amount of content available moving forward.  Consumers tend to care about that.  More importantly, there's an issue of scale that directly affects a lot of people's livelihoods.



It won’t really affect that.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

mamba said:


> Define mass, even 5% leaving is a significant number to other TTRPGs



I doubt even close to 5% are going to leave. The number of players is likely to increase in a few months in fact.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I agree there will not be a 20-30% abandonment rate... they would be lucky to get 5% but the point is to show it off.
> 
> I agree, this will be a big jerk move and will make some leave forever and some leave for a bit and some shake there fist and still not leave D&D... and come 2024 some of all of them will buy the PHB



Well, I can only speak for myself, but I am done buying anything from WotC. 6e was already turning me off.


----------



## billd91

Yaarel said:


> I am unfamiliar with Pathfinder. My impression is, the main difference between PF2 and 5e is, smaller versus bigger feats.



Oh, my, no…


----------



## Micah Sweet

MonsterEnvy said:


> It won’t really affect that.



Oh?  How do you figure?  Lot of 3PPs out there.


----------



## mamba

MonsterEnvy said:


> I doubt even close to 5% are going to leave. The number of players is likely to increase in a few months in fact.



both can be true at the same time


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> To be fair none of those things affect the amount of content available moving forward.  Consumers tend to care about that.  More importantly, there's an issue of scale that directly affects a lot of people's livelihoods.



What percentage of D&D players do you think buy OGL products? Even the biggest Kickstarters have pledges in the thousands at best. I don't think it is going to "change the number of products available" for the vast majority of D&D players. 

As to livelihoods-- yes, it will. It will affect mine, though to a lesser degree. But that's not a significant number of potentially lost customers either.

Remember that we are talking about D&D players measured in the millions. WotCs strategy here likely hinges on the idea that even if everyone who backed Flee! Mortals left because of this, it's still not a significant loss compared to what they are gaining in IP control (which I think is their real concern here).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> I mean, it's possible, but I would be surprised if the OGL was something anyone under 25 gave a fig about -- or even knew existed, let alone understood.



I think awareness is going to go up.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> I think awareness is going to go up.



If they never bought a 3PP book, will they care?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> What percentage of D&D players do you think buy OGL products? Even the biggest Kickstarters have pledges in the thousands at best. I don't think it is going to "change the number of products available" for the vast majority of D&D players.
> 
> As to livelihoods-- yes, it will. It will affect mine, though to a lesser degree. But that's not a significant number of potentially lost customers either.
> 
> Remember that we are talking about D&D players measured in the millions. WotCs strategy here likely hinges on the idea that even if everyone who backed Flee! Mortals left because of this, it's still not a significant loss compared to what they are gaining in IP control (which I think is their real concern here).



So just a straight lack of concern for other human beings.  Got it.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> What percentage of D&D players do you think buy OGL products? Even the biggest Kickstarters have pledges in the thousands at best. I don't think it is going to "change the number of products available" for the vast majority of D&D players.
> 
> As to livelihoods-- yes, it will. It will affect mine, though to a lesser degree. But that's not a significant number of potentially lost customers either.
> 
> Remember that we are talking about D&D players measured in the millions. WotCs strategy here likely hinges on the idea that even if everyone who backed Flee! Mortals left because of this, it's still not a significant loss compared to what they are gaining in IP control (which I think is their real concern here).



There's no reason to assume the backers represent a circle. There's more than likely overlap, yes. But they're not all the same people supporting the same projects. It's likely mostly referees backing projects though as many/most are adventures, monster books, campaign settings, etc.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> If they never bought a 3PP book, will they care?



Maybe.  If they buy D&D they might care about the horrible business practices of the company that makes it.  If they only play and don't buy, WotC isn't getting anything from them anyway.


----------



## FallenRX

Micah Sweet said:


> So just a straight lack of concern for other human beings.  Got it.



Honestly, as crappy as he sounds, they arent entirely wrong.

Most dnd players dont care about this, we are a minority really, most people just play dnd and move on, its the only TTRPG they know of, and the only one they really care about. and most have little to no interesting in making real money off it.

Back during the 4E days when TTRPG's were more tight, and smaller, that mattered a lot, so we could really cause hasbro o lose a lot, but now? DnD has gotten far beyond that, in fact thats one of the reasons they are trying this gambit now, because they believe that DnD is big enough that without us, they can just.... do whatever they want and still make money, be the biggest and grow.

Its why someone like CR, or big DnD Youtube channels need to spread the word to get those people to care a bit, and even then it remains to be seen if thats enough.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Micah Sweet said:


> Oh?  How do you figure?  Lot of 3PPs out there.



And only 20 of them that use the OGL make more than 750k


----------



## Yaarel

billd91 said:


> Oh, my, no…



What would you do to make Pathfinder 2 appeal to 5e tastes?

The important part is the irrevocable license, which Paizo might be doing anyway.

A robust gaming engine helps. I havent heard complaints about PF2 balance, so the engine is ok?


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, I can only speak for myself, but I am done buying anything from WotC. 6e was already turning me off.



We know.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Yaarel said:


> What would you do to make Pathfinder 2 appeal to 5e tastes?
> 
> The important part is the irrevocable license, which Paizo might be doing anyway.
> 
> A robust gaming engine helps. I havent heard complaints about PF2 balance, so the engine is ok?



Completely change the game, they are very very different games.


----------



## Yaarel

MonsterEnvy said:


> Completely change the game, they are very very different games.



Remember I am unfamiliar with Pathfinder, what are main differences?

Both 5e and PF2 evolve from 3e (and 4e!), so there should be meaningful ways to contrast them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MonsterEnvy said:


> And only 20 of them that use the OGL make more than 750k



So what?  First of all, those are the 20 biggest and most visible 3PPs.  Secondly, if the 1.0a can be revoked that affects everyone who uses the OGL, not just the top 20.  Real human beings making games.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

FallenRX said:


> Its why someone like CR, or big DnD Youtube channels need to spread the word to get those people to care a bit, and even then it remains to be seen if thats enough.



They only need to do this if 1.1 goes forward in it's current form. 

It's best overall for D&D if they allow the OGl 1.0a to remain, and entice 3rd parties to go with 1.1 with benefits I would say.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MonsterEnvy said:


> They only need to do this if 1.1 goes forward in it's current form.
> 
> It's best overall for D&D if they allow the OGl 1.0a to remain, and entice 3rd parties to go with 1.1 with benefits I would say.



Yes, it absolutely would be best.  But we don't know either way yet, and the spectre of Worst Case Scenario has legs under it and is pretty darn scary.


----------



## Remathilis

Reynard said:


> If they never bought a 3PP book, will they care?



The big difference is that social media is pushing the "greedy WotC is going after its fans" as a meme. It doesn't have to be accurate either as lots of misinformation is being added and mixed into the conversation. I've seen it in a lot of corners of SM, and while I don't claim I have any sort of specific insight, I can say this is being discussed in any rpg adjacent area. Some people who have never bought a 3pp book will drop the game because of this. Now, is that enough to matter? I don't know. But it's a non-zero number.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Yaarel said:


> Remember I am unfamiliar with Pathfinder, what are main differences?
> 
> Both 5e and PF2 evolve from 3e (and 4e!), so there should be meaningful ways to contrast them.



Pathfinder 2e uses much larger numbers than 5e and more complex math. It uses a three action system where everything has three actions and actions very in how many they use, and so many other differences. The 2 systems are not compatible at all really. 

It's hard to explain, it would probably be better for to look it up. I am a poor explainer of systems.


----------



## overgeeked

I think one thing that's being overlooked is the _referee_ vs _player_ split. Part of the problem here is that, according to WotC at least, the _majority of paying customers are referees rather than players_. So they are looking for ways to monetize the _players_. The _players_ are the free riders here.

Okay. But _it's the referees who're buying all the stuff_. Referees represent about 20% of WotC's customers, according to WotC. If _players_ don't care about 3PP, that's okay. It's the _referees_ that should be the focus. They're the ones buying all this stuff anyway. If anyone's going to care about WotC nuking the OGL, it's going to be _referees_ way, way, way more than _players_.

_Players_ sitting around with a PHB in hand and _no referee_ to run the game are irrelevant. It's the _referee_ buying all the stuff that drives their business.


----------



## Yaarel

MonsterEnvy said:


> Pathfinder 2e uses much larger numbers than 5e and more complex math. It uses a three action system where everything has three actions and actions very in how many they use, and so many other differences. The 2 systems are not compatible at all really.



I didnt think the engines were compatible. I suspect tweaks can help PF2 appeal to 5e. 

5e players can adapt to the three-action economy fine. (Maybe prefer it?)

The bigger numbers and more complex math might be a hurdle.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I think awareness is going to go up.



the funny part is I bet there are more then a few groups that did not know or at least didn't understand what an OGL or 3rd party publisher was last week that are about to find out.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> If they never bought a 3PP book, will they care?




The narrative of "big greedy company is leaning on the little guy" is pretty social-mediagenic these days, so maybe.


----------



## Branduil

The biggest complications of the Pathfinder 2e system are

1) The multi-tiered proficiency system
2) The endless feat lists

Both of those could be simplified pretty easily. Change proficiency from multiple tiers (plus level bonus) to a flatter bound-accuracy single bonus like 5e. Drop most of the feats. Now you have a relatively rules-lite system.

I would actually say the 3-action economy and "ability boosts" are mostly simpler than 5e. Personally I would go further than that and just cut out the raw ability scores entirely, they're a vestige that does nothing except potentially confuse new players. So just have ability bonuses and limit them to +5 like in 5e, and now you have something even simpler than 5e.


----------



## Umbran

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> ... it's not hard to convert between most games already...




It isn't, but that doesn't mean it'd be a common endeavor.  To be honest, converting from one system to another is something generally only major game-greasemonkeys bother to do.  Yes, you can do it.  I can do it, but probably wouldn't, as I have a stack of other perfectly cromulent games on my shelf to play instead.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

overgeeked said:


> I think one thing that's being overlooked is the _referee_ vs _player_ split. Part of the problem here is that, according to WotC at least, the _majority of paying customers are referees rather than players_. So they are looking for ways to monetize the _players_. The _players_ are the free riders here.
> 
> Okay. But _it's the referees who're buying all the stuff_. Referees represent about 20% of WotC's customers, according to WotC. If _players_ don't care about 3PP, that's okay. It's the _referees_ that should be the focus. They're the ones buying all this stuff anyway. If anyone's going to care about WotC nuking the OGL, it's going to be _referees_ way, way, way more than _players_.
> 
> _Players_ sitting around with a PHB in hand and _no referee_ to run the game are irrelevant. It's the _referee_ buying all the stuff that drives their business.



I don't think that was ever a claim. Making players pay more.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Branduil said:


> The biggest complications of the Pathfinder 2e system are
> 
> 1) The multi-tiered proficiency system
> 2) The endless feat lists
> 
> Both of those could be simplified pretty easily. Change proficiency from multiple tiers (plus level bonus) to a flatter bound-accuracy single bonus like 5e. Drop most of the feats. Now you have a relatively rules-lite system.
> 
> I would actually say the 3-action economy and "ability boosts" are mostly simpler than 5e. Personally I would go further than that and just cut out the raw ability scores entirely, they're a vestige that does nothing except potentially confuse new players. So just have ability bonuses and limit them to +5 like in 5e, and now you have something even simpler than 5e.



I do think, if you made those changes, you would negatively affect the play experience of the game's actual fans.


----------



## Composer99

Micah Sweet said:


> I do think, if you made those changes, you would negatively affect the play experience of the game's actual fans.



You're not wrong, but I think the idea is that would not replace the existing game, but a variant meant to be 5e-ish enough to capture disillusioned gamers who would bounce off PF2 proper.


----------



## Branduil

Micah Sweet said:


> I do think, if you made those changes, you would negatively affect the play experience of the game's actual fans.



Oh I'm not talking about changing actual Pathfinder, just pointing out how you could make a 5e-like solely using the Pathfinder srd.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Yaarel said:


> I didnt think the engines were compatible. I suspect tweaks can help PF2 appeal to 5e.
> 
> 5e players can adapt to the three-action economy fine. (Maybe prefer it?)
> 
> The bigger numbers and more complex math might be a hurdle.



The nice thing about Pathfinder being open is that someone can create a document of optional tweaks to make PF2 work more like 5E, for those that prefer it to. 

I know if I go back to C&C, I'm bringing advantage/disadvantage with me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> It isn't, but that doesn't mean it'd be a common endeavor.  To be honest, converting from one system to another is something generally only major game-greasemonkeys bother to do.  Yes, you can do it.  I can do it, but probably wouldn't, as I have a stack of other perfectly cromulent games on my shelf to play instead.



Tonight was a "pitch night" as one campagin is winding down... several of us had pitches we narrowed to a few... I got 2 of the top 3 slots and most likely the 'winning' pitch. 
I started with Torg Superheroes (since everyone really likes super heroes for a few years we gamed in a comic shop) a Vampire Game, a Mage game and 2 Spell Jammer games...
My 1st spell jammer game is top of the top 3 and my other spell jammer game is the 3rd choice right now... we will vote on the 3 games finally next week... the #2 game is a D&D 5e game as well... 1 other DM/Player pitched a Rifts Savage World, and other then that the other dozen pitches where D&D of one stripe or another...


----------



## mamba

MonsterEnvy said:


> I don't think that was ever a claim. Making players pay more.



claim by whom? WotC certainly feels they need to monetize their players more


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> Tonight was a "pitch night" as one campagin is winding down... several of us had pitches we narrowed to a few... I got 2 of the top 3 slots and most likely the 'winning' pitch.




Nice.  We are a long way from the end of Witchlight.  But I expect the top idea for a next game would be Deadlands: Lost Colony (which has a nice plot-point campaign in the rulebook).  The Avatar Legends RPG will be out then, too, which might appeal, as might Star Wars, probably via Scum and Villany.

One player has suggested he might want to take the chair and run a Humblewood campaign, to allow me a stint out of the GM's chair, which would be 5eD&D, but a 3pp, which would be poetic irony.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> Nice.  We are a long way from the end of Witchlight.  But I expect the top idea for a next game would be Deadlands: Lost Colony (which has a nice plot-point campaign in the rulebook).  The Avatar Legends RPG will be out then, too, which might appeal, as might Star Wars, probably via Scum and Villany.
> 
> One player has suggested he might want to take the chair and run a Humblewood campaign, to allow me a stint out of the GM's chair, which would be 5eD&D, but a 3pp, which would be poetic irony.



all of that sounds awesome


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I would love to get a Scum & Villainy game going with my crew.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

mamba said:


> claim by whom? WotC certainly feels they need to monetize their players more



Were is this said? DM's pay the most is all that was said.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I would love to get a Scum & Villainy game going with my crew.



I've been wanting to play FFG/Asmodeus' Star Wars for years.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MonsterEnvy said:


> Were is this said? DM's pay the most is all that was said.



You missed an earlier chapter of this saga. There was a call with investors where they said the game was undermonitized and in 2023, they wanted to get more money out of everyone, including with ongoing subscription revenue.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You missed an earlier chapter of this saga. There was a call with investors where they said the game was undermonitized and in 2023, they wanted to get more money out of everyone, including with ongoing subscription revenue.



No I did not miss that, though there have been people making up quotes. Them wanting to use a new subscription is not the same as making players pay more. And they never said the Game was undermonitized they said the BRAND was undermonitized, which is related more to thing like merch.


----------



## Scribe

overgeeked said:


> Just call dis/advantage something different. Rolling an extra die and taking the better or worse one is something incredibly prevalent in games now. Boon/bane. Bonus/penalty. Etc




Yeah but on the other hand...

Advantage/Disadvantage is so boring.


----------



## Branduil

Scribe said:


> Yeah but on the other hand...
> 
> Advantage/Disadvantage is so boring.



Personally I rarely find rolling extra dice boring. More importantly, it's easy to remember and do, which is very important for both new and old players. Fiddly bonuses and penalties have a tendency to be overlooked in the heat of battle.


----------



## Scribe

Branduil said:


> Personally I rarely find rolling extra dice boring. More importantly, it's easy to remember and do, which is very important for both new and old players. Fiddly bonuses and penalties have a tendency to be overlooked in the heat of battle.




Yeah, and thats totally fair. I found myself looking for more, and 5e continuing to find ways to give us less, in the last few years.

This leading to a boom for Pathfinder, would be ideal for me at this point.


----------



## reelo

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Corporate America doesn't move fast enough to have responded yet. Their lack of response doesn't mean there aren't frantic conversations happening right now inside WotC and Hasbro. I suspect things are frantic right now in-house.




I sure hope so!





darjr said:


> Like many OSR games.
> None of them OGL or D&D anymore.
> 
> What’s more is that it looks like a lot of publishers are starting to like the idea regardless of what WotC does from now on.




To me, WotC/Hasbro is damaged goods now. Noatter what they do, backtrack, sue, appease, I am done with them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

SkidAce said:


> That is exactly what I do.
> 
> Kids of co workers, random people I strike conversations with in the bookstore, a library in a school, etc.




Now that we have german starter sets here, I actually thought about donating a dragon of stormwreck island to my school D&D club.


----------



## mhd

Umbran said:


> The narrative of "big greedy company is leaning on the little guy" is pretty social-mediagenic these days, so maybe.



Didn't hurt Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook etc. that much. Wouldn't be surprised if we'd get a similar turn out as desktop operating systems: 80% D&D, 15% Other-System-Anyway, 5% System-Because-of-Freedom


----------



## Shardstone

Alzrius said:


> Assuming you want to publish compatible content for an OGL-based game (be it 5E or something else), we have an actual lawyer telling us that it's safer to do so under the OGL v1.0a than to simply not use a license at all (presumably under the "you can't copyright game mechanics" idea, which is a lot less expansive than I think a lot of people are assuming).



Your alternative is not my suggestion.


----------



## Staffan

Micah Sweet said:


> I've been wanting to play FFG/Asmodeus' Star Wars for years.



I started running a game of that just yesterday. Great fun!

Unfortunately my players don't seem overly amenable to playing TORG for some reason. Personally, I think they're just afraid of the Cyberpope.


----------



## Art Waring

Reynard said:


> I don't quite understand why people think there is going to be a mass exodus of D&D players over this. I don't see it. Some people, sure (me, in fact). But in the end people aren't individually playing 5E because it is an Open game, so I don't think they will leave it if is Closes -- even if they think WotC was sort of being jerks doing so. I mean, WotC has already done some things that many people do not find acceptable (some freelance treatment, missing blatant racist imagery in recent releases, etc) , and yet they are still on top.
> 
> I could be wrong, of course.



I think you're right. They get away with a lot of things that other companies get roasted for.

One example is Chaosium, who received a lot of negative feedback for selling NFT's. Except, hasbro has their own NFT's for sale.

Pretty hypocritical? Look at the new 1.1 OGL, where they pretend they are anti-NFT, but its all a smoke screen, because they use NFT's too.

To be clear, I do not support NFT's or any form of artificial scarcity or crypto scams, I am simply pointing out hasbro's hypocracy, and seemingly untouchable status amongst their own fan base.


----------



## humble minion

Micah Sweet said:


> I've been wanting to play FFG/Asmodeus' Star Wars for years.



I've been long-distance quasi-assistant-coGMing (it's complicated, ok?) a FFG SW game recently, and everyone's having a great time.  The Triumph/Threat/etc rules are really clever and add twistiness and unpredictability to the game enormously, in a very genre-appropriate way.  There are some issues to be aware of (its pretty much a points-buy chargen system, and it needs a bit of savvy and planning or you can end up with a character who will lag the group dramatically) but it just works.

Plot summaries and recordings here, for those interested (mind you, this isn't a professional standard stream or anything, just friends having fun with a microphone on during game sessions)  






						Category:Star Wars Plot Summaries
					






					gamerchick.miraheze.org


----------



## Morrus

Art Waring said:


> Pretty hypocritical? Look at the new 1.1 OGL, where they pretend they are anti-NFT, but its all a smoke screen, because they use NFT's too.



I think it's more that they're anti _other _people making D&D NFTs.


----------



## Art Waring

Morrus said:


> I think it's more that they're anti _other _people making D&D NFTs.



I do understand that, but from my perspective it sounds like "do as I say, not as I do."

I know they can do whatever they want, but it doesn't look good from an outsiders perspective.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

MonsterEnvy said:


> No I did not miss that, though there have been people making up quotes. Them wanting to use a new subscription is not the same as making players pay more. And they never said the Game was undermonitized they said the BRAND was undermonitized, which is related more to thing like merch.



Most players pay nothing. Getting them to pay for anything at all is paying more.

Wotc knows how profitable subscriptions are in other markets, how easy it is to extract a bit of money from people every single month if you can just get them to sign up once.


----------



## Staffan

Yaarel said:


> Remember I am unfamiliar with Pathfinder, what are main differences?
> 
> Both 5e and PF2 evolve from 3e (and 4e!), so there should be meaningful ways to contrast them.



Within the domain of D&D-like games, PF2 is quite different from 5e. There's a family resemblance, but they're more like cousins than siblings. Other than the action economy, which has been mentioned, the main thing about it is Very Tight Math.

Your most-relevant numbers are very strongly correlated to your level. You *can* make bad choices and fall below the curve (e.g. a rogue putting a low stat in Dexterity), but you kind of have to make that an active choice. It is pretty much impossible to go above the curve, at least with combat stats.

There's also a crit system, where a success/failure by 10 or more is a critical success/failure. A natural 20/1 also upgrades the result one step, making it almost always a crit (unless something is so easy/hard you really shouldn't be rolling). This means that small differences in numbers have a stronger impact, as they not only increase/decrease the chance of success, they also affect the chances of one of the crits. This in turn means that level differentials are felt a *whole* lot more in Pathfinder. Fighting a creature that's 2 levels higher than you in PF2 feels really hard. You're probably only hitting like a third of your first attacks (and shouldn't bother making second or third attacks, do something useful with those actions instead), and forget about critting. Meanwhile, they'll be hitting like three attacks out of four, and in addition to having a somewhat higher base damage for being higher level, a fairly large portion of those attacks will be crits which means they hit like a frickin' truck. But relatively small situational modifiers can compensate for that. That makes PF2 a very tactical game, where you look for opportunities to change those odds in your favor.

Meanwhile, 5e is a game where bounded accuracy means that the difference between a level 7 and a level 9 monster isn't so big. I remember a fight where a bunch of relatively low level PCs (maybe 6th level?) drove off a lich. Mind you, that was with a lot of luck (two crit smites from the paladin, and the cleric managing to dispel the lich's _cloudkill_ spell), and the lich originally mostly wanting to drive the PCs off, but still. There's no way that would have happened in PF2.

Pathfinder also has a lot more customization than 5e. For most classes in 5e, once you have made your subclass choice at level 1-3, your character is pretty much on rails mechanically other than choosing stat bonuses/feats every 4 levels. In PF2, you're probably making two or more choices with every level: ancestry/general/skill/class feat, skill increases, and maybe other things as well. These tend not to increase your Main Numbers (except maybe bringing things below the curve up to the curve), but rather add options, improve your action economy, and the like.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> So just a straight lack of concern for other human beings.  Got it.



EDIT: I totally misread this. I apologize to @Micah Sweet 

That's got nothing to do with it and frankly that's a rude, uncalled for accusation.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Scribe said:


> Yeah but on the other hand...
> 
> Advantage/Disadvantage is so boring.



Make them either
1) Stack-able aka roll as many d20 as you have advantages, keep the best/worst, each dis/advantage cancel each other.

2) Use the Boon/Bane system of SotDL aka each Boon is 1d6 you roll in addition to your d20, but you only keep the best result of all those d6s.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> I think it's more that they're anti _other _people making D&D NFTs.



They seem to be anti other people making D&D _ anything_ now.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> That's got nothing to do with it and frankly that's a rude, uncalled for accusation.



I don't think so.  They want to destroy an industry that sprung up around a contract that was supposed to be irrevocable, and has been chugging along creating content, spurring creativity, and creating _ jobs_ for over 20 years, all so they can exercise complete control and make a few extra bucks.


----------



## rgard

wellis said:


> I wonder how this will affect the D&D movie. I really hope it succeeds but Jesus, what Hasbro & WotC are doing could very well destroy it now.



If they go ahead with abolishing OGL 1.0, I won't pay to see the movie.


----------



## darjr

D&D General - DnDBeyonds product manager makes a personal statement about the OGL community.
					

Please note that this is his personal view and not any of the company he works for.




					www.enworld.org


----------



## darjr

The story made MSN?

Is that a big news source? I'm actually not sure.



			How DnD Open Gaming License Changes Will Impact Other TTRPGs


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> That's got nothing to do with it and frankly that's a rude, uncalled for accusation.



I‘m not so sure it is. It’s less the high royalties or even trying to revoke OGL 1.0a. It’s the harshness of the timeframe that bespeak an unnecessary cruelty. They don’t *have* to rush this except to raise the bullying pressure.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't think so.  They want to destroy an industry that sprung up around a contract that was supposed to be irrevocable, and has been chugging along creating content, spurring creativity, and creating _ jobs_ for over 20 years, all so they can exercise complete control and make a few extra bucks.



I totally misread your post and thought it was directed my way. I apologize.


----------



## Reynard

billd91 said:


> I‘m not so sure it is. It’s less the high royalties or even trying to revoke OGL 1.0a. It’s the harshness of the timeframe that bespeak an unnecessary cruelty. They don’t *have* to rush this except to raise the bullying pressure.



I totally misread Micah's post and took it the wrong way. I have apologized.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> What percentage of D&D players do you think buy OGL products? Even the biggest Kickstarters have pledges in the thousands at best. I don't think it is going to "change the number of products available" for the vast majority of D&D players.
> 
> As to livelihoods-- yes, it will. It will affect mine, though to a lesser degree. But that's not a significant number of potentially lost customers either.
> 
> Remember that we are talking about D&D players measured in the millions. WotCs strategy here likely hinges on the idea that even if everyone who backed Flee! Mortals left because of this, it's still not a significant loss compared to what they are gaining in IP control (which I think is their real concern here).




Well we know that a number of companies* are making 750K off the OGL according to WOTC (not sure how many 50,000 companies there are but I doubt they chose that number at random). I think with the OGL, it its when you add all this stuff up together it really does probably have an impact. If it didn't WOTC wouldn't care about it and wouldn't be making these changes or requesting royalties and revenue reports.

*Originally remembered this being 20 for some reason, but it's early and I can't recall the exact number so edited this to reflect that


----------



## Reynard

Bedrockgames said:


> Well we know that at least 20 or so companies are making 750K off the OGL according to WOTC (not sure how many 50,000 companies there are but I doubt they chose that number at random). I think with the OGL, it its when you add all this stuff up together it really does probably have an impact. If it didn't WOTC wouldn't care about it and wouldn't be making these changes or requesting royalties and revenue reports.



Unless the registration and revenue reporting is there just to dissuade people. If their goal is to kill Open Gaming, that is a pretty good starting tactic. Throw in "we can alter the deal at any time" and "we can steal your work without notice" and you have a pretty powerful cooling effect.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Seems to me at this point WoTC may try to ride this out.  If they are/ were reconsidering best to say so early and derail all the negative talk.  Even saying something like ‘we value the community and publisher feedback and are taking a second look’ would have taken some of the steam out of this.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> Unless the registration and revenue reporting is there just to dissuade people. If their goal is to kill Open Gaming, that is a pretty good starting tactic. Throw in "we can alter the deal at any time" and "we can steal your work without notice" and you have a pretty powerful cooling effect.




I don't know which it is, as it certainly could be either or both. But I think in each case, it seems to reflect a concern over the numbers. And it at least tells us there are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars with the OGL. I think when you throw in GM's guild, which isn't the same but is part of this mixture, there is a sense that third party material is generally kind of important to many D&D players (especially since WOTC doesn't appear to have that many releases each year these days)


----------



## Composer99

darjr said:


> The story made MSN?
> 
> Is that a big news source? I'm actually not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> How DnD Open Gaming License Changes Will Impact Other TTRPGs



MSN appears to be in the top 5 sites people visit for news in terms of page visitors.

Having an article about D&D appear there could mean lots of eyeballs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

jerryrice4949 said:


> Seems to me at this point WoTC may try to ride this out.  If they are/ were reconsidering best to say so early and derail all the negative talk.  Even saying something like ‘we value the community and publisher feedback and are taking a second look’ would have taken some of the steam out of this.




I don't know what their plan is. I think they probably didn't expect the reaction to be as negative and widespread as it has. I imagine they wouldn't have done this unless they were confident in it. And they can always issue a radically different license on the 13th. My guess is there is also a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, plus the NDA's people mentioned which is why a lot of big third party publishers aren't saying anything either.

We should find out in about five days how good WOTC is feeling about all this (I could be wrong but I do recall seeing recent marketing for the movie taken down from their twitter feed because it was bombarded with negative comments: possible I am mistaking it for another page but I am nearly sure it was the Wizard's of the Coast twitter account---they still have the summer marketing up but thought I saw stuff released this month).


----------



## Reynard

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know which it is, as it certainly could be either or both. But I think in each case, it seems to reflect a concern over the numbers. And it at least tells us there are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars with the OGL. I think when you throw in GM's guild, which isn't the same but is part of this mixture, there is a sense that third party material is generally kind of important to many D&D players (especially since WOTC doesn't appear to have that many releases each year these days)



I thinkbthe DMsGuild is relevant only insofar as it appears to be a good part of the model they are looking at for the "OGL" in general,  at least insofar as WotC control is concerned. I'll actually be interested to see if the DMsGuild is continued with all this.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> I thinkbthe DMsGuild is relevant only insofar as it appears to be a good part of the model they are looking at for the "OGL" in general,  at least insofar as WotC control is concerned. I'll actually be interested to see if the DMsGuild is continued with all this.



My point is just that a lot of D&D players seem involved in it, and it is structured around people who aren't wotc putting out content. Also seems like a vibrant community


----------



## Reynard

Bedrockgames said:


> My point is just that a lot of D&D players seem involved in it, and it is structured around people who aren't wotc putting out content. Also seems like a vibrant community



But what is "a lot" compared to the customer base? That's the relevant question for WotC. If they lose 10K customers over this, they probably just don't care. If they lose 100K or 1M, that's a different issue.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know what their plan is. I think they probably didn't expect the reaction to be as negative and widespread as it has. I imagine they wouldn't have done this unless they were confident in it. And they can always issue a radically different license on the 13th. My guess is there is also a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, plus the NDA's people mentioned which is why a lot of big third party publishers aren't saying anything either.
> 
> We should find out in about five days how good WOTC is feeling about all this (I could be wrong but I do recall seeing recent marketing for the movie taken down from their twitter feed because it was bombarded with negative comments: possible I am mistaking it for another page but I am nearly sure it was the Wizard's of the Coast twitter account---they still have the summer marketing up but thought I saw stuff released this month).



Yeah their Facebook feed is full of negative comments too.  They are truly idiots if they didn’t see this coming.  It would be one thing to rollout a new OGL that was developed with 3PP involving carrots and sticks.  But this is a very extreme plan.  I get their desire to protect the IP more as they work to develop movies and tv shows.  And I don’t find it unreasonable to ask for some sort of royalties but 1.1 was the nuclear option.


----------



## Reynard

jerryrice4949 said:


> Yeah their Facebook feed is full of negative comments too.  They are truly idiots if they didn’t see this coming.  It would be one thing to rollout a new OGL that was developed with 3PP involving carrots and sticks.  But this is a very extreme plan.  I get their desire to protect the IP more as they work to develop movies and tv shows.  And I don’t find it unreasonable to ask for some sort of royalties but 1.1 was the nuclear option.



Just because some people are mad doesn't mean there's going to be a measurable financial cost for the company. Everyone thinks their opinions are held more widely than they are. Everyone thinks the rest of the world feels the outrage they do. Most people exist in echo chambers, especially online.

It is possible this will be a serious blow to WotC and they will have to mea culpa up until the 1D&D launch, but probably not. The storm will pass and Keys will sell fine.


----------



## FormerLurker

darjr said:


> The story made MSN?
> 
> Is that a big news source? I'm actually not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> How DnD Open Gaming License Changes Will Impact Other TTRPGs



I think it's a news aggregate like Google News, and seems to be reposting the CBR article.


----------



## Reynard

FormerLurker said:


> I think it's a news aggregate like Google News, and seems to be reposting the CBR article.



Yeah. This is still geek space news, but big geek space news. IGN is a pretty popular site and they did a story.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> But what is "a lot" compared to the customer base? That's the relevant question for WotC. If they lose 10K customers over this, they probably just don't care. If they lose 100K or 1M, that's a different issue.




I think way more than 10K are using third party material and stuff on DM's Guild. Again, I don't think they would have taken the interest or stance they are, if they didn't think these numbers were substantial, but also you can see it on Drivethru, on forums, on twitter and in actual gaming groups. The OGL is a key part of the D&D culture. That is why so many people are angry right now.

Also, and I think this is very important, and I have said it before so it isn't a new post from me, the core gaming audience that plays regularly is what matters here. The boom in numbers is huge this time around, bigger than any previous boom, but it has happened many times before and there is always a fad to it (the early 80s had its boom, the early 2000s had its boom). What keeps the game going are those core fans who I think are much more likely to be invested in third party material. This is a hobby, and it isn't like other industries. Unless they can make all their money off movies and designer D&D bags, they need the good will of the audience that consistently plays their game. This move does not appear to be generating good will.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> Just because some people are mad doesn't mean there's going to be a measurable financial cost for the company. Everyone thinks their opinions are held more widely than they are. Everyone thinks the rest of the world feels the outrage they do. Most people exist in echo chambers, especially online.
> 
> It is possible this will be a serious blow to WotC and they will have to mea culpa up until the 1D&D launch, but probably not. The storm will pass and Keys will sell fine.



I bet the weekend emergency lawyer fees are significant. At least for the short term.


----------



## Composer99

I think they ought to have left ttrpg games and aids/accessories alone, given the small size of that market. Most of the stuff that isn't product identity under the OGL is stuff that other RPGs not using the OGL at all, including CRPGs and MMOs, have also used - are they going to go after Blizzard for WoW having race-and-class combos, dragons of different colours with different breath weapons, and ability-score-knockoffs from whence your major game statistics are derived? Doubt it.


----------



## overgeeked

Composer99 said:


> I think they ought to have left ttrpg games and aids/accessories alone, given the small size of that market. Most of the stuff that isn't product identity under the OGL is stuff that other RPGs not using the OGL at all, including CRPGs and MMOs, have also used - are they going to go after Blizzard for WoW having race-and-class combos, dragons of different colours with different breath weapons, and ability-score-knockoffs from whence your major game statistics are derived? Doubt it.



Bullies don’t pick on people who can defend themselves.


----------



## FormerLurker

Reynard said:


> Just because some people are mad doesn't mean there's going to be a measurable financial cost for the company. Everyone thinks their opinions are held more widely than they are. Everyone thinks the rest of the world feels the outrage they do. Most people exist in echo chambers, especially online.
> 
> It is possible this will be a serious blow to WotC and they will have to mea culpa up until the 1D&D launch, but probably not. The storm will pass and Keys will sell fine.



This is very true.

It's probably worth keeping in mind that the OGL was big news for the 2000s and the 3.X generation. I.e. the audience of this site. 
But for anyone under 20 and anyone who got started with D&D in the last five years, 3PP are probably less of a "thing." The high school and college kids playing now are probably doing just fine with just the official books. Many are more likely to get fan content from r/UnearthedArcana/ or Tumbler or Discord than an actual full published 3PP. 

A lot of 3rd Party books sell. 3PP 5e has been the #2 or #3 RPG on ICv2. But considering the vast, vast gulf between 5e and Pathfinder, there's likely an even bigger gulf between official 5e and 3PP 5e. 
WotC could do a scorched Earth 1.1 OGL launch and still easily retain 80% or their audience, and then quickly replace any lost fans in just a couple years with new players who give zero flips.


----------



## rcade

Reynard said:


> Just because some people are mad doesn't mean there's going to be a measurable financial cost for the company. Everyone thinks their opinions are held more widely than they are. Everyone thinks the rest of the world feels the outrage they do. Most people exist in echo chambers, especially online.



True, but the goodwill of the publishers and individuals producing content to support the SRD also matters, and they're likely to be as plugged-in to this outrage as anybody in this thread.

Alienating them means a lot of content that was bringing gamers to D&D isn't going to be created any more. Creators will support other games or not publish any open gaming content at all.

So if you believe, as I do, that the OGL caused a significant network effect that provided huge benefits to Hasbro/WOTC over the years, losing that will be a financial hit to the company.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> Just because some people are mad doesn't mean there's going to be a measurable financial cost for the company. Everyone thinks their opinions are held more widely than they are. Everyone thinks the rest of the world feels the outrage they do. Most people exist in echo chambers, especially online.




On virtually any other gaming controversy we have had, I would agree with you. There is usually a distorted sense of how many people share our opinions. But in this case, I've been searching WOTC on twitter every day pretty regularly and there are always hundreds of recent posts uniformly condemning WOTC for this (and very frequent posts too). Plus on every social media platform I have been on, the response has pretty uniformly been negative (or at least majority negative). That can shift obviously, WOTC can find the fault lines that divide gamers and try to prod them, but this doesn't seem to be abating in the early days at least. And I don't think it will because even if the numbers don't seem significant to everyone, a lot of gamers depend on the OGL for their creative participation in the hobby and many, even if they aren't making huge sums of money, are making supplementary income from it (and that translates to putting food on the table for many of them). Plus there are folks making a living off OGL products. I think its when you add up all the people making money here and there, all the people using OGL to express their creativity and invest their energy in the craft side of the hobby, that you end up with a large volume of people who are deeply emotionally invested and even financially invested in this issue.


----------



## Reynard

rcade said:


> True, but the goodwill of the publishers and individuals producing content to support the SRD also matters, and they're likely to be as plugged-in to this outrage as anybody in this thread.
> 
> Alienating them means a lot of content that was bringing gamers to D&D isn't going to be created any more. Creators will support other games or not publish any open gaming content at all.
> 
> So if you believe, as I do, that the OGL caused a significant network effect that provided huge benefits to Hasbro/WOTC over the years, losing that will be a financial hit to the company.



I think there was a feedback loop. For 5E in particular I bet it kept a lot of folks in the 5E ecosystem who might have otherwise drifted away, since 5E had both a very slow production output and a pretty homogeneous one. Folks looking for something different could find it from a 3PP and still be 5E customers.


----------



## rcade

FormerLurker said:


> It's probably worth keeping in mind that the OGL was big news for the 2000s and the 3.X generation. I.e. the audience of this site.
> But for anyone under 20 and anyone who got started with D&D in the last five years, 3PP are probably less of a "thing." The high school and college kids playing now are probably doing just fine with just the official books. Many are more likely to get fan content from r/UnearthedArcana/ or Tumbler or Discord than an actual full published 3PP.



If third-party products aren't a big thing, then Hasbro/WOTC shouldn't have any reason to try and kill them off.


----------



## Composer99

I mean, Oz and Dr Who went with 5e as their RPG engines, courtesy of the size of the wider 5e market, so...

*Edit to add:* Oz is public domain as far as I'm aware, so IP-wise isn't a big deal; Dr. Who, on the other hand, is.

What they both have in common is that D&D-5e-style character advancement and gameplay seem like real misfits to their respective genres. A story game system like PbtA would probably be a better fit in terms of mechanics.

So it matters that their publishers went for 5e.

*More Edit:* There's more to the story than the above for the Dr Who game (including a bespoke game with its own mechanics), but suffice to say that the 5e ecosystem being what it is (in no small part thanks to the OGL) they decided a 5e version was needed.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bedrockgames said:


> On virtually any other gaming controversy we have had, I would agree with you. There is usually a distorted sense of how many people share our opinions. But in this case, I've been searching WOTC on twitter every day pretty regularly and there are always hundreds of recent posts uniformly condemning WOTC for this (and very frequent posts too). Plus on every social media platform I have been on, the response has pretty uniformly been negative (or at least majority negative). That can shift obviously, WOTC can find the fault lines that divide gamers and try to prod them, but this doesn't seem to be abating in the early days at least. And I don't think it will because even if the numbers don't seem significant to everyone, a lot of gamers depend on the OGL for their creative participation in the hobby and many, even if they aren't making huge sums of money, are making supplementary income from it (and that translates to putting food on the table for many of them). Plus there are folks making a living off OGL products. I think its when you add up all the people making money here and there, all the people using OGL to express their creativity and invest their energy in the craft side of the hobby, that you end up with a large volume of people who are deeply emotionally invested and even financially invested in this issue.



It seems to me that WotC simply doesn't want their fan base to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't directly translate to more revenue for themselves.  A far cry from their previous line of just wanting people to play D&D.


----------



## FormerLurker

rcade said:


> If third-party products aren't a big thing, then Hasbro/WOTC shouldn't have any reason to try and kill them off.



They're not trying to kill them. They're trying to get the fifteen or twenty successful ones to share money with them.
And kill Pathfinder. And prevent another Pathfinder in the future. (I.e. Critical Role doing their own D&D clone.)

But, really, all this is likely just a bonus compared to the bigger reasons for the change: locking down the type of products you can make and prevent people making D&D video games, NFTs, and any future tech.
Killing Pathfinder and shackling other 3PP is just a bonus.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

dbolack said:


> My mind remembers Worlds without Number and all coming from the period before everything was OSR when we were using the term retroclone (like 4C) and there seemed to be a lot less cranky-old gatekeeper problems with that base. Perhaps I am wrong/optimistic there.



Stars Without Number maybe, Worlds Without Number was 2021.


----------



## Morrus

Composer99 said:


> I mean, Oz and Dr Who went with 5e as their RPG engines, courtesy of the size of the wider 5e market, so...
> 
> *Edit to add:* Oz is public domain as far as I'm aware, so IP-wise isn't a big deal; Dr. Who, on the other hand, is.
> 
> What they both have in common is that D&D-5e-style character advancement and gameplay seem like real misfits to their respective genres. A story game system like PbtA would probably be a better fit in terms of mechanics.
> 
> So it matters that their publishers went for 5e.



Doctor Who has had a non-5E version for 10 years, supported with tons of material, powered by its own Vortex System. They just happened to release a 5E book last year.






						Buy Doctor Who, The Role Playing Game online  | Cubicle 7 Games
					

Buy Doctor Who - The Role Playing Gamedirect from the source! Cubicle 7 is the award winning team behind classic RPG's including Warhammer, The One Ring and Adventures in Middle-earth. Worldwide Shipping.




					cubicle7games.com


----------



## jerryrice4949

Micah Sweet said:


> It seems to me that WotC simply doesn't want their fan base to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't directly translate to more revenue for themselves.  A far cry from their previous line of just wanting people to play D&D.



I mean they are a corporation with shareholders.


----------



## Composer99

Morrus said:


> Doctor Who has had a non-5E version for 10 years, supported with tons of material, powered by its own Vortex System. They just happened to release a 5E book last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy Doctor Who, The Role Playing Game online  | Cubicle 7 Games
> 
> 
> Buy Doctor Who - The Role Playing Gamedirect from the source! Cubicle 7 is the award winning team behind classic RPG's including Warhammer, The One Ring and Adventures in Middle-earth. Worldwide Shipping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cubicle7games.com



Yes, added that in in a subsequent edit.


----------



## Micah Sweet

jerryrice4949 said:


> I mean they are a corporation with shareholders.



More's the pity.


----------



## rcade

FormerLurker said:


> They're not trying to kill them. They're trying to get the fifteen or twenty successful ones to share money with them.
> And kill Pathfinder. And prevent another Pathfinder in the future. (I.e. Critical Role doing their own D&D clone.)



I don't see how Pathfinder or a Critical Role clone could be stopped. Both companies have the resources and audience to shift to their own new rule systems that scratch the same itch as D&D without reusing the SRD.

If all Hasbro/WOTC cares about are the big dogs, they should negotiate D&D licenses with them and leave everybody else using OGL 1.0 alone.

As for preventing future Pathfinders, if all new D&D versions don't publish an SRD that uses OGL 1.0, everything that's different about those versions goes back in the walled garden and won't be appearing in third-party products.


----------



## overgeeked

jerryrice4949 said:


> I mean they are a corporation with shareholders.



Greed. The root of all evil.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Morrus said:


> Doctor Who has had a non-5E version for 10 years, supported with tons of material, powered by its own Vortex System. They just happened to release a 5E book last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy Doctor Who, The Role Playing Game online  | Cubicle 7 Games
> 
> 
> Buy Doctor Who - The Role Playing Gamedirect from the source! Cubicle 7 is the award winning team behind classic RPG's including Warhammer, The One Ring and Adventures in Middle-earth. Worldwide Shipping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cubicle7games.com




Cubicle’s Vortex system version is also a great game. Definitely worth checking out.


----------



## Morrus

Composer99 said:


> Yes, added that in in a subsequent edit.



That's the irony. They've had a moderately successful game for 10 years, release one 5E book, and everybody thinks it's a 5E game.

The exact same thing happened with The One Ring. When they made the 5E version, everybody asked "Why don't you use a more suitable system?" to which they replied "We do. It's been available for years!"


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Greed. The root of all evil.



Greed and hubris and arrogance


----------



## FormerLurker

rcade said:


> True, but the goodwill of the publishers and individuals producing content to support the SRD also matters, and they're likely to be as plugged-in to this outrage as anybody in this thread.



How does it matter? D&D is making hundreds of millions. They paid $146 million for dndbeyond.com
Why would they care about upsetting a 3rd Party Publisher that needed Kickstarter to raise <$400k?


rcade said:


> Alienating them means a lot of content that was bringing gamers to D&D isn't going to be created any more. Creators will support other games or not publish any open gaming content at all.



I think the content bringing gamers into D&D is Critical Role and Stranger Things. The vast, vast majority of D&D fans probably never even look at a 3rd Party product. The closest they might get is the shared homebrew on dndbeyond.

Creators might want to support other games... but options there are limited. There's no OGL for Warhammer or World of Darkness. Making 3rd Party Products for Fate likely won't pay the bills. Creators are making 5e products because that edition makes them money.


rcade said:


> So if you believe, as I do, that the OGL caused a significant network effect that provided huge benefits to Hasbro/WOTC over the years, losing that will be a financial hit to the company.



I think it helped 3.0 and helped 5e at its start. But D&D has become a massive phenomena in the last five years, and that has very little to do with 3PP. No one on Twitch is using the OGL. The advertising gained from 3PP has become redundant.


----------



## Morrus

rcade said:


> I don't see how Pathfinder or a Critical Role clone could be stopped. Both companies have the resources and audience to shift to their own new rule systems that scratch the same itch as D&D without reusing the SRD.



I don't think it's that easy. It was hard moving to PF2E, but an even bigger shift to an even more different system? These things ain't easy.


----------



## darjr

Jim Collins - Concepts - Five Stages of Decline
		



Hubris born of success.
Undisciplined pursuit of more.
Denial of risk and peril.
Grasping for salvation.
Capitulation to irrelevance and death.

I'm not saying this is what's happening. I don't know. I think it's entirely possible all of this will mean nothing to the bottom line.


----------



## FormerLurker

rcade said:


> I don't see how Pathfinder or a Critical Role clone could be stopped. Both companies have the resources and audience to shift to their own new rule systems that scratch the same itch as D&D without reusing the SRD.



Critical Role is largely safe, as they could make an in-house system. They'd benefit from a lighter ruleset. Which would be quick and easy to make.

Pathfinder and Paizo is in a harder place. Making a new ruleset takes a loooong time. They spent a year playtesting PF2 and likely another year or two preceding designing the rules. And during the lead to PF2 they could still sell product to pay for office space and the staff making the game. There's no way they have the resources to just design rules for a year or two. 
If Pathfinder is forced to shut down, Paizo will go into serious debt while they spend 18 months designing a brand new non-d20 game system that is crunchy enough to satisfy their fans but also rigorously balanced. Mass layoffs would be necessary and they'd probably lose their offices and have everyone work from home to save costs. They'd need to bring in lots of outside investors, who would impose restrictions and caveats on the company. 


rcade said:


> If all Hasbro/WOTC cares about are the big dogs, they should negotiate D&D licenses with them and leave everybody else using OGL 1.0 alone.



If they're not touching the OGL why would said "big dogs" want to negotiate? What could WotC offer them that would be worth 25% of their revenue?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> That's the irony. They've had a moderately successful game for 10 years, release one 5E book, and everybody thinks it's a 5E game.
> 
> The exact same thing happened with The One Ring. When they made the 5E version, everybody asked "Why don't you use a more suitable system?" to which they replied "We do. It's been available for years!"



Yeah.  It's a shame too, because I love the One Ring.  Hopefully 2e is getting some traction.


----------



## darjr

I guess it's made Linus Tech Tips, if that means anything.


----------



## Hex08

overgeeked said:


> Greed. The root of all evil.



Welcome to capitalism.


----------



## Greg Benage

Hex08 said:


> Welcome to capitalism.



Y'all are going to irritate the OSR guys right out of the alliance.


----------



## Jadeite

darjr said:


> I guess it's made Linus Tech Tips, if that means anything.



I'd be more interested in Legal Eagle.


----------



## rcade

FormerLurker said:


> If they're not touching the OGL why would said "big dogs" want to negotiate? What could WotC offer them that would be worth 25% of their revenue?



The use of the D&D name and non-SRD D&D IP, the opportunity to create products that launch at the same time as the next edition, cooperative marketing and a lot of other incentives. I don't think the part of D&D that's in the SRD has anything close to the value of the parts that aren't.

The 25% revenue deal in the draft license doesn't mean Hasbro would require that much in individual deals.


----------



## Jack Daniel

FormerLurker said:


> If they're not touching the OGL why would said "big dogs" want to negotiate? What could WotC offer them that would be worth 25% of their revenue?




I still have yet to hear any compelling evidence that v1.1 _can _touch v1.0(a) in the way everybody fears. 

If there's language in v1.1 that says v1.0 is dead, that's rough… for anyone who is a party to v1.1. For anyone who is not, v1.1 might as well not exist, except to the extent that any duly designated Open Game Content can be re-used by anyone publishing under any version of the OGL. 

And if it's true that v1.1 doesn't actually address Open Game Content (instead referring to "Licensed Content" in its language), then that makes v1.1 even _less _relevant to anyone who wants to continue publishing under v1.0.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Hex08 said:


> Welcome to capitalism.



Exactly.  WoTC or TSR for that matter were never benign entities.  WoTC has the added pressure of shareholders.


----------



## Keith Robinson

Can't say I'm surprised.  Always figured WotC/Hasbro would try and challenge it at some point.  I always thought they'd try when 4e came along.  As a system, it certainly did its best to repudiate as much of the SRD as possible imo and the fact they didn't try to invalidate it at that time suggests to me that they didn't think they could.

But the OGL 1.0 looks good to me.  Can't see how you can just "unauthorize" a licence because you don't like it anymore.  Doesn't matter whether that is an Open licence or otherwise and I think the language of the OGL 1.0 is legally pretty clear and unequivical, though I am not a lawyer.

But it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

The most amazing thing about the OGL, imo, is that they ever released it at all.  But thank goodness they did!


----------



## jerryrice4949

FormerLurker said:


> Critical Role is largely safe, as they could make an in-house system. They'd benefit from a lighter ruleset. Which would be quick and easy to make.
> 
> Pathfinder and Paizo is in a harder place. Making a new ruleset takes a loooong time. They spent a year playtesting PF2 and likely another year or two preceding designing the rules. And during the lead to PF2 they could still sell product to pay for office space and the staff making the game. There's no way they have the resources to just design rules for a year or two.
> If Pathfinder is forced to shut down, Paizo will go into serious debt while they spend 18 months designing a brand new non-d20 game system that is crunchy enough to satisfy their fans but also rigorously balanced. Mass layoffs would be necessary and they'd probably lose their offices and have everyone work from home to save costs. They'd need to bring in lots of outside investors, who would impose restrictions and caveats on the company.
> 
> If they're not touching the OGL why would said "big dogs" want to negotiate? What could WotC offer them that would be worth 25% of their revenue?



WoTC could offer access to D&D Beyond and whatever VTT they are working on.  That presumably would provide access to an audience some 3PP don’t reach typically.


----------



## Micah Sweet

rcade said:


> The use of the D&D name and non-SRD D&D IP, the opportunity to create products that launch at the same time as the next edition, cooperative marketing and a lot of other incentives. I don't think the part of D&D that's in the SRD has anything close to the value of the parts that aren't.
> 
> The 25% revenue deal in the draft license doesn't mean Hasbro would require that much in individual deals.



That's why the Paizo thing confuses me.  Paizo doesn't make products for 5e.  Why would they care about 6e on the face of it?  Plenty of companies using the OGL make things for their own games and weren't going to be interfacing with 6e anyway.  Even Level Up, as compatible as it is with 5e, is mostly making material for Level Up.


----------



## mamba

Micah Sweet said:


> That's why the Paizo thing confuses me.  Paizo doesn't make products for 5e.



they recently released an adventure path for 5e, with plans for more


----------



## Dausuul

FormerLurker said:


> Pathfinder and Paizo is in a harder place. Making a new ruleset takes a loooong time. They spent a year playtesting PF2 and likely another year or two preceding designing the rules. And during the lead to PF2 they could still sell product to pay for office space and the staff making the game. There's no way they have the resources to just design rules for a year or two.



According to Paizo, PF2 is not actually reliant on the OGL. The whole game was written from scratch. They wanted an open license so that they could support their own 3PP community, and various factors led them to stick with the Wizards OGL rather than create their own (costs of paying the lawyers to draft it, not wanting to risk confusion between the Wizards OGL and a theoretical new Paizo one, etc.).

If the Wizards OGL went up in smoke, the only effect on Paizo would be that they would have to create their own OGL so that Pathfinder 3PPs could continue to use it.

At least, that's how Paizo tells it. I am neither a lawyer nor familiar with Pathfinder, so I can't judge whether their assessment of their legal exposure is right.


----------



## rcade

FormerLurker said:


> Pathfinder and Paizo is in a harder place. Making a new ruleset takes a loooong time. They spent a year playtesting PF2 and likely another year or two preceding designing the rules. And during the lead to PF2 they could still sell product to pay for office space and the staff making the game. There's no way they have the resources to just design rules for a year or two.



Paizo wouldn't lose all revenue overnight after Hasbro launched an attempt to kill all SRD-derived content. Products already produced would likely continue to be sold. Any attempt by Hasbro to stop sales of Paizo's existing products, which were produced under a license that both sides agree was valid at the time they were published, would be a hellacious and long court battle.

Among its other responses to the crisis that Hasbro created, Paizo could use Kickstarter to fund development of its own in-house FRPG and SFRPG that weren't derived from the SRD. The company is really good at building and supporting its community of players.


----------



## FormerLurker

Jack Daniel said:


> I still have yet to hear any compelling evidence that v1.1 _can _touch v1.0(a) in the way everybody fears.
> 
> If there's language in v1.1 that says v1.0 is dead, that's rough… for anyone who is a party to v1.1. For anyone who is not, v1.1 might as well not exist, except to the extent that any duly designated Open Game Content can be re-used by anyone publishing under any version of the OGL.
> 
> And if it's true that v1.1 doesn't actually address Open Game Content (instead referring to "Licensed Content" in its language), then that makes v1.1 even _less _relevant to anyone who wants to continue publishing under v1.0.



There's the lawyer here and the reporter at Gizmodo who stated that the new license explicitly de-authorizes the old. 
WotC clearly believes they can touch the old OGL. Whether or not all the fans agree is largely irrelevant...


----------



## jerryrice4949

FormerLurker said:


> There's the lawyer here and the reporter at Gizmodo who stated that the new license explicitly de-authorizes the old.
> WotC clearly believes they can touch the old OGL. Whether or not all the fans agree is largely irrelevant...



But do they want a protracted legal battle.  Me thinks not.  That is not a way to kick off a new movie and a new edition.


----------



## overgeeked

jerryrice4949 said:


> But do they want a protracted slow ham battle.  Me thinks not.  That is not a way to kick off a new movie and a new edition.



WotC picked this fight. Clearly they do want this negativity to kick off the new movie and new edition. Not even out-of-touch corporate execs could be deluded enough to think fans would react to this positively.


----------



## FormerLurker

rcade said:


> The use of the D&D name and non-SRD D&D IP, the opportunity to create products that launch at the same time as the next edition, cooperative marketing and a lot of other incentives. I don't think the part of D&D that's in the SRD has anything close to the value of the parts that aren't.
> 
> The 25% revenue deal in the draft license doesn't mean Hasbro would require that much in individual deals.



Use of the D&D name would weaken the WotC trademark. And WotC doesn't want unofficial books being mistake for official ones. Launch day products are nice, but that's a short term perk, and most tend to be low quality as the 3PP can't keep up with official changes. 

But all these perks really require WotC to give up something to get almost nothing in return. And require individual negotiation. It's easier to make a sweeping change that affects everyone and negotiate for exceptions. 


jerryrice4949 said:


> WoTC could offer access to D&D Beyond and whatever VTT they are working on.  That presumably would provide access to an audience some 3PP don’t reach typically.



I think the cost in workhours of adding content to the VTT might be more than they'll make for some 3PP.
And they don't want the 3PP to see "official."


----------



## rcade

Dausuul said:


> According to Paizo, PF2 is not actually reliant on the OGL. The whole game was written from scratch.



I don't have the final edition, but the Playtest edition of PF2 has a Section 15 that starts with the System Reference Document from WOTC, which means it is derived from the SRD and reliant on the OGL for the right to publish. Everything I've ever bought for Pathfinder has the same.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

rcade said:


> Paizo wouldn't lose all revenue overnight after Hasbro launched an attempt to kill all SRD-derived content. Products already produced would likely continue to be sold. Any attempt by Hasbro to stop sales of Paizo's existing products, which were produced under a license that both sides agree was valid at the time they were published, would be a hellacious and long court battle.
> 
> Among its other responses to the crisis that Hasbro created, Paizo could use Kickstarter to fund development of its own in-house FRPG and SFRPG that weren't derived from the SRD. The company is really good at building and supporting its community of players.



Paizo SHOULD by my understanding be able to produce nothing new but still sell everything produced... the issue is that wont hold a company long.
If I were Paizo I would be at WotC every day asking for a private deal... I have out lined elsewere a few times how I would figure my starting offer and what my limit would be... but if they wont budge, I would try to fight it... but I would brace for a big loss.

I don't have the numbers on what fighting this would cost, someone else said 2-4 million and a year or two... if during that time Paizo was still ordered to follow the new rules until the case is settled they could not publish anything new in that time... I know go fund me's would spring up and some kind of system neutral book would most likely go up on kickstarter that was really just a way to ask fans for help... I am sure there are big friends that could throw big money... but 2 mill plus no new books for even 1 year seems like even if they win they may have to go bankrupt.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FormerLurker said:


> There's the lawyer here and the reporter at Gizmodo who stated that the new license explicitly de-authorizes the old.
> WotC clearly believes they can touch the old OGL. Whether or not all the fans agree is largely irrelevant...



I wonder though if putting it in the new one is a mistake.. instead I would think a separate document... but I'm not a lawyer (really need a hot key for that phrase)


----------



## Morrus

GMforPowergamers said:


> Paizo SHOULD by my understanding be able to produce nothing new but still sell everything produced...



You undertsand it better than the rest of us, then, the lawyers included!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

rcade said:


> I don't have the final edition, but the Playtest edition of PF2 has a Section 15 that starts with the System Reference Document from WOTC, which means it is derived from the SRD and reliant on the OGL for the right to publish. Everything I've ever bought for Pathfinder has the same.



many games started as OGL "Not D&D" and grew and changed over the years... I wonder what the amount of change is needed to say "This isn't your game anymore"
again my problem is the legal steps needed to do so could be unattainable unless a big company (like hasbro) bought one of the others... and I can't imagine that is a wish of anyone.


----------



## rcade

FormerLurker said:


> Use of the D&D name would weaken the WotC trademark.



I don't understand this logic. Hasbro/WOTC has licensed out the D&D trademark many times, including on roleplaying games such as Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, which was published in 2002 by Arthaus and Sword & Sorcery Studios under license from WOTC. (That book has the Dungeons & Dragons logo on the cover; another SRD-based Warcraft TTRPG that came later does not.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> You undertsand it better than the rest of us, then, the lawyers included!



hence the 'should' and I am baseing this on reading what the other lawyers wrote... but I still wouldn't if I were them without talking to wotc


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> they recently released an adventure path for 5e, with plans for more



Fair enough, but their main lines are still PF2 and SF.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> Paizo SHOULD by my understanding be able to produce nothing new but still sell everything produced... the issue is that wont hold a company long.
> If I were Paizo I would be at WotC every day asking for a private deal... I have out lined elsewere a few times how I would figure my starting offer and what my limit would be... but if they wont budge, I would try to fight it... but I would brace for a big loss.




I don't know what they ought to do, or what private conversations they have had that might be shaping their decision making, but this does not strike me as the move to make. If I were Paizo what I would be looking into now with lawyers is how many changes need to be made to pathfinder to avoid using the OGL and make sure they aren't stepping on any IP issues with WOTC. They've already changed a number of things from what I have been told by Pathfinder fans in my weekly game, so I would imagine if they can just shift things a bit further in this direction or that direction, they will still have a game that appeals to the core D&D audience but isn't bound by the OGL. Again though I don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes. This is just my intuition. I could be incredibly wrong.


----------



## FormerLurker

jerryrice4949 said:


> But do they want a protracted legal battle.  Me thinks not.  That is not a way to kick off a new movie and a new edition.



I think they're hoping/ expecting Paizo and the others will just roll over and not fight.


overgeeked said:


> WotC picked this fight. Clearly they do want this negativity to kick off the new movie and new edition. Not even out-of-touch corporate execs could be deluded enough to think fans would react to this positively.



I think this is more Hasbro and upper WotC management that doesn't care much about D&D beyond the numbers. 
And they likely expected 99% of fans to just shrug and say "whatever." Especially as it's a lengthy legal document and no one reads the Terms of Service.

And to be fair, this is big news here, but ENWorld skews old and most fans still remember 3.0. It's getting a lot less traction on r/DnD/ and there it's mostly satire posts. And any D&D fan that doesn't follow the game on social media or read news about it is likely entirely uniformed, which is likely a high percentage.
That this was picked up by i09 and became a big story that was shared repeatedly was unexpected. 

But it's also worth remembering this document was written in mid-December, likely BEFORE the early fuss that prompted them to make the blog post on dndbeyond (OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D) and didn't take effect last week when it was supposed to according to the leak. So there's every possibility WotC was already reconsidering this prior to the leak.


----------



## FormerLurker

rcade said:


> I don't understand this logic. Hasbro/WOTC has licensed out the D&D trademark many times, including on roleplaying games such as Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, which was published in 2002 by Arthaus and Sword & Sorcery Studios under license from WOTC. (That book has the Dungeons & Dragons logo on the cover; another SRD-based Warcraft TTRPG that came later does not.)



Doing something once isn't the same as doing it five or six times. 
Especially given the 3PP glut in the early 2000s and the waves of low quality products that flooded the market. They might be hesitant to repeat that mistake.


----------



## overgeeked

FormerLurker said:


> I think they're hoping/ expecting Paizo and the others will just roll over and not fight.
> 
> I think this is more Hasbro and upper WotC management that doesn't care much about D&D beyond the numbers.
> And they likely expected 99% of fans to just shrug and say "whatever." Especially as it's a lengthy legal document and no one reads the Terms of Service.
> 
> And to be fair, this is big news here, but ENWorld skews old and most fans still remember 3.0. It's getting a lot less traction on r/DnD/ and there it's mostly satire posts. And any D&D fan that doesn't follow the game on social media or read news about it is likely entirely uniformed, which is likely a high percentage.
> That this was picked up by i09 and became a big story that was shared repeatedly was unexpected.
> 
> But it's also worth remembering this document was written in mid-December, likely BEFORE the early fuss that prompted them to make the blog post on dndbeyond (OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D) and didn't take effect last week when it was supposed to according to the leak. So there's every possibility WotC was already reconsidering this prior to the leak.



Weird. Because it’s getting a lot of traction on all the other D&D-related subreddits.


----------



## rcade

FormerLurker said:


> Doing something once isn't the same as doing it five or six times.
> Especially given the 3PP glut in the early 2000s and the waves of low quality products that flooded the market. They might be hesitant to repeat that mistake.



The original question was "what does Hasbro have of value to offer companies like Critical Role and Paizo to get them to give it 25% of revenue?"

Now it has become "why would Hasbro offer something that's so valuable?"

Not sure how we got here. The second question answers the first.


----------



## Jack Daniel

FormerLurker said:


> There's the lawyer here and the reporter at Gizmodo who stated that the new license explicitly de-authorizes the old.
> WotC clearly believes they can touch the old OGL. Whether or not all the fans agree is largely irrelevant...




Yes, we're all well aware of the details.

What I mean is, since it's _language contained within the new license_ that explicitly de-authorizes the old one, you have to agree to the terms of the new license for that language to apply to anything that you do. 

Consider:

I have content published under OGL v1.0a. So I've agreed to the terms of OGL v1.0a. Publishing under the license does that.

I do not have content published under OGL v1.1. (Nor have I jumped through any other hypothetical hoops that may be involved in agreeing to the license: registration, reporting, etc.) Therefore, I have _not_ agreed to OGL v.1.1.

If I have not agreed to OGL v1.1, its language is irrelevant to me. I have not agreed to its terms; I am not bound by them; therefore, OGL v.10a is _not_ "explicitly de-authorized" for me.

As near as I can tell, this seems to be the state of affairs for everyone who has published content under OGL v1.0(a) in the past, and it will remain the state of affairs for everyone who publishes content under OGL v1.0a in the future but does not publish anything under OGL v1.1.


----------



## FormerLurker

overgeeked said:


> Weird. Because it’s getting a lot of traction on all the other D&D-related subreddits.



It is being talked about. But the main subreddit is really full of fans, who aren't pausing their art, cosplay, maps, and table stories. So the OGL discussion gets buried. 
The other ones are smaller and have less traffic so the OGLs stay on the top longer. 

But even then, internet outrage is common and fleeting. People get upset, rage, and then get distracted by the next subject of their Two-Minute Hate. Whether or not this will still be a story on the Reddits and geeky news sites in a week is unknown.


----------



## FormerLurker

GMforPowergamers said:


> Paizo SHOULD by my understanding be able to produce nothing new but still sell everything produced... the issue is that wont hold a company long.



#NotALawyer of course. But if they published something using the OGL they're using copyrighted/ derivative text. If the OGL 1.0a goes away, then they no longer have permission to do so. At which point, selling that material becomes a violation of copyright.
Stores might be able to get away with selling books, but Paizo _should_ recall all their old material and pulp it.


----------



## Reynard

Jack Daniel said:


> Yes, we're all well aware of the details.
> 
> What I mean is, since it's _language contained within the new license_ that explicitly de-authorizes the old one, you have to agree to the terms of the new license for that language to apply to anything that you do.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> I have content published under OGL v1.0a. So I've agreed to the terms of OGL v1.0a. Publishing under the license does that.
> 
> I do not have content published under OGL v1.1. (Nor have I jumped through any other hypothetical hoops that may be involved in agreeing to the license: registration, reporting, etc.) Therefore, I have _not_ agreed to OGL v.1.1.
> 
> If I have not agreed to OGL v1.1, its language is irrelevant to me. I have not agreed to its terms; I am not bound by them; therefore, OGL v.10a is _not_ "explicitly de-authorized" for me.
> 
> As near as I can tell, this seems to be the state of affairs for everyone who has published content under OGL v1.0(a) in the past, and it will remain the state of affairs for everyone who publishes content under OGL v1.0a in the future but does not publish anything under OGL v1.1.



I think it is more nuanced than that. If OGL 1.1 is an update of OGL 1.0a that also happens to "de-authorize" 1.0a as well as eliminate Section 9, then things get muddy. Hence all the disagreement between the lawyers just on this site, let alone actual lawyers working for WotC and 3PPs.


----------



## overgeeked

Gavin Norman of OSE fame has weighed in.

“As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is actually legal for them to do, under the terms of the license, is open to interpretation.

A huge number of games, including our own Old-School Essentials, are founded on the Open Game License. If that license were revoked, such games would be in jeopardy. The leaked version of the new OGL includes some extremely unappealing terms, most notably granting Wizards a "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license" to use content released under the OGL "for any purpose".

Needless to say, we are making various contingency plans in anticipation of the official release of the new OGL. Once the official release happens and we've had time to fully digest its implications, we will announce any possible alterations to our publication schedule.”









						OGL v1.1
					

As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is...




					necroticgnome.com


----------



## Morrus

Jack Daniel said:


> Yes, we're all well aware of the details.
> 
> What I mean is, since it's _language contained within the new license_ that explicitly de-authorizes the old one, you have to agree to the terms of the new license for that language to apply to anything that you do.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> I have content published under OGL v1.0a. So I've agreed to the terms of OGL v1.0a. Publishing under the license does that.
> 
> I do not have content published under OGL v1.1. (Nor have I jumped through any other hypothetical hoops that may be involved in agreeing to the license: registration, reporting, etc.) Therefore, I have _not_ agreed to OGL v.1.1.
> 
> If I have not agreed to OGL v1.1, its language is irrelevant to me. I have not agreed to its terms; I am not bound by them; therefore, OGL v.10a is _not_ "explicitly de-authorized" for me.
> 
> As near as I can tell, this seems to be the state of affairs for everyone who has published content under OGL v1.0(a) in the past, and it will remain the state of affairs for everyone who publishes content under OGL v1.0a in the future but does not publish anything under OGL v1.1.



Sure, but (assuming revocation is indeed valid at all, which is in doubt) they can post notice of revocation elswehere as well as in the license. I don't think that's the barrier here. You don't have to _agree_ to the revocation, if it proves to be valid. Which most are hoping it won't.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> Gavin Norman of OSE fame has weighed in.
> 
> “As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is actually legal for them to do, under the terms of the license, is open to interpretation.
> 
> A huge number of games, including our own Old-School Essentials, are founded on the Open Game License. If that license were revoked, such games would be in jeopardy. The leaked version of the new OGL includes some extremely unappealing terms, most notably granting Wizards a "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license" to use content released under the OGL "for any purpose".
> 
> Needless to say, we are making various contingency plans in anticipation of the official release of the new OGL. Once the official release happens and we've had time to fully digest its implications, we will announce any possible alterations to our publication schedule.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OGL v1.1
> 
> 
> As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necroticgnome.com



The OSR literally only exists because of the OGL. It must be nerve wracking for those creators and companies.


----------



## darjr

Well isn’t this ironic.

Look what WotC sent Linda.

Just a bit of humor.


----------



## Jack Daniel

Morrus said:


> Sure, but (assuming revocation is indeed valid at all, which is in doubt) they can post notice of revocation elswehere as well as in the license. I don't think that's the barrier here. You don't have to _agree_ to the revocation, if it proves to be valid. Which most are hoping it won't.




I get that, but since there's no mechanism for revocation within the language of v1.0, it would seem that the only way WotC could ever compel anyone to treat v1.0 as revoked is by getting them to agree to a new license: GSL or OGL v1.1.

And if I don't want to agree to a new license, I don't have to look at it, I don't have to read it, I don't have to think about it, I don't have to know about it, I don't even have to admit that it exists in the ontological sense.

As for trying to revoke 1.0 without a new agreement, what does WotC think they can do? Stand up on a chair in the office and shout, "I… declare… REVOCATION!!!", Michael Scott style? Legally, that means about as much as a preacher on a street-corner declaring that The End is Near.

The 3PP community is too big and decentralized for a blanket revocation of OGL v1 to ever have a hope and a prayer of holding up. It wouldn't just be stuffing toothpaste back in the tube or a genie back in its bottle; it would be compelling Maxwell's Demon to break the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Morrus

Jack Daniel said:


> I get that, but since there's no mechanism for revocation within the language of v1.0, it would seem that the only way WotC could ever compel anyone to treat v1.0 as revoked is by getting them to agree to a new license: GSL or OGL v1.1.



Well that's the whole debate, isn't it? Can they deaathorize it or not? We're no closer to knowing that than we were when this broke last week. We all certainly hope they can't, but finding out for sure means a court ruling.


----------



## FormerLurker

Jack Daniel said:


> Yes, we're all well aware of the details.
> 
> What I mean is, since it's _language contained within the new license_ that explicitly de-authorizes the old one, you have to agree to the terms of the new license for that language to apply to anything that you do.



Right. But this is a legal issue, not a debate. "Compelling evidence" isn't a logical argument or straight facts, but a precedent set by a judge regarding a related case. 
Hasbro's lawyers seem to think they can argue this point and win.


----------



## rgard

FormerLurker said:


> Doing something once isn't the same as doing it five or six times.
> Especially given the 3PP glut in the early 2000s and the waves of low quality products that flooded the market. They might be hesitant to repeat that mistake.



How about the waves of great quality products that flooded the market?  WotC would never have produced those products.  The hobby will be diminished without those people making content useable with D&D.


----------



## rgard

FormerLurker said:


> Right. But this is a legal issue, not a debate. "Compelling evidence" isn't a logical argument or straight facts, but a precedent set by a judge regarding a related case.
> Hasbro's lawyers seem to think they can argue this point and win.



I suspect it's more like "Hasbro's lawyers seem to think nobody will argue back."


----------



## Jack Daniel

Morrus said:


> Well that's the whole debate, isn't it? Can they deaathorize it or not? We're no closer to knowing that than we were when this broke last week. We all certainly hope they can't, but finding out for sure means a court ruling.



And absent any rulings or injunctions or other court orders… absolutely nothing happens to those who keep using v1.0.

(No judgement on those who feel it isn't worth the risk, of course, and bow out of the suddenly chilled environment of their own volition. I'm not in their position, I can't comment on that.)


----------



## Morrus

Jack Daniel said:


> And absent any rulings or injunctions or other court orders… absolutely nothing happens to those who keep using v1.0.



With respect, I don't think the OGL community of publishers is going to be taking legal advice from a forum post, however certain you are that you're right. Many of them, and their lawyers, are clearly not so sure at this point.


----------



## ChaosOS

Regarding legality, "if we win the legal fight we're fine" is not a great business plan when you could be fully bankrupted by a court ruling.


----------



## Jack Daniel

Morrus said:


> With respect, I don't think the OGL community of publishers is going to be taking legal advice from a forum post, however certain you are that you're right. Many of them, and their lawyers, are clearly not so sure at this point.



With respect, you're the one who just conflated a forum post stating a rather banal observation (tantamount to "if nothing happens, then nothing happens") with legal advice.


----------



## mangamuscle

overgeeked said:


> They wouldn’t need to as 1.1 (according to the leak) permits WotC to *change the terms at will with 30 days’ notice*.



If said clause is included in the individual contracts sent to specific members of the creative community, this will be no doubt the "Ours Gaming Licence" indeed _cohum_

OGL 1.1 to rule them all, OGL 1.1 to find them,
OGL 1.1 to bring them all and in the legalese bind them
In the Land of Hasbro where the Lawyers lie.


----------



## Morrus

mangamuscle said:


> If said clause is included in the individual contracts sent to specific members of the creative community, this will be no doubt the "Ours Gaming Licence" indeed _cohum_
> 
> OGL 1.1 to rule them all, OGL 1.1 to find them,
> OGL 1.1 to bring them all and in the legalese bind them
> In the Land of Hasbro where the Lawyers lie.



Yeah, that's the biggest problem with the license. They can literally change the terms to say they now own my dog, and I can't even sue them. That's pretty egregious. Nobody can sign an agreement which one party has the ability to unilaterally change in any way at will.


----------



## ChaosOS

There's a lot of clear material harms to WotC even beyond community backlash (which has extended FAR beyond Enworld, y'all underestimate the OGL companies that have popped up in the last few years and are popular with non-Enworld audiences) - their products rely on freelancers, many of whom would have to leave the industry entirely. Almost all of their current designers came up from the OGL community. And of course, some of the OGL folks like MCDM have large, loyal fanbases that may prefer to follow them over sticking with D&D, even without accounting for feeling betrayed by/spiteful towards WotC. Hopefully the management will see why this is bad for them.


----------



## Morrus

ChaosOS said:


> y'all underestimate the OGL companies that have popped up in the last few years



No we don't.


----------



## mamba

jerryrice4949 said:


> But do they want a protracted legal battle.  Me thinks not.  That is not a way to kick off a new movie and a new edition.



they knew they would have one, they did it anyway, so yeah, they are ok with that


----------



## Morrus

They did settle with Weis & Hickman last year, and I'm sure Weis & Hickman's resources don't match those of Hasbro. Same with GF9, IIRC. The legal process isn't quite as dystopian as some are painting it!


----------



## ChaosOS

Morrus said:


> No we don't.



Was responding to the people saying "Only Enworld cares", not the lead designer of several books on my shelf


----------



## mamba

rcade said:


> I don't have the final edition, but the Playtest edition of PF2 has a Section 15 that starts with the System Reference Document from WOTC, which means it is derived from the SRD and reliant on the OGL for the right to publish. Everything I've ever bought for Pathfinder has the same.



having it and being reliant on it are two separate things. Until ‘yesterday’ there was literally no downside to including this, that might no longer be true soon


----------



## vagabundo

Jack Daniel said:


> And absent any rulings or injunctions or other court orders… absolutely nothing happens to those who keep using v1.0.
> 
> (No judgement on those who feel it isn't worth the risk, of course, and bow out of the suddenly chilled environment of their own volition. I'm not in their position, I can't comment on that.)




Its more like having the sword of Damocles over your head. Who knows if it will be you that WotC lawyers will strike to make the example. If they decide to go that route. They might thy the softly softly approach, no legal battles, but over time collect big players into the fold. Let the other leave so they have more of the DND field to themselves.

Its a very poor strategy, and shows poor understanding of the TTRPG community. This is more a power move from the corporate world. Its not going to end how they thing it ends.


----------



## darjr

mamba said:


> having it and being reliant on it are two separate things. Until ‘yesterday’ there was literally no downside to including this, that might no longer be true soon



No might about it.

The OGL 1.0 dependency is now a liability. Even going forward.


----------



## mamba

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough, but their main lines are still PF2 and SF.



but they might not need to negotiate about those at all and simply stop including the OGL 1.0 in future products. Paizo seems to think so and I am in no position to say either way


----------



## mamba

darjr said:


> No might about it.
> 
> The OGL 1.0 dependency is now a liability. Even going forward.



actually, for the foreseeable future you are still better off when you include it than when you don’t. Nothing has been decided just because WotC publishes an official 1.1

Including it still offers more protection than not doing so, and seems to have some other beneficial side effects like protecting you from being sued for copyright violation, which are apparently more expensive to fight


----------



## Umbran

rgard said:


> I suspect it's more like "Hasbro's lawyers seem to think nobody will argue back."




Slighly different - Hasbro's lawyers are not terribly concerned they'll lose in court, which is not the same thing.

Folks can argue back, but unless they can commit the time and resources to the lawsuit that WotC/Hasbro can, and win, their arguing back is irrelevant to the lawyers.  Anything less is a matter for Public Relations, not the legal team.


----------



## rgard

Umbran said:


> Slighly different - Hasbro's lawyers are not terribly concerned they'll lose in court, which is not the same thing.



I disagree though it's hard for you or me to know what they are thinking.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know what they ought to do, or what private conversations they have had that might be shaping their decision making, but this does not strike me as the move to make. If I were Paizo what I would be looking into now with lawyers is how many changes need to be made to pathfinder to avoid using the OGL and make sure they aren't stepping on any IP issues with WOTC. They've already changed a number of things from what I have been told by Pathfinder fans in my weekly game, so I would imagine if they can just shift things a bit further in this direction or that direction, they will still have a game that appeals to the core D&D audience but isn't bound by the OGL. Again though I don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes. This is just my intuition. I could be incredibly wrong.



I only played PF1 a handful of times (2 campaigns maybe 10 sessions between them) so i don't know modern PF2... but I know RIFTS and it is similar in many ways to D&D without being a D&D game


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> With respect, I don't think the OGL community of publishers is going to be taking legal advice from a forum post, however certain you are that you're right. Many of them, and their lawyers, are clearly not so sure at this point.



I mean there is a saying about getting what you paid for... and you know free advice and all


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> Yeah, that's the biggest problem with the license. They can literally change the terms to say they now own my dog, and I can't even sue them. That's pretty egregious. Nobody can sign an agreement which one party has the ability to unilaterally change in any way at will.



that is legal advice I bet all lawyers on here or that we know IRL will agree with, "don't sign things others can then add to without your consent"


----------



## darjr

mamba said:


> actually, for the foreseeable future you are still better off when you include it than when you don’t. Nothing has been decided just because WotC publishes an official 1.1
> 
> Including it still offers more protection than not doing so, and seems to have some other beneficial side effects like protecting you from being sued for copyright violation, which are apparently more expensive to fight



So safe Paizo, the pioneers of 3pp OGL in a big way, are thinking of removing it from PF2.

So safe that Christians latest article is full of people delaying projects.

So safe that ENWorld bumped up the release of a Kickstarter book to TODAY to make sure they can get it in peoples hands.


----------



## ChaosOS

Damn


----------



## darjr

Image capture of the above tweet


----------



## jerryrice4949

I feel for 3PP.   If I am a case example it could be very bad for them.  I buy a lot of 3PP 5E compatible products and support a lot of kickstarters.  Though I don’t care for system neutral products except for rare exceptions and tend only to buy and support 5E compatible or adjacent products.  I don’t see myself switching to a new system. Just as likely to take a brake for D&D altogether.  I just see me spending a lot less on TTRPGs.


----------



## ersatzphil

jerryrice4949 said:


> I don’t see myself switching to a new system. Just as likely to take a brake for D&D altogether.  I just see me spending a lot less on TTRPGs.



 I suspect that’s going to be a very common sentiment.


----------



## martinlochsen

It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.


----------



## Bohandas

Does it seem to anyone else that aggressive selling out has become the order of the day


----------



## jerryrice4949

ersatzphil said:


> I suspect that’s going to be a very common sentiment.



Yup.  I was going to back this project for example but now they are switching to a custom system instead of 5E.  So I am out.


----------



## Bohandas

martinlochsen said:


> It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
> We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
> Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.



This would be the best case scenario if the changes they're talking about do get made.

If Hasbro makes these changes then they absolutely deserve to be abandoned by their player base, and this is something that could make that happen.


----------



## Yaarel

martinlochsen said:


> It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
> We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
> Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.



In other words, crowdsourcing lawyers to design a new license.

A community collaboration to generate its content, perhaps in an Open Gaming Content wiki format.


----------



## jerryrice4949

martinlochsen said:


> It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
> We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
> Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.



Sounds like a great idea but potentially expensive.  Then what if it doesn’t off.  There are risks.


----------



## martinlochsen

jerryrice4949 said:


> Sounds like a great idea but potentially expensive.  Then what if it doesn’t off.  There are risks.



Yeah, I'm not in the industry so I'm just dreaming here. Just throwing out an idea, that's all. I would most definitely support it if it happened though. Kickstarter, physical copies, MICROTRANSACTIONS. You name it. I'll pay.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Well isn’t this ironic.
> 
> Look what WotC sent Linda.
> 
> Just a bit of humor.
> 
> View attachment 271713



The plot thickens. That appears to be a holiday gift pack sent around to several people. And it seems to include at least two designs swiped from other artists and crafters. Here’s to hoping someone tweets the video to Linda.


----------



## Enrahim2

martinlochsen said:


> It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
> We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
> Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.





Yaarel said:


> In other words, crowdsourcing lawyers to design a new license.
> 
> A community collaboration to generate its content, perhaps in an Open Gaming Content wiki format.



Seem like DMDave is already on the case, and have the seed quite ready by the looks of it: https://www.patreon.com/posts/creator-original-76891481


----------



## Bohandas

Ultimately the problem here is that intellectual property law exists. If it didn't then there wouldn't be a damn thing WotC could do and everything would be a lot cheaper

"How would they make money in this scenario?" I hear you ask. The answer is it doesn't matter, without copyright law the game's availability wouldn't affected by whether or not the company goes under


----------



## kenada

Saw this over on RPG Pub. Tenkar is now saying the changes won’t be opt-in.


----------



## darjr

Five independent sources now for them.
The New OGL 1.1 Is Pretty Horrible, But It Will Be Very Hard to Enforce ...  #dnd #ogl live now


----------



## Cadence

Bohandas said:


> Ultimately the problem here is that intellectual property law exists. If it didn't then there wouldn't be a damn thing WotC could do and everything would be a lot cheaper
> 
> "How would they make money in this scenario?" I hear you ask. The answer is it doesn't matter, without copyright law the game's availability wouldn't affected by whether or not the company goes under




A question might be, how would writers and movie makers and lots of other artists make money in a world where copying is trivial and cheap?


----------



## Remathilis

martinlochsen said:


> It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
> We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
> Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.



I'm not one to never say never, but I don't have much faith in such a product. First, someone would have to spearhead it. Someone with the clout and resources to get people to listen. There are companies that kind of clout, but they all have their own RPG systems. I don't think they would make a competing game to challenge their own, so what you might get is companies willing to use their games as refuge for companies that don't have a devoted system. So CR might join with Pathfinder, Kobold Press cuts a deal with Green Ronin, and you end up with a collection of medium sized RPG ecosystems competing in the shadow of D&D's brand juggernaut. 

Secondly, even if you COULD convince them to all dump their own games for a unified 3ppRPG, there is absolutely no consensus on what that looks like. Rules heavy or light? Old school play or new? Immersive or deadly? The only thing much of the OGL has in common is they feel a certain need isn't being filled by WotC. What that need is and how to fill it differ wildly. 

Third, D&D isn't going away. Even in the doomsday scenario of 1.1, One D&D is going to be successful. It has movies, comics, tshirts, and all manner of branding behind it. Hasbro can use its weight to make sure D&D is front and center in every book, game and hobby shop in America. And assuming it follows the playtest we're seeing, it's not going to have a 4e like "this is too different" reaction this time. 5e is beloved and 1D is not reinventing the wheel. D&D will still be massive and everyone else will be fighting for 2nd. 

Honestly, if WotC decides to barrel through with this, I don't see there being much that can be done except find an alternative system you like and stick with it. Hasbro has its guns trained on WotC and unless both MTG and D&D spectacularly tank in the next few years, this is the method going forward.


----------



## Reynard

martinlochsen said:


> It would be cool if the entire OGL community just got together and started a project to create a new game. It would be based on a long playtest/feedback process to be sure to have as wide support among players as possible concerning rules and systems and such. It would be headed by an experienced designer. It would be published under an IP belonging to all the participating companies, but come with a true OGL attached so anyone could join the party later (though not using copyrighted names and so on).
> We would have a new baseline rpg with a lot of support in the community that could not be taken away and that new talent would spring up around.
> Yeah. I get it. Not practical. Still. Would be awesome.



There are literally hundreds of existing games not built on the OGL. Any one of them could have overtaken D&D at any time. None of them have.


----------



## mamba

rgard said:


> I disagree though it's hard for you or me to know what they are thinking.



I assume they are thinking that their deep pockets help a lot towards coating over how weak of a case they have


----------



## mamba

jerryrice4949 said:


> Sounds like a great idea but potentially expensive.  Then what if it doesn’t off.  There are risks.



kickstart it, see how that goes


----------



## Yaarel

It seems inevitable:

a class-action lawsuit against Hasbro-WotC.

Everyone who has ever published OGL 1.0a SRD content on a website, has standing in this class-action lawsuit.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> There are literally hundreds of existing games not built on the OGL. Any one of them could have overtaken D&D at any time. None of them have.



yep, because there was little incentive to switch in the past


----------



## ChaosOS

"OGL folks should just make a new game" seems like a very silly suggestion when there's already a wide range of D&D alternatives that would be way less work to switch to, in addition to the obvious issue that the reason there's a bunch of OGL companies is they each have their own taste. It would be good if people actually sat down and played non-D&D TTRPGs like PF2, Savage Worlds, and others!


----------



## Remathilis

mamba said:


> yep, because there was little incentive to switch in the past



Fourth Edition was the perfect storm of problems for D&D; a system that was very polarizing, the GSL, and failure of their digital initiative, and an exodus of 3pp support, and the best Paizo could do was match them for a while. (No, I'm not getting into that debate again). Even if every person upset with the news right now switched, they'd all switch to dozen different separate games which would never rival D&D.

I don't even think there is a game on the market right now that is aimed to take D&D on in that position. Pathfinder might have some name recognition among enthusiasts, but PF2e is very different from D&D in design goals. It's not as easy as "I'll play the game that looks like the game I was already playing" which is how it garnered many of its original base. This isn't "We don't have Coke, do you want a Pepsi?" its "We don't have Coke, do you want Diet Mtn Dew or Canada Dry?"


----------



## martinlochsen

So the main point of my idea was the part where there was extensive surveying and playtesting (like what was done prior to 5e) to try and make a game that as many people as possible could get behind. I do realise there are games in existence other than d&d.


----------



## ersatzphil

Remathilis said:


> Third, D&D isn't going away. Even in the doomsday scenario of 1.1, One D&D is going to be successful. It has movies, comics, tshirts, and all manner of branding behind it. Hasbro can use its weight to make sure D&D is front and center in every book, game and hobby shop in America. And assuming it follows the playtest we're seeing, it's not going to have a 4e like "this is too different" reaction this time. 5e is beloved and 1D is not reinventing the wheel. D&D will still be massive and everyone else will be fighting for 2nd.



I really wonder if the long-term strategy is to transform "D&D" from a publishing house into a game company, a la Blizzard. IE. regardless of what's happening in the game, the player in the VTT now has a +1 sword because they paid $9.99 for it.


----------



## Random Task

It's finally GURPS Dungeon Fantasy's time to shine!


----------



## martinlochsen

To me at least, it seem like the biggest problem in th OGL scene is that it's so fractured. Perhaps if everyone was pulling more in the same direction, it would have a stronger force. They wouldn't necessarily have to scrap their other games either. That market would still be there.
I don't really see the point in arguing this either. Either it happens or it doesn't, and I guess most proba ly it doesn't. Either way,  our opinion on whwether it should or shouldn't doesn't matter.


----------



## ChaosOS

New, better petition not started by gamergaters






						#OpenDND
					






					www.opendnd.games


----------



## Art Waring

ChaosOS said:


> petition not started by gamergaters



can you please explain? should I be taking down the petitions or something?

what does this have to do with the petitions?


----------



## Yaarel

Movies like "Dorkness Rising" depend legally on OGL 1.0a.


----------



## ChaosOS

Art Waring said:


> can you please explain? should I be taking down the petitions or something?
> 
> what does this have to do with the petitions?



The change.org petition that got passed around was started by some of the uglier parts of the community


----------



## Art Waring

ChaosOS said:


> The change.org petition that got passed around was started by some of the uglier parts of the community



Ok I didn't know that, can you please let me know which ones those are so I can take them down?

Edit: The petitions have been taken down. I didn't start any of the various petitions, I was trying to do something positive, thanks for not letting me know personally.


----------



## ChaosOS

James Desborough


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Random Task said:


> It's finally GURPS Dungeon Fantasy's time to shine!



Oh the brutality.

Poor old GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. You tried.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ChaosOS said:


> James Desborough



when I end up on the same side as some people I have to wonder if I should change sides...


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> Poor old GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. You tried.



I love GURPS, but I think Dungeon Fantasy was a missed occasion by SJ Games. It's very nice to have the system already tuned (since GURPS is more or less a toolkit), but they should (IMHO) have eased on the complexity. The basic framework of GURPS is actually quite sleek and fast, but it adds a ton of specific rules which are hard for beginners.


----------



## ChaosOS

Adam chiming in with some more opinions about the industry writ large.



GMforPowergamers said:


> when I end up on the same side as some people I have to wonder if I should change sides...



Up and downside of WotC creating a hub-and-spokes system is this hurts the ENTIRE system, they can be the villain without us needing to endorse everyone else who's been operating on the OGL.


----------



## darjr

Necrotic gnome makes an announcement. They are waiting to see what the final license will be and preparing.








						OGL v1.1
					

As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is...




					necroticgnome.com


----------



## mamba

Remathilis said:


> Fourth Edition was the perfect storm of problems for D&D; a system that was very polarizing, the GSL, and failure of their digital initiative, and an exodus of 3pp support, and the best Paizo could do was match them for a while.



yes, and that is plenty, I do not need WotC dead (at this point I would not mind either). If we get a TTRPG 30-40% the size of D&D, with a free and open license and good 3pp support, I use that.

Incidentally being just that again after 4e is what turned the D&D ship around...


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> yes, and that is plenty, I do not need WotC dead (at this point I would not mind either). If we get a 30-40% market share TTRPG  with a free and open license and good 3pp support, I use that.



I don't think that is remotely possible.


----------



## rcade

Reynard said:


> I don't think that is remotely possible.



Before Kickstarter would you have thought that TTRPGs could raise millions of dollars to create a new game?

When D&D Beyond launched would you have believed it could become worth $146 million?

These are strange times.


----------



## Reynard

rcade said:


> Before Kickstarter would you have thought that TTRPGs could raise millions of dollars to create a new game?
> 
> When D&D Beyond launched would you have believed it could become worth $146 million?
> 
> These are strange times.



Not strange enough to allow for a committee created RPG to somehow garner 40% of the market share.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> I don't think that is remotely possible.



I was referring to PF / 4e times, as that was the comparison. I am not suggesting we will get there, too early to see how anything shakes out


----------



## kenada

Why is it necessary to create a new game to replace D&D? Surely it would be better for the hobby if people were playing lots of different games.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

kenada said:


> Why is it necessary to create a new game to replace D&D? Surely it would be better for the hobby if people were playing lots of different games.



yes, but the other companies are not setup to make different non D&D games


----------



## Aldarc

kenada said:


> Why is it necessary to create a new game to replace D&D? Surely it would be better for the hobby if people were playing lots of different games.



D&D has seemingly conditioned people into believing the TTRPG industry plays by Highlander rules:


----------



## John R Davis

Ignore


----------



## humble minion

kenada said:


> Why is it necessary to create a new game to replace D&D? Surely it would be better for the hobby if people were playing lots of different games.




Paradoxically, the market dominance of D&D makes it easier to make a living in RPGs.  People are more likely to buy stuff for a familiar system, and if you're bringing out a niche supplement, it's much more viable if you release it as a niche supplement for a game with 85% market share, rather than a niche supplement for one of half a dozen games with 15% market share each.

There's a reason we're seeing so many publishers with their own house systems release 5e ports of their settings.  You open a huge new market for your product, and that can help keep the lights on.  Doctor Who and The One Ring are examples, but Space 1889 and even Green Ronin with Blue Rose have gone that path recently.

Edit: of course all the above applies only if D&D has a functional and acceptable OGL.


----------



## jerryrice4949

humble minion said:


> Paradoxically, the market dominance of D&D makes it easier to make a living in RPGs.  People are more likely to buy stuff for a familiar system, and if you're bringing out a niche supplement, it's much more viable if you release it as a niche supplement for a game with 85% market share, rather than a niche supplement for one of half a dozen games with 15% market share each.
> 
> There's a reason we're seeing so many publishers with their own house systems release 5e ports of their settings.  You open a huge new market for your product, and that can help keep the lights on.  Doctor Who and The One Ring are examples, but Space 1889 and even Green Ronin with Blue Rose have gone that path recently.



This plus quality has gone up.  More and better color art.


----------



## John R Davis

Would we really have to stick a 9000 word chunk at the end of our publications?
Was due to launch my next KS soon, and this is all making me slightly confused.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Some of the real irony is the many of the 3PP are just filling a niche left by WoTC due to their light release schedule and stale settings.


----------



## kenada

humble minion said:


> Paradoxically, the market dominance of D&D makes it easier to make a living in RPGs.  People are more likely to buy stuff for a familiar system, and if you're bringing out a niche supplement, it's much more viable if you release it as a niche supplement for a game with 85% market share, rather than a niche supplement for one of half a dozen games with 15% market share each.
> 
> There's a reason we're seeing so many publishers with their own house systems release 5e ports of their settings.  You open a huge new market for your product, and that can help keep the lights on.  Doctor Who and The One Ring are examples, but Space 1889 and even Green Ronin with Blue Rose have gone that path recently.



And yet other forms of gaming don’t have this problem. There are plenty of different video and board games, and people can make a living making new games instead of having to get by making supplements for the market leader game. If WotC disrupts things for us via OGL shenanigans, should all we want be a recreation of the status quo ante?


----------



## Incenjucar

kenada said:


> And yet other forms of gaming don’t have this problem. There are plenty of different video and board games, and people can make a living making new games instead of having to get by making supplements for the market leader game. If WotC disrupts things for us via OGL shenanigans, should all we want be a recreation of the status quo ante?



A lot of games are built using similar rulesets to each other, while changing a few specifics and the story of what's happening.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> Not strange enough to allow for a committee created RPG to somehow garner 40% of the market share.



?????

D&D 2/3/4/5E are all "committee created". Almost all successful RPGs were for a certain period of history. We're now in a period where it's slightly more common to see successful single-designer RPGs again, albeit many are using systems originally developed by someone else (or a group of people).


----------



## ART!

kenada said:


> Why is it necessary to create a new game to replace D&D? Surely it would be better for the hobby if people were playing lots of different games.



I think the idea is to create a single thing that is big enough to become a popular alternative. That said, there are probably many _existing_ systems and publishers that could rise to this occasion.


----------



## overgeeked

ART! said:


> I think the idea is to create a single thing that is big enough to become a popular alternative. That said, there are probably many _existing_ systems and publishers that could rise to this occasion.



So we can repeat this cycle again with different names attached? No thanks. I’d rather lots of currently little games get bigger and lots of new games be written. I doubt WotC will lose their market dominance, but I hope they do. Maybe when the fad busts they’ll go with it.


----------



## Cadence




----------



## Kai Lord

Elon Musk taking over WOTC suddenly doesn't sound so bad now does it.


----------



## humble minion

Kai Lord said:


> Elon Musk taking over WOTC suddenly doesn't sound so bad now does it.




Given Musk's known habit of paying too much attention to people who are sycophantic in his twitter replies, if he took over WotC he'd probably put Justin LaNasa in charge...


----------



## Jasperak

I think the thought is to create a chassis of a basic rule system under which a true open gaming licence that everyone can work from to produce their material, since WOTC seems to want to pull everything that exists within the OGL now under their absolute control with the new NOGL. Would CR rather base their business model on today's hostile corporate structure under WOTC or Hasbro or rather something that is truly open and not subject to the whims of some MBA who's just warming the CEO chair for 2 years before moving on?

Everyone worked under this 'Gentleman's Agreement' from the OGL v1.0a for the past two decades and with the snap of the fingers, our corporate overlords are going to exchange that with something that forces content creators to surrender their rights for the privilege of working under their legal protection--which they can change on a whim and those creators have 30 days to come into compliance.

If I had a 1m dollar business, I'd rather base it on something that will last in perpetuity and be irrevocable. And that is quite frankly because no corporate structure can be trusted past it working to create the most profit for their shareholders. Hasbro and WOTC now seem to believe that it is in their best interests to bring everything back under their umbrella and absolute control. Right or wrong, Greedy or not, that's what they seem to be demonstrating, and it is in no one's best interest to allow someone to control their business to that extent.


----------



## Yaarel

ChaosOS said:


> "OGL folks should just make a new game" seems like a very silly suggestion when there's already a wide range of D&D alternatives that would be way less work to switch to, in addition to the obvious issue that the reason there's a bunch of OGL companies is they each have their own taste. It would be good if people actually sat down and played non-D&D TTRPGs like PF2, Savage Worlds, and others!



• PF2 and others use the OGL 1.0a, and Hasbro-WotC seems intent on entrapping or disappearing those "competitors".
• Savage Worlds and others have their own restrictive licenses.

Being "not D&D" isnt enough.

There needs to be a legally safe haven for the gaming culture in the wild.

People have as much right to game as they do to play tennis or football or chess. It is a public cultural pastime "in the wild".


----------



## Micah Sweet

jerryrice4949 said:


> Some of the real irony is the many of the 3PP are just filling a niche left by WoTC due to their light release schedule and stale settings.



Yup.  Until Level Up, most of my OGL purchases were based on WotC not making what I wanted.


----------



## FormerLurker

rgard said:


> How about the waves of great quality products that flooded the market?  WotC would never have produced those products.  The hobby will be diminished without those people making content useable with D&D.



What's the hit-to-miss ratio for great 5e 3PP? How many truly great products that WotC would never have produced have been released in the last decade?
How many have seen use at your table for more than one or two encounters?


----------



## overgeeked

Jasperak said:


> I think the thought is to create a chassis of a basic rule system under which a true open gaming licence that everyone can work from to produce their material, since WOTC seems to want to pull everything that exists within the OGL now under their absolute control with the new NOGL. Would CR rather base their business model on today's hostile corporate structure under WOTC or Hasbro or rather something that is truly open and not subject to the whims of some MBA who's just warming the CEO chair for 2 years before moving on?



Trouble is not everyone wants the same things out of the game. 5E is a big tent loosely holding together several disconnected factions. Unless the “new chassis” scratches the same list of itches, it won’t work.


----------



## kenada

Jasperak said:


> I think the thought is to create a chassis of a basic rule system under which a true open gaming licence that everyone can work from to produce their material, since WOTC seems to want to pull everything that exists within the OGL now under their absolute control with the new NOGL. Would CR rather base their business model on today's hostile corporate structure under WOTC or Hasbro or rather something that is truly open and not subject to the whims of some MBA who's just warming the CEO chair for 2 years before moving on?
> 
> Everyone worked under this 'Gentleman's Agreement' from the OGL v1.0a for the past two decades and with the snap of the fingers, our corporate overlords are going to exchange that with something that forces content creators to surrender their rights for the privilege of working under their legal protection--which they can change on a whim and those creators have 30 days to come into compliance.
> 
> If I had a 1m dollar business, I'd rather base it on something that will last in perpetuity and be irrevocable. And that is quite frankly because no corporate structure can be trusted past it working to create the most profit for their shareholders. Hasbro and WOTC now seem to believe that it is in their best interests to bring everything back under their umbrella and absolute control. Right or wrong, Greedy or not, that's what they seem to be demonstrating, and it is in no one's best interest to allow someone to control their business to that extent.



The license is separate from the system. It’s not necessary to have a common system before a true open gaming license can be developed. All that’s required is for someone (i.e., lawyers) to write a license, and for the copyright holder of the license text to make it available for people to use. Once it is available, people can use it on their games, and those who are using compatible licenses can share content with each other. Obviously, the copyright to the license text should be owned by an entity whose interests are aligned with the intent of the license. That’s pretty much how free and open source software licenses work.


----------



## Yaarel

overgeeked said:


> Trouble is not everyone wants the same things out of the game. 5E is a big tent loosely holding together several disconnected factions. Unless the “new chassis” scratches the same list of itches, it won’t work.



Yeah.

I think the Open Gaming MECHANICS need to be flexible, modular, and tweakable.

Then each SETTING can focus on a specific arrangement of mechanics plus Property Identity lore.

A bit like Cortex Prime or GURPS, perhaps simpler, with contemporary and old school d20 sensibilities.

With an unassailable open legal contract.


----------



## Yaarel

To even use the term "OGL 1.1" is fraudulent.

The phrase "open gaming" means something.

To use this same phrase to mean the exact opposite is deceptive and false representation.


----------



## Jasperak

overgeeked said:


> Trouble is not everyone wants the same things out of the game. 5E is a big tent loosely holding together several disconnected factions. Unless the “new chassis” scratches the same list of itches, it won’t work.



Roll d20 and add modifiers, specific type of action economy, specific type of magic system, the most basic of chassis. 

I think something needs to be done for the future. D&D was dead before WOTC revived it and brought everyone along with the OGL. WOTC and Hasbro are killing the openness of the community today, so everyone that wishes to build a business here needs to protect themselves. Fragmented systems will not be practical for rebuilding our community. One system (the OGL) did rule us all--until Sauron showed his true colors.


----------



## Thanlis

John R Davis said:


> Would we really have to stick a 9000 word chunk at the end of our publications?
> Was due to launch my next KS soon, and this is all making me slightly confused.



I am not a lawyer but I would certainly recommend holding off on your Kickstarter until the license is actually out and possibly consulting a lawyer at that point. Right now there's just a ton of speculation, some of it more informed than the rest.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Jasperak said:


> Roll d20 and add modifiers, specific type of action economy, specific type of magic system, the most basic of chassis.
> 
> I think something needs to be done for the future. D&D was dead before WOTC revived it and brought everyone along with the OGL. WOTC and Hasbro are killing the openness of the community today, so everyone that wishes to build a business here needs to protect themselves. Fragmented systems will not be practical for rebuilding our community. One system (the OGL) did rule us all--until Sauron showed his true colors.


----------



## overgeeked

Jasperak said:


> Roll d20 and add modifiers, specific type of action economy, specific type of magic system, the most basic of chassis.



Right. And what I'm saying is even that will split the fans. Everyone hacks the game. Everyone mods it. For a game to be a thing that's useful it needs to make choices and every choice that's made will bring some people in and shut other people out. The only thing keeping "everyone" together was the critical mass of the brand D&D.


Jasperak said:


> I think something needs to be done for the future. D&D was dead before WOTC revived it and brought everyone along with the OGL. WOTC and Hasbro are killing the openness of the community today, so everyone that wishes to build a business here needs to protect themselves. Fragmented systems will not be practical for rebuilding our community. One system (the OGL) did rule us all--until Sauron showed his true colors.



Well, for starters, people need to stop looking to companies to do their imagining for them. We need to get back to the early days of the hobby where every referee had their own house system and run things a particular way instead of trying to have some huge tent encompassing millions of gamers. It's not practical or sustainable.


----------



## Shardstone

overgeeked said:


> Right. And what I'm saying is even that will split the fans. Everyone hacks the game. Everyone mods it. For a game to be a thing that's useful it needs to make choices and every choice that's made will bring some people in and shut other people out. The only thing keeping "everyone" together was the critical mass of the brand D&D.
> 
> Well, for starters, people need to stop looking to companies to do their imagining for them. We need to get back to the early days of the hobby where every referee had their own house system and run things a particular way instead of trying to have some huge tent encompassing millions of gamers. It's not practical or sustainable.



The market disagreed. People wanted to play  DND and explore new kinds of DND. The market is about to shrink bigtime.


----------



## Incenjucar

You primarily need a conflict resolution method, some predictable math


overgeeked said:


> Right. And what I'm saying is even that will split the fans. Everyone hacks the game. Everyone mods it. For a game to be a thing that's useful it needs to make choices and every choice that's made will bring some people in and shut other people out. The only thing keeping "everyone" together was the critical mass of the brand D&D.
> 
> Well, for starters, people need to stop looking to companies to do their imagining for them. *We need to get back to the early days of the hobby where every referee had their own house system and run things a particular way* instead of trying to have some huge tent encompassing millions of gamers. It's not practical or sustainable.



Hard, hard, hard disagree. Like Adamantine hard. 

A lot of folks are bad enough at handling the math that's been tested by thousands of people. This is like saying that all video games should have their own unique engine.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> People have as much right to game as they do to play tennis or football or chess. It is a public cultural pastime "in the wild".



Even with no OGL you have that... you can grab a racket and a ball and go play bonusing offf the wall, or go to beach and set up a net or go to somewhere with a court...
You can grab a sheet a paper and some dice and play anywhere... we have. Heck 4e was the most 'need the book' of any edition and i ran a lite version of that out of a note book with 2 sets of dice once...


----------



## Reynard

jerryrice4949 said:


> Some of the real irony is the many of the 3PP are just filling a niche left by WoTC due to their light release schedule and stale settings.



This won't go away. WotC is engaged in NDA'd negotiations with certain 3PPs for a reason. A company like Kobold has no incentive not to sign on to support 1D&D, especially if the 3PP marketplace is more tightly controlled and the get better conditions and access than the average OGL 1.1 user. It would be shocking, frankly, if companies like Kobold chose extinction over compliance.


----------



## Yaarel

Wow. It isnt even an exaggeration.

@Ruin Explorer


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> This won't go away. WotC is engaged in NDA'd negotiations with certain 3PPs for a reason. A company like Kobold has no incentive not to sign on to support 1D&D, especially if the 3PP marketplace is more tightly controlled and the get better conditions and access than the average OGL 1.1 user. It would be shocking, frankly, if companies like Kobold chose extinction over compliance.



It would be ironic if a new subset of 3pp came out of this that we could trust to just be like Wotc... and they bloom into MORE acceptance of 3pp at tables


----------



## overgeeked

Shardstone said:


> The market disagreed. People wanted to play  DND and explore new kinds of DND. The market is about to shrink bigtime.



Yep. And those who are left in this space have two choices. Keep playing D&D like nothing happened or play something else. There's not going to be another "one game to rule them all". D&D will likely continue to hold that position.


Incenjucar said:


> You primarily need a conflict resolution method, some predictable math
> 
> Hard, hard, hard disagree. Like Adamantine hard.



Cool. Good luck making a game that gamists, narrativists, simulationists, the OC crowd, etc can all play together and be happy with. You'll need it.


Incenjucar said:


> A lot of folks are bad enough at handling the math that's been tested by thousands of people. This is like saying that all video games should have their own unique engine.



Or just don't have people bad at math run games. Or provide some basic guidance on the probabilities of dice in the games...you know...like they used to. Besides, about 99% of the game is the referee describing the situation, the players describing their characters' actions, the referee adjudicating the outcome, and then describing it narratively. Besides, as you say, you primarily need a resolution mechanic. That resolution mechanic plus the play loop and you're done. You don't need a corporation to package that and sell it to you.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> It would be ironic if a new subset of 3pp came out of this that we could trust to just be like Wotc... and they bloom into MORE acceptance of 3pp at tables



WotC doesn't want to make the kinds of books Kobold does, but recognizes there is a market for them and that market supports the official product line by keeping people in the D&D ecosystem. If this nee deal includes access to being able to sell this stuff on Beyond and the official VTT, it is an even better deal for all parties.


----------



## Scribe

Ruin Explorer said:


> View attachment 271747




If I still used the hellsite that is Twitter, I'd for sure be spamming this on WOTC accounts. All of them.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> Even with no OGL you have that... you can grab a racket and a ball and go play bonusing offf the wall, or go to beach and set up a net or go to somewhere with a court...
> You can grab a sheet a paper and some dice and play anywhere... we have. Heck 4e was the most 'need the book' of any edition and i ran a lite version of that out of a note book with 2 sets of dice once...



But if you play amateur RPG on the internet with your friends in other towns, Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy you.

It is almost literally − "Hasbro will send the RPG police to arrest you".

No longer a joke.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> But if you play amateur RPG on the internet, Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy you.
> 
> It is almost literally − "Hasbro will send the RPG police to arrest you".
> 
> No longer a joke.



yeah and If I homebrew a race and email it to my buddies they will say that's OGL violation and come after me...


----------



## Yaarel

Remember. No "pantomiming" without Hasbros permission and watchful eye.

(No D&D cosplay dancing or posing on TikTok.)


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah and If I homebrew a race and email it to my buddies they will say that's OGL violation and come after me...



It depends on how public that email becomes.

And if people love your design and start sending you money for it, youre in danger.


----------



## Remathilis

overgeeked said:


> Well, for starters, people need to stop looking to companies to do their imagining for them. We need to get back to the early days of the hobby where every referee had their own house system and run things a particular way instead of trying to have some huge tent encompassing millions of gamers. It's not practical or sustainable.




I think the complete opposite. One of 5e's biggest strengths was how you could say "I play D&D" and people generally knew what rules you were using. You might use a few house rules or some different supplements, but for most people you usually could make a character using the PHB and it would be fine. I certainly remember the days where every DM had their own binder of changed rules, variants, and rewritten material that made it a hassle to try and recall what system your DM was using for hit points. 

Going back to the diy model might be fine for tinkers and amateur designers, but there is already a gap in DMs due to the workload, and I wager that there are quite a few new players (and even more new DMs) who when faced with the prospect of designing whole new rules will simply drop the game. After all, I don't need to learn to code to enjoy Call of Duty ...


----------



## Incenjucar

overgeeked said:


> Yep. And those who are left in this space have two choices. Keep playing D&D like nothing happened or play something else. There's not going to be another "one game to rule them all". D&D will likely continue to hold that position.
> 
> Cool. Good luck making a game that gamists, narrativists, simulationists, the OC crowd, etc can all play together and be happy with. You'll need it.
> 
> Or just don't have people bad at math run games. Or provide some basic guidance on the probabilities of dice in the games...you know...like they used to. Besides, about 99% of the game is the referee describing the situation, the players describing their characters' actions, the referee adjudicating the outcome, and then describing it narratively. Besides, as you say, you primarily need a resolution mechanic. That resolution mechanic plus the play loop and you're done. You don't need a corporation to package that and sell it to you.



So you want to gatekeep GMing to a tiny minority of people who have both the aptitude and time to design their own system..?

If there's a core system with a real OGL attached that the TTRPG companies and indie folks can use to build their games as a basis, those groups can all build the specific gamist, narrativist, simulationist, etc. stuff, while reducing the work needed to move between them and to get started with smaller "mods" of those rules. It's all about reducing the friction and learning curve for designers, GMs, and players. These can all mutate until they're no longer similar, and that's fine, but it also means that, if all you want to do is sell some fun new monsters for the core generic ruleset, you can do so, and maybe folks using a few different games can use those monsters with minor tweaks to cover unique aspects of that system, like the asset shop in Unity.


----------



## Yaarel

Hasbro-WotC are acting in bad faith.

They are uninterested in the wellbeing of the people in the D&D community.


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> But if you play amateur RPG on the internet with your friends in other towns, Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy you.
> 
> It is almost literally − "Hasbro will send the RPG police to arrest you".
> 
> No longer a joke.



Is this a joke?  Nothing in here affects home games. This is a business to business thing.


----------



## Yaarel

HammerMan said:


> Is this a joke?  Nothing in here affects home games. This is a business to business thing.



In this century today, many (most?) games happen online on digital services, using referencing pdfs and character builders.

Many D&D fans watch other people playing the game online.

We live in a modern world.

Hasbro-WotC wrote contract terms in pursuit of destroying ALL of it.


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> Hasbro-WotC are acting in bad faith.
> 
> They are uninterested in the wellbeing of the people in the D&D community.



There is something to be said that to keep the lights on and grow the business they need to grow the community too. They HAVE to be a little invested or they would have failed long ago.  

No the more likely thing is WoTC is looking at having made its own compation and having made something that other bring in a cool mil or two on and say “hey this isn’t JUST helping the little guy it’s making big guys who take a big chunk of gamer money based on being tied to our game.” 

I wish they did this in 2008 and shut down PF before it started. I guess back then not having a new high up from tech they didn’t know about the loop hole to try. 

I have to laugh at all the “omg they are evil” things being said as they restructured it keeping the ability for all the David’s to prosper and grow UNTIL they become potential Goliath’s.   

I always felt the OGL was a mistake and have said so on here before.  I will say though that others I am not taging used to agree and now seem to be pissed.  I wonder what changed there minds.


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> In this century today, many (most?) games happen online on digital services, using referencing pdfs and character builders.
> 
> Many D&D fans watch other people playing the game online.
> 
> We live in a modern world.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC wrote contract terms in pursuit of destroying ALL of it.



No they didn’t.   They said “if you do that and make enough to be a big company we want a cut.  If you do that and make a resent but small amount just share your numbers with us and don’t be jerks or racist or sexist.


----------



## Yaarel

HammerMan said:


> There is something to be said that to keep the lights on and grow the business they need to grow the community too. They HAVE to be a little invested or they would have failed long ago.
> 
> No the more likely thing is WoTC is looking at having made its own compation and having made something that other bring in a cool mil or two on and say “hey this isn’t JUST helping the little guy it’s making big guys who take a big chunk of gamer money based on being tied to our game.”
> 
> I wish they did this in 2008 and shut down PF before it started. I guess back then not having a new high up from tech they didn’t know about the loop hole to try.
> 
> I have to laugh at all the “omg they are evil” things being said as they restructured it keeping the ability for all the David’s to prosper and grow UNTIL they become potential Goliath’s.
> 
> I always felt the OGL was a mistake and have said so on here before.  I will say though that others I am not taging used to agree and now seem to be pissed.  I wonder what changed there minds.



The deeds of Hasbro-WotC are evil.

The actions. The terms.


----------



## rknop

HammerMan said:


> No they didn’t.   They said “if you do that and make enough to be a big company we want a cut.  If you do that and make a resent but small amount just share your numbers with us and don’t be jerks or racist or sexist.



..._if_ you're publishing PDFs or print books.

For anything else -- which would include software services, including the VTT things that the person you're quoting was talking about -- WotC is saying "you can't".


----------



## rknop

(Also, let's not forget that WotC isn't just saying "we get a cut" -- they're also saying "and we can reuse any of your stuff, forever, however we want, but we reserve the right to tell you that you can no longer sell your own stuff with only a 30-day notice".)


----------



## Yaarel

HammerMan said:


> No they didn’t.   They said “if you do that and make enough to be a big company we want a cut.  If you do that and make a resent but small amount just share your numbers with us and don’t be jerks or racist or sexist.



HASBRO-WOTC CREATED A PSEUDO-OGL 1.1 THAT CAN BE CHANGED UNILATERALLY WITHOUT CONSENT AT ANY MOMENT WITH 30-DAY NOTICE.

THIS CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS EVERY FORM OF EXPRESSION, EXCEPT BOOKS, BUT EVEN THAT CAN CHANGE AT ANY MOMENT.



The Hasbro-WotC lawyers are going scorched earth against the D&D community.

The metaphor of LotR and the one Ring to Rule Them All applies too well.


----------



## jerryrice4949

rknop said:


> (Also, let's not forget that WotC isn't just saying "we get a cut" -- they're also saying "and we can reuse any of your stuff, forever, however we want, but we reserve the right to tell you that you can no longer sell your own stuff with only a 30-day notice".)



Exactly.  To essentially claim ownership to everyone else’s work.


----------



## Yaarel

rknop said:


> ..._if_ you're publishing PDFs or print books.
> 
> For anything else -- which would include software services, including the VTT things that the person you're quoting was talking about -- WotC is saying "you can't".



The 1.1 specifically forbids PDFs.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> The 1.1 specifically forbids PDFs.



Wait, what?


----------



## HammerMan

rknop said:


> (Also, let's not forget that WotC isn't just saying "we get a cut" -- they're also saying "and we can reuse any of your stuff, forever, however we want, but we reserve the right to tell you that you can no longer sell your own stuff with only a 30-day notice".)



The “we can reuse” stuff is standard and already in both ogl and dms guild


----------



## Yaarel

With that single term "deauthorize"

Hasbro-WotC gambles to destroy every form of legal protection that exists.


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> HASBRO-WOTC CREATED A PSEUDO-OGL 1.1 THAT CAN BE CHANGED UNILATERALLY WITHOUT CONSENT AT ANY MOMENT WITH 30-DAY NOTICE.
> 
> THIS CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS EVERY FORM OF EXPRESSION, EXCEPT BOOKS, BUT EVEN THAT CAN CHANGE AT ANY MOMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> The Hasbro-WotC lawyers are going scorched earth against the D&D community.
> 
> The metaphor of LotR and the one Ring to Rule Them All applies too well.



Yeah you need to calm down a bit.  All caps is yelling. 
I get it you don’t like what they did. 

If they REALLY were going scorched earth why not just say “withdrawn and there is nothing” why give people who make 100k or so a year a free pass?


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> With that single term "deauthorize"
> 
> Hasbro-WotC gambles to destroy every form of legal protection that exists.



But they didn’t just deauthorize it. They made a new slightly more restrictive one. They didn’t take there ball and go home they said “if we are useing my ball I get first shot”


----------



## Yaarel

HammerMan said:


> Yeah you need to calm down a bit.  All caps is yelling.
> I get it you don’t like what they did.
> 
> If they REALLY were going scorched earth why not just say “withdrawn and there is nothing” why give people who make 100k or so a year a free pass?



Many people in the gaming community dont yet realize what Hasbro-WotC is about to do.

These 1.1 contracts were sent out to be signed. 

Hasbro-WotC isnt joking.


----------



## Jasperak

overgeeked said:


> Right. And what I'm saying is even that will split the fans. Everyone hacks the game. Everyone mods it. For a game to be a thing that's useful it needs to make choices and every choice that's made will bring some people in and shut other people out. The only thing keeping "everyone" together was the critical mass of the brand D&D.
> 
> Well, for starters, people need to stop looking to companies to do their imagining for them. We need to get back to the early days of the hobby where every referee had their own house system and run things a particular way instead of trying to have some huge tent encompassing millions of gamers. It's not practical or sustainable.



Brother, I'm firmly in the OSR at this point. I brought my young children to the game with B/X. I'm not talking about us--those that create on their own, those that don't really want a bite of the larger market. I (and the many others here who) don't need WOTC's game, but we still want to support the community. Those of us who believe the RPG community is stronger because of that tent.

That's what I was driving at. Imagine a chasis like B/X that everyone can add their own classes, feats, skills, spells to. The most basic of chassis that would be less likely to run afoul of WOTC's or Hasbro's One D&D Closed Game License to rule them all. Then people don't have to worry about WOTC's gatekeeping, and they can plan their businesses around something other than what we thought was the pillar of the OGL. 

And that's really my point. WOTC wants to have monopolistic control over the industry to control their brand. They have to protect it from the likes of things like the Book of Erotic Fantasy. I don't even fault them for that. But the way they are approaching this does not appear to be from a position of openness, but one of it's our way or the highway--we are the monolithe, get with the program. Others have alluded to the hubris and arrogance in this belief. That's what chuffs me. I understand it, but I would think there would be better ways to go about this. The people running the show don't seem to care about the damage caused by the similar thinking back during the 3e/4e transition.


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> Many people in the gaming community dont yet realize what Hasbro-WotC is about to do.
> 
> These 1.1 contracts were sent out to be signed.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC isnt joking.



Okay. Not a joke. They are leaving in that small creators can still build and play fine. And even mid sized make enough to live on people can… but not while companies.  They are saying you can’t be a competitor you can only be a small bit.


----------



## Maxperson

overgeeked said:


> Verifying the contents of 1.1 while still under an NDA regarding the contents of 1.1.



What contents were verified? I saw no specifics there.


----------



## HammerMan

Jasperak said:


> But the way they are approaching this does not appear to be from a position of openness, but one of it's our way or the highway--we are the monolithe, get with the program. Others have alluded to the hubris and arrogance in this belief.



What is it the song says? “It’s not bragging if you can back it up”. They ARE the monolith 


Jasperak said:


> That's what chuffs me. I understand it, but I would think there would be better ways to go about this. The people running the show don't seem to care about the damage caused by the similar thinking back during the 3e/4e transition.



I just wish this deauthorize thing came up back then before the big splits


----------



## mamba

Yaarel said:


> The 1.1 specifically forbids PDFs.



no it doesn't


----------



## Reynard

HammerMan said:


> I just wish this deauthorize thing came up back then before the big splits



Out of curiosity, why? What negative result came from the existence of Castle and Crusades, Pathfinder or Mutants and Masterminds?


----------



## MockingBird

Yeah I'm glad PF was a thing, I'm glad 4e wasn't the only "D&D" in town.


----------



## Jasperak

HammerMan said:


> Okay. Not a joke. *They are leaving in that small creators can still build and play fine.* And even mid sized make enough to live on people can… but not while companies.  They are saying you can’t be a competitor you can only be a small bit.



Rhetorical question for the board as a whole, if my wordpress.com blog is monetized (it isn't), do I have to submit a legal document to them if I want to post a custom class for any version of D&D using the NOGL? Asking for a friend.

If I do, then I would much rather have someone else's OGL that I could support without this little small fry running afoul of NOTC's lawyers.


----------



## HammerMan

Reynard said:


> Out of curiosity, why? What negative result came from the existence of Castle and Crusades, Pathfinder or Mutants and Masterminds?



Pathfinder split our group twice over. The edition war that followed PF vs 4e was the worst I ever saw (and still see). 

I actually like castles and crusaders and mutants and masterminds. But if I lose them I have other games I can play/run.

It also has always bothered me a little that companies COULD use someone else’s game as a latter and pay nothing back. Maybe open stuff just isn’t my thing. But I think the new terms are okay even if they are not as open.


----------



## humble minion

HammerMan said:


> But they didn’t just deauthorize it. They made a new slightly more restrictive one. They didn’t take there ball and go home they said “if we are useing my ball I get first shot”



By claiming that 1.0a can be deauthorised at all, they've already changed the business landscape for 3pp wildly and (excuse the pun...) irrevocably.

The entire 3pp industry is predicated on the assumption that OGL 1.0a (or indeed any OGL) can be relied on to remain valid even if superseded, and that WotC can't withdraw it unilaterally.  That's the whole reason the OGL was created in the first place, after all - to protect the game from future mismanagement by its owners (after mismanagement by its previous owners almost caused its destruction).  WotC is now saying, effectively, that the terms of the OGL are continually mutable based on their whims.  They're not saying they get first shot with their ball, they're saying that they can change the rules of the whole ball game at any time, even mid-match.


----------



## Reynard

HammerMan said:


> Pathfinder split our group twice over. The edition war that followed PF vs 4e was the worst I ever saw (and still see).
> 
> I actually like castles and crusaders and mutants and masterminds. But if I lose them I have other games I can play/run.
> 
> It also has always bothered me a little that companies COULD use someone else’s game as a latter and pay nothing back. Maybe open stuff just isn’t my thing. But I think the new terms are okay even if they are not as open.



Thank you for answering.


----------



## Yaarel

mamba said:


> no it doesn't



About the PDFs.

The prohibitions include but arent limited to: "VTT campaigns, novels, graphics novels."

These relate to a pdf describing a gaming setting.

In any case, Hasbro-WotC made sure to be able to prohibit books too, later, by means of a unilateral action without consent with only 30 days notice.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> About the PDFs.
> 
> The prohibitions include but arent limited to: "VTT campaigns, novels, graphics novels."
> 
> *These relate to a pdf describing a gaming setting.*
> 
> In any case, Hasbro-WotC made sure to be able to prohibit books too, later, by means of a unilateral action without consent with only 30 days notice.



That is absolutely wrong.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> That is absolutely wrong.



The combination of killing the OGL and dictating any new terms capriciously, seeks to seize total control over every aspect of the D&D community.

Without the OGL, if someone creates any product relating to the old OGL, it is at the mercy of Hasbro-WotC, who can deny it at for any reason or no reason at any moment with 30 day notice.

That includes PDF and book. Hasbro-WotC seeks to be able to deny everyone or any one person specifically.


----------



## mamba

Yaarel said:


> These relate to a pdf describing a gaming setting.



no they don't, print and pdf of adventures, settings, ... is ok, you were focusing on either novel or VTT


----------



## Incenjucar

I don't think I've ever actually played any 3P games, or if I did it was a one-session experiment in a game I was playing in. But I really like that it's there, and knowing that I could create and share and make a buck off of something if I wanted to was really exciting as a DM, even if I never took advantage of it myself - though I was working on finally doing so for 5.5E before all this came out. I know that I would never be the next Griffon's Saddlebag or whatever, but knowing that something crazy could happen in my favor made it more interesting. Knowing that such a scenario could instead *ruin me* really kills my enthusiasm to contribute.


----------



## Yaarel

mamba said:


> no they don't, print and pdf of adventures, settings, ... is ok, you were focusing on either novel or VTT



You settings cannot include "novels", such as a story about the origins of the setting. Or a saga in its history.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> The combination of killing the OGL and dictating any new terms capriciously, seeks to seize total control over every aspect of the D&D community.
> 
> Without the OGL, if someone creates any product relating to the old OGL, it is at the mercy of Hasbro-WotC, who can deny it at for any reason or no reason at any moment with 30 day notice.
> 
> That includes PDF and book. Hasbro-WotC seeks to be able to deny everyone or any one person specifically.



OGL 1.1 is explicitly intended to be used for books and PDFs. I think you are reaching with the change of terms clause to obfuscate that aspect.

We should be honest about what we are talking about, otherwise our criticisms can be dismissed as being wrong or outright lies.


----------



## rknop

HammerMan said:


> slightly more restrictive



LOL


----------



## DarkCrisis

My uncle who works at WotC says it’s all going to be okay.

Yes the same uncle that works at Nintendo.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> OGL 1.1 is explicitly intended to be used for books and PDFs. I think you are reaching with the change of terms clause to obfuscate that aspect.
> 
> We should be honest about what we are talking about, otherwise our criticisms can be dismissed as being wrong or outright lies.



"*This agreement is, along with the OGL [1.1]: Non-Commercial*, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. *We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever*, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."


----------



## Remathilis

DarkCrisis said:


> My uncle who works at WotC says it’s all going to be okay.
> 
> Yes the same uncle that works at Nintendo.



If he also works at Activision and EA, he might have hit the grand slam of bad companies.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> "*This agreement is, along with the OGL [1.1]: Non-Commercial*, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. *We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever*, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."



You missed my point completely.


----------



## mamba

Yaarel said:


> You settings cannot include "novels", such as a story about the origins of the setting. Or a saga in its history.



a novel is a separate book and does not need the OGL at all, as it is a novel and has no game mechanics


----------



## kenada

Incenjucar said:


> If there's a core system with a real OGL attached that the TTRPG companies and indie folks can use to build their games as a basis, those groups can all build the specific gamist, narrativist, simulationist, etc. stuff, while reducing the work needed to move between them and to get started with smaller "mods" of those rules. It's all about reducing the friction and learning curve for designers, GMs, and players. These can all mutate until they're no longer similar, and that's fine, but it also means that, if all you want to do is sell some fun new monsters for the core generic ruleset, you can do so, and maybe folks using a few different games can use those monsters with minor tweaks to cover unique aspects of that system, like the asset shop in Unity.



I don’t think that model would work. It would suggest that system doesn’t matter, which is manifestly untrue. Just look at this subforum and the discussion and disagreement over what kind of mechanical changes 6e should have. We can’t even get agreement on what it would take to bring people back to the dungeon or whether that’s even a desirable thing to have. And this hypothetical system should be able to accommodate not just different types of traditional styles but all styles? That’s just not realistic unless the system is so basic it provides barely anything. How would that be useful to designers?


----------



## Lidgar

jerryrice4949 said:


> Some of the real irony is the many of the 3PP are just filling a niche left by WoTC due to their light release schedule and stale settings.



That, and play styles too.

When D&D Next was announced, there was excitement about its “modular” approach that would accommodate different play styles and more or less complexity. However, other than the options we got and in the DMG and a few other splat books, that never really materialized. Certainly no options for a less complex, or more “basic” version of the game. 

The OSR movement in particular saw the opportunity and embraced it (even though that really got started prior to 5e). Over the years, many of these flourished. For more complexity, folks had options like Pathfinder, or now Level Up/A5e. 

Now it would seem that WotC truly wants to go full Highlander. We’ll see what happens in due time, but totally get why some 3PP’s - especially those not invited to “make a deal” - are highly concerned.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

HammerMan said:


> They made a new slightly more restrictive one.



There's "opinion" and there's "actively misleading"/"doesn't understand situation".

This is the latter. It's not slightly more restrictive, it's a vast night and day difference.

Further, the deauthorization is hugely destructive because it doesn't even make sense for a large proportion of OGL products to on to OGL 1.1, because they're NOT D&D COMPATIBLE.

The OGL 1.1 is written as if all OGL products are just attempting to be 1D&D-compatible or will involve playing 1D&D. The whole thing fatuously assumes that every OGL product is just a crude attempt "muscle in on" 1D&D. I'm not sure the people who wrote this even know that's not true. People comparing it to the d20 STL are spot-on, frankly, because just like that, it's all about making stuff for D&D, not making games and products based on D&D.

And you clearly know how extremely destructive it'll be, because you're saying stuff like "Well I can play other things if C&C dies...", which is demonstrating you do understand, so why pretend like you don't? I don't really get what point you're trying to make by diminishing the damage and acting like people going out of business and so on is "no big deal".


----------



## jerryrice4949

DarkCrisis said:


> My uncle who works at WotC says it’s all going to be okay.
> 
> Yes the same uncle that works at Nintendo.



Care to elaborate?  If this is a joke I missed it.


----------



## overgeeked

Incenjucar said:


> So you want to *gatekeep* GMing to a tiny minority of people who have both the aptitude and time to design their own system..?



Such an overused and now meaningless phrase.

Let’s see. A list of required referee skills that everyone just assumes and are okay with assuming but mysteriously don’t call gatekeeping. Okay. Basic reading skills. Enough disposable income to buy the necessary game materials. Enough disposable income to buy the kind of high-end game materials many/most players prefer and expect as a baseline. Enough money, free time, and creativity to buy and adapt a module to their group, or; enough free time and creativity to create their own adventure. Enough charisma to gather together a group of people to play. Enough confidence to not worry about being laughed at for your weird ideas or silly voices. The cat-wrangling skills to get 1-50 other adults’ schedules to line up for a few hours between once a week to once a month. The free time to actually prep and run the game. Access to a space to host people to play in meatspace or the money and technology to use a VTT. Enough dramatic flair to be an engaging storyteller, even if only in short bursts. Enough improv skills to handle the inevitable player shenanigans. The physical, mental, emotional, and social ability to handle all that, plus the pressure of actually running the game. 

But nope. Basic maths skills is a line too far.

Sure. Okay.


----------



## DarkCrisis

jerryrice4949 said:


> Care to elaborate?  If this is a joke I missed it.



Old joke from the original Nintendo days. A kid would claim “My uncle who works at Nintendo says Mega Man 3 is coming soon.” Or some other made up thing.


----------



## jerryrice4949

DarkCrisis said:


> Old joke from the original Nintendo days. A kid would claim “My uncle who works at Nintendo says Mega Man 3 is coming soon.” Or some other made up thing.



Ah.  Thanks I get it now.


----------



## Branduil

overgeeked said:


> Such an overused and now meaningless phrase.
> 
> Let’s see. A list of required referee skills that everyone just assumes and are okay with assuming but mysteriously don’t call gatekeeping. Okay. Basic reading skills. Enough disposable income to buy the necessary game materials. Enough disposable income to buy the kind of high-end game materials many/most players prefer and expect as a baseline. Enough money, free time, and creativity to buy and adapt a module to their group, or; enough free time and creativity to create their own adventure. Enough charisma to gather together a group of people to play. Enough confidence to not worry about being laughed at for your weird ideas or silly voices. The cat-wrangling skills to get 1-50 other adults’ schedules to line up for a few hours between once a week to once a month. The free time to actually prep and run the game. Access to a space to host people to play in meatspace or the money and technology to use a VTT. Enough dramatic flair to be an engaging storyteller, even if only in short bursts. Enough improv skills to handle the inevitable player shenanigans. The physical, mental, emotional, and social ability to handle all that, plus the pressure of actually running the game.
> 
> But nope. Basic maths skills is a line too far.
> 
> Sure. Okay.



I mean, we have multiple editions of D&D games where the math breaks down at high levels. These are games created by professional designers, I assume using spreadsheets, graphs, numerous playtests, and such. Still broke down. So pretending we're only talking about "basic math skills" is pretty disingenuous. The more subsystems and interacting variables your system has, the more likely breaking points will be found.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> But nope. Basic maths skills is a line too far.



It kind of is though, because you're doing the whole "just pretend something is far less than it is!" deal at attempt to argue, and it's completely unconvincing because it's obviously not true.

The reality is, whilst the math required may be basic, you need far more skills than that to make a functional RPG worth playing. You need a huge number of skills in fact, including elaborate understandings of balance and how systems function, which even most RPG creators don't possess, let alone most DMs.

Also, I take it you're a published RPG designer? Or at least have created an entire RPG top to bottom with an original system? Otherwise claiming it's that easy seems pretty extra-sassy.


----------



## overgeeked

Branduil said:


> I mean, we have multiple editions of D&D games where the math breaks down at high levels. These are games created by professional designers, I assume using spreadsheets, graphs, numerous playtests, and such. Still broke down. So pretending we're only talking about "basic math skills" is pretty disingenuous. The more subsystems and interacting variables your system has, the more likely breaking points will be found.



We are only talking about basic math skills. You’re assuming those pro designers were trying to create a mathematically-balanced game and somehow failed because even with those spreadsheets and graphs they couldn’t manage it. That’s a false assumption. There’s been what…two editions…where they seem to have actually _tried_ to balance the game’s math? And we’re not talking about doing all the math for a whole game and all the myriad subsystems contained therein. We’re talking about _basic math_. As in knowing that a +1 on a d20 roll equates to +5%. Honestly, properly basic math.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> We are only talking about basic math skills. You’re assuming those pro designers were trying to create a mathematically-balanced game and somehow failed because even with those spreadsheets and graphs they couldn’t manage it. That’s a false assumption. There’s been what…two editions…where they seem to have actually _tried_ to balance the game’s math? And we’re not talking about doing all the math for a whole game and all the myriad subsystems contained therein. We’re talking about _basic math_. As in knowing that a +1 on a d20 roll equates to +5%. Honestly, properly basic math.



So how many RPGs have you designed, considering you're explaining how incredibly easy it is? And how we should literally all be doing it.

Also do you honestly think math is literally all there is to RPG design?


----------



## Xyxox

overgeeked said:


> But nope. Basic maths skills is a line too far.



Back in the day when we were young adults in our late 20s and early 30s playing the game we had THAC0 and we did the math and WE LIKED IT!


----------



## Xyxox

Weird double posting error


----------



## Xyxox

Ruin Explorer said:


> So how many RPGs have you designed, considering you're explaining how incredibly easy it is? And how we should literally all be doing it.
> 
> Also do you honestly think math is literally all there is to RPG design?




Man, designing an RPG from the ground up has to be incredibly time consuming and costly, not to mention getting people to help play test the thing to make sure it works as you think you've designed it. It's why the OGL made things just so handy.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Xyxox said:


> Back in the day when we were young adults in our late 20s and early 30s playing the game we had THAC0 and we did the math and WE LIKED IT!



True.  I liked THACO.  Seemed straightforward to me.  I never understood why they ditched it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> a novel is a separate book and does not need the OGL at all, as it is a novel and has no game mechanics



I wonder if someone wants to write a novel and talk about armor class and saving throws like OotS with 4 wall breaks... then it MIGHT need it... but I bet that parody laws would be okay (I think as not a lawyer)


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if someone wants to write a novel and talk about armor class and saving throws like OotS with 4 wall breaks... then it MIGHT need it... but I bet that parody laws would be okay (I think as not a lawyer)



armor class definitely, saving throw is less clear (to me), probably ok too, just do not have beholders, etc.


----------



## darjr

Xyxox said:


> Back in the day when we were young adults in our late 20s and early 30s playing the game we had THAC0 and we did the math and WE LIKED IT!



No we didnt


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> It kind of is though, because you're doing the whole "just pretend something is far less than it is!" deal at attempt to argue, and it's completely unconvincing because it's obviously not true.
> 
> The reality is, whilst the math required may be basic, you need far more skills than that to make a functional RPG worth playing. You need a huge number of skills in fact, including elaborate understandings of balance and how systems function, which even most RPG creators don't possess, let alone most DMs.
> 
> Also, I take it you're a published RPG designer? Or at least have created an entire RPG top to bottom with an original system? Otherwise claiming it's that easy seems pretty extra-sassy.



if all it took to make the next great TTRPG was math, accountants would all make a killing with the best games out there...


----------



## darjr




----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xyxox said:


> Back in the day when we were young adults in our late 20s and early 30s playing the game we had THAC0 and we did the math and WE LIKED IT!



I still have a player who tries to get us to do a 2e game... not EVERY pitch night but a lot of them he pitches it. I bought my 2e retroclone on Kickstarter (that became vapor were) for him, and he was like "I don't know why not thac0?" but we did play that twice with the addition of a 13th age style escalation die


----------



## gametaku

Tenkar seems to have a copy of OGL 1.1.


----------



## Yaarel

And I already thought the Hasbro-WotC OGL 1.1 was pretty bad!

It is even worse than I thought.

LOL!

The OGL 1.1 is the Anti-OGL.


----------



## Greg Benage

I love Tenkar's Tavern, but this is unwatchable. 

I skimmed through it and it doesn't sound like he disclosed anything we didn't know from the Gizmodo article. Is that accurate?


----------



## darjr

Greg Benage said:


> I love Tenkar's Tavern, but this is unwatchable.
> 
> I skimmed through it and it doesn't sound like he disclosed anything we didn't know from the Gizmodo article. Is that accurate?



Yea. I think so.

Edit, I've unshared it. I think it's good he's sharing what he has but I can't share his over the top bits.

I know he's very angry.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> No we didnt



Correct. I still remember how happy we were to dump it when the pre-3E document "X ways to play D&D 3E right now" explained how to do it.


----------



## Yaarel

Greg Benage said:


> I love Tenkar's Tavern, but this is unwatchable.
> 
> I skimmed through it and it doesn't sound like he disclosed anything we didn't know from the Gizmodo article. Is that accurate?



The podcast is brief, 13 minutes.

I suspect he will have lawyers looking at it, to go over details in upcoming podcasts.

Meanwhile, he seems genuinely concerned about accidentally revealing details that would identify his source.

The point so far is, this is a real document, and it is real bad.

The tone of the document intro is intentionally deceptive.


----------



## Yaarel

It is worth pointing out.

The Anti-OGL splits into separate OGLs.

• OGL:Commercial
• OGL:Noncommercial

The reason the OGL:Noncommercial even exists is because: "We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever."

Hasbro-WotC launches an incremental legal assault on the D&D community to eventually shut down any freedom anywhere.


----------



## mamba

Yaarel said:


> Hasbro-WotC launches an incremental legal assault on the D&D community to eventually shut down any freedom anywhere.



there is nothing incremental about it, either 1.0a stands, or it falls. If it falls everyone is screwed, otherwise no one is


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> Hasbro-WotC launches an incremental legal assault on the D&D community to eventually shut down any freedom anywhere.





mamba said:


> there is nothing incremental about it, either 1.0a stands, or it falls. If it falls everyone is screwed, otherwise no one is



I am upset by these shenanigans, and do think WotC is going to hurt a bunch of people and maybe even ruin a life or two... included in those hurt is our host here.  However both of these seem a bit overblown.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am upset by these shenanigans, and do think WotC is going to hurt a bunch of people and maybe even ruin a life or two... included in those hurt is our host here.  However both of these seem a bit overblown.



I meant all 3pps, whether using the commercial or non-commercial 1.1, not ‘the whole world’ or anything like that

You could argue non-commercial should not be a problem since no one expects to make a living off if it, if that is what you meant


----------



## ChaosOS

OGL 1.1 that doesn't "de-authorize" 1.0/a but still gatekeeps access to the 1D&D SRD with punitive terms could still be quite bad for the 5e-adjacent folks going forward.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> However both of these seem a bit overblown.



When 4e came out.

Hasbro-WotC tried to kill the OGL. To make 4e the only kind of D&D possible. Even to terminate the right to publish earlier editions of D&D or even non-D&D games that relied on the OGL.

D&D 6e is coming soon.

Hasbro-WotC is trying to make 6e the only kind of D&D possible, and Hasbro-WotC the only gate into the gaming community. To monetize it.

Hasbro-WotC are laying the legal groundwork for monopoly.

The purpose of the original OGL is to ensure that D&D stays alive "in the wild" beyond corporate control.

Hasbro-WotC precisely wants to kill D&D "in the wild".

I am not emphasizing enough how bleak this possible future would be.

I laugh that you think you would be personally unaffected!


----------



## humble minion

ChaosOS said:


> OGL 1.1 that doesn't "de-authorize" 1.0/a but still gatekeeps access to the 1D&D SRD with punitive terms could still be quite bad for the 5e-adjacent folks going forward.



In the long run, true.  In the short term, WotC keeps telling us that their 5e material will be fully compatible with 5.5, so assuming that'd even slightly correct one would logically assume that this will also be the case for 3pp 5e material (whether published pre 1.1 with WotCs blessing or post 1.1 with them gnashing their teeth in the background).  But of course, 6e will inevitably come along one day....


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> When 4e came out.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC tried to kill the OGL. To make 4e the only kind of D&D possible. Even to terminate the right to publish earlier editions of D&D or even non-D&D games that relied on the OGL.
> 
> D&D 6e is coming soon.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC is trying to make 6e the only kind of D&D possible, and Hasbro-WotC the only gate into the gaming community to monetize it.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC are laying the legal groundwork for monopoly.
> 
> The purpose of the original OGL is to ensure that D&D stays alive "in the wild" beyond corporate control.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC precisely wants to kill D&D "in the wild".



I agree like 95% with everything up until here.  If wotc could (or thought they could) they would have shut down the OGL 10 years ago.


Yaarel said:


> I am not emphasizing enough how bleak this possible future would be.
> 
> I laugh that you think you would be personally unaffected!



this is where you jump from being very reasonable to I don't get the leap.

Worst case, I don't like 6e/1D&D and just take bits and pieces and either keep play 5e, go back to 4e or move to a non D&D TTRPG (I keep pushing TORG) I am out $60ish from a kickstarter and D&D goes on to be some big IP with movies and toys. New players will find and like 1D&D and it will continue until that growth dies down... and we will get 7e. I will check it out and see if I like it or not


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> If wotc could (or thought they could) they would have shut down the OGL 10 years ago.



At the time, Hasbro-WotC itself knew the OGL is irrevocable. So they sought other legal tactics to kill it.

Today, they seem to have new lawyers who are too clever by half, who think they can kill the OGL.

Hasbro-WotC is a big-business with a massive warchest for a team of lawyers. They appear to think they are strong enough to destroy anyone in the gaming community who stands in their way.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Worst case, I don't like 6e/1D&D and just take bits and pieces and either keep play 5e, go back to 4e



OK, but now you are obsolete. You have stopped growing. You will find fewer and fewer players.



GMforPowergamers said:


> or move to a non D&D TTRPG (I keep pushing TORG) I am out $60ish from a kickstarter and D&D goes on to be some big IP with movies and toys.



Kickstarter appears to now be an agent of Hasbro-WotC, that can arbitrarily remove any game that competes with 6e.

The more "D&D-like" a game is, the more Hasbro-WotC lawyers will eye it, especially if commercially successful.



GMforPowergamers said:


> New players will find and like 1D&D and it will continue until that growth dies down... and we will get 7e. I will check it out and see if I like it or not



Any "modularity" that you seek will be gated by the caprice of Hasbro-WotC.



But perhaps most of all, it is the casual gamers who celebrate D&D on websites about D&D who will suffer the most.

Think of all the D&D content created by ENWorlders, whether monsters, portraits, magic items, settings, or new mechanics for the D&D game. All homebrew gone. Hasbro-WotC lawyers can destroy all of it. Arbitrarily.


----------



## Yaarel

Everything that we take for granted comes from the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> At the time, Hasbro-WotC itself knew the OGL is irrevocable. So they sought other legal tactics to kill it.
> 
> Today, they seem to have new lawyers who are too clever by half, who think they can kill the OGL.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC is a big-business with a massive warchest for a team of lawyers. They appear to think they are strong enough to destroy anyone in the gaming community who stands in their way.




and they may be right... even if that sucks


Yaarel said:


> OK, but now you are obsolete. You have stopped growing. You will find fewer and fewer players.



yup just like every edition change or game company going out of business'. It sucks but it happens. I ALREADY have trouble getting a 4e game going.


Yaarel said:


> Any "modularity" that you seek will be gated by the caprice of Hasbro-WotC.



again, I will weigh new editions and update or not...


Yaarel said:


> But perhaps most of all, it is the casual gamers who celebrate D&D on websites about D&D who will suffer the most.



I doubt that. We wont lose our jobs. We wont have our companies go under. We MIGHT have to find a new place to talk. 


Yaarel said:


> Think of all the D&D content created by ENWorlders, whether monsters, portraits, magic items, settings, or new mechanics for the D&D game. All homebrew gone. Hasbro-WotC lawyers can destroy all of it. Arbitrarily.



and we are now in hypothetical worst case worlds...  Yes they COULD arbitrarily target my new Bo9S converted to 5e I posted for free a few years ago... but I just don't think they will.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> yup just like every edition change or game company going out of business'. It sucks but it happens. I ALREADY have trouble getting a 4e game going.



All of those early editions of D&D are alive and well. Because the players who love those editions are creating new content for them ...

because of the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yes they COULD arbitrarily target my new Bo9S converted to 5e I posted for free a few years ago... but I just don't think they will.



You might not be the first victim. But when Hasbro-WotC takes down an other victim, they wont stop there.


----------



## HammerMan

Jasperak said:


> Rhetorical question for the board as a whole, if my wordpress.com blog is monetized (it isn't), do I have to submit a legal document to them if I want to post a custom class for any version of D&D using the NOGL? Asking for a friend.
> 
> If I do, then I would much rather have someone else's OGL that I could support without this little small fry running afoul of NOTC's lawyers.



We don’t have the final terms yet but from what we see it will not affect you at all if you make 50k or less from that Wordpress blog.  If you make that or more please tell us your secret.


----------



## Lidgar

It strikes me that a reason for One D&D/5.5 is to get at the new licensing/monetization paradigm, including OGL 1.1 and accompanying SRD.


----------



## HammerMan

Yaarel said:


> All of those early editions of D&D are alive and well. Because the players who love those editions are creating new content for them ...
> 
> because of the OGL 1.0a.



And every game ever made had fans.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Oldskull (a prolific OSR publisher on DTRPG) has put out a set of PWYW game rules to replace the SRD. I cannot imagine he'll be the last.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Lidgar said:


> It strikes me that a reason for One D&D/5.5 is to get at the new licensing/monetization paradigm, including OGL 1.1 and accompanying SRD.



Nah. They were never going to let the 50th anniversary of D&D go by without a new edition, collector's edition, swag, etc., no matter who was in charge or what their particular marketing strategy might be. TSR put out a bunch of Silver Anniversary stuff in the 1990s, remember.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Oldskull (a prolific OSR publisher on DTRPG) has put out a set of PWYW game rules to replace the SRD. I cannot imagine he'll be the last.



I think we will see a ton of that.


----------



## Yaarel

Lidgar said:


> It strikes me that a reason for One D&D/5.5 is to get at the new licensing/monetization paradigm, including OGL 1.1 and accompanying SRD.






Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Nah. They were never going to let the 50th anniversary of D&D go by without a new edition, collector's edition, swag, etc., no matter who was in charge or what their particular marketing strategy might be. TSR put out a bunch of Silver Anniversary stuff in the 1990s, remember.




Maybe both are true.

I expected 2024 to be 5.5: a best version of the most successful version for the anniversary edition.

But the goals seem to morph.

It likely will be a full-on 6e. A dramatic splash to usher in a new Hasbro-WotC "Empire".

The "one true way" to play D&D.


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Oldskull (a prolific OSR publisher on DTRPG) has put out a set of PWYW game rules to replace the SRD. I cannot imagine he'll be the last.



Indestructoboy is live streaming himself creating a fantasy RPG.


----------



## macd21

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Nah. They were never going to let the 50th anniversary of D&D go by without a new edition, collector's edition, swag, etc., no matter who was in charge or what their particular marketing strategy might be. TSR put out a bunch of Silver Anniversary stuff in the 1990s, remember.



Plus - 5e will be 10 years old by 2024. That’s quite a long time for a DnD edition. They’ve already released all of the more popular “must buy” books. They’ve even on to some of the niche settings like Spelljammer. They need a new edition to get people buying a new set of PHBs and MMs and player companions etc.

So another edition - whether a 5.5 or a true 6th - was already due (consider 3rd edition lasted 8 years. And that was with a 3.5 in the middle…). They’re just using the new edition as an opportunity to leverage the OGL changes.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> View attachment 271747



The Lord of the Strings?


----------



## Maxperson

HammerMan said:


> If they REALLY were going scorched earth why not just say “withdrawn and there is nothing” why give people who make 100k or so a year a free pass?



There's nothing "free" about what they seem to be doing.  Royalties are not the only strings in this.


----------



## martinlochsen

Wall of text warning:

I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.

To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.

Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.

Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.

Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.

It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.

The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.

The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.

Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.


----------



## Yaarel

The stream by Indestructoboy was abruptly ended when someone sent him a copy of the OGL 1.1.

He switched to a new stream to discuss the OGL 1.1. I havent seen it yet, will watch it now, but here is the link.


----------



## Bohandas

Reynard said:


> There are literally hundreds of existing games not built on the OGL. Any one of them could have overtaken D&D at any time. None of them have.



You mean none of them overtook it for keeps. Pathfinder eclipsed D&D during 4th edition but was overtaken when 5e came out


----------



## Bohandas

macd21 said:


> Plus - 5e will be 10 years old by 2024. That’s quite a long time for a DnD edition. They’ve already released all of the more popular “must buy” books. They’ve even on to some of the niche settings like Spelljammer. They need a new edition to get people buying a new set of PHBs and MMs and player companions etc.




So then perhaps they decided to do this transparent cash grab to draw attention away from the new edition being a transparent cash grab?


----------



## Yaarel

One of the commentators in Indestructoboys YouTube points out:

The point of the numbers "$50,000" and "$75,000" in the Anti-OGL is to DISCOURAGE indy creators from ever reaching that level of success.

Relatedly.

The point of the 20% to 25% royalty is that this would be a healthy profit margin for a business to be sustainable − thus giving this profit to Hasbro-WotC instead will kill most emerging indy businesses.

The reason for spying on those with $50,000 is to precisely calculate the profit margin, so as to know precisely what to charge in royalties to kill any business that gets too large.


----------



## jgbrowning

Yaarel said:


> One of the commentators in Indestructoboys YouTube points out:
> 
> The point of the numbers "$50,000" and "$75,000" in the Anti-OGL is to DISCOURAGE indy creators from ever reaching that level of success.
> 
> Relatedly.
> 
> The point of the 20% to 25% royalty is that this would be a healthy profit margin for a business to be sustainable − thus giving this profit to Hasbro-WotC instead will kill most emerging indy businesses.
> 
> The reason for spying on those with $50,000 is to precisely calculate the profit margin, so as to know precisely what to charge in royalties to kill any business that gets too large.




IMO, it is not necessarily to kill a business that gets to large, but to rent-seek off of them so that WotC's competitor's growth is extremely limited by the rent they're forced to pay to WotC past that threshold. It's not supposed to _kill_ competition, it's supposed to transfer competition profits to WotC thereby keeping all competition at an acceptable level while ensuring any newly-discovered revenue generators are sending their pound of flesh.

Consider that the marginal rate on 1.5 million would be 12.5%. That amount _could_ probably be afforded, but that marginal rate rapidly increases towards the full 25% as revenue increases.

The fact that the commentator said it wasn't rent-seeking behavior annoyed me. It is _precisely_ rent-seeking behavior, and _specifically_ rent-seeking behavior designed to prevent competition above a certain size. Particularly when that rate and *threshold of where it kicks in* can be unilaterally changed at a later date if a company shows that it _still_ capable of growing while paying their rent to WotC.

joe b.


----------



## macd21

Bohandas said:


> So then perhaps they decided to do this transparent cash grab to draw attention away from the new edition being a transparent cash grab?



That’s unlikely to be much of a problem. While a handful of people will complain that a new edition is a cash grab, they’re usually a small minority. Even the negative reaction to 4th wasn’t because it was seen as a cash grab, it was because it “wasn’t DnD”.

I think they decided to do this because they don’t like the OGL. Especially given they want to better “monetise” DnD. They plan to release a lot of new material for DnD and in new formats (such as VTT) that they weren’t too bothered about when the OGL first came out. They think a lot more money can be made from the DnD brand, and are worried that the OGL as-is will allow others to eat into their market.


----------



## Yaarel

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, it is not necessarily to kill a business that gets to large, but to rent-seek off of them so that WotC's competitor's growth is extremely limited by the rent they're forced to pay to WotC past that threshold. It's not supposed to _kill_ competition, it's supposed to transfer competition profits to WotC thereby keeping all competition at an acceptable level while ensuring any newly-discovered revenue generators are sending their pound of flesh.
> 
> Consider that the marginal rate on 1.5 million would be 12.5%. That amount _could_ probably be afforded, but that marginal rate rapidly increases towards the full 25% as revenue increases.



No.

Hasbro-WotC makes so much money, more that all of the other "competitors" combined, they actually dont care about "rent seeking" for the little share of what others are earning.

The motive is to destroy any "competitor" that becomes significant.




jgbrowning said:


> ... designed to prevent competition above a certain size.



Yes.


----------



## jgbrowning

Yaarel said:


> No.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC makes so much money, more that all of the other "competitors" combined, they actually dont care about "rent seeking" for the little share of what others are earning.
> 
> The motive is to destroy any "competitor" that becomes significant.




I disagree. The motive or goal for rent-seeking behavior does not negate that it is rent-seeking behavior any more than the reason for driving a car negates that one is driving a car. For instance, one could easily postulate that the rent-seeking is also done to keep competition at a level low enough so that WotC has a chance to purchase any competition that has a very good idea before that very good idea becomes a lot more expensive to purchase. In this way they are out-sourcing the idea-development in a way that allows them to harvest the best that blooms while knowing that the rent-seeking will keep those blooms from ever leaving the garden and costing $142 million dollars to purchase like D&D Beyond just cost them. There are many reasons one can put forth as for why the rent seeking exists and all of those reasons are just speculation.

What is not speculation is that the *mechanism *for all of those speculative reasons is *rent-seeking behavior*.

joe b.


----------



## Yaarel

jgbrowning said:


> I disagree. The motive or goal for rent-seeking behavior does not negate that it is rent-seeking behavior any more than the reason for driving a car negates that one is driving a car. For instance, one could easily postulate that the rent-seeking is also done to keep competition at a level low enough so that WotC has a chance to purchase any competition that has a very good idea before that very good idea becomes a lot more expensive to purchase. In this way they are out-sourcing the idea-development in a way that allows them to harvest the best that blooms while knowing that the rent-seeking will keep those blooms from ever leaving the garden and costing $142 million dollars to purchase like D&D Beyond just cost them. There are many reasons one can put forth as for why the rent seeking exists and all of those reasons are just speculation.
> 
> What is not speculation is that the *mechanism *for all of those speculative reasons is *rent-seeking behavior*.
> 
> joe b.



We can agree the "means" is rent-seeking. However the "motive" is Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy any gamer who becomes successful.

It is like: is the purpose of driving the car to get somewhere, or is it to run over a puppy? In this case, Hasbro-WotC is driving the car for the purpose of running over the puppy.


----------



## jgbrowning

Yaarel said:


> We can agree the "means" is rent-seeking. However the "motive" is Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy any gamer who becomes successful.
> 
> It is like: is the purpose of driving the car to get somewhere, or is it to run over a puppy. In this case, Hasbro-WotC is driving the car for the purpose of running over the puppy.




Any of those motives are speculation. It could also as easily be as "seeks to limit any gaming company from becoming too successful" or "seeks to use those limits to find suitable company ideas for acquisitions." The motives are speculation, informed speculation certainly, but still speculation. The behavior is rent-seeking, so that is what WotC are doing.

I think I've stated what is known clearly, and what is speculation clearly, so this will be my last post on the subject.

joe b.


----------



## delericho

Yaarel said:


> Hasbro-WotC makes so much money, more that all of the other "competitors" combined, they actually dont care about "rent seeking" for the little share of what others are earning.



There's so little money in this, and so much bad PR, that I'm inclined to think it's about that at all. IMO, someone (or multiple someones) at WotC simply has an aversion to the very concept of open gaming, so they're going all-out to end it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OGL 1.1 is crafted to be so bad intentionally, so nobody will use it - but so that it can serve as their fig-leaf against claims that they're doing, well, what they're doing.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Just got a flash of genius!

I wonder how the contract for freelancer artist and map-maker for WotC books is written. 

''you know, my contract for that map says you have a perpetual authorization to use my map....you, see I think that that perpetual authorization as lapsed. I'll take my maps back, thank you very much''


----------



## humble minion

Yaarel said:


> We can agree the "means" is rent-seeking. However the "motive" is Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy any gamer who becomes successful.




I'm a hairsbreadth more generous to WotC than that.  I don't think they're automatically trying to destroy anyone who becomes successful.  I think they're more trying to exert a degree of control over the 3pp publishers.  The 25% over $750k is obviously a business-killer, but equally, WotC have talked about making private arrangements with companies that meet that threshold (and seem to be seeking to do just that, now).

It looks to be a carrot-and-stick arrangement, where WotC tries to motivate 3pps to stick to the sort of product that WotC is ok with them producing.  The stick is clear - the 25% fee, and also being bound to the OGL 1.1 which WotC can arbitrarily change at any time.  The carrot is (probably) paying a much smaller fee or even no fee at all, certainty with your licence rather than the eternal 'will WotC decide to destroy my company by changing it today?' dilemma that 1.1 offers, and maybe some preferential access to DndBeyond and even perhaps to WotC IP etc, but at the cost of giving up some of your autonomy.  I suspect for instance, that WotC would refuse to come to one of these private licencing agreements unless the 3pp signed away their right to create a PHB-substitute product, or an alternate core bookset like Pathfinder started out as.  This is about keeping the 3pps in what WotC believes to be their proper place - enriching the broader D&D ecosystem by making niche or low-margin products which WotC doesn't really want to make, but not getting uppity.


----------



## Umbran

Bohandas said:


> You mean none of them overtook it for keeps. Pathfinder eclipsed D&D during 4th edition but was overtaken when 5e came out




*Mod Note:*
We've asked folks several times across a couple OGL threads not to go down this rathole of who sold how much when.  People don't agree, and get angry, without it actually mattering to the current OGL situation.  So please let us not do this again.


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's "opinion" and there's "actively misleading"/"doesn't understand situation".




*Mod Note:*
And there's also trying to make statements about the _speaker_ in order to dismiss their words.

Please don't.  These times are uncertain and anxious.  One thing we shouldn't do is take that out _on each other_.


----------



## Umbran

Yaarel said:


> We can agree the "means" is rent-seeking. However the "motive" is Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy any gamer who becomes successful.




We should not flatter ourselves - it isn't that personal.  It isn't about destroying _people_.  It is about discouraging competition.  That people get hurt by it is a side effect that maybe they don't really care that much about.


----------



## Yaarel




----------



## Jack Daniel

Yaarel said:


> View attachment 271784​



WotC is really dialing up the edge on 6th edition tieflings, eh?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> You might not be the first victim. But when Hasbro-WotC takes down an other victim, they wont stop there.



I'm sorry but this slippery slop might as well lead to a zombie apocalypse with all the inserted "this COULD in THEORY happen" by the time I become a 'victim' 
so how about we keep perspective... I am not (I think) losing my job next week. There are people who are in very real danger of that... THOSE are the victims not the fans.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm sorry but this slippery slop might as well lead to a zombie apocalypse with all the inserted "this COULD in THEORY happen" by the time I become a 'victim'
> so how about we keep perspective... I am not (I think) losing my job next week. There are people who are in very real danger of that... THOSE are the victims not the fans.



It isnt _either _fan _or _business person.

Most of the victims of Hasbro-WotC would be somewhere in between.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, it is not necessarily to kill a business that gets to large, but to rent-seek off of them so that WotC's competitor's growth is extremely limited by the rent they're forced to pay to WotC past that threshold. It's not supposed to _kill_ competition, it's supposed to transfer competition profits to WotC thereby keeping all competition at an acceptable level while ensuring any newly-discovered revenue generators are sending their pound of flesh.
> 
> Consider that the marginal rate on 1.5 million would be 12.5%. That amount _could_ probably be afforded, but that marginal rate rapidly increases towards the full 25% as revenue increases.
> 
> The fact that the commentator said it wasn't rent-seeking behavior annoyed me. It is _precisely_ rent-seeking behavior, and _specifically_ rent-seeking behavior designed to prevent competition above a certain size. Particularly when that rate and *threshold of where it kicks in* can be unilaterally changed at a later date if a company shows that it _still_ capable of growing while paying their rent to WotC.
> 
> joe b.



Yup, that is EXACTLY what they are doing. They are saying "stay small fish, or we will release the sharks"


----------



## Reynard

Bohandas said:


> You mean none of them overtook it for keeps. Pathfinder eclipsed D&D during 4th edition but was overtaken when 5e came out



That's not quite what happened, but we don't need to relitigate that issue yet again.


----------



## kenada

martinlochsen said:


> Wall of text warning:
> 
> I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.
> 
> To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.
> 
> Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.
> 
> Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.
> 
> Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.
> 
> It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.
> 
> The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.
> 
> The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.
> 
> Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.
> 
> The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.



This is something I wanted to post after I questioned the desire to replace D&D with another (universal, etc) game. My apologies for using your post as a jumping off point @martinlochsen instead of responding to you in particular.

I’d not want to replace one RPG monoculture with another. I fear that could kill innovation by putting pressure on designers to remain compatible with the omni-base, new game, or whatever form it takes. I don’t think a game has to precede the license. We’ve been doing open gaming for several decades now, so I think there’s a good understanding of what a new open gaming license should look like (addressing the revocation issue, ownership of the license, abusing PI to prevent mechanics being OGC, etc).

In particular, I think the following steps would result in a diverse and flourishing hobby:

Draft a true-OGL and assign to the Open Gaming Foundation (or some other nonprofit whose charter is involves the promotion of open gaming);
Relicense non-SRD OGL games under the true-OGL with permission of their publishers (yielding an immediate base of true-OGL games to use as a base for other games);
Determine whether Pathfinder 2e is truly independent of the SRD and relicense it under the true-OGL (adding a D&D-like to the pool);
Assuming yes for #3, rework SRD-derived games (Mutants and Masterminds, retroclones, etc) to be based off PF2 (adding simpler D&D-likes to the pool); and
Reach out to Creative Commons licensed games to see if they would be willing to contribute their games under the true-OGL (adding BitD and other games to the pool).
The effect of this approach is to bring a large swath of the hobby under a true open gaming license, but it also gives designers a wide variety of mechanics they can use in their games. Instead of the true-OGL being a marketing tool to reinforce the dominant position of one game, it provides a rich selection of options designers can use as a starting point for building their games. It would make the hobby be more like the open source software community that originally inspired the OGL.

As an added benefit, places where games have clumsily recloned other mechanics, they could just use those mechanics directly. I’m looking at PF2’s VP subsystem in particular. It’s basically clocks, but it’s not _actually_ clocks. If it could be clocks, it would be much simpler to understand because you could draw on the body of experience using clocks in FitD games with the added advice (provided by PF2) on how to use them with its resolution system.


----------



## ChaosOS

martinlochsen said:


> Wall of text warning:
> 
> I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.
> 
> To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.
> 
> Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.
> 
> Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.
> 
> Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.
> 
> It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.
> 
> The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.
> 
> The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.
> 
> Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.
> 
> The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.


----------



## kenada

ChaosOS said:


> View attachment 271787



What XKCD failed to understand is you just need to have the 15th standard deauthorize the fourteen other ones, so there is only the one true standard remaining.


----------



## Random Task

martinlochsen said:


> Wall of text warning:
> 
> I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.
> 
> To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.
> 
> Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.
> 
> Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.
> 
> Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.
> 
> It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.
> 
> The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.
> 
> The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.
> 
> Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.
> 
> The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.



I was involved in a Discord server where the goal was to make a new best version of Shadowrun ever because people weren't happy with what Catalyst did for 5th and 6th edition and it devolved into competing ideas, some forking of the project and a whole lot of reviewing and voting and the project never went anywhere.  Without some person or people having ultimate control of the overall project it is a mess.


kenada said:


> As an added benefit, places where games have clumsily recloned other mechanics, they could just use those mechanics directly. I’m looking at PF2’s VP subsystem in particular. It’s basically clocks, but it’s not _actually_ clocks. If it could be clocks, it would be much simpler to understand because you could draw on the body of experience using clocks in FitD games with the added advice (provided by PF2) on how to use them with its resolution system.



Clocks predates FiTD by at least PbTA.  I presume if Pathfinder wanted to use clocks, they would have just used them.


----------



## kenada

Random Task said:


> Clocks predates FiTD by at least PbTA.  I presume if Pathfinder wanted to use clocks, they would have just used them.



The way FitD systematizes clocks is different from PbtA. The VP subsystem is clearly inspired by the FitD approach rather than the PbtA one.

Anyway, the point was to illustrate how a diverse pool of games could share mechanics directly due to the safe harbor provided by a true open gaming license.


----------



## Maxperson

jgbrowning said:


> I disagree. The motive or goal for rent-seeking behavior does not negate that it is rent-seeking behavior any more than the reason for driving a car negates that one is driving a car. For instance, one could easily postulate that the rent-seeking is also done to keep competition at a level low enough so that WotC has a chance to purchase any competition that has a very good idea before that very good idea becomes a lot more expensive to purchase. In this way they are out-sourcing the idea-development in a way that allows them to harvest the best that blooms while knowing that the rent-seeking will keep those blooms from ever leaving the garden and costing $142 million dollars to purchase like D&D Beyond just cost them. There are many reasons one can put forth as for why the rent seeking exists and all of those reasons are just speculation.
> 
> What is not speculation is that the *mechanism *for all of those speculative reasons is *rent-seeking behavior*.
> 
> joe b.



The problem you are facing here in the conversation is that you use the word "seeking" where that isn't applicable.  They aren't seeking(the goal) rent.  They are seeking(the goal) to prevent competitors from achieving any decent size.  They are using rent to achieve their goal(behavior). So they have anti-competitor seeking behavior, using "rent"(royalties) as the tool to achieve it.


----------



## Maxperson

jgbrowning said:


> Any of those motives are speculation. It could also as easily be as "seeks to limit any gaming company from becoming too successful" or "seeks to use those limits to find suitable company ideas for acquisitions." The motives are speculation, informed speculation certainly, but still speculation. The behavior is rent-seeking, so that is what WotC are doing.



WotC knows the numbers, so they know full well that a royalty of 20-25% can't be handled by these small businesses.  If rent was what they were seeking, the royalty number would be lower so that they could get a decent amount rent from successful companies. There is a reason that circumstantial evidence can put a criminal behind bars. There's a point where you can see clearly what is happening without the entity telling your straight up what they are doing.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm sorry but this slippery slop might as well lead to a zombie apocalypse with all the inserted "this COULD in THEORY happen" by the time I become a 'victim'
> so how about we keep perspective... I am not (I think) losing my job next week. There are people who are in very real danger of that... THOSE are the victims not the fans.



I would argue that creators and consumers are both victims here, in different ways.  Certainly creators are hit harder, as this directly affects their livelihood, but I don't see any benefit in telling consumers their concerns aren't really that important and should be dismissed as a "stubbed toe" (to use a phrase I've seen in one of your posts on this subject).  Consumers are the ones whose purchasing ultimately keeps _ everyone_ afloat, and dismissing the concerns and feelings of those who want to actually support the companies and products threatened does no one any good.


----------



## ChaosOS

Another person got a hold of the draft document and is doing their own review. Owen has a lot of experience making OGL products even if he's not an outright lawyer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

So interesting Paizo tweet:


Hard to say if that's positive or negative, because there are multiple easy interpretations:

1) "Shut the hell up, Paizo has signed a sweetheart deal, and the OGL 1.1 will land soon!"

2) "Please stop annoying us, a revised OGL 1.1 will be revealed soon and we've negotiated them down to something resembling sanity!"

3) "Hush, the OGL 1.1 will land soon and we're going to oppose it"

(2 may or may not also involve a sweetheart deal, and to me 3 seems unlikely from the language employed here).

I do agree with her that even if Paizo signs nothing their employees (specifically) are unlikely to be out of a job, because they'll come up with some other licence or approach, but it does seem like it could potentially slow them down.

The biggest takeaway is "soon", which I suspect no-one on Twitter would use unless they believed something would happen in the next few days because they'd get ragged about it forever if it was much longer.


----------



## humble minion

More updates from pending 5e kickstarters.

Historica Arcanum’s Silk Road book isn’t due for quite a while yet, and they’re basically saying ‘we dunno what’s going on either, we’ll deliver eventually in some form but we’ll have to wait and see.’

Atlas Games say that Planegaea is sufficiently advanced in production (PDF already distributed) that the can fulfil the print copy regardless of the licence changes, but they’re going to rush out a PDF of the module stretch goals to beat the deadline just in case. They say that they haven’t seen 1.1 and that if the leaked terms are accurate then 1.1 is unusable for a professional business.

Delvers Guide to Beast World has no update about fulfilment (like Atlas, they too have delivered the PDF and have hardcopies at the printer), but have committed to not using 1.1.

This’d be utterly disastrous for small kickstarted projects. Imagine working for years on a project then having WotC lawyers bar you from releasing it, or requiring massive rewrites, at the stroke of a pen right in the home stretch. I’ve probably backed 10 projects who are wondering where they stand right now.


----------



## Dreamscape

At this point WotC could just stay quiet until they launch OneD&D, and all 5E OGL Kickstarters would die on the vine.


----------



## delericho

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hard to say if that's positive or negative, because there are multiple easy interpretations:
> 
> 1) "Shut the hell up, Paizo has signed a sweetheart deal, and the OGL 1.1 will land soon!"
> 
> 2) "Please stop annoying us, a revised OGL 1.1 will be revealed soon and we've negotiated them down to something resembling sanity!"
> 
> 3) "Hush, the OGL 1.1 will land soon and we're going to oppose it"



4) Management haven't yet told us what they're going to do.

5) Management haven't yet decided what they're going to do.

6) The whole thing is under NDA anyway, so we can't talk about it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

delericho said:


> 4) Management haven't yet told us what they're going to do.
> 
> 5) Management haven't yet decided what they're going to do.



I personally think it rules out those, but I guess we'll see.


----------



## Reynard

delericho said:


> 4) Management haven't yet told us what they're going to do.
> 
> 5) Management haven't yet decided what they're going to do.
> 
> 6) The whole thing is under NDA anyway, so we can't talk about it.



"Management has told us to keep our yaps shut if we want to keep our jobs."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't see any benefit in telling consumers their concerns aren't really that important and should be dismissed as a "stubbed toe"



I don't see the benefit of saying things like they are destroying the TTRPG community, or that this will 'kill' games or that it will 'kill' homebrew forever... I just want to keep perspective. Yes it stinks if the game you like (in your case level up) can not make new content. The example I came up with I like best is if a TV show you love ends on a season cliff hanger and is canceled (I think that is better then the stubbed toe). I am not saying it doesn't suck, and it is something most of us can relate to. However the writers and actors of that show got it worse. The guy who runs this website finding out that Level Up can't go on isn't losing a game he likes... he is losing a big chunk of his business and lively hood.   So I am not saying I don't feel for you. I do, the same way I would wish you would feel for me about losing 4e. However it is not anywhere near the scale of what I feel for the company employees.


----------



## Lidgar

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Nah. They were never going to let the 50th anniversary of D&D go by without a new edition, collector's edition, swag, etc., no matter who was in charge or what their particular marketing strategy might be. TSR put out a bunch of Silver Anniversary stuff in the 1990s, remember.



Right. Not the only reason, but maybe more of an opportunity to address this desire to better monetize the brand.


----------



## humble minion

Dreamscape said:


> At this point WotC could just stay quiet until they launch OneD&D, and all 5E OGL Kickstarters would die on the vine.



You’re not wrong (though at least the already-funded ones would get a chance to fulfil rather than have to either heavily rewrite or leave their backers in the lurch)

Ive been seeing Facebook ads for several months now about an upcoming KS project called I think Vynastra (spelling?) which is a Roman-inspired thing, high production values and multiple books totalling over 1000 pages - they must have put in a mountain of work and expense already. The campaign is listed to start ‘early 2023’. The poor buggers behind that must be gnawing their fingernails to the elbow right now.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't see the benefit of saying things like they are destroying the TTRPG community, or that this will 'kill' games or that it will 'kill' homebrew forever... I just want to keep perspective. Yes it stinks if the game you like (in your case level up) can not make new content. The example I came up with I like best is if a TV show you love ends on a season cliff hanger and is canceled (I think that is better then the stubbed toe). I am not saying it doesn't suck, and it is something most of us can relate to. However the writers and actors of that show got it worse. The guy who runs this website finding out that Level Up can't go on isn't losing a game he likes... he is losing a big chunk of his business and lively hood.   So I am not saying I don't feel for you. I do, the same way I would wish you would feel for me about losing 4e. However it is not anywhere near the scale of what I feel for the company employees.



There is a difference between recognizing that real life concerns trump playing or even supporting a game (which I think everyone agrees with) and dismissing the feelings of others because they don't rise to the level of job loss.  Everyone who cares about 3PP is a victim here, to one degree or another.


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr

ChaosOS said:


> Another person got a hold of the draft document and is doing their own review. Owen has a lot of experience making OGL products even if he's not an outright lawyer.



Look at his following tweet.


----------



## eyeheartawk

It's on thing after anther for Paizo employees. 

First they couldn't get their office vacuumed and now this.


----------



## darjr

Want Robert Schwab 5e stuff?


----------



## kenada

delericho said:


> 4) Management haven't yet told us what they're going to do.
> 
> 5) Management haven't yet decided what they're going to do.
> 
> 6) The whole thing is under NDA anyway, so we can't talk about it.



7) The company has instructed employees to stay silent until it makes a statement, and future communications will be referred back to a designated representative.

That’s normal “acting like a business” stuff.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> I personally think it rules out those, but I guess we'll see.



I don't think it does.  Their lawyers could have said, "Well, there are three different roads you can go down that will ensure you stay in business, X, Y and Z."  Where one is retool and get rid of references that violate the OGL, one is strike a new deal, etc.

They may well not know or not have told people what they are going to do.


----------



## mamba

humble minion said:


> More updates from pending 5e kickstarters.



tell them to release something,, anything under 1.0a now, better than waiting until the 13th


----------



## Xyxox

Reynard said:


> "Management has told us to keep our yaps shut if we want to keep our jobs."



This one, right here.

My guess (please note, I did use the word GUESS), given the Paizo environment, Paizo is prepared to litigate. Paizo itself may not have the money, but Lisa Stevens ABSOLUTELY has the money and will seek litigation costs in any suit.


----------



## martinlochsen

Random Task said:


> I was involved in a Discord server where the goal was to make a new best version of Shadowrun ever because people weren't happy with what Catalyst did for 5th and 6th edition and it devolved into competing ideas, some forking of the project and a whole lot of reviewing and voting and the project never went anywhere.  Without some person or people having ultimate control of the overall project it is a mess.



Yes. It would absolutely need someone leading it. Some experienced designer to actually design the game, just that the shape of the game would be based on surveys. Ideally a team of three or so experienced designers would be best probably


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xyxox said:


> Lisa Stevens ABSOLUTELY has the money and will seek litigation costs in any suit.



I only know here as one of the pathfinder people... is she rich? I didn't think anyone in TTRPG had the income to become rich so I assume she comes from money?


----------



## Xyxox

GMforPowergamers said:


> I only know here as one of the pathfinder people... is she rich? I didn't think anyone in TTRPG had the income to become rich so I assume she comes from money?



Ms. Stevens had a vast amount of WotC stock as a very important employee when Hasbro bought out WotC.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xyxox said:


> Ms. Stevens had a vast amount of WotC stock as a very important employee when Hasbro bought out WotC.



wow.. I guess the "nobody gets rich in RPGs" is wrong then 
Thanks


----------



## Reynard

Xyxox said:


> This one, right here.
> 
> My guess (please note, I did use the word GUESS), given the Paizo environment, Paizo is prepared to litigate. Paizo itself may not have the money, but Lisa Stevens ABSOLUTELY has the money and will seek litigation costs in any suit.



Isn't she retired?


----------



## billd91

Xyxox said:


> Ms. Stevens had a vast amount of WotC stock as a very important employee when Hasbro bought out WotC.



That was over 20 years ago and she and Vic used a chunk of that money to create Paizo. So exactly how much of that money is left is unknown and I wouldn't want to make any assumptions about it.


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow.. I guess the "nobody gets rich in RPGs" is wrong then
> Thanks



That was one of the things about WotC selling to Hasbro. The company was doing well, but many of the people who worked at and invested in it were not. Accepting Hasbro's offer was Peter's way to reward the supporters and investors for building the company.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow.. I guess the "nobody gets rich in RPGs" is wrong then
> Thanks



She's also a pretty important figure in RPG history generally. Worked at Lion Rampant with Rein*Hagen, is one of the original designed of Vampire: The Masquerade, was Wizards of the Coast's first full-time employee, founded Paizo.

It's quite a resume and I suspect there's an element of sexism in how few people know that.


----------



## eyeheartawk

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow.. I guess the "nobody gets rich in RPGs" is wrong then
> Thanks



It's still true.

All of WotC's value back then was pretty much derived from Magic.


----------



## Xyxox

Reynard said:


> Isn't she retired?



She is still the owner.


----------



## Xyxox

Ruin Explorer said:


> She's also a pretty important figure in RPG history generally. Worked at Lion Rampant with Rein*Hagen, is one of the original designed of Vampire: The Masquerade, was Wizards of the Coast's first full-time employee, founded Paizo.
> 
> It's quite a resume and I suspect there's an element of sexism in how few people know that.



She's been my RPG hero for decades now.


----------



## Dausuul

billd91 said:


> That was over 20 years ago and she and Vic used a chunk of that money to create Paizo. So exactly how much of that money is left is unknown and I wouldn't want to make any assumptions about it.



Yeah, we definitely can't take that for granted -- neither how much of the buyout money is left, nor whether she'd be willing to stake it on this battle.

But it would be a beautiful irony if she did use that money to beat Hasbro down.


----------



## Xyxox

Keep in mind though, there is still a chance that WotC would make an offer to purchase Paizo as a way to take out the largest competitor, too, and such an offer may be too good to walk away from.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> She's also a pretty important figure in RPG history generally. Worked at Lion Rampant with Rein*Hagen, is one of the original designed of Vampire: The Masquerade, was Wizards of the Coast's first full-time employee, founded Paizo.
> 
> It's quite a resume and I suspect there's an element of sexism in how few people know that.



very possible, but I will be honest I have also found out a guy at WW that helped make Mage then him and his brother basicly ran the place died a few years ago (in a tragic way) and I didn't know his name either... and when I looked it was on MANY books I own... it came up because I said in theory someone could write for Vampire and TORG... and right now I would have to go look to tell you his name.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xyxox said:


> Keep in mind though, there is still a chance that WotC would make an offer to purchase Paizo as a way to take out the largest competitor, too, and such an offer may be too good to walk away from.



If WotC/Hasbro was smart they would make some move to take Paizo off the field (either buy them or make a side deal) if Paizo was playing it even a little smart they would JUMP at a side deal and shoot down a sale (unless as I just right now learned Hasbro somehow spent a fortune enough that stock holders got rich... if they throw crazy money then by all means jump on it)


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> very possible, but I will be honest I have also found out a guy at WW that helped make Mage then him and his brother basicly ran the place died a few years ago (in a tragic way) and I didn't know his name either



Sounds like you're talking about Stewart Wieck. He and his brother, Steve, founded White Wolf which then merged with Lion Rampant (Tweet, Rein*Hagen, Stevens).


----------



## darjr

Roll for Combat has a “verified” copy themselves.

Streaming now


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> Sounds like you're talking about Stewart Wieck. He and his brother, Steve, founded White Wolf which then merged with Lion Rampant (Tweet, Rein*Hagen, Stevens).



that was him, and from what I can find he was pretty important in the games I played in the 90s. However I never knew any of the names (other then gygax) of the creators. Even now I know I could name a few names behind 4e or TORG, but not all of them. The only names that stick are Gygax, Arenson, and the people I have met face to face.


----------



## overgeeked

The DM Lair weighs in and thinks it’s intentional to psychologically anchor folks to a worse deal to appear to be listening and get folks on board by “sweetening” the deal later.


----------



## Remathilis

Xyxox said:


> Keep in mind though, there is still a chance that WotC would make an offer to purchase Paizo as a way to take out the largest competitor, too, and such an offer may be too good to walk away from.



I don't see this happening. WotC already thinks it can squeeze Paizo without owning it, so there is no incentive to buy it other than to stop a competitor (which is what 1.1 is already designed to do). Further, Paizo gains nothing from this. They would be pariahs from their own fans and they would never be able to work in the RPG space again. Even if they die in litigation, they at least die martyrs and people will support their employees wherever they go. 

I guess if you look at Paizo as a startup looking to sell, get rich, and retire, then I can see a sale. Likewise, if WotC sees any value in Paizo's IP, I guess they might make an offer. But I don't see either being true, and it's far more likely Paizo begins to distance itself from D&D -like gaming and carves out a new niche or takes this to court.


----------



## Nikosandros

At this point there's quite a few folks that have seen the full text. Has anyone clarified in detail what is said about OGL 1.0(a)?


----------



## Scribe

Remathilis said:


> I don't see this happening. WotC already thinks it can squeeze Paizo without owning it, so there is no incentive to buy it other than to stop a competitor (which is what 1.1 is already designed to do). Further, Paizo gains nothing from this. They would be pariahs from their own fans and they would never be able to work in the RPG space again. Even if they die in litigation, they at least die martyrs and people will support their employees wherever they go.
> 
> I guess if you look at Paizo as a startup looking to sell, get rich, and retire, then I can see a sale. Likewise, if WotC sees any value in Paizo's IP, I guess they might make an offer. But I don't see either being true, and it's far more likely Paizo begins to distance itself from D&D -like gaming and carves out a new niche or takes this to court.



I'm putting an unhealthy weight of attention into what they do.

Wizards is already 100% dead to me.


----------



## Xyxox

Nikosandros said:


> At this point there's quite a few folks that have seen the full text. Has anyone clarified in detail what is said about OGL 1.0(a)?



It is no longer an authorized license per the document. That is absolutely consistent in everything I have seen. WotC is unilaterally revoking the license. This is Nuclear Lawfare.


----------



## Greg Benage

Hard to follow when he's scrolling through while shilling his products and otherwise rambling, but it confirms that the "commentary" (propaganda) is mixed in with the actual license language. The Gizmodo writer did in fact quote propaganda and characterize it as license language. And, for example, the bit about your only choice is agreeing to 1.1 or entering a custom license agreement is in the propaganda.

We can blame Wizards for mixing propaganda and license language, but it _is_ clearly delineated. It would have been nice if journalists could have distinguished between the two.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Griffon's Saddlebag being VERY direct here:









						The Griffon's Saddlebag on Instagram: "Wizards of the Coast is going to try to spin this as if OGL 1.1 is a draft. It isn't. Drafts don't come with contracts attached. If they were drafting, they would have written a different sort of PR spin for it 
					

The Griffon's Saddlebag shared a post on Instagram: "Wizards of the Coast is going to try to spin this as if OGL 1.1 is a draft. It isn't. Drafts don't come with contracts attached. If they were drafting, they would have written a different sort of PR spin for it in late December—a vaguer one...




					www.instagram.com
				




TLDW (it's short but): The OGL 1.1 was NOT a draft and no-one was asked for "feedback" on it, and he doesn't believe really anyone has signed it.

EDIT - OGL 1.1 as released by Battlezoo lines up with what he's saying. It purports to be an accurate representation of the final licence, and links to the final licence.


----------



## Greg Benage

Xyxox said:


> It is no longer an authorized license per the document.



It's no longer an "authorized" license according to the propaganda (i.e. "commentary").

This is going to give me an aneurism.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> but it _is_ clearly delineated



Can you screencap an example showing the clarity of the delineation?


----------



## Remathilis

Scribe said:


> I'm putting an unhealthy weight of attention into what they do.
> 
> Wizards is already 100% dead to me.



And this is where we have to watch ourselves. WotC (actually Hasbro) has played its cards. But there are a lot of considerations its partners and 3pp have to make. I mean, are you willing to never buy a Mini from WizKids because they have a contract with WotC? If Paizo decides a sweetheart deal to stay alive is acceptable while they prepare a non OGL Pathfinder, are you willing to bury them too? Hating Wizards is fine, but wizard's tendrils are all across this hobby.


----------



## Greg Benage

Copy of the document:



			http://ogl.battlezoo.com/


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> It's no longer an "authorized" license according to the propaganda (i.e. "commentary").
> 
> This is going to give me an aneurism.



LOL if this is true, then that explains why Griffon's Saddlebag is saying no-one has signed it, because why the hell would you if that's not legal language.

However, it sounds really messed up, because why would you mix the two things in one document? That's utter madness.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> Copy of the document:
> 
> 
> 
> http://ogl.battlezoo.com/



AHA!!! Nice one mate.

Reading now.

And yeah I see the delineation re: "comments", but that doesn't mean that the other sources were wrong - it just means WotC is telling you what they are claiming the legal language means/why it's there. So the deauthorization is something they believe, even if it's in the comments.


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> Can you screencap an example showing the clarity of the delineation?


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> Copy of the document:
> 
> 
> 
> http://ogl.battlezoo.com/



Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?


----------



## Xyxox

Remathilis said:


> And this is where we have to watch ourselves. WotC (actually Hasbro) has played its cards. But there are a lot of considerations its partners and 3pp have to make. I mean, are you willing to never buy a Mini from WizKids because they have a contract with WotC? If Paizo decides a sweetheart deal to stay alive is acceptable while they prepare a non OGL Pathfinder, are you willing to bury them too? Hating Wizards is fine, but wizard's tendrils are all across this hobby.



My stance is simple. If I see a WotC creator badge on a single product, I will not purchase ANY products from that creator. That is my personal red line. Your red line is whatever you decide.


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL if this is true, then that explains why Griffon's Saddlebag is saying no-one has signed it, because why the hell would you if that's not legal language.
> 
> However, it sounds really messed up, because why would you mix the two things in one document? That's utter madness.



From what's provided, it's not an executable document. There's nothing to sign.


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?



I mean, no, it's this YouTube guy.


----------



## Remathilis

Reynard said:


> Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?



Nothing is certain until WotC confirms. Take with as much salt as you wish.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?



It sure looks real, and what I'm seeing matches everything described by leakers.

If it's a fake, it's masterpiece-level. So I don't think that's really worth worrying about. Though I understand not wanting to read 9000 words on the off-chance. Especially as the chances of WotC actually going with this are dropping literally every second they don't respond lol.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?



no, we have to treat it like a plot leak for a big block buster... consider if it looks right for what we know and assume that it MAY be fake


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> From what's provided, it's not an executable document. There's nothing to sign.



The contract was mentioned as being separate by Griffon's - he said something like "The OGL with a contract to sign", so not really indicative.

(I mean, I see a lot of contracts, and lawyers can tell you more, but I've seen countless ones where the contract was relatively straightforward but referred to a much more complex document (or huge array of documents) which needed to be followed.)

EDIT - Look it's right in what you linked: "The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below"

EDIT EDIT - I"In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help *make the License easier to understand and comply with*. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."

LOL

EDIT EDIT EDIT: "Additionally, over time the old OGL incorporated some confusing and even contradictory provisions. It was also written in fairly dense legal language."

LOL x 10, pull the other one, it's got bells on.


----------



## Remathilis

Xyxox said:


> My stance is simple. If I see a WotC creator badge on a single product, I will not purchase ANY products from that creator. That is my personal red line. Your red line is whatever you decide.



So no WizKids, no Gale Force 9, no UltraPro, no Beadles and Grimm? What about Larian Studios or Paramount? Or WeLoveFine or whoever is making t-shirts and socks with ampersands on them? Spirit Halloween who makes Drizzt Costumes? 

How far are you willing to go?


----------



## eyeheartawk

Remathilis said:


> So no WizKids, no Gale Force 9, no UltraPro, no Beadles and Grimm? What about Larian Studios or Paramount? Or WeLoveFine or whoever is making t-shirts and socks with ampersands on them?
> 
> How far are you willing to go?



I mean, Beadle and Grimm boycott themselves by charging $400 for Ravenloft or whatever.


----------



## Xyxox

Reynard said:


> Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?



It's the same one I've been seeing everywhere, verbatim


Remathilis said:


> So no WizKids, no Gale Force 9, no UltraPro, no Beadles and Grimm? What about Larian Studios or Paramount? Or WeLoveFine or whoever is making t-shirts and socks with ampersands on them?
> 
> How far are you willing to go?



Haven't seen a WotC Creator Badge on any of those products yet. Of course, OGL 1.1, which requires those badges, has not been released yet.


----------



## CapnZapp

Reynard said:


> Not that I don't trust, but -- can we be sure it is real?


----------



## Remathilis

Xyxox said:


> It's the same one I've been seeing everywhere, verbatim
> 
> Haven't seen a WotC Creator Badge on any of those products yet. Of course, OGL 1.1, which requires those badges, has not been released yet.



They are literally licenced items. WotC has unique contracts with the already. Or is UltraPro making an official owlbear plushie ok while some studio making a book of monsters verboten? 

Also, what's your take on DMs Guild now?


----------



## Xyxox

REading through this thing, did they get a first year law student with a chip on their shoulder to write the thing? It's a real hot mess.


----------



## Xyxox

Remathilis said:


> They are literally licenced items. WotC has unique contracts with the already. Or is UltraPro making an official owlbear plushie ok while some studio making a book of monsters verboten?
> 
> Also, what's your take on DMs Guild now?



The are literally under  different license, not the OGL 1.1. OF course they are D&D products so I have no need for them any longer. Maybe if they produce something else I;d consider it, unless they get one of those WotC Creator badges on a product.


----------



## Greg Benage

Anyway, here it is. Revocation of 1.0/a is in the legal language:

X. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated. A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

"IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document."

This seems new and potentially very annoying, no?

"You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision"

Yeah that is new and annoying, thanks WotC!


----------



## Remathilis

Xyxox said:


> The are literally under different license, not the OGL 1.1. OF course they are D&D products so I have no need for them any longer. Maybe if they produce something else I;d consider it, unless they get one of those WotC Creator badges on a product.



So if Paizo or CR get a special contract with WotC, you're ok with it, but if they use OGL 1.1 they're not. Seems all the more incentive to strike a unique deal with WotC or use DMs Guild.

Just want to see where your borders lie.


----------



## Scribe

Remathilis said:


> And this is where we have to watch ourselves. WotC (actually Hasbro) has played its cards. But there are a lot of considerations its partners and 3pp have to make. I mean, are you willing to never buy a Mini from WizKids because they have a contract with WotC? If Paizo decides a sweetheart deal to stay alive is acceptable while they prepare a non OGL Pathfinder, are you willing to bury them too? Hating Wizards is fine, but wizard's tendrils are all across this hobby.




This is exactly what I mean. I'm not willing to give Paizo a pass on 'working with' Wizards.

Its OGL 1.0 for life, their own system, or nothing from me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xyxox said:


> REading through this thing, did they get a first year law student with a chip on their shoulder to write the thing? It's a real hot mess.



I mean interns make there worth some how  am I right?


----------



## Scribe

Remathilis said:


> So no WizKids, no Gale Force 9, no UltraPro, no Beadles and Grimm? What about Larian Studios or Paramount? Or WeLoveFine or whoever is making t-shirts and socks with ampersands on them? Spirit Halloween who makes Drizzt Costumes?
> 
> How far are you willing to go?




Correct, nothing they work with.


----------



## Remathilis

Scribe said:


> Correct, nothing they work with.



I wish you good luck. That is a lot of collateral damage.


----------



## Greg Benage

I'd be interested in hearing from the lawyers about this bit:

B. Entire Agreement and Disclaimer of Reliance. This agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and unless otherwise stated in this agreement; any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.


----------



## Reynard

Ruin Explorer said:


> It sure looks real, and what I'm seeing matches everything described by leakers.
> 
> If it's a fake, it's masterpiece-level. So I don't think that's really worth worrying about. Though I understand not wanting to read 9000 words on the off-chance. Especially as the chances of WotC actually going with this are dropping literally every second they don't respond lol.



It's not so much that as I don't want to help spread false information if possible, or get myself fuming over such information. It's been a long 2 years here in the US for alternative facts...


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> "IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document."
> 
> This seems new and potentially very annoying, no?
> 
> "You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision"
> 
> Yeah that is new and annoying, thanks WotC!



It seems to rule out anything like the Pathfinder Reference Document.


----------



## Xyxox

Remathilis said:


> So if Paizo or CR get a special contract with WotC, you're ok with it, but if they use OGL 1.1 they're not. Seems all the more incentive to strike a unique deal with WotC or use DMs Guild.
> 
> Just want to see where your borders lie.



Nope, if they get a special contract to avoid OGL 1.1, I'm done with both forever.


----------



## Remathilis

Scribe said:


> This is exactly what I mean. I'm not willing to give Paizo a pass on 'working with' Wizards.
> 
> Its OGL 1.0 for life, their own system, or nothing from me.



Better to die a hero, yada yada yada?


----------



## eyeheartawk

I view companies who cut a side deal on OGL 1.1 to get a sweetheart deal no different than strike scabs.

A separate bespoke licensing agreement (mostly for stuff that wasn't covered under the old OGL anyway) is not that.

Like, the OGL wouldn't allow Wizkids to make Beholder minis, that sort of stuff.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Having scanned through it looking for anything new, it looks like most of the main stuff already leaked long ago, and reporting on this was generally accurate, though happy to be corrected by others reading more closely.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

eyeheartawk said:


> I view companies who cut a side deal on OGL 1.1 to get a sweetheart deal no different than strike scabs.
> 
> A separate bespoke licensing agreement (mostly for stuff that wasn't covered under the old OGL anyway) is not that.
> 
> Like, the OGL wouldn't allow Wizkids to make Beholder minis, that sort of stuff.



I tend to agree.

Griffon's Saddlebag seems to be suggesting basically no-one has yet though. If he's right that's good.


----------



## Scribe

Remathilis said:


> I wish you good luck. That is a lot of collateral damage.




Yeah, it is. naughty word Wizards, and their leadership several times over.

I'm simply one humble internet user. I have no pull, no weight in the industry, but I hope for nothing but failure for Wizards at this point, as they already ruined MTG for me, and now this? Not just D&D but going after essentially the whole industry?

They can get naughty word.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Ruin Explorer said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> Griffon's Saddlebag seems to be suggesting basically no-one has yet though. If he's right that's good.



Very good.

Same principle applies too. If the entire class collectively says no, what are they gonna do?


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> Having scanned through it looking for anything new, it looks like most of the main stuff already leaked long ago, and reporting on this was generally accurate, though happy to be corrected by others reading more closely.



I agree, other than representing quotes from the propaganda as legal language. Even then, on the important points, the propaganda was reproduced in the legal language so it doesn't make any substantive difference.


----------



## Remathilis

eyeheartawk said:


> I view companies who cut a side deal on OGL 1.1 to get a sweetheart deal no different than strike scabs.
> 
> A separate bespoke licensing agreement (mostly for stuff that wasn't covered under the old OGL anyway) is not that.
> 
> Like, the OGL wouldn't allow Wizkids to make Beholder minis, that sort of stuff.



So Matt Mercer making Wildmont is good because licencing agreement, but Matt Mercer making Tal'dorei Reborn 1.1 compliant is bad because OGL. 

All the more incentive to drop OGL and opt for direct licencing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> I agree, other than representing quotes from the propaganda as legal language. Even then, on the important points, the propaganda was reproduced in the legal language so it doesn't make any substantive difference.



Yeah exactly. I was anticipating them possibly not lining up, but it seems like they do, so it adds up to the same number.


----------



## Composer99

For what it's worth Screen Rant has very recently posted an article.

Screen Rant gets something like over a billion page views per month from what I can tell, so that's probably good visibility?


----------



## eyeheartawk

Remathilis said:


> So Matt Mercer making Wildmont is good because licencing agreement, but Matt Mercer making Tal'dorei Reborn 1.1 compliant is bad because OGL.
> 
> All the more incentive to drop OGL and opt for direct licencing.



Like, Wildemount was litterally published by Wizard's, right? 

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. By publishing Wildemount he isn't diluting the bargaining power of everyone else.


----------



## Greg Benage

This is new (to me, at least):



> a. If Your Licensed Work is crowdfunded or sold via any platform other than Kickstarter, You will pay a 25% royalty on Qualifying Revenue. (So non-crowdfunded direct or distributor sales are subject to the 25% royalty.)




"...crowdfunded *OR *sold via any platform other than Kickstarter."

So 3PP will owe a 25% royalty on direct and distributor sales.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> So Matt Mercer making Wildmont is good because licencing agreement, but Matt Mercer making Tal'dorei Reborn 1.1 compliant is bad because OGL.



No?

The latter would be bad because it's endorsing the deauthorization of OGL 1.0a. If OGL 1.0a wasn't being deauthorized, one might see CR as being a "sucker" to sign 1.1 (just like companies were seen as suckers for signing the GSL), but not a scab.


----------



## Scribe

Greg Benage said:


> This is new (to me, at least):
> 
> 
> 
> "...crowdfunded *OR *sold via any platform other than Kickstarter."
> 
> So 3PP will owe a 25% royalty on direct and distributor sales.




And thats due to Kickstarter already making a deal, at 20%.

Gross.


----------



## Greg Benage

Scribe said:


> And thats due to Kickstarter already making a deal, at 20%.



The point is, it doesn't just apply to crowdfunding. It applies to traditional distribution channels as well, such as direct-to-consumer sales from your own website, or on Amazon, etc.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Scribe said:


> And thats due to Kickstarter already making a deal, at 20%.
> 
> Gross.



You know, once this becomes settled I wouldn't be surprised if this Kickstarter agreement gets a critical eye.

You could certainly read it as KS is using the opportunity while everybody is bent over a barrel to gain market share.

After all, if you're gonna get screwed, may as well get screwed slightly less on our platform over here.

Something, something, blockchain technology will change the world, something, something.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> This is new (to me, at least):
> 
> 
> 
> "...crowdfunded *OR *sold via any platform other than Kickstarter."
> 
> So 3PP will owe a 25% royalty on direct and distributor sales.



Yeah I was trying to point that out a while ago, but it's good to see the actual language and have it be clear. 

The revenue is your total revenue from any "qualifying products", which they clarify are only print/PDF basically, BUT the language is very clear that you can't have apps, games, videos, "mimes" (lol), etc. at all under the OGL 1.1.

Their example of non-qualifying products with the blades/minis was carefully chosen because they seem to be perfectly fine with physical goods, it's just the _entire digital space_ they want to dominate.


----------



## Scribe

eyeheartawk said:


> You know, once this becomes settled I wouldn't be surprised if this Kickstarter agreement gets a critical eye.
> 
> You could certainly read it as KS is using the opportunity while everybody is bent over a barrel to gain market share.
> 
> After all, if you're gonna get screwed, may as well get screwed slightly less on our platform over here.
> 
> Something, something, blockchain technology will change the world, something, something.




Yeah 100%. I noted this when they said they 'fought for creators' or whatever. It has a nice rider that this would encourage even more to use kickstarter, to save the 5%.

Business is business.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Ruin Explorer said:


> Their example of non-qualifying products with the blades/minis was carefully chosen because they seem to be perfectly fine with physical goods, it's just the _entire digital space_ they want to dominate.



I don't understand how you could enforce the minis thing under any OGL unless it infringes on product identity.

Like, anybody can make a dwarf with an axe, you know?


----------



## Scribe

eyeheartawk said:


> I don't understand how you could enforce the minis thing under any OGL unless it infringes on product identity.
> 
> Like, anybody can make a dwarf with an axe, you know?




Yeah, but can you call him a Fighter?!


----------



## Rabulias

Greg Benage said:


> The point is, it doesn't just apply to crowdfunding. It applies to traditional distribution channels as well, such as direct-to-consumer sales from your own website, or on Amazon, etc.



The important point to note here is the phrase "Qualifying Revenue," which would be revenue in excess of $750,000.


----------



## mhd

Scribe said:


> Yeah, but can you call him a Fighter?!



Finally it's the year of Esperanto!


----------



## eyeheartawk

Scribe said:


> Yeah, but can you call him a Fighter?!



Sure, as far as I'm aware "Fighter" was not carved out as product identity.


----------



## Remathilis

eyeheartawk said:


> Like, Wildemount was litterally published by Wizard's, right?
> 
> I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. By publishing Wildemount he isn't diluting the bargaining power of everyone else.



I'm interested to see who else gets hurt in this. For example, WizKids makes D&D minis but also Pathfinder ones. @Scribe said he won't deal with a company that is working with Wizards. full stop. @Xyxox only cares about OGL solidarity and if you are making official D&D minis, that's not his problem, even if they are financially helping WotC. I just want to see if people are ready to boycott companies that took on D&D licensing because they are now tainted by association.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> I agree, other than representing quotes from the propaganda as legal language. Even then, on the important points, the propaganda was reproduced in the legal language so it doesn't make any substantive difference.



Hmmm seems like there IS actually a commentary mismatch, but in the other direction:

The commentary says:

"Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”)."

The legalese says:

"i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition."

Absolutely not the same thing. Sure, the SRDs were Open Game Content, but everything declared Open Game Content was.

It looks like this gives you no ability to share content with other creators, no ability to create Open Game Content. Am I misreading? It really looks like WotC are being extremely misleading here.

This means even if you signed the OGL 1.1, people can't make stuff for your setting/game/etc. without you writing up your own licence for them, and that's assuming that somehow doesn't cause a problem for WotC. Even more than the deauthorization of OGL 1.0a, this is the destruction of "open gaming".


----------



## eyeheartawk

Remathilis said:


> I'm interested to see who else gets hurt in this. For example, WizKids makes D&D minis but also Pathfinder ones. @Scribe said he won't deal with a company that is working with Wizards. full stop. @Xyxox only cares about OGL solidarity and if you are making official D&D minis, that's not his problem, even if they are financially helping WotC. I just want to see if people are ready to boycott companies that took on D&D licensing because they are now tainted.



I think it's important to remember that all those agreements you're referencing here were all made _before _all this OGL 1.1 business. So really, that's a bridge that remains to be crossed. If somebody signs a new agreement and gets an official logo for official 5.5e coasters or whatever we'll have to see, but that hasn't happened yet. 

Personally, I won't boycott any companies that made agreements before all this.


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> It looks like this gives you no ability to share content with other creators, no ability to create Open Game Content. Am I misreading?



The legal language specifically states the license isn't sublicensable, so I believe that is correct.

NON-COMMERCIAL:
II. LICENSE. If, and only if, You fully comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, You may copy, use, modify and distribute Licensed Content around the world as part of Licensed Works on a non-commercial basis, meaning for free: not in exchange for money or any other thing of value. A. We may offer others the ability to use Licensed Content or Unlicensed Content under any conditions We choose. B. You may not transfer Your rights and duties under this agreement under any circumstance or for any reason. This license is not sub-licensable.

COMMERCIAL:
II. LICENSE. If, and only if, You fully comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, You may copy, use, modify and distribute Licensed Content around the world as part of Licensed Works on a commercial basis. A. We may offer others the ability to use Licensed Content or Unlicensed Content under any conditions We choose. B. You may not transfer Your rights and duties under this agreement under any circumstance or for any reason. This license is not sub-licensable.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

eyeheartawk said:


> I don't understand how you could enforce the minis thing under any OGL unless it infringes on product identity.
> 
> Like, anybody can make a dwarf with an axe, you know?



You couldn't enforce yeah. It's about the new "qualifying content" definition, which obviously didn't exist under the previous OGL. My point is they worked pretty hard to find a specific example of "qualifying content", and it's interesting how that reflects on their intentions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> The legal language specifically states the license isn't sublicensable, so I believe that is correct.



Wow. To me that's almost the biggest thing here.

It'd be one thing if they deauthorized the OGL 1.0a, that's already extremely bad, but to attempt to deauthorize it AND to prevent the "Open" part from functioning at all is really stepping it up from like, Sauron to Morgoth territory lol. I had suspicions they were doing that simply because none of the leaks had mentioned Open Gaming Content, but wow.


----------



## Greg Benage

Yeah, it's like they intentionally made it as "not Open" as possible, while still calling it an Open Game License. It's a travesty.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow. To me that's almost the biggest thing here.
> 
> It'd be one thing if they deauthorized the OGL 1.0a, that's already extremely bad, but to attempt to deauthorize it AND to prevent the "Open" part from functioning at all is really stepping it up from like, Sauron to Morgoth territory lol. I had suspicions they were doing that simply because none of the leaks had mentioned Open Gaming Content, but wow.



That really speaks to its true purpose. If the onerous reporting and financial terms weren't enough. Along with the fact that they can rescind their permissions with like almost no notice this really put the whole subject to bed. They want to simply destroy the 3PP market. That's all money they could be making in their eyes.


----------



## Cadence

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow. To me that's almost the biggest thing here.
> 
> It'd be one thing if they deauthorized the OGL 1.0a, that's already extremely bad, but to attempt to deauthorize it AND to prevent the "Open" part from functioning at all is really stepping it up from like, Sauron to Morgoth territory lol. I had suspicions they were doing that simply because none of the leaks had mentioned Open Gaming Content, but wow.



What does the
"V. SHARE-ALIKE. We are letting You use Licensed Content for free because You are using it on a non-commercial basis. If you want to better protect your ownership, You may register under the OGL: Commercial. You agree that others can do the same with Your work. " 
section mean?

Edit:  Ah, is that only in the non-commercial one?


----------



## rknop

The language of this license implicitly assumes that _all_ previously-designated open game content is WotC property they can chose or not to license.  This whole thing is at odds with reality.  It's WotC saying all your base are belong to us.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> So no WizKids, no Gale Force 9, no UltraPro, no Beadles and Grimm? What about Larian Studios or Paramount? Or WeLoveFine or whoever is making t-shirts and socks with ampersands on them? Spirit Halloween who makes Drizzt Costumes?
> 
> How far are you willing to go?



I don't buy any of those things.


----------



## Greg Benage

Cadence said:


> What does the
> "V. SHARE-ALIKE. We are letting You use Licensed Content for free because You are using it on a non-commercial basis. If you want to better protect your ownership, You may register under the OGL: Commercial. You agree that others can do the same with Your work. "
> section mean?
> 
> Edit: Ah, is that only in the non-commercial one?



Yep, but good catch. So if you go the Non-Commercial route, other Non-Commercial publishers can use your work on the same terms. If you're a Commercial publisher, it's juuuuuust a bit different:

II. LICENSE. If, and only if, You fully comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, You may copy, use, modify and distribute Licensed Content around the world as part of Licensed Works on a commercial basis. *A. We may offer others the ability to use Licensed Content or Unlicensed Content under any conditions We choose. B. You may not transfer Your rights and duties under this agreement under any circumstance or for any reason. This license is not sub-licensable.*


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> Edit: Ah, is that only in the non-commercial one?



Correct, sadly.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Greg Benage said:


> I'd be interested in hearing from the lawyers about this bit:
> 
> B. Entire Agreement and Disclaimer of Reliance. This agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and unless otherwise stated in this agreement; any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.



But you still have to enter into the 1.1.  They can't _ make_ you agree to a contract you didn't willingly enter into.


----------



## Greg Benage

Micah Sweet said:


> But you still have to enter into the 1.1. They can't _ make_ you agree to a contract you didn't willingly enter into.



I, as a layman, would assume that is true. I'm just wondering what "disclaimer of reliance" means.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

rknop said:


> The language of this license implicitly assumes that _all_ previously-designated open game content is WotC property they can chose or not to license. This whole thing is at odds with reality. It's WotC saying all your base are belong to us.



I wouldn't say that myself, though that may be what they think.

It's more like whoever wrote this thought that the sum total of "Open Gaming Content" in the world was the SRD 5.1. Not even the other WotC SRDs.

Which is bizarre. I could believe whatever lawyer they had draft this was provided with that understanding by WotC (esp. if they're using in-house lawyers who aren't likely to take a "trust but verify" approach and merely trust instead). But WotC's people must have read it to make the commentary, and it's absolute nonsense.

And every 3PP getting there must have heard an abrupt < RECORD SCRATCH > noise as they read that!


----------



## Alzrius

Greg Benage said:


> I, as a layman, would assume that is true. I'm just wondering what "disclaimer of reliance" means.



Here's what I get when I enter that phrase into Google:


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> View attachment 271802



This is similar to the nonsense I see online, telling _other_ people to quit their jobs at companies the poster is upset with.

No, _you_ quit _your_ job and wonder how you're going to pay _your_ mortgage/rent and feed _your_ kids.

It's extremely easy, from the outside, to decide how these other people should live their lives, as there are no consequences for you.

For all you (the hypothetical "you") out there wanting WotC employees to quit in protest, for all you know, they've been desperately trying to line up a new job for months. Unless you want to start and manage a GoFundMe to pay their bills, slow your rolls.

EDIT: This also goes for everyone who wants third party companies built on selling D&D products to just stop doing it. These folks likely make no more money than you do -- and in many cases, less, given that apparently 95% of ENWorld users are attorneys -- and are just scraping by.


----------



## mamba

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's more like whoever wrote this thought that the sum total of "Open Gaming Content" in the world was the SRD 5.1. Not even the other WotC SRDs.



Probably, also they do not want an ecosystem, they want vassals


----------



## Bedrockgames

rknop said:


> The language of this license implicitly assumes that _all_ previously-designated open game content is WotC property they can chose or not to license.  This whole thing is at odds with reality.  It's WotC saying all your base are belong to us.




What language in the document asserts this? (not doubting just trying to find it)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> The DM Lair weighs in and thinks it’s intentional to psychologically anchor folks to a worse deal to appear to be listening and get folks on board by “sweetening” the deal later.



Why is this random YouTuber someone we care about? Is he an industry leader? Is he someone with experience in C-suite corporate America? Is he a lawyer? Or is he someone with a ring light and a mic?


----------



## rknop

Among other things, saying that what was formerly known as open game content is now known as licensed content.


----------



## Greg Benage

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Why is this random YouTuber someone we care about? Is he an industry leader? Is he someone with experience in C-suite corporate America? Is he a lawyer? Or is he someone with a ring light and a mic?



I feel like we picked this thing apart more quickly and thoroughly than any of the Tubers.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Why is this random YouTuber someone we care about? Is he an industry leader? Is he someone with experience in C-suite corporate America? Is he a lawyer? Or is he someone with a ring light and a mic?



I mean, why would we care what a gnome with an undergrad degree from Virginia Tech thinks going by that line of thinking, you know?


----------



## Dausuul

Remathilis said:


> I guess if you look at Paizo as a startup looking to sell, get rich, and retire, then I can see a sale. Likewise, if WotC sees any value in Paizo's IP, I guess they might make an offer. But I don't see either being true, and it's far more likely Paizo begins to distance itself from D&D -like gaming and carves out a new niche or takes this to court.



Agreed. If Lisa Stevens just wanted to cash out and retire, she would have done so 20 years ago with the $150 million Hasbro paid for her share of WotC. Instead she used some of that money to start Paizo.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> What language in the document asserts this? (not doubting just trying to find it)



I disagree that it's saying that. Rather what is says is:

"Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision."

Now that is a COMMENT not legalese, note. It's a very inaccurate one though because in the legalese Licenced Content is defined:

"i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition."

That's the relevant legalese. Totally ready to be corrected by actual lawyers, but that seems to pretty clearly define "Licenced Content" as "The 5.1 SRD".

So they're not backwards-claiming you're work. They're deleting the very concept of Open Gaming Content from existence like it was the name Tigana.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> "IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document."
> 
> This seems new and potentially very annoying, no?
> 
> "You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision"
> 
> Yeah that is new and annoying, thanks WotC!



What a weird and pointless change.

WotC is scared they're not getting enough credit for D&D?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Scribe said:


> And thats due to Kickstarter already making a deal, at 20%.
> 
> Gross.



This has already been made public and Kickstarter already talked about it. They get nothing out of it, but they argued that, given how important Kickstarter is to third party companies, they argued for a lower rate so that a few more projects could still happen.

They were trying to look out for creators and were clearly not thrilled with all of this happening at all.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What a weird and pointless change.
> 
> WotC is scared they're not getting enough credit for D&D?



I mean, it's so petty and dumb that it reeks of someone who has never even seen a 3PP product, and yes, has exactly that attitude. Very odd. It's hard to read it as anything but stupidity or malice. One prefers stupidity but given some of the rest of the document...

The commentary doesn't help justify it - it just explains what they'll accept.


----------



## rknop

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's hard to read it as anything but stupidity or malice. One prefers stupidity but given some of the rest of the document...



Why not both?  (Inclusive OR.)


----------



## Scribe

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This has already been made public and Kickstarter already talked about it. They get nothing out of it, but they argued that, given how important Kickstarter is to third party companies, they argued for a lower rate so that a few more projects could still happen.
> 
> They were trying to look out for creators and were clearly not thrilled with all of this happening at all.




If every other crowdsourcing platform is taking equal to have their own profits as Kickstarter, but Kickstarter projects only pay 20% to Wizards instead of 25% does that encourage companies to go to kickstarter, or other platforms for crowdsourcing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> They were trying to look out for creators and were clearly not thrilled with all of this happening at all.



Yeah Jon Ritter's posts were clearly not "WOO IMA HERO", they were downbeat as hell. Absolutely Kickstarter is not happy about this.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Greg Benage said:


> I feel like we picked this thing apart more quickly and thoroughly than any of the Tubers.



You all have not begun to hear my full opinions on how bad D&D YouTube is, even before this.

Even the ones I enjoy have largely gone soft in the head with this news. (No, WotC's goal is not to steal YouTubers' content -- that part of this new OGL actually has a logical basis, as WotC doesn't want to get sued or be required to pay damages for parallel designs. Get all the way over yourselves, people.)


----------



## ChaosOS

> ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.



This is the bit that takes aim at 3e and earlier era OGL-content


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

eyeheartawk said:


> I mean, why would we care what a gnome with an undergrad degree from Virginia Tech thinks going by that line of thinking, you know?



As far as I know, no one's hotlinking to my posts and saying "Whizbang Dustyboots has an opinion."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> WotC is scared they're not getting enough credit for D&D?




In fairness they did not invent it


----------



## eyeheartawk

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> As far as I know, no one's hotlinking to my posts and saying "Whizbang Dustyboots has an opinion."



Well, that's kinda what the quote function on the board does for me, but yeah, sure. 

I accept this challenge.


----------



## Reynard

ChaosOS said:


> This is the bit that takes aim at 3e and earlier era OGL-content



That is direct shots fired at the OSR community.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Scribe said:


> If every other crowdsourcing platform is taking equal to have their own profits as Kickstarter, but Kickstarter projects only pay 20% to Wizards instead of 25% does that encourage companies to go to kickstarter, or other platforms for crowdsourcing.



Kickstarter -- which I am no fan of, to be clear -- does not control the other crowdsourcing platforms or their behavior.

Are you saying you prefer they _didn't_ try to make at least a few projects a little more viable under the new OGL?


----------



## eyeheartawk

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Kickstarter -- which I am no fan of, to be clear -- does not control the other crowdsourcing platforms or their behavior.
> 
> Are you saying you prefer they _didn't_ try to make at least a few projects a little more viable under the new OGL?



This altruism is from the same company that is betting big on blockchain over the clear displeasure over their, basically, entire userbase? 

You can see how some would read this cup as half-empty, yeah?


----------



## Scribe

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Kickstarter -- which I am no fan of, to be clear -- does not control the other crowdsourcing platforms or their behavior.
> 
> Are you saying you prefer they _didn't_ try to make at least a few projects a little more viable under the new OGL?




No, not at all. What I'm saying is that by leveraging its position (I assume) as the preferred platform, Kickstarter has provided (5% discounted shakedown fee) further incentive for others to use their platform as "Wizards Approved Crowdsource Platform."

Is this 5% smaller shakedown fee good for creatives? Yes.
Does Kickstarter benefit from this regardless? Yes.

That is, unless making a deal with the devil leaves a sour note in the air.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

eyeheartawk said:


> Well, that's kinda what the quote function on the board does for me, but yeah, sure.
> 
> I accept this challenge.



If you can find people outside of this community caring about my opinion, I will be shocked. (If you can find more than a few people who care about my opinion _in_ this community, I'll be shocked.)

Random YouTubers are not somehow any more relevant to our discussion. Telling everyone to stop reading the thread to watch a video needs to have a higher standard than "here's yet another opinion."

Is it Joseph Goodman talking on the Goodman Games YouTube channel? (They love their YouTube channel, preferring it even over ordinary press releases.) That's a prominent third party publisher talking and worth checking out.

Is it another lawyer talking? We've got a lot of those already, but the more legal opinions we hear, the better the sense of consensus we can draw.

Is it just someone sitting in a closet with a copy of the Essentials Kit propped up behind them, talking about how they're done with WotC? We've got those opinions represented already.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

eyeheartawk said:


> This altruism is from the same company that is betting big on blockchain over the clear displeasure over their, basically, entire userbase?
> 
> You can see how some would read this cup as half-empty, yeah?



Yes. So what? Is your preference that more people who have spent months or years preparing Kickstarter campaigns, many of whom have sunk a bunch of their savings and/or credit into preparing for launch _not_ be able to cover their expenses?


----------



## ChaosOS

Reading through - this version of the OGL _still_ has the "you must include a full copy of the license in your work" type language... except this is a 15 page document instead of 1.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yes. So what? Is your preference that more people who have spent months or years preparing Kickstarter campaigns, many of whom have sunk a bunch of their savings and/or credit into preparing for launch _not_ be able to cover their expenses?



I'm not saying I prefer it, I'm just saying it can be construed as a cynical self-serving effort dressed in a veneer of "Look what we did for our poor, poor creatives". 

Some people find that distasteful. 

That aside, yeah, there is some logic to nobody playing ball and cutting sweetheart deals undercutting our collective power for us to force change. The more big movers get peeled off the easier it becomes for WotC to get away with this.


----------



## mamba

Scribe said:


> If every other crowdsourcing platform is taking equal to have their own profits as Kickstarter, but Kickstarter projects only pay 20% to Wizards instead of 25% does that encourage companies to go to kickstarter, or other platforms for crowdsourcing.



are you expecting KS to negotiate on behalf of other platforms? They cannot even legally do that…


----------



## Aldarc

@Whizbang Dustyboots has an opinion.


----------



## Scribe

mamba said:


> are you expecting KS to negotiate on behalf of other platforms? They cannot even legally do that…




No. I'm simply saying that KS still benefits, by making themselves into the preferred platform.

If KS wanted to say "We are giving back 5% to Creators as well" then THAT would be a different discussion.


----------



## mamba

ChaosOS said:


> Reading through - this version of the OGL _still_ has the "you must include a full copy of the license in your work" type language... except this is a 15 page document instead of 1.



font size 2…


----------



## mamba

Scribe said:


> No. I'm simply saying that KS still benefits, by making themselves into the preferred platform.
> 
> If KS wanted to say "We are giving back 5% to Creators as well" then THAT would be a different discussion.



incidentally that would be their entire fee…


----------



## Arilyn

ChaosOS said:


> Reading through - this version of the OGL _still_ has the "you must include a full copy of the license in your work" type language... except this is a 15 page document instead of 1.



Yeah, I've been wondering about that too! I assume that the one printed in another book could at least cut out all the comments and examples. I cannot believe how badly this thing is written and executed. No, actually I can.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Aldarc said:


> @Whizbang Dustyboots has an opinion.



Someone alert YouTube!


----------



## Cadence

ChaosOS said:


> Reading through - this version of the OGL _still_ has the "you must include a full copy of the license in your work" type language... except this is a 15 page document instead of 1.




I was assuming that's just the license part (in the linked file we don't have the link to) and not the one with all the comments.  So, a lot less than 15 pages.

(ninja'd by @Arilyn )


----------



## Aldarc

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Someone alert YouTube!



Already done.


----------



## JDragon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What a weird and pointless change.
> 
> WotC is scared they're not getting enough credit for D&D?



To me this is just another small piece to make doing anything with the OGL 1.1 more difficult for 3PP's and thus less likely to use it.  
It also makes it easier for them to mine out said 3PP's work for their own use.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What a weird and pointless change.
> 
> WotC is scared they're not getting enough credit for D&D?



maybe they fear being blamed for things. Going back to the whole can't be racists or sexist thing they want to be able to say "this is clearly THEM"


----------



## Xyxox

PURE SPECULATION: The real reason that OGL 1.1 hasn't dropped has absolutely nothing to do with the leak but everything to do with all of the big 3pp saying no to the sweetheart contracts and now WotC  is unsure how to proceed.

I'm sure if all of the big 3pp bond together in a class action lawsuit, then crowdsource the funding, WotC/Hasbro would ave to reconsider their position as the revoking of OGL 1.0a would definitely get a hearing in a court, and a class action lawsuit with so many people/entities in the class would likely be able to file a restraining order to suppress implementation of the OGL 1.1 and win until a ruling is made due to irreparable harm suffered by plaintiffs.


----------



## deganawida

Xyxox said:


> PURE SPECULATION: The real reason that OGL 1.1 hasn't dropped has absolutely nothing to do with the leak but everything to do with all of the big 3pp saying no to the sweetheart contracts and now WotC  is unsure how to proceed.
> 
> I'm sure if all of the big 3pp bond together in a class action lawsuit, then crowdsource the funding, WotC/Hasbro would ave to reconsider their position as the revoking of OGL 1.0a would definitely get a hearing in a court, and a class action lawsuit with so many people/entities in the class would likely be able to file a restraining order to suppress implementation of the OGL 1.1 and win until a ruling is made due to irreparable harm suffered by plaintiffs.




We can hope.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JDragon said:


> It also makes it easier for them to mine out said 3PP's work for their own use.



What existing third party content do you think WotC is wishing they published?

I have a hard time figuring out what it could be, looking at their output versus what the third party scene has produced.


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What existing third party content do you think WotC is wishing they published?
> 
> I have a hard time figuring out what it could be, looking at their output versus what the third party scene has produced.



I think they know there is a demand for 3PP stuff they don't want to make, hence their conversations with the well established companies. I don't think WotC going back to 32 page adventures was ever a possibility, let alone well supported settings or lines of splat books.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> I think they know there is a demand for 3PP stuff they don't want to make, hence their conversations with the well established companies. I don't think WotC going back to 32 page adventures was ever a possibility, let alone well supported settings or lines of splat books.



Kobold Press is imminently going to publish a second book of spells and magic-user subclasses. That's something that WotC has published in the past, apparently to great commercial success, but seems to have no interest in doing this time around.

People keep saying WotC is coming for their content (especially on YouTube), but I cannot figure out what they'd really be taking. (I mean, if I was them, I'd have things I'd want them to be doing, but I have a feeling they'd want to create their own versions anyway, since they'd want to do it their way.)


----------



## JDragon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What existing third party content do you think WotC is wishing they published?
> 
> I have a hard time figuring out what it could be, looking at their output versus what the third party scene has produced.



That is a fair question, and one that I don't have an answer to it was more of a thought that occurred to me as I was responding.  In part because I do PF1 and 99.9% of the time only use material from Paizo, so as a result I don't look at 3PP material very often.  
If nothing else that clause seems just another indicator they want total control of D&D and all the money.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JDragon said:


> That is a fair question, and one that I don't have an answer to it was more of a thought that occurred to me as I was responding.  In part because I do PF1 and 99.9% of the time only use material from Paizo, so as a result I don't look at 3PP material very often.



I think Paizo and Kobold Press would, in theory, be the places they'd steal from first, but don't show any inclination to.


JDragon said:


> If nothing else that clause seems just another indicator they want total control of D&D and all the money.



No. It's about not getting sued about parallel development, including the bonus provision so they don't have to pay damages even if a judge rules against them. Look at the Blurred Lines lawsuit in the music industry to see a case where the judge made a very controversial decision and freaked out lawyers and the entertainment industry more broadly.

WotC is by no means the only company with a similar stance on this stuff. Submit a script to a major comic book company and you have to sign away your rights to ownership in order to have them look at it, because they might one day publish a story about Aunt May going on dating apps and matching up with a supervillain, like you had in your spec script.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What existing third party content do you think WotC is wishing they published?



I can't speak to individual bits of 3PP, but the tone of the comments and design of the OGL 1.1 to strongly suggests that they are actively frustrated that they might be seen as "copycats" or even sued if they published certain content. That they feel like 3PPs maybe "got in there first".

Which is dumbest bloody self-regarding idiot sentiment possible, on their part, to be clear.

Because they're the ones who decided to slow-walk 5E.

They're the ones who decided to go with a minimal rather than maximal publishing schedule.

Like, if I throw a brick through my window, I don't get to complain that it's cold!

But that seems like what's going on here. They're mad because a lot of the "blanks" 5E left due to the slow-walk publishing schedule have now been filled in by 3PPs. Realistically 3PPs will reach like, 10% of the audience a WotC version of the same would reach. But WotC is mad nonetheless. They also might feel their marketing strategies are being "messed with" by 3PPs putting stuff out - largely accidentally, but still.

And I think another thing they're mad about is how high-quality 3PPs often are now. That wasn't true in 3E so much. Even Paizo were not really at WotC levels of quality, in terms of editing, writing, art, layout, tone control and so on. Whereas now? 3PPs often surpass 5E in those regards. Not most of them, but certainly some of them.

Griffon's Saddle for example I think they're steaming mad with because an item/magic item splatbook is absolutely low-hanging fruit for WotC. But because they were slow-walking, they chose not to do it. Now they have the eye of Sauron upon them (Hasbro), and they're asked to massively increase profits, low-hanging-fruit stuff they were fine with 3PPs publishing 2 years ago is absolutely stuff they want control of. And they also want to be sure that if they do Hippogriff's Saddlebags, they'll have even more legal armour than the OGC approach gave them.

To be clear, it is in part about protecting them. That's a major part. But the reason that matters so much now is they're going to try and go into the spaces previously filled by 3PPs, so it's a bigger risk for them, and they want to kill or control any larger 3PPs to prevent them continuing to fill the gaps WotC leaves.


----------



## overgeeked

Xyxox said:


> PURE SPECULATION: The real reason that OGL 1.1 hasn't dropped has absolutely nothing to do with the leak but everything to do with all of the big 3pp saying no to the sweetheart contracts and now WotC  is unsure how to proceed.
> 
> I'm sure if all of the big 3pp bond together in a class action lawsuit, then crowdsource the funding, WotC/Hasbro would ave to reconsider their position as the revoking of OGL 1.0a would definitely get a hearing in a court, and a class action lawsuit with so many people/entities in the class would likely be able to file a restraining order to suppress implementation of the OGL 1.1 and win until a ruling is made due to irreparable harm suffered by plaintiffs.



This assumes most of the big 3PP said no. We haven't heard from (m)any big 3PP about this. AFAIK only MCDM has spoken about it directly and their statement was "this will not affect the release of Flee, Mortals". Paizo hasn't said anything. Morrus apparently couldn't schedule a meeting. Critical Role hasn't said anything but Matt Mercer liked a tweet. What about Kobold or Goodman or any of the others? Crickets. Likely under NDA until the official 1.1 text drops, but still.


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> I can't speak to individual bits of 3PP, but the tone of the comments and design of the OGL 1.1 to strongly suggests that they are actively frustrated that they might be seen as "copycats" or even sued if they published certain content. That they feel like 3PPs maybe "got in there first".
> 
> Which is dumbest bloody self-regarding idiot sentiment possible, on their part, to be clear.
> 
> Because they're the ones who decided to slow-walk 5E.
> 
> They're the ones who decided to go with a minimal rather than maximal publishing schedule.
> 
> Like, if I throw a brick through my window, I don't get to complain that it's cold!
> 
> But that seems like what's going on here. They're mad because a lot of the "blanks" 5E left due to the slow-walk publishing schedule have now been filled in by 3PPs. Realistically 3PPs will reach like, 10% of the audience a WotC version of the same would reach. But WotC is mad nonetheless. They also might feel their marketing strategies are being "messed with" by 3PPs putting stuff out - largely accidentally, but still.
> 
> And I think another thing they're mad about is how high-quality 3PPs often are now. That wasn't true in 3E so much. Even Paizo were not really at WotC levels of quality, in terms of editing, writing, art, layout, tone control and so on. Whereas now? 3PPs often surpass 5E in those regards. Not most of them, but certainly some of them.
> 
> Griffon's Saddle for example I think they're steaming mad with because an item/magic item splatbook is absolutely low-hanging fruit for WotC. But because they were slow-walking, they chose not to do it. Now they have the eye of Sauron upon them (Hasbro), and they're asked to massively increase profits, low-hanging-fruit stuff they were fine with 3PPs publishing 2 years ago is absolutely stuff they want control of. And they also want to be sure that if they do Hippogriff's Saddlebags, they'll have even more legal armour than the OGC approach gave them.
> 
> To be clear, it is in part about protecting them. That's a major part. But the reason that matters so much now is they're going to try and go into the spaces previously filled by 3PPs, so it's a bigger risk for them, and they want to kill or control any larger 3PPs to prevent them continuing to fill the gaps WotC leaves.



The obvious answer then would have been to go back to splat of the month design like much of 3e and 4e. A hardcover a month. They clearly had no problem with that model in Magic. 

I don't think the problem is that they made a magic item book before WotC did, it's that they made a D&D-adjacent book and aren't getting any profit for it.


----------



## Staffan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> WotC is by no means the only company with a similar stance on this stuff. Submit a script to a major comic book company and you have to sign away your rights to ownership in order to have them look at it, because they might one day publish a story about Aunt May going on dating apps and matching up with a supervillain, like you had in your spec script.


----------



## Yaarel

Random Task said:


> I was involved in a Discord server where the goal was to make a new best version of Shadowrun ever because people weren't happy with what Catalyst did for 5th and 6th edition and it devolved into competing ideas, some forking of the project and a whole lot of reviewing and voting and the project never went anywhere.  Without some person or people having ultimate control of the overall project it is a mess.



This is why I feel a *wiki* *platform *can help for the Open Gaming Content.

It becomes possible to dedicate separate pages for each "module" or "variant".

Meanwhile, other pages can link to various pages to organize the structure of a particular gaming style.

For example.

At the gaming engine system level, there might be a debate about whether to use Eight Abilities, Six Abilities, Four Abilities, or No Abilities. The choices with enough supporters can branch off, to create content for each system. 

Meanwhile the systems can freely borrow from each other. For example, a Monster given freely to Open Content (as opposed to Property Identity Content), and depicted and narrated for one system, can easily add a variant with mechanics for an other system.

The challenge is to organize the Content clearly, simply, and esthetically. But it will be good enough. Businesses will use the wiki as resource for professionally crafted Gaming Products.


----------



## Cadence

Remathilis said:


> The obvious answer then would have been to go back to splat of the month design like much of 3e and 4e. A hardcover a month. They clearly had no problem with that model in Magic.
> 
> I don't think the problem is that they made a magic item book before WotC did, it's that they made a D&D-adjacent book and aren't getting any profit for it.




I wonder what the reaction would have been if WotC had done an annual "Best of 3PP" where they edited slect OGC things from other books that year into one official source book... and maybe even gave a small % of the development cost back to the original creators.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> I don't think the problem is that they made a magic item book before WotC did, it's that they made a D&D-adjacent book and aren't getting any profit for it.



I don't agree. If it was genuinely "aren't getting any profit", WotC would be something like asking for 5% from everyone.

That would be far easier to deal with, undoubtedly net them larger profits without putting anyone out of business, or destroying the concept of Open Gaming. It would probably have broadly been regarded as annoying but fair.

They're absolutely wanting to shut down competition, and probably to try and force people to publish through WotC. I am very confident in saying people at WotC are mad because other companies have stolen a march on them.

You need to bear in mind they're specifically attempting to say the OGL 1.0a no longer works, and no SRDs except the 5.1 SRD are allowed, and there's no such thing as Open Gaming Content anymore. That's not "give me a share!" that's Rains of Castemere.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cadence said:


> I wonder what the reaction would have been if WotC had done an annual "Best of 3PP" where they edited slect OGC things from other books that year into one official source book... and maybe even gave a small % of the development cost back to the original creators.



Monte Cook's book along those lines in 3E (published with cooperation and profit-sharing with those whose work he collected, and ironically released just before 3.5 blew up the market) was fantastic.

A _partnership_ like this with third party publishers could help everyone. It seems unlikely, though, to put it mildly.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Monte Cook's book along those lines in 3E (published with cooperation and profit-sharing with those whose work he collected, and ironically released just before 3.5 blew up the market) was fantastic.
> 
> A _partnership_ like this with third party publishers could help everyone. It seems unlikely, though, to put it mildly.



I think it's very telling about how present-day WotC operates as a company that they went straight for "Building the Death Star in secret" instead of reaching out to more 3PPs and trying to get more of them on board with formal agreements and publishing deals with WotC. Despite them having done that a little at the start of 5E.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think it's very telling about how present-day WotC operates as a company that they went straight for "Building the Death Star in secret" instead of reaching out to more 3PPs and trying to get more of them on board with formal agreements and publishing deals with WotC. Despite them having done that a little at the start of 5E.



That is not exactly what they did at the start of 5E.  They did not have the team yet for multiple books so they collaborated with some 3PP for official books.  That is not the same as having 3PP produce whatever they want.

That aside I agree that it says a lot about the corporation that  they did not work with the community on a new OGL etc. and instead tried to shove this down everyone’s throat.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

jerryrice4949 said:


> That is not exactly what they did at the start of 5E. They did not have the team yet for multiple books so they collaborated with some 3PP for official books. That is not the same as having 3PP produce whatever they want.



...

That's what I said. I didn't say "they let 3PPs make any old thing and slap a WotC logo on it", I said "they worked with them a little".


----------



## Kinematics

So, there's an error in the termination clause:



> B. Termination:
> 
> i. We may terminate the agreement immediately if:
> 
> a. You infringe upon or misuse any of Our intellectual property, violate any law in relation to Your activities under this
> agreement, or if We determine in Our sole discretion that You have violated Section VIII.G or VIII.H. To be clear, We have
> the sole right to decide what conduct violates Section VIII.G or Section VIII.H and You covenant and agree that You will
> not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action. To the extent necessary and allowed by law, You
> waive any duty of good faith and fair dealing We would otherwise have in making any such determination.




There are no sections VIII.G or VIII.H. Those are actually VII.G and VII.H (probably).

I wonder if that would invalidate their ability to terminate licenses "at their sole discretion", which you cannot contest, and which they are under no obligation to operate under good faith duties for.


----------



## Yaarel

ChaosOS said:


> Another person got a hold of the draft document and is doing their own review. Owen has a lot of experience making OGL products even if he's not an outright lawyer.



The Anti-OGL will probably make only the 6e SRD available.

Meanwhile Hasbro-WotC destroys the 3e SRD (3.5) and 5e SRD (5.1).

This assaults most gaming companies, including OSR companies.

[Edit]:

With the full document available now.

• The Anti-OGL would destroy the 3e SRD (that affects OSR too among many others)
• It would allow the 5e SRD
• *The Anti-OGL forbids all of 6e!*

• Even the access to the 5e SRD can terminate at any moment.

The goal of Hasbro-WotC is to destroy everyone.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> But you still have to enter into the 1.1.  They can't _ make_ you agree to a contract you didn't willingly enter into.



That may not make a difference. Hopefully one of the lawyers will weigh in. If you want to end an agreement, you can't write it into the original contract unless all sides agree, so if you have the right to end the agreement, you have to write it somewhere else. Even if you don't enter into agreement with OGL 1.1, the writing there ending all prior agreements might apply(to whatever extent is legal) to prior agreements anyway.


----------



## Plokman

Yaarel said:


> We can agree the "means" is rent-seeking. However the "motive" is Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy any gamer who becomes successful.
> 
> It is like: is the purpose of driving the car to get somewhere, or is it to run over a puppy? In this case, Hasbro-WotC is driving the car for the purpose of running over the puppy.



Time to build a wall! No one hurts dogs in my presence!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Maxperson said:


> If you want to end an agreement, you can't write it into the original contract unless all sides agree, so if you have the right to end the agreement, you have to write it somewhere else. Even if you don't enter into agreement with OGL 1.1, the writing there ending all prior agreements might apply(to whatever extent is legal) to prior agreements anyway.


----------



## Random Task

*Updating the License:* 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.
Looking at this text of the OGL myself I can see what publishers are concerned about. If WoTC can deauthorize the old license, seems to me reading this that they can force you to distribute even your old Open Game Content using their new updated and authorized license. The question, to my non legal trained mind, is whether "updating" the license can be made to deauthorize the old license. I am going to guess yes. In fact I think the phrase "Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License" implies that the old licenses can be no longer valid, because if they were still valid, why would you need to distribute content under a new license?


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


>



Funny. But I wonder how many 3PP are going to have to do that considering the lead time on art and writing for publishing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> Funny. But I wonder how many 3PP are going to have to do that considering the lead time on art and writing for publishing.



I was just trying to make fun of WotC trying to unilaterally declare legal changes.

My preference would be that the folks making six-figure incomes don't try to deprive folks making school teacher money of their ability to pay their rents.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Random Task said:


> I think the phrase "Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License" implies that the old licenses can be no longer valid, because if they were still valid, why would you need to distribute content under a new license?



Well, there's a big element of fake-it-til-you-make-it (or get the ruling) in legal arguments. They have to present their argument as if it's obviously going to come true, even when it's complete nonsense. (There are a lot of great examples in the news over the last few years to see for examples.)


----------



## darjr

🚦 A-Game - Dungeons & Dragons and the OGL 1.1 -- Official Discussion Thread
					

We're opening this thread to discuss Wizards of the Coast's OGL 1.1 and its potential impact on the hobby and industry.  If you're wondering what's going on, we believe that the most reliable sources are this summary from WotC on December 21st and Gizmodo's article from January 5th about the...




					forum.rpg.net


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> If WotC/Hasbro was smart they would make some move to take Paizo off the field (either buy them or make a side deal) if Paizo was playing it even a little smart they would JUMP at a side deal and shoot down a sale (unless as I just right now learned Hasbro somehow spent a fortune enough that stock holders got rich... if they throw crazy money then by all means jump on it)



Most gaming businesses realize a deal with Hasbro-WotC is a one-way ticket into self-destruction.


----------



## rgard

darjr said:


> View attachment 271858



I downloaded everything in my drivethrurpg library that had the OGL this past weekend.  Took a while.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> Most gaming businesses realize a deal with Hasbro-WotC is a one-way ticket into self-destruction.



This is a pretty bold statement considering we have not heard from any of the really substantial ones.


----------



## rgard

Remathilis said:


> I'm interested to see who else gets hurt in this. For example, WizKids makes D&D minis but also Pathfinder ones. @Scribe said he won't deal with a company that is working with Wizards. full stop. @Xyxox only cares about OGL solidarity and if you are making official D&D minis, that's not his problem, even if they are financially helping WotC. I just want to see if people are ready to boycott companies that took on D&D licensing because they are now tainted by association.



I've purchased a lot of wizkids minis in the past year.  I won't purchase any more from them as long as they have a D&D license...assuming the original OGL is invalidated by WotC.  I'll let wizkids know too.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Seems like WoTC is failing How to Get Ahead of a Blunder 101.


----------



## humble minion

MonkeyDM (of Steinhardt's Guide to the Eldritch Hunt) is the latest pending kickstarter to address the issue.

TL;DR: it's very bad, won't be signing 1.1, sounds like they were not invited to the big-name 3pp conference by WotC despite being an >$1m kickstarter, have gotten advice from counsel, confident that kickstarter fulfillment can be completed (presumably because that is material that backers have already paid for so the sale is complete?), but if 1.1 comes into force and invalidates 1.0 then they won't be able to sell the product to anyone else once it's complete, and in general this is an agreement that no 3pp can realistically sign.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> As far as I know, no one's hotlinking to my posts and saying "Whizbang Dustyboots has an opinion."



I was excited thinking that a gnome on a milk crate was going to have a podcast (hopes dashed). 

I don’t put a ton of stock in the hot takes people are having about this.  In general, I am pretty sure WOTC wants more of the sweet profit and is willing shaft those who have gotten used to a cut.

Thinking pretty likely they will also try to give advantages in the virtual world to those who pay extra. 

All just a suspicion they want to make D&D a game with loot crates a la some shooter video games.  I don’t really know squat though.  So I am poised to exert what control I have:  to not buy into it if I am right and to be watchful.

Like some of those video  games, if the fan base gripes enough they may also back track some of it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> This is a pretty bold statement considering we have not heard from any of the really substantial ones.



I'd certainly like to think it's true.


----------



## Yaarel

@Greg Benage, @Ruin Explorer



Ah.

So the Anti-OGL would destroy access to the 3e SRD (which harms OSR too among many others). It ONLY grants access to the 5e SRD.

It forbids access to all 6e!

And even the access to the 5e SRD can be discontinued at any moment.



The goal of Hasbro-WotC is to destroy everyone.


----------



## kenada

Yaarel said:


> It forbids access to all 6e!
> 
> And even the access to the 5e SRD can be discontinued at any moment.



These are probably related. Once the 6e SRD is released, they can update the license to make sure everyone is making content for the correct edition.


----------



## Yaarel

kenada said:


> These are probably related. Once the 6e SRD is released, they can update the license to make sure everyone is making content for the correct edition.



Hasbro-WotC dont even want indies to make future content for 6e!

The Anti-OGL would eventually make EVERYTHING happen thru the 6e-DMsGuild-DnDBeyond at the caprice of Hasbro-WotC.

With no other options for the creative gaming community.


----------



## Yaarel

Xyxox said:


> REading through this thing, did they get a first year law student with a chip on their shoulder to write the thing? It's a real hot mess.



The Indestructoboy podcast describes the tone of the Anti-OGL as "douchie".

It is trying to sound "friendly bro" when what it is trying to accomplish is genuinely evil.


----------



## ersatzphil

Yaarel said:


> The Indestructoboy podcast describes the tone of the Anti-OGL as "douchie".
> 
> It is trying to sound "friendly bro" when what it is trying to accomplish is genuinely evil.


----------



## Yaarel

@ersatzphil


----------



## Drake2000

In possibly related news today:





Hasbro's stock has really taken a hit over the last year. It appears that the OGL 1.1 announcement may indicate that the hits just keep on coming.


----------



## Xyxox

Did anybody notice that the edition wars and system wars that began when Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was released usurping the original boxed set and the supplements and have gone on for more than four decades through multiple editions and all sorts of gaming systems seem to have stopped?

It's as if a thousands of creator voices suddenly cried out and were all silenced.

Could it be that WotC/Hasborg has done what nobody has been able to do in over four decades, they have united the entire Gigantic TTRPG Community, awakened us all, and filled us with a terrible resolve.


----------



## ersatzphil

Yaarel said:


> @ersatzphil
> View attachment 271868



This is where I first came across it, reddit, but cool to see Colville boosting it.


----------



## Yaarel

Xyxox said:


> Did anybody notice that the edition wars and system wars that began when Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was released usurping the original boxed set and the supplements and have gone on for more than four decades through multiple editions and all sorts of gaming systems seem to have stopped?
> 
> It's as if a thousands of creator voices suddenly cried out and were all silenced.
> 
> Could it be that WotC/Hasborg has done what nobody has been able to do in over four decades, they have united the entire Gigantic TTRPG Community, awakened us all, and filled us with a terrible resolve.



That is something I noticed here in the forums.

Individuals whose opinions about the direction of 5e differed from my own − we are all vicerally in agreement against the Anti-OGL and the bad faith of Hasbro-WotC.


----------



## Reynard

Xyxox said:


> Did anybody notice that the edition wars and system wars that began when Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was released usurping the original boxed set and the supplements and have gone on for more than four decades through multiple editions and all sorts of gaming systems seem to have stopped?



I mean, except that the mods are compelled to remind people in every thread not to get into the 4E v Pathfinder debate.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> I mean, except that the mods are compelled to remind people in every thread not to get into the 4E v Pathfinder debate.



I was about to bring that up.... pot shots for edition wars are still being fired.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> it's just the _entire digital space_ they want to dominate.



Exactly. As the planet enters a new era of digital reality entertainment − Hasbro-WotC seeks to be a Dark Lord.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hmmm seems like there IS actually a commentary mismatch, but in the other direction:
> 
> The commentary says:
> 
> "Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”)."
> 
> The legalese says:
> 
> "i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition."
> 
> Absolutely not the same thing. Sure, the SRDs were Open Game Content, but everything declared Open Game Content was.
> 
> It looks like this gives you no ability to share content with other creators, no ability to create Open Game Content. Am I misreading? It really looks like WotC are being extremely misleading here.
> 
> This means even if you signed the OGL 1.1, people can't make stuff for your setting/game/etc. without you writing up your own licence for them, and that's assuming that somehow doesn't cause a problem for WotC. Even more than the deauthorization of OGL 1.0a, this is the destruction of "open gaming".



Ow. Wow. Ow.


----------



## Yaarel

Greg Benage said:


> Yeah, it's like they intentionally made it *as "not Open" as possible*, while still *calling it an* *Open Game License*. It's a travesty.



The Anti-OGL


----------



## Yaarel

eyeheartawk said:


> That really speaks to its true purpose. If the onerous reporting and financial terms weren't enough. Along with the fact that they can rescind their permissions with like almost no notice this really put the whole subject to bed. *They want to simply destroy the 3PP market.* That's all money they could be making in their eyes.



Quoted For Truth


----------



## JEB

Alzrius said:


> Here's what I get when I enter that phrase into Google:



OK, so what the heck is "reliance" in this context? I found a legal definition: "_acting upon another's statement of alleged fact, claim or promise_." But I have no idea what this means in _this_ context.


----------



## JEB

Here's a fun find from the Termination section, bullet ii:

_Your obligation to pay royalties survives the termination of the agreement. _


----------



## overgeeked

JEB said:


> Here's a fun find from the Termination section, bullet ii:
> 
> _Your obligation to pay royalties survives the termination of the agreement. _



This really is cartoonishly evil.


----------



## Yaarel

mamba said:


> Probably, also they do not want an ecosystem, they want vassals



Heh.

You know that vampire show that has assemblies of bound humans processed in a factory plant for their blood?

Hasbro-WotC are the vampires.


----------



## Alzrius

JEB said:


> OK, so what the heck is "reliance" in this context? I found a legal definition: "_acting upon another's statement of alleged fact, claim or promise_." But I have no idea what this means in _this_ context.



Some more Googling turns up this:






So from what I can tell, a disclaimer of reliance in this context means that you're agreeing that you haven't been defrauded by WotC via agreeing in this license that prior agreements (i.e. the OGL v1.0a) are no longer in force.

...I think.


----------



## JEB

Alzrius said:


> Some more Googling turns up this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So from what I can tell, a disclaimer of reliance in this context means that you're agreeing that you haven't been defrauded by WotC via agreeing in this license that prior agreements (i.e. the OGL v1.0a) are no longer in force.
> 
> ...I think.



So in other words, this is yet another reason for companies to refuse to sign onto 1.1 and plan for legal action to defend 1.0, because you won't get another chance after signing 1.1 without being in breach of the license.


----------



## Umbran

Yaarel said:


> Hasbro-WotC are the vampires.




*Mod Note:*
You know, I'm none too happy with the whole thing either, but this is a bit much.

How about we keep the inflammatory rhetoric down to a minimum, please?   Thanks much.


----------



## darjr

So how would a kickstarter that includes things like miniatures or support software etc go? I mean there are those now. This license forbids them all?


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, it's so petty and dumb that it reeks of someone who has never even seen a 3PP product, and yes, has exactly that attitude. Very odd. It's hard to read it as anything but stupidity or malice. One prefers stupidity but given some of the rest of the document...
> 
> The commentary doesn't help justify it - it just explains what they'll accept.



Nothing is by accident in the OGL 1.1.

Hasbro-WotC wants to make any OGL product unpleasant to read and difficult to produce.


----------



## Plokman

We just keep on doing what must be done! Give me OGL or nothing at all! Oh and WoTC you don't want to make Nintendo mad, it is only because of them and Konami you came to be Wizards! You were one trick ponies, and if OGL is not allowed to live you too won't. By the cards you dealt!


----------



## Cadence

darjr said:


> So how would a kickstarter that includes things like miniatures or support software etc go? I mean there are those now. This license forbids them all?




Doesn't the license explicitly mention miniatures as a KS add-on as an allowed example?  (Presumably ones that don't use WotC IP, anyway, but they're ok because they aren't print or .pdf?).


----------



## JEB

darjr said:


> So how would a kickstarter that includes things like miniatures or support software etc go? I mean there are those now. This license forbids them all?



The leaked draft is unclear on this. On the one hand, 1.B. says you can't use OGL 1.1 for anything besides print works and PDFs. On the other hand, the fundraising example in VIII includes miniatures within the various scenarios, but suggests they're only permissible as stretch goals for a crowdfunded print or PDF product.

So I guess you can't crowdfund OGL-based miniatures (i.e. 5E SRD monsters) but you can create a monster book and include strictly non-OGL monster minis as a stretch goal. It's all kind of weird hair-splitting.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Drake2000 said:


> In possibly related news today:
> 
> View attachment 271873
> 
> Hasbro's stock has really taken a hit over the last year. It appears that the OGL 1.1 announcement may indicate that the hits just keep on coming.



I doubt that this has any impact at all (yet) on stock prices.

That said, stock prices dropping precipitously does have the chance to cause sudden leadership changes.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Yaarel said:


> That is something I noticed here in the forums.
> 
> Individuals whose opinions about the direction of 5e differed from my own − we are all vicerally in agreement against the Anti-OGL and the bad faith of Hasbro-WotC.



It's the Rise of Skywalker of corporate decisions.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JEB said:


> Here's a fun find from the Termination section, bullet ii:
> 
> _Your obligation to pay royalties survives the termination of the agreement. _



In other words, you owe us the last month's rent, even if you move out.


----------



## JEB

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> In other words, you owe us the last month's rent, even if you move out.



More than that, basically any copies in the wild of a product you're still earning profit on, until you're no longer earning even a penny. One presumes the only way to evade this would be to recall all your former OGL products once the license terminates.


----------



## Umbran

darjr said:


> So how would a kickstarter that includes things like miniatures or support software etc go? I mean there are those now. This license forbids them all?




Well, some things, like minis, are not based on OGC.  They're just minis.

If you run a kickstarter that has minis as a stretch goal, their revenue counts for royalties, because the stretch goal can't be separated from the rest of the revenue.

If you run a kickstarter, and offer minis as a _separate additional purchase_ after the kickstarter funds, those minis are _not_ counted against your OGC revenue.


----------



## Yaarel

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's the Rise of Skywalker of corporate decisions.



It is amazing Hasbro-WotC repeated the miscalculation of the 4e GSL.

But Hasbro-WotC thought they could get away with it this time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JEB said:


> More than that, basically any copies in the wild of a product you're still earning profit on, until you're no longer earning even a penny. One presumes the only way to evade this would be to recall all your former OGL products once the license terminates.



Eh. The only ones with really big print runs that would take years and years for them to sell out of are WotC themselves. Everyone else would mostly have off-loaded to distributors.


----------



## rknop

Alzrius said:


> So from what I can tell, a disclaimer of reliance in this context means that you're agreeing that you haven't been defrauded by WotC via agreeing in this license that prior agreements (i.e. the OGL v1.0a) are no longer in force.
> 
> ...I think.



.... if you agree to this license, you have defrauded _yourself_.


----------



## Xyxox

Yaarel said:


> It is amazing Hasbro-WotC repeated the miscalculation of the 4e GSL.
> 
> But Hasbro-WotC thought they could get away with it this time.



The current leadership probably has no clue abut the 4E GSL debacle.


----------



## Yaarel

ChaosOS said:


> Reading through - this version of the OGL _still_ has the "you must include a full copy of the license in your work" type language... except this is a 15 page document instead of 1.



Hasbro-WotC wants to make any OGL product unpleasant to read.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I'm a little surprised WotC hasn't surprise-dropped the next One D&D playtest document just to throw the fans into disarray.


----------



## JEB

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm a little surprised WotC hasn't surprise-dropped the next One D&D playtest document just to throw the fans into disarray.



Maybe they're savvy enough to realize some folks would blitz them with OGL-related complaints in the comment fields...


----------



## Yaarel

Xyxox said:


> I'm sure if all of the big 3pp bond together in a class action lawsuit, then crowdsource the funding, WotC/Hasbro would ave to reconsider their position as the revoking of OGL 1.0a would definitely get a hearing in a court, and a class action lawsuit with so many people/entities in the class would likely be able to file a restraining order to suppress implementation of the OGL 1.1 and win until a ruling is made due to irreparable harm suffered by plaintiffs.



In a class-action lawsuit, Hasbro-WotC deserves massive punitive damages.


----------



## GreyLord

I'll have to check other forums and sites, but this seems like it is causing some bad PR  (some would say that is an understatement, but I would like to see what responses are elsewhere as well).

I'm not so sure this sits well with everyone, and not sure the Big Hasbro guys should be blamed on this one (Williams recently WAS made in charge...could be a little lower on the haystack where this idea has it's source??).

Perhaps people should make sure the big guys at Hasbro's head are aware of what is happening with this (or maybe some of them already do, depends on who has the power presently and who doesn't?).

With the outcry it would seem that something should be changed (or at least, perhaps, different wording created?) that soothes the unhappy beast.

Not that anyone would listen, but if they do...


----------



## darjr

So clear as grey epoxy?


----------



## Yaarel

Xyxox said:


> The current leadership probably has no clue abut the 4E GSL debacle.



The designers in WotC remember the 4e GSL debacle. 5e returning to OGL 1.0a is notable. I would be surprised if they were onboard with the Anti-OGL.

The designers normally dont make the corporate decision. The board of directors and so on who made the decision to go Anti-OGL did so with full knowledge.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think it's very telling about how present-day WotC operates as a company that they went straight for "Building the Death Star in secret" instead of reaching out to more 3PPs and trying to get more of them on board with formal agreements and publishing deals with WotC. Despite them having done that a little at the start of 5E.



Yeah. The discussion about the Open Gaming License was the opposite of Open.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

The portions that allow WotC to take your material released under OGL 1.1, not pay you anything, themselves republish and profit on it, then exclude you from using the license and your material, kinda feels like reverse uno.

The Reverse UnoGL?


----------



## Maxperson

Alzrius said:


> So from what I can tell, a disclaimer of reliance in this context means that you're agreeing that you haven't been defrauded by WotC via agreeing in this license that prior agreements (i.e. the OGL v1.0a) are no longer in force.
> 
> ...I think.



Sure, but the language in the Q&A they are sending out is very absolute.  The only way to continue on is to use OGL 1.1, etc.  If they are using that sort of language to induce them to sign the contract knowing that they can't end OGL 1.0a or that it's seriously up in the air, that might be able to bite them in the rear.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but the language in the Q&A they are sending out is very absolute.  The only way to continue on is to use OGL 1.1, etc.  If they are using that sort of language to induce them to sign the contract knowing that they can't end OGL 1.0a or that it's seriously up in the air, that might be able to bite them in the rear.



I sure hope so.  Opt-in seems to be the best case scenario at this point, and even that leaves a lot of folks angry at WotC, because it would mean they are deliberately trying to trick people into the proverbial "devil's bargain".


----------



## I'm A Banana

Someone, somewhere, in the 2e era, said "I wish D&D was more popular." 

And then a finger curled on a monkey's paw.

Getting rid of the OGL has obviously been on their radar for a while (the GSL!), because HAS is a large, publicly-traded company, and the OGL is a significant, non-standard thing for companies to deal with (thank you Ryan Dancey). Even if they go back on this, expect this again whenever OneD&D version 2 or whatever comes around and they want to sell you a few more core rulebooks. It's not just individuals running the company, it's the fundamental ethos of running "a Brand." Typically, you want to control it. You want to fully monetize it. That's what your Board expects, that's what your investors expect, that's how you keep yourself in enough funbux to afford the 12th-largest mansion in your gated subdivision or whatever. The logic of owning an IP is that it only makes sense if you can get people to send you money to engage with it. You. Not your competitors. Not those kids with that new media streaming show. Not someone making plushies. YOU.

5e didn't try to blow up the OGL when it launched, and now I do kind of wonder what magic helped that happen. Maybe D&D was too small within Hasbro back then to worry about "fully monetizing." Maybe there were some internal defenders. Maybe it was just a better point in the economic cycle. Maybe Bank of America didn't just crater the stock last quarter because you're trying to "fully monetize" your card game. I'd love to know. It'd be mighty ironic if the OGL's presence in 3e and 5e were more a result of 2e and 4e not making enough money (and so the creators of 3e and 5e had more freedom to try new things), only for the popularity of those editions to lead 4e and 6(ish)e to try and extract more value via silly, controlling licenses that actually wound up hampering them significantly. 

This proposed 1.1 license is awful in a lot of ways, and if it's a reasonable representation of what some folks within WotC want for the game (which it seems to be!), it's not a great sign for the next 3-7 years, IMO.

Prepare to be Fully Monetized, my fellow Brand Consumers.


----------



## Scribe

JEB said:


> Here's a fun find from the Termination section, bullet ii:
> 
> _Your obligation to pay royalties survives the termination of the agreement. _




ROFL that literally says it all.

These guys are clowns. Perfectly Lawful Evil, Fiend of the 9 Hells, but CLOWNS.


----------



## Jadeite

Onyx Path have issued a statement in their Monday Meeting Notes:








						Old Grey Labrador! [Monday Meeting Notes]
					






					theonyxpath.com
				






Pugmire will move away from the OGL and use its own system and license (they explain it in more detail, but I didn't want to copy the whole page.
The idea of a library purge is very concerning, considering that my Steam library contains many games no longer available due to various reasons, yet still available for me to download and play.


----------



## JEB

So Onyx Path thinks delisting of OGL 1.0 products is a possible consequence, once the new license drops. I've seen folks theorizing about that here, but this is the first time I saw a publisher suggest it.


----------



## Greg Benage

"5th+ version"


----------



## Bohandas

I'm A Banana said:


> Someone, somewhere, in the 2e era, said "I wish D&D was more popular."
> 
> And then a finger curled on a monkey's paw.




This is exactly the kind of thing I thought of when people on one of the threads were trying to say that we owed WotC for popularizing the game or something and tried to argue against a boycott



I'm A Banana said:


> Getting rid of the OGL has obviously been on their radar for a while (the GSL!), because HAS is a large, publicly-traded company, and the OGL is a significant, non-standard thing for companies to deal with (thank you Ryan Dancey). Even if they go back on this, expect this again whenever OneD&D version 2 or whatever comes around and they want to sell you a few more core rulebooks. It's not just individuals running the company, it's the fundamental ethos of running "a Brand." Typically, you want to control it. You want to fully monetize it. That's what your Board expects, that's what your investors expect, that's how you keep yourself in enough funbux to afford the 12th-largest mansion in your gated subdivision or whatever. The logic of owning an IP is that it only makes sense if you can get people to send you money to engage with it. You. Not your competitors. Not those kids with that new media streaming show. Not someone making plushies. YOU.
> 
> 5e didn't try to blow up the OGL when it launched, and now I do kind of wonder what magic helped that happen. Maybe D&D was too small within Hasbro back then to worry about "fully monetizing." Maybe there were some internal defenders. Maybe it was just a better point in the economic cycle. Maybe Bank of America didn't just crater the stock last quarter because you're trying to "fully monetize" your card game. I'd love to know. It'd be mighty ironic if the OGL's presence in 3e and 5e were more a result of 2e and 4e not making enough money (and so the creators of 3e and 5e had more freedom to try new things), only for the popularity of those editions to lead 4e and 6(ish)e to try and extract more value via silly, controlling licenses that actually wound up hampering them significantly.
> 
> This proposed 1.1 license is awful in a lot of ways, and if it's a reasonable representation of what some folks within WotC want for the game (which it seems to be!), it's not a great sign for the next 3-7 years, IMO.
> 
> Prepare to be Fully Monetized, my fellow Brand Consumers.




This is why I avoid buying stuff from big companies whenever possible.

(In fact, this whole thing ironically impacts me relatively little since I've already been blackballing Hasbro for the past ten years anyway)

EDIT:
Also, I'm glad to see that there's someone else who's groked the meaning of the word "monetization". On one of the other forums I'm on everyome acted like I was crazy when I said that monetization was an obnoxious corporate euphemism for selling out and rent-seeking


----------



## Staffan

I'm A Banana said:


> 5e didn't try to blow up the OGL when it launched, and now I do kind of wonder what magic helped that happen.



Because 5e was the "apology edition". As in "We dun goofed with 4e and all the things around it, so we're going back to more how it was in 3e."


----------



## Scribe

Staffan said:


> Because 5e was the "apology edition". As in "We dun goofed with 4e and all the things around it, so we're going back to more how it was in 3e."




Yep, and then once they got big enough to believe they could flip the finger at everyone not a shareholder...here we are.

It would be rich irony, if not for the fact they are quite literally trying to take down the whole 3PP industry and hundreds if not thousands of jobs with it.

One of the more grotesque examples of corporate behavior, in recent memory.


----------



## delericho

JEB said:


> So Onyx Path thinks delisting of OGL 1.0 products is a possible consequence, once the new license drops. I've seen folks theorizing about that here, but this is the first time I saw a publisher suggest it.



Yep, I raised that possibility last week (and I don't think I was the first). I'm not convinced it's likely, and I think it's even less likely that DriveThru and others will delete already-sold items from people's libraries.

But...

I'm also convinced of the wisdom of not relying on someone (anyone!) else to store your one and only copy of anything you want to keep. And, for electronic files, best not to have only one copy - storage is cheap, so always have a backup plan.


----------



## Yora

I still have stuff in my DriveThru library for download that has been pulled from sales ages ago. They don't normally seem to remove any files, only removing the product pages and stop selling them to new customers.

Has WotC done anything at all yet to in some way clarify or at least say something regarding their plans for official announcements?


----------



## Jadeite

Yora said:


> I still have stuff in my DriveThru library for download that has been pulled from sales ages ago. They don't normally seem to remove any files, only removing the product pages and stop selling them to new customers.
> 
> Has WotC done anything at all yet to in some way clarify or at least say something regarding their plans for official announcements?



WotC made RPGNow, DriveThruRPG and Paizo remove previously purchased D&D supplements in 2009, so it's not unprecedented.


----------



## Xyxox

Yora said:


> I still have stuff in my DriveThru library for download that has been pulled from sales ages ago. They don't normally seem to remove any files, only removing the product pages and stop selling them to new customers.
> 
> Has WotC done anything at all yet to in some way clarify or at least say something regarding their plans for official announcements?



Years ago, I had TONS of WotC items in my DriveThru library. One day, it was all gone and I never got it back. I had to purchase all of it again when WotC started allowing PDFs of their old material again.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I'm A Banana said:


> Someone, somewhere, in the 2e era, said "I wish D&D was more popular."



Right?

I told my dad, when I was like, 15 (1993), because he was complaining (mildly) about how many RPGs my brother and I owned (not that we played them, just how many we had lol - maybe he should have given us less money eh?), that they'd probably become pretty mainstream one day, and we'd still be playing them in our 40s (the age he was at the time).

I was right on both counts, but somehow I feel like it's not the "right" I wanted to be, y'know?


I'm A Banana said:


> Getting rid of the OGL has obviously been on their radar for a while (the GSL!)



I disagree.

The GSL actually hard-proves the opposite, because it an unmitigated disaster, and they intentionally brought back the OGL. It didn't come back by accident. 5E didn't trip over, fall, and an SRD fell out of its pocket, as you seem to imply. No. WotC _intentionally_ brought back the OGL and made a 5E SRD (two, actually). Because it was a good idea.

So it's it's not something that's been on their radar in any continuous sense. It's something that comes up when WotC is pressured to make more money. That's what the cause was both times.

4E was the product of WotC being told D&D needed to make more money ($50m/pa to be precise). That's why it had such a broad-spread set of ways to make money, much more so than 3.XE had. Most of them failed, and the GSL was part of that failure, but it was an attempt.

5E, as well-explained in @Snarf Zagyg's post exists because 4E failed and Hasbro decided they didn't need to push WotC on D&D, and could just make some smaller-scale profit on it. So the OGL came back out, because WotC wanted D&D succeed and thrive and they knew a lot of products necessary for a healthy game wouldn't be ones they'd want to make. That was very intentional.

Then 5E entirely accidentally went huge because of cultural factors (and the OGL was part of this, note - being able to Kickstart D&D and D&D-related stuff on Kickstarter helps make fans even more engaged with the brand, even they're technically giving money to some 3PP, as does supporting D&D-related stuff on Patreon, something_ verboten_ in the OGL 1.1).

And the Eye of Sauron fell on it once again. And once again, Hasbro demanded that WotC make more money with D&D. It was already making many times as much as they'd hoped 4E would make per year, but Hasbro wants more. So once again the it returns to the radar. It wasn't on there in an intervening period. It returned, because WotC is being pushed to maximize profits from D&D.

I'm not saying this to let WotC off. It's managed by the same ex-Microsoft goons as the rest of Hasbro, at this point, but you can see a very clear and repeated pattern. D&D needs to do good, OGL, D&D doing good but needs to make more money, GSL. This is just a cleverer, but far more destructive take on the GSL. Even if it's opt-in (best case scenario, and definitely not what WotC's comments suggest), it's the GSL, because the whole point of the GSL was the poison pill preventing you making OGL 1.0a products, which 1.1 features.


----------



## Nikosandros

Xyxox said:


> Years ago, I had TONS of WotC items in my DriveThru library. One day, it was all gone and I never got it back. I had to purchase all of it again when WotC started allowing PDFs of their old material again.



That's strange. I got back all my WotC PDFs on Drivethru except for Mythus, but that game was never re-issued in PDF.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Nikosandros said:


> That's strange. I got back all my WotC PDFs on Drivethru except for Mythus, but that game was never re-issued in PDF.



I didn't. I had the PHB and DMG in PDF on Drivethru, and they went away when all the WotC stuff did. They later came back on to Drivethru, but I didn't get them automatically re-added, possibly because when they came back, they were the later printing of the PHB and DMG (with different and very ugly covers and much worse layout). Drivethru didn't even reimburse me until I pursued the issue with them, and then they only gave me store credit, which frankly was a bit sassy.


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> I didn't. I had the PHB and DMG in PDF on Drivethru, and they went away when all the WotC stuff did. They later came back on to Drivethru, but I didn't get them automatically re-added, possibly because when they came back, they were the later printing of the PHB and DMG (with different and very ugly covers and much worse layout). Drivethru didn't even reimburse me until I pursued the issue with them, and then they only gave me store credit, which frankly was a bit sassy.



Yes, I think you are right. The considered them different products. In a way, I didn't have that issue because my I had bought my AD&D manuals long before, directly from WotC and from a store called SV Games. Of course those downloads are long gone, but luckily I donwload everything and have backups.


----------



## eyeheartawk

This has been all anyone has talked about for days at this point. I'm low-key pretty shocked we haven't heard _anything _from Wizards by now. Not even a "We are hearing your feedback and will have something to announce soon" kind of thing.


----------



## Xyxox

Nikosandros said:


> That's strange. I got back all my WotC PDFs on Drivethru except for Mythus, but that game was never re-issued in PDF.



Something strange happened with my account and DriveThru was never able to verify I had them on it. Still had a few of the PDFs on a backup.


----------



## Xyxox

eyeheartawk said:


> This has been all anyone has talked about for days at this point. I'm low-key pretty shocked we haven't heard _anything _from Wizards by now. Not even a "We are hearing your feedback and will have something to announce soon" kind of thing.



They'll probably announce OGL 1.1 on Friday and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Echohawk

Jadeite said:


> WotC made RPGNow, DriveThruRPG and Paizo remove previously purchased D&D supplements in 2009, so it's not unprecedented.



I note that WotC made them remove access to previously purchased copies of *WotC's own products*. That's not quite the same as requiring them to remove access to other people's products that someone had previously purchased.

(I'm not in any way defending _any_ of the above as acceptable, merely pointing out the slight difference.)

A somewhat comparable situation would be _Palace of the Vampire Queen_ which was offered for sale on DMs Guild in July(?) 2019, presumably because they mistakenly believed that TSR (and now WotC) owned the rights to it. It was promptly withdrawn from sale, but I can still see it in my library, albeit with the listed publisher updated from "Wizards of the Coast" to "Precis Intermedia", who actually own the rights. (It is also still available to purchase via the DriveThruRPG shopfront.)


----------



## Reynard

One thing I was thinking about this morning: why now?


----------



## Xyxox

Echohawk said:


> I note that WotC made them remove access to previously purchased copies of *WotC's own products*. That's not quite the same as requiring them to remove access to other people's products that someone had previously purchased.
> 
> (I'm not in any way defending _any_ of the above as acceptable, merely pointing out the slight difference.)
> 
> A somewhat comparable situation would be _Palace of the Vampire Queen_ which was offered for sale on DMs Guild in July(?) 2019, presumably because they mistakenly believed that TSR (and now WotC) owned the rights to it. It was promptly withdrawn from sale, but I can still see it in my library, albeit with the listed publisher updated from "Wizards of the Coast" to "Precis Intermedia", who actually own the rights. (It is also still available to purchase via the DriveThruRPG shopfront.)



 If they re really trying to totally replace OGL 1.0a with OGL 1.1, I suspect they might DMCA strike every product on DriveThruRPG that is listed with the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## kenada

Yora said:


> I still have stuff in my DriveThru library for download that has been pulled from sales ages ago. They don't normally seem to remove any files, only removing the product pages and stop selling them to new customers.
> 
> Has WotC done anything at all yet to in some way clarify or at least say something regarding their plans for official announcements?



The only time I lost access to something I purchased on DTRPG was when WotC pulled all of the D&D PDFs down after the 4e ones leaked, so it is possible to lose access, and the last time it happened was at WotC’s instigation. I did get them back eventually with they returned with D&D Classics, so at least it’s a soft block.

Edit: I see some comments saying they did not get all or some of their products back. I had purchased the 3e _Rules Compendium_ and got that back. I guess it depends on how the products were returned to the platform.


----------



## Echohawk

Xyxox said:


> If they re really trying to totally replace OGL 1.0a with OGL 1.1, I suspect they might DMCA strike every product on DriveThruRPG that is listed with the OGL 1.0a.



I am under the impression that the DMCA applies to content for which you own the copyright, rather than for content in general. That doesn't rule out WotC requesting the removal of titles, but I don't think it would be done on the basis of the DMCA.


----------



## Ibrandul

Reynard said:


> One thing I was thinking about this morning: why now?



They knew it would cause an uproar and just want to get it all out of the way prior to 2024. 

But also, there’s no way they’re granting a one-year grace period on paying royalties  out of soft-hearted largesse. At some point, some lawyer must have told them they would be in violation of this or that if they started extorting royalties without giving a year’s notice. And we know next year is 6e’s launch, so they need to do this now in order to be fully ready for January 2024.


----------



## kenada

Echohawk said:


> I am under the impression that the DMCA applies to content for which you own the copyright, rather than for content in general. That doesn't rule out WotC requesting the removal of titles, but I don't think it would be done on the basis of the DMCA.



If you’re using a WotC SRD, you technically are using their copyrighted material. You even attest to that fact in your section 15 statement.


----------



## Echohawk

kenada said:


> If you’re using a WotC SRD, you technically are using their copyrighted material. You even attest to that fact in your section 15 statement.



That's a good point, but it still seems like a significant stretch for WotC to use the DMCA to remove titles. Then again, a week ago it seemed like a stretch for WotC to try to revoke the OGL1.0a, so at this point, who knows?


----------



## Xyxox

Echohawk said:


> That's a good point, but it still seems like a significant stretch for WotC to use the DMCA to remove titles. Then again, a week ago it seemed like a stretch for WotC to try to revoke the OGL1.0a, so at this point, who knows?



I put nothing past WotC/Hasborg after this.


----------



## eyeheartawk




----------



## mamba

Echohawk said:


> I am under the impression that the DMCA applies to content for which you own the copyright, rather than for content in general. That doesn't rule out WotC requesting the removal of titles, but I don't think it would be done on the basis of the DMCA.



they own the copyright to the SRD, and if the OGL 1.0 no longer grants that…


----------



## Cadence

mamba said:


> they own the copyright to the SRD, and if the OGL 1.0 no longer grants that…



Instead of asking for removal of all 1.0a games, would the thing that would risk less lawyers be for WotC to ask for removal of all 1.0a games that have WotC material listed in their 1.0a references?


----------



## macd21

Reynard said:


> One thing I was thinking about this morning: why now?



Questions were already being raised as to whether 6e was going to be OGL or not. And 3PPs need to know now whether or not they will be able to produce 6e products. 

If WotC didn’t contact the 3PPs now, they would have started getting increasingly vocal about it. People would begin to wonder if WotC were going to release 6e under OGL at all. Some 3PPs would doubtless declare that they were sticking to 5e. It would be an ongoing issue, and then WotC would look even worse whenever they finally did release 1.1.


----------



## Remathilis

I'm A Banana said:


> Someone, somewhere, in the 2e era, said "I wish D&D was more popular."
> 
> And then a finger curled on a monkey's paw.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Prepare to be Fully Monetized, my fellow Brand Consumers.




A lot of geek culture went from "popular with a certain section of society" to MEGABRAND. And those brands were expected to print money forever. And for a while, we had it good. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. New Star Wars movies. The return of Doctor Who. The MCU. The d20 boom. But the easy money is all gone and the drive to make more and faster money has grown. All the brands I grew up with have become gaping holes demanding more of my income while providing less overall quality. It's been redesigned for casual consumption rather than engagement. Catering to whales who will pay hundreds of dollars for branded experiences. And the brands tighten their grips on those experiences to make sure every last dollar is wrung from them. 

I have more geek adjacent media today than I could have ever dreamed of. the amount of options for merchandise is mind-blowing. But it all feels a bit hollow when the property itself has been bled for every last drop.


----------



## Cadence

Remathilis said:


> A lot of geek culture went from "popular with a certain section of society" to MEGABRAND. And those brands were expected to print money forever. And for a while, we had it good. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. New Star Wars movies. The return of Doctor Who. The MCU. The d20 boom. But the easy money is all gone and the drive to make more and faster money has grown. All the brands I grew up with have become gaping holes demanding more of my income while providing less overall quality. It's been redesigned for casual consumption rather than engagement. Catering to whales who will pay hundreds of dollars for branded experiences. And the brands tighten their grips on those experiences to make sure every last dollar is wrung from them.
> 
> I have more geek adjacent media today than I could have ever dreamed of. the amount of options for merchandise is mind-blowing. But it all feels a bit hollow when the property itself has been bled for every last drop.




RE: An MCU aside that is probably better being its own thread if there is lots of disagreement...

I always wonder if those thinking the MCU has been bled dry were actually comic fans through the poly-bag / chrome cover / mega-crossover 90s (when comics were almost a big thing).   Or have tried to consistantly be a fan of any title over the past fifteen years (when comics have not been).   The MCU still seems pretty darn good to me by comparison.   Maybe I just have lower standards


----------



## Xyxox

I am considering completely switching over to Monte Cook's Cypher System. Anybody know the ins and outs of it? Just wondering good points and bad points. Monte Cook is a brilliant game designer so I suspect Cypher is good, too.


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> RE: An MCU aside that is probably better being its own thread if there is lots of disagreement...
> 
> I always wonder if those thinking the MCU has been bled dry were actually comic fans through the poly-bag / chrome cover / mega-crossover 90s (when comics were almost a big thing). Or have tried to consistantly be a fan of any title over the past fifteen years (when comics have not been). The MCU still seems pretty darn good to me by comparison. Maybe I just have lower standards



I would argue phase 4 felt more like filler when compared to the previous phases. There were some good, some bad and a lot of meh. But it's not exactly about the quality, it's about the quantity as well. There was a lot to consume, diminishing the return because of it on each. 

But suffice to say, my point is that as the media marketplace grows ever more saturated, it will continue to attempt to make brand interaction one sided: you will buy it. And if that is the trade off for success, I wish more of the things I loved didn't become successful.


----------



## Remathilis

Xyxox said:


> I am considering completely switching over to Monte Cook's Cypher System. Anybody know the ins and outs of it? Just wondering good points and bad points. Monte Cook is a brilliant game designer so I suspect Cypher is good, too.



I played it once a long time ago. It failed to impress our group, but it was so long ago I don't remember the specifics. I vaguely remember people weren't keen on the absolute openness of it (as in, what you could or couldn't do wasn't clearly defined) but that is a preference choice, not a mark on the game itself. 

It's not a replacement for D&D in any case. It's a very different experience.


----------



## Maxperson

Scribe said:


> ROFL that literally says it all.
> 
> These guys are clowns. Perfectly Lawful Evil, Fiend of the 9 Hells, but CLOWNS.



That's the reasonable part, not the LE part. The LE part is the part where they can just end your ability to use your property for any reason or no reason and then sell it themselves without paying YOU.  

Putting in language that says that if the agreement ends that you still owe the 25% you agreed to pay them on the 1 million dollars you already made isn't evil.


----------



## overgeeked

Xyxox said:


> I am considering completely switching over to Monte Cook's Cypher System. Anybody know the ins and outs of it? Just wondering good points and bad points. Monte Cook is a brilliant game designer so I suspect Cypher is good, too.



I haven’t played it but I know Numenera has a reddit and Web DM talked them up a lot. The reddit was friendly and helpful for the little bit I looked into the system and questions I had.


----------



## Ibrandul

Maxperson said:


> That's the reasonable part, not the LE part. The LE part is the part where they can just end your ability to use your property for any reason or no reason and then sell it themselves without paying YOU.
> 
> Putting in language that says that if the agreement ends that you still owe the 25% you agreed to pay them on the 1 million dollars you already made isn't evil.



To me the LE part is producing a contract (1.0a) that appears to mean one thing (irrevocable), and then when people ask _What does this part mean?_ (perpetual, any authorized version) you say _Why, it means you can ignore any changes we want to make to it and use it as long as you wish, of course_ (in their FAQ), and once the blood is on the page you wait until it suits you and then reveal your legal deviltry and drag everyone into Hell.

Third-party publishers had no chance at all—as evidenced by the fact that when folks on this very forum started asking worried questions in response to the rumors circulating some weeks back, the third-party publisher who owns the site politely explained why there was nothing to worry about. Even _Descent into Avernus _grants players a Wisdom check to suss out diabolical deception. WotC are behaving _exactly _like devils, and the only difference is that the game we’re all stuck playing—the twenty-first-century Western society game—is as imbalanced in the monsters’ favor as 5e is in the players’.


----------



## Staffan

Xyxox said:


> I am considering completely switching over to Monte Cook's Cypher System. Anybody know the ins and outs of it? Just wondering good points and bad points. Monte Cook is a brilliant game designer so I suspect Cypher is good, too.



It is a very simple system, so it's a matter of taste whether you like that sort of thing or not. At it's core, doing a thing has a particular difficulty level. To succeed, you want to roll difficulty x3 or higher on d20. If you're skilled at something, you reduce the difficulty of doing that thing by 1 or 2. You can also use extra effort and spend points from one of three pools (Might, Speed, Mind) to reduce difficulty, and one of the things that happen when you level up is that this cost is lowered and the ceiling for how much you can spend is raised.

Characters are roughly defined by a phrase of the form "I am an _adjective_ _noun_ who _verbs_." The noun is a class, the adjective is a modifier, and the verb usually adds a set of different abilities. So for example, a Quick Warrior* who Wields two blades would be different from a Quick Warrior who Speaks with beasts.


----------



## mhd

The Torment: Tides of Numenera video game uses the Cypher mechanics, so that might be a reasonable way to see how it plays out without getting a group together.

I think it's quite okay, but agree with other that it's definitely not a D&D replacement. "Betting" your pool on something isn't a very common mechanic, outside of Cypher I mostly remember the Dying Earth RPG doing it that way.

And the whole Cypher mechanic works well with the original setting, where it's just chock-full of disposable "magic items", but it's often a bit weird in other settings.

I'm not sure that this is the best choice. Assuming that OpenD6, Legend or Cepheus ditch the OGL, each of those might be more "trad" than Cypher for your average 5E player.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Ruin Explorer said:


> The GSL actually hard-proves the opposite, because it an unmitigated disaster, and they intentionally brought back the OGL. It didn't come back by accident. 5E didn't trip over, fall, and an SRD fell out of its pocket, as you seem to imply. No. WotC _intentionally_ brought back the OGL and made a 5E SRD (two, actually). Because it was a good idea.
> 
> So it's it's not something that's been on their radar in any continuous sense. It's something that comes up when WotC is pressured to make more money. That's what the cause was both times.




I do wonder why they believed (correctly, IMO!) that it was a good idea then and believe (incorrectly!) that it is not a good idea now. 

And I worry that the answer to that is: Daddy Hasbro is just paying attention now that D&D has had some success and most of the rest of Daddy Hasbro's children were already bled dry. That's not good for consumers of the RPG.



Ruin Explorer said:


> And the Eye of Sauron fell on it once again. And once again, Hasbro demanded that WotC make more money with D&D. It was already making many times as much as they'd hoped 4E would make per year, but Hasbro wants more. So once again the it returns to the radar. It wasn't on there in an intervening period. It returned, because WotC is being pushed to maximize profits from D&D.
> 
> I'm not saying this to let WotC off. It's managed by the same ex-Microsoft goons as the rest of Hasbro, at this point, but you can see a very clear and repeated pattern. D&D needs to do good, OGL, D&D doing good but needs to make more money, GSL. This is just a cleverer, but far more destructive take on the GSL. Even if it's opt-in (best case scenario, and definitely not what WotC's comments suggest), it's the GSL, because the whole point of the GSL was the poison pill preventing you making OGL 1.0a products, which 1.1 features.



If history is repeating here, we'll get a OneD&D that does poorly (maybe for some of the same reasons 4e did poorly, such as a contentious community that makes it more effort than it's worth to engage), it'll shrink again, and we'll get a new edition with a return to the OGL next cycle. 

Reading the tea leaves, their attempt to stop this is apparently to make OneD&D less of a revolutionary change from 5e than the 3e/4e break was, perhaps in an effort to minimize the lost audience. Which really just bills OneD&D as more of an Essentials/3.5/Skills & Powers/"Advanced" half-edition. A 5.5e. It'll be confusing and weird and sell a couple more core books, and then things will lag and the case will be made for a bigger transformation and someone will say "Remember Dark Sun?" and we'll be off to the races again.


----------



## gametaku

Kobold Press has announced that there working on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset
Code Name: Project Black Flag









						Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press
					

Kobold Press is committed to open gaming. We are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.




					koboldpress.com


----------



## Greg Benage

I'm A Banana said:


> we'll get a new edition with a return to the OGL next cycle.



I don't think any publisher above the "beer money" level will ever again build a business on the OGL,


----------



## CapnZapp

I'm A Banana said:


> and we'll get a new edition with a return to the OGL next cycle.



Except noone in their right mind will trust WotC ever again.

Maybe after Hasbro gets burned by the atrocious performance of D&D One, sells the IP, and the new owner wisely starts up a new OGL as their first move. 

And even then, it will probably have to be based on Creative Commons (or similar), so publishers can be reasonably certain the new owner is really intending to give away the game rights irrevocably and in perpetuity.


----------



## Remathilis

CapnZapp said:


> Except noone in their right mind will trust WotC ever again.
> 
> Maybe after Hasbro gets burned by the atrocious performance of D&D One, sells the IP, and the new owner wisely starts up a new OGL as their first move.
> 
> And even then, it will probably have to be based on Creative Commons (or similar), so publishers can be reasonably certain the new owner is really intending to give away the game rights irrevocably and in perpetuity.



Hasbro will not sell D&D. They will shelve it. Hasbro doesn't sell IP. The absolute doomsday scenario is that D&D and Magic tank, WotC closes and Hasbro eats the loss and ups the sale of Star Wars collectables to compensate. More likely, they will make an evergreen version with zero support and sell that until lightning catches in a bottle again or nobody cares enough to stop selling it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> Hasbro will not sell D&D. They will shelve it. Hasbro doesn't sell IP. The absolute doomsday scenario is that D&D and Magic tank, WotC closes and Hasbro eats the loss and ups the sale of Star Wars collectables to compensate. More likely, they will make an evergreen version with zero support and sell that until lightning catches in a bottle again or nobody cares enough to stop selling it.



even if they shelve the game itself, the movies might be worth making, or a new video game...


----------



## Remathilis

GMforPowergamers said:


> even if they shelve the game itself, the movies might be worth making, or a new video game...



Exactly. Hasbro feels the IP might still be worth something to licence out even if the original game is dead.


----------



## SAVeira

Remathilis said:


> Exactly. Hasbro feels the IP might still be worth something to licence out even if the original game is dead.



Hasbro also understands that games and toys trend.  What falls out of favour this year, could be back in fashion in a decade.  They have let brands rest, only to bring them out again for a new generation.  They also understand nostalgia.  For example, this year their NERF brand will be reissuing the first NERF dart blaster for the collectors.


----------



## Azgulor

gametaku said:


> Kobold Press has announced that there working on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset
> Code Name: Project Black Flag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press
> 
> 
> Kobold Press is committed to open gaming. We are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koboldpress.com



And is apparently being flooded with traffic such that the site is now unreachable...


----------



## Remathilis

Latest hot take: WotC is honoring Gary's wishes...


----------



## Aldarc

Xyxox said:


> I am considering completely switching over to Monte Cook's Cypher System. Anybody know the ins and outs of it? Just wondering good points and bad points. Monte Cook is a brilliant game designer so I suspect Cypher is good, too.



There are several threads about the Cypher System and Numenera, with people discussing the very thing you are asking for. I've played a lot. It's pretty sufficient as a system, but I find that it's a mixed bag. People seem to either love it or bounce off it pretty strongly.  



CapnZapp said:


> *Except noone in their right mind will trust WotC ever again.*
> 
> Maybe after Hasbro gets burned by the atrocious performance of D&D One, sells the IP, and the new owner wisely starts up a new OGL as their first move.
> 
> And even then, it will probably have to be based on Creative Commons (or similar), so publishers can be reasonably certain the new owner is really intending to give away the game rights irrevocably and in perpetuity.



People said that in 2008 when they saw the GSL. Then 5e D&D rolled around. Short-term memory loss is a thing in our hobby.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> Latest hot take: WotC is honoring Gary's wishes...



is this a real quote or a joke?


----------



## darjr

dndbeyond has twittered a respons, just that they are working on a response.


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr




----------



## Hex08

Remathilis said:


> Latest hot take: WotC is honoring Gary's wishes...



Didn't Gary later work with Troll Lords? I didn't buy any of his stuff from them, so I don't know if it was produced under the OGL. If so, it seems he might have changed his mind.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Hex08 said:


> Didn't Gary later work with Troll Lords? I didn't buy any of his stuff from them, so I don't know if it was produced under the OGL. If so, it seems he might have changed his mind.



I had the same thought. I'm sure he felt very strongly about that until he crossed out the words Castle Greyhawk and wrote Castle Zagyg over them.


----------



## darjr

A little ironic sorting of tweets.


----------



## Hex08

GMforPowergamers said:


> is this a real quote or a joke?



Here is an old thread about Gary's feelings about the OGL. Not sure if the actual quote is true but he didn't seem to care for it.








						Gygax's views on OGL
					

Is it just me, or is Gary totally out of touch here?      From http://www.silven.com/articles.asp?case=show&id=115        Q1) We know from previous columns with you that you are not a great advocate of open licenses. Before we delve into the details of this lets define your views on this using...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## mhd

darjr said:


> View attachment 271923



I liked the reply "We don't have questions, we have torches & pitchforks"


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> People said that in 2008 when they saw the GSL. Then 5e D&D rolled around. Short-term memory loss is a thing in our hobby.



Ironic how you're talking about memory loss when you appear to have forgotten that the GSL didn't ever attempt to retroactively destroy the OGL. It merely gated people out of 4E. It didn't try to burn down 3E.

After _this_ stunt, people won't trust any license WotC is issuing ever again. They'll need to base their next offer on a reputable license (like the Creative Commons ones) if they ever want to regain the community's trust.


----------



## overgeeked

Hex08 said:


> Here is an old thread about Gary's feelings about the OGL. Not sure if the actual quote is true but he didn't seem to care for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gygax's views on OGL
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or is Gary totally out of touch here?      From http://www.silven.com/articles.asp?case=show&id=115        Q1) We know from previous columns with you that you are not a great advocate of open licenses. Before we delve into the details of this lets define your views on this using...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



That stance was pretty rich coming from Gary. Considering he just took Dave Arneson's game notes, edited them, and published them over the objections Dave raised at the time. Gary also later went on to cheat Dave out of his royalties. Dave sued and won that case. Gary's not one to have an opinion about intellectual property, etc.


----------



## eyeheartawk

overgeeked said:


> That stance was pretty rich coming from Gary. Considering he just took Dave Arneson's game notes, edited them, and published them over the objections Dave raised at the time. Gary also later went on to cheat Dave out of his royalties. Dave sued and won that case. Gary's not one to have an opinion about intellectual property, etc.



Plus, you know, what kind of monster _drinks_ buttermilk?


----------



## Scribe

Aldarc said:


> People said that in 2008 when they saw the GSL. Then 5e D&D rolled around. Short-term memory loss is a thing in our hobby.



Most in the D&D space were not present then.

Today's players by percentage, are not those present for 4e.


----------



## Remathilis

GMforPowergamers said:


> is this a real quote or a joke?



I think the quote is real. It's making the rounds on SM. But it's a strange take, regardless.


----------



## reelo

eyeheartawk said:


> Plus, you know, what kind of monster _drinks_ buttermilk?



I like buttermilk. Plus, you can make mango-lassi with it.


----------



## eyeheartawk

reelo said:


> I like buttermilk. Plus, you can make mango-lassi with it.



Well, yeah, you are literally a monster though.


----------



## rknop

Gygax deserves a lot of credit for his foundational role in our hobby, but he was also wrong about lots of things.  We shouldn't put anybody on a pedestal (not even Ryan Dancy!) and expect that we'll agree with their take on everything.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> That stance was pretty rich coming from Gary. Considering he just took Dave Arneson's game notes, edited them, and published them over the objections Dave raised at the time. Gary also later went on to cheat Dave out of his royalties. Dave sued and won that case. Gary's not one to have an opinion about intellectual property, etc.



I mean, if he hadn't, there wouldn't BE a D&D to argue about, so...


----------



## Aldarc

Scribe said:


> Most in the D&D space were not present then.
> 
> Today's players by percentage, are not those present for 4e.



Which only means that there are more people with short-term memory loss syndrome now than there was then.


----------



## Nylanfs

Ruin Explorer said:


> "IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document."
> 
> This seems new and potentially very annoying, no?
> 
> "You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision"
> 
> Yeah that is new and annoying, thanks WotC!



That is quite possibly literally the only thing I like from the leak. I suggested something very similar to the license person (Scott Rouse, I think?) in the run-up for 4e. Because otherwise you get Sec. 15 bloat, and this helps identify who the original author was.


----------



## Scribe

Aldarc said:


> Which only means that there are more people with short-term memory loss syndrome now than there was then.




I would bet a healthy sum, the majority of D&D players today, have no clue. Not because they forgot.

I am reminded of the 75% don't know what a planeswalker is comment regarding MtG.

People on this forum, are the hyper connected, hyper online, hyper engaged.


----------



## rknop

Scribe said:


> People on this forum, are the hyper connected, hyper online, hyper engaged.



To be fair, often it's just hyper.


----------



## darjr




----------



## rgard

overgeeked said:


> That stance was pretty rich coming from Gary. Considering he just took Dave Arneson's game notes, edited them, and published them over the objections Dave raised at the time. Gary also later went on to cheat Dave out of his royalties. Dave sued and won that case. Gary's not one to have an opinion about intellectual property, etc.



That and if he had created an OGL for D&D back before TSR bought him out/sent him packing, he could have kept on making D&D products for sale instead of Dangerous Journeys (or as I call it, 'The Game of Unpronounceable Words' which in turn got crushed by his exit agreement.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> View attachment 271930



DOOOOOO IT!


----------



## rgard

Scribe said:


> I would bet a healthy sum, the majority of D&D players today, have no clue. Not because they forgot.
> 
> I am reminded of the 75% don't know what a planeswalker is comment regarding MtG.
> 
> People on this forum, are the hyper connected, hyper online, hyper engaged.




And many of us have disposable income and buy RPGs.


----------



## Scribe

rgard said:


> And many of us have disposable income and buy RPGs.



Yes...? Lol


----------



## ersatzphil

darjr said:


> View attachment 271930


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> View attachment 271930



Please oh please oh please.


----------



## darjr

OK. I’m willing to wait one extra day for Flee Mortals.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> View attachment 271930



I don't get it. Is that a joke about getting contacted by Legal Eagles and pretending that they are lawyers from WotC?


----------



## ersatzphil

Nikosandros said:


> I don't get it. Is that a joke about getting contacted by Legal Eagles and pretending that they are lawyers from WotC?



LegalEagle has 2.7m subscribers on youtube - Devin doing a video on the OGL would get it in front of an awful lot of eyeballs.


----------



## darjr

ersatzphil said:


> LegalEagle has 2.7m subscribers on youtube - Devin doing a video on the OGL would get it in front of an awful lot of eyeballs.



Yup, and he’s very insightful


----------



## I'm A Banana

Remathilis said:


> I think the quote is real. It's making the rounds on SM. But it's a strange take, regardless.



There's a lot of good to say about the late father of our hobby, but Gary absolutely had some very "old man yells at cloud" takes in his life (to put it charitably). Heck, some of them are in the AD&D player's handbook. 



Greg Benage said:


> I don't think any publisher above the "beer money" level will ever again build a business on the OGL,



I wonder how much of this is an intended outcome, how much of this is expected outcome (if not directly intended), and how much of this is such a surprise to them that they would want to reverse course. It's a leak, so one would think it's not ready for finalization, and so could be dramatically different in final form. It's also a pretty reliable leak at a pretty late stage with multiple people citing the same thing, and it's not a whole lot different from what they pulled in 2008. 

Does WotC want significant third parties like Critical Role, MCDM, and Paizo to exist? To exist, but to pay WotC more? To not exist? Really hard to divine intention from these tea leaves.


----------



## SkidAce

ersatzphil said:


> View attachment 271932



I don't understand...

...read more...understand now...


----------



## Greg Benage

darjr said:


> up, and he’s very insightful



He must be pretty damn good if he gets away with calling himself "YouTube's Lawyer."


----------



## ersatzphil

SkidAce said:


> I don't understand...
> 
> ...read more...understand now...



I didn’t voice it on the board, but I had been wondering for the last few days if LegalEagle would weigh in. A ‘mainstream’, outside-of-the-hobby YouTuber talking about the OGL would be a pretty big deal.

Edit: _could _be a big deal.


----------



## I'm A Banana

FWIW, I'd also point out that the very _existence_ of OneD&D is likely part of this Full Monetization strategy. Tweaking the game to release new core books to juice the sales numbers is always part of the "print money now please" strategy for D&D. You get beastheaded celestials and powers that recharge based on your proficiency bonus and whatever not primarily because the game needed them, but primarily because Hasbro needed to give you a reason to buy another PHB so they can make a shareholder marginally less angry with them. They could also be cool new things for the game, but their _purpose_ is to sell PHB's.


----------



## Reynard

I'm A Banana said:


> FWIW, I'd also point out that the very _existence_ of OneD&D is likely part of this Full Monetization strategy. Tweaking the game to release new core books to juice the sales numbers is always part of the "print money now please" strategy for D&D.



It will have been 10 years. A new Edition wouldn't be out of line, let alone a spit polish.


----------



## ersatzphil

I'm A Banana said:


> FWIW, I'd also point out that the very _existence_ of OneD&D is likely part of this Full Monetization strategy. Tweaking the game to release new core books to juice the sales numbers is always part of the "print money now please" strategy for D&D. You get beastheaded celestials and powers that recharge based on your proficiency bonus and whatever not primarily because the game needed them, but primarily because Hasbro needed to give you a reason to buy another PHB so they can make a shareholder marginally less angry with them. They could also be cool new things for the game, but their _purpose_ is to sell PHB's.



I don't disagree, but I don't think there exists a world where they didn't issue something new for the 50th anniversary of the game.


----------



## Ondath

darjr said:


> View attachment 271930



Oh now THIS will be a fantastic crossover!


----------



## Remathilis

I'm A Banana said:


> FWIW, I'd also point out that the very _existence_ of OneD&D is likely part of this Full Monetization strategy. Tweaking the game to release new core books to juice the sales numbers is always part of the "print money now please" strategy for D&D. You get beastheaded celestials and powers that recharge based on your proficiency bonus and whatever not primarily because the game needed them, but primarily because Hasbro needed to give you a reason to buy another PHB so they can make a shareholder marginally less angry with them. They could also be cool new things for the game, but their _purpose_ is to sell PHB's.



This was true of 3.5. and 4e's PHB 2, 3, etc. The game has always existed as a money making venture. 10 years between attempts to sell me PHB 's is an acceptable length.


----------



## S'mon

Hex08 said:


> Didn't Gary later work with Troll Lords? I didn't buy any of his stuff from them, so I don't know if it was produced under the OGL. If so, it seems he might have changed his mind.




Yes - he wrote Castle Zagyg in 1e and the Trolls converted it to C&C.


----------



## Incenjucar

Remathilis said:


> This was true of 3.5. and 4e's PHB 2, 3, etc. The game has always existed as a money making venture. 10 years between attempts to sell me PHB 's is an acceptable length.



Agreed. In and of itself, a new edition every 8-10 years is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Kai Lord

Paizo, Inc. has returned to its home state of Washington in an attempt to rescue the Pathfinder game from the clutches of the vile corporation Hasbro Incorporated. Little does Paizo know that the WOTC EMPIRE has secretly begun construction on a new anti-OGL even more restrictive than the dreaded 4E game license. When completed, this ultimate weapon will spell certain doom for the small band of third party creators struggling to release high quality content to the gaming community...


----------



## I'm A Banana

Remathilis said:


> This was true of 3.5. and 4e's PHB 2, 3, etc. The game has always existed as a money making venture. 10 years between attempts to sell me PHB 's is an acceptable length.



Oh, totally. And that's not to say that the new stuff is *only* a soulless cash grab - pretty sure the designers working directly on the game really want the game to be good. 

But it colors my perception of the playtest. It makes the question "Why do we need this change?" more acute for me. Is this going to make my games better? Is it worth the confusion? If it's different for the sake of difference...well, is that something I just want to accept? It's making me ask questions like I would've asked in the run up to 4e: _why_ is this change needed, and does this change add more than it takes away? I remember the GSL going on about how you can't redefine terms (so an elf was always a 4e-brand elf), and it makes me wonder how much WotC thinks about branding opportunities for a new race...


----------

