# So how do we respond?



## Olgar Shiverstone

_Friends, nerds, ENWorlders, lend me your ears;
I come to bury WotC, not to praise them.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with WotC. _
- so sayeth Olgar

So while it's pretty clear that what's going on with WotC and the OGL is somewhat undefined, it sure looks to me like there's a chance of this being really, really nasty to consumers and a large part of the community if WotC's intent is really to nuke the OGL.

So how do we respond?

We have the power -- we are the gamers, the consumers. We are the court of public opinion. We have it in our power to praise or bury WotC for this action. What should we be doing, now, to influence WotC _not_ to carry through with what it looks like they are going to do, and convince them that supporting and encouraging OGL1.0(a) is what the gaming world needs

I know EN World is a tiny minority of the RPG space, most of whom don't have a clue about this situation. But I don't think "wait and see" is the answer here. We shouldn't be waiting for WotC to revoke the OGL and then wail and beat our breasts and then try to reverse them -- we should be actively trying to achieve deterrence now.

So what should our actions be? Immediately stop buying products, boycott WotC events, shun the D&D movie, buy 3PP products instead, ignore content creators who stick to D&D products in favor of those supporting other game systems or OGL derivatives, go back to OD&D 1974 with diaglo ... what? What say you?


----------



## aco175

Save your money for 6e.  It will come sooner once 5.5 flops.

I am still on a wait and see approach and not ready to believe all the hype.


----------



## Scribe

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> So how do we respond?




I'm going to buy Pathfinder products, support some 3rd party folks, and just wait for Wizards to pull its head out.


----------



## payn

Im not really a WotC customer right now so I cant really take my money elsewhere as its already there...


----------



## MockingBird

As of now I'm in a wait and see, so I'll stay with 5e unless there's a change. The last survey I did take the opportunity to stress the importance of the OGL situation in the last comment section.


----------



## Cadence

I told my 13yo what was up and that if true we probably won't be getting that 2024 edition when it comes out after all.

It will also serve as an easy tie breaker when I'm undecided about buying new MtG or any other Hasbro stuff.

Finally, will happily contribute to a legal GoFundMe if one pops up.


----------



## Incenjucar

We still need to see the full and finalized text. If it is indeed very, very silly, then I'll be waiting for whoever is less less silly and who is able to put out their own non-silly OGL and devote the many hours and dollars I was expecting to throw down for 5.5E.


----------



## BrokenTwin

Yeah, I can't really spend less money on WotC than I am right now, but I might pick up some new indie stuff in solidarity.


----------



## Dausuul

Make noise.

That's what matters above all. Make Wizards know that you are unhappy. Loudly, repeatedly, in channels they will see. (There's a 1D&D playtest survey up right now where you can enter text responses; filling it with angry comments could start them worrying about their big upcoming release.) Tell other people and get them making noise too.

If you aren't making noise, you won't be heard.

Boycotting is good too. But, again, make sure they know _why_. If you cancel your DDB subscription, be sure to say why you're doing it.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

I won't buy or play 1dnd, and once our current 5e campaign concludes we're going to move on to a different game system.

It's about time anyway, been playing 5e continuously now since LMoP was first released.


----------



## payn

Dausuul said:


> Make noise.
> 
> That's what matters above all. Make Wizards know that you are unhappy. Loudly, repeatedly, in channels they will see. (There's a 1D&D playtest survey up right now where you can enter text responses; filling it with angry comments could start them worrying about their big upcoming release.) Tell other people and get them making noise too.
> 
> If you aren't making noise, you won't be heard.
> 
> Boycotting is good too. But, again, make sure they know _why_. If you cancel your DDB subscription, be sure to say why you're doing it.



Good point. Suppose I could mention that I was in for an anniversary core book set minimum but that's over now.


----------



## darjr

Mention it to your group. Word of mouth.


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> Mention it to your group. Word of mouth.



Yes, my Saltmarsh group WhatsApp chat was aflame with discussion today...


----------



## Composer99

I had intended to try out some of the new playtest content this month. Not happening now, and I said as much in the survey. I also plan to not buy official D&D stuff, for what little that's worth.


----------



## CleverNickName

Respond to the changes?
I doubt I'll even notice them.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I'm having a conversation with my best friend deciding if stopping to use our 5e content and using 5e as our system is the ''good'' thing to do (knowing full well that it wont change a thing for anyone but us). 

I fear dropping D&D will just cause my group to stop playing 'cause they dont want to try new things.

What a dilemma!


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Publish something under the the OGL 1.0(a) and wait for them to sue me. Beat them in court and save the world


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I'm having a conversation with my best friend deciding if stopping to use our 5e content and using 5e as our system is the ''good'' thing to do (knowing full well that it wont change a thing for anyone but us).
> 
> I fear dropping D&D will just cause my group to stop playing 'cause they dont want to try new things.
> 
> What a dilemma!



You can play D&D without supporting WotC any further


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Dausuul said:


> Make noise.
> 
> That's what matters above all. Make Wizards know that you are unhappy. Loudly, repeatedly, in channels they will see. (There's a 1D&D playtest survey up right now where you can enter text responses; filling it with angry comments could start them worrying about their big upcoming release.) Tell other people and get them making noise too.
> 
> If you aren't making noise, you won't be heard.
> 
> Boycotting is good too. But, again, make sure they know _why_. If you cancel your DDB subscription, be sure to say why you're doing it.



So how else do you hit their bottom line?

Noise is a start -- negative press/publicity can make a backlash and help.

Even more effective is to send a message to Hasbro shareholders and the Hasbro board that their suits are about to strangle the golden goose ... how do we get that message across? Time to bring in r/WallStreetBets?


----------



## Xethreau

Tweet @Wizards_DnD and tell them it is unacceptable.


----------



## South by Southwest

I'll never stop playing D&D. I'll stop buying stuff for it and I'll refuse any and all attempts at making me pay a recurring fee for an online account or whatever, but I'll never stop playing. I hope my friends won't either--it's been too much fun.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

South by Southwest said:


> I'll never stop playing D&D. I'll stop buying stuff for it and I'll refuse any and all attempts at making me pay a recurring fee for an online account or whatever, but I'll never stop playing. I hope my friends won't either--it's been too much fun.



I should try to get into this mindset. Thanks for that.


----------



## Dausuul

South by Southwest said:


> I'll never stop playing D&D. I'll stop buying stuff for it and I'll refuse any and all attempts at making me pay a recurring fee for an online account or whatever, but I'll never stop playing. I hope my friends won't either--it's been too much fun.



And that's the nice thing about D&D: You can keep playing forever without paying Wizards a dime.

Good idea to remind them of that. D&D doesn't need them.


----------



## South by Southwest

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I should try to get into this mindset. Thanks for that.



It can be hard to do when stuff like this happens, I know, but the way I look at it is simple: a great beauty of D&D has always been all the stuff you _don't_ need for it. You get the _PHB_ and _MM_ (no need to ever update it if you're happy with the system), you get some paper and pencils, and you get a set of dice. That really is all you need.


----------



## 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


----------



## Mecheon

Making noise and the good ol' "Dunk on them on social media every time they do a post to the point they're forced to lock comments" is generally going to be the most effective thing for most of us.

5E got as big as it is due to positive word of mouth, completely can be turned around if momentum gets big enough


----------



## overgeeked

South by Southwest said:


> It can be hard to do when stuff like this happens, I know, but the way I look at it is simple: a great beauty of D&D has always been all the stuff you _don't_ need for it. You get the _PHB_ and _MM_ (no need to ever update it if you're happy with the system), you get some paper and pencils, and you get a set of dice. That really is all you need.



Folk D&D vs official D&D. We’re still playing AD&D. You don’t need anything more than people to play with, your imagination, and maybe a randomizer.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> So how do we respond?



I'm not sure. I was already unsure if I was staying with 1D&D come 2024. I already cut back my D&D spending. I have no intention of NOT going to see the movie.

overall I don't think this changes any of that.

I will say if this 'works' and puts 3pp out who want to stay behind I will be pissed for a reason others are not.  I want 4e style balance, and I think if this cut pathfinder off before it split the fan base, then I would have a 5e with more 4e in it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dausuul said:


> And that's the nice thing about D&D: You can keep playing forever without paying Wizards a dime.
> 
> Good idea to remind them of that. D&D doesn't need them.



and if that means they can make money off the IP I'm not sure they care.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Well #openDnD is trending on Twitter so that is one path to pursue.

If you're in for the long haul, buy and run games besides WOTC D&D. There are plenty of creators who would welcome you as customers.


----------



## FormerLurker

I think we're already doing it.
It feels like someone at WotC leaked this so the management/ Hasbro would realize it was a terrible idea. Voicing our displeasure and promising to support any legal action or protests in the community puts pressure on WotC to move forward with an alternate license. 

Similarly, if WotC does quietly back down, we should praise them for doing the right thing (even if they don't admit to bowing to fan pressure). 

But we should be ready to boycott, pull products, and support alternatives.


----------



## MGibster

I suspect I'll be in a distinct minority here, but, as a consumer, I don't really care what WotC does with the OGL.  For pretty much the entirety of 5th edition, I don't think I've purchased a single game product that was under the OGL.  That isn't to say I don't have a detached interest in what's happening, just that I'm not going to boycott or otherwise avoid WotC products because of this.  I'm far more concerned about their announcements to monetize D&D and attempt to make us into recurrent spenders.


----------



## FormerLurker

MGibster said:


> I suspect I'll be in a distinct minority here, but, as a consumer, I don't really care what WotC does with the OGL.  For pretty much the entirety of 5th edition, I don't think I've purchased a single game product that was under the OGL.  That isn't to say I don't have a detached interest in what's happening, just that I'm not going to boycott or otherwise avoid WotC products because of this.  I'm far more concerned about their announcements to monetize D&D and attempt to make us into recurrent spenders.



Consider also if this goes ahead it might mean a company like Paizo is forced out of business as they rely on the OGL and can't make a brand new game in 6 months. Which means 125 employees are out of work as the second biggest name in tabletop gaming goes away...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FormerLurker said:


> Consider also if this goes ahead it might mean a company like Paizo is forced out of business as they rely on the OGL and can't make a brand new game in 6 months. Which means 125 employees are out of work as the second biggest name in tabletop gaming goes away...



I don't but PF TTRPG (but I did buy the card game) I would feel SO sorry for every one of those employees


----------



## Xethreau

FormerLurker said:


> I think we're already doing it.
> It feels like someone at WotC leaked this so the management/ Hasbro would realize it was a terrible idea. Voicing our displeasure and promising to support any legal action or protests in the community puts pressure on WotC to move forward with an alternate license.
> 
> Similarly, if WotC does quietly back down, we should praise them for doing the right thing (even if they don't admit to bowing to fan pressure).
> 
> But we should be ready to boycott, pull products, and support alternatives.



I mean didn't a bunch of folks at WotC just get fired / moved into different roles? That's motive right there


----------



## Umbran

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> So what should our actions be? Immediately stop buying products, boycott WotC events, shun the D&D movie, buy 3PP products instead, ignore content creators who stick to D&D products in favor of those supporting other game systems or OGL derivatives, go back to OD&D 1974 with diaglo ... what? What say you?




Boycotts are not effective unless you tell them _why_ you are boycotting.

So, the first actions need to be to inform WotC that you are not pleased by this.  Tell them _directly_ - if you want action to be effective, the first step is a deluge to every relevant e-mail address and social media outlet with a message that this license will not be acceptable.

If that doesn't work, then you put your money where your mouth is.  Tell them about every product you chose not to buy, and what preferable alternative you bought instead.  Lay out for them exactly what they stand to lose.  Show them the receipts.


----------



## Branduil

If I were Paizo, or any of the numerous 3PP who make OGL products, what I would be seriously thinking about, and discussing openly with allies, is the idea of writing a truly open-source gaming license, one which is not owned or copyrighted by anybody. This would obviously be a time-consuming endeavor, and also wouldn't be a silver-bullet against legal action, but it would have one very big benefit: anybody who used this license (let's call it the TOGL, the True Open Gaming License) would be highly incentivized to defend it at all costs. It would be much harder for a bully like WotC to try and pick off publishers and creators 1-by-1 when they had no say in the license to begin with.

I fear at this point that even if WotC walks back their plans, the well is poisoned. You can no longer trust that WotC will leave the OGL alone like they promised and intended at its creation.


----------



## Retreater

I'm going to stop purchasing official products while trying to support 3PPs (and other systems) in the immediate future.


----------



## Solauren

Realistically, we only have a two options.  
#1 - Not support the current and later editions of D&D anymore.
Not a big problem for me.  I haven't purchased at WOTC D&D RPG products since I read over the 4E PHBK first few chapters and then put it back on the shelf.   (Let's hear it for public libraries on that one)

#2 - Continue to support D&D, despite the license change and activities they take as a result of it.

Anything else is just a variant of #1


----------



## Umbran

Branduil said:


> I fear at this point that even if WotC walks back their plans, the well is poisoned. You can no longer trust that WotC will leave the OGL alone like they promised and intended at its creation.




Just to be clear - you never really could trust WotC.   WotC is _not a person_.  It does not have _personal loyalty_ that you can trust.

They are a company.  They act like a company.  A company's memory is not generally very long, and often loses emphasis when it doesn't meet the preferred narratives of new leadership.  

I guess current leadership thinks we don't care about such things.  We shall have to see what we can do to disabuse them of that particular notion.


----------



## Umbran

Retreater said:


> I'm going to stop purchasing official products while trying to support 3PPs (and other systems) in the immediate future.




I suggest you _email receipts_ to WotC.  Show them what income they just lost.


----------



## SkidAce

South by Southwest said:


> I'll never stop playing D&D. I'll stop buying stuff for it and I'll refuse any and all attempts at making me pay a recurring fee for an online account or whatever, but I'll never stop playing. I hope my friends won't either--it's been too much fun.



Solid.

Quoted for Truth.


----------



## Haplo781

Xethreau said:


> Tweet @Wizards_DnD and tell them it is unacceptable.


----------



## Vaalingrade

"Okay Google. Synonyms for Constitution."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> "Okay Google. Synonyms for Constitution."



excuse me but muscle agility health knowledge wits and manipulation are NOT the D&D stats... what would make you think they were?!?!


----------



## Haplo781

Honestly the 6 stats are kinda silly... Wisdom shouldn't really be a thing and strength/constitution can't be separated.


----------



## Retreater

Umbran said:


> I suggest you _email receipts_ to WotC.  Show them what income they just lost.



As long as my wife doesn't see what I'm spending, that's a good idea.


----------



## payn

This thread is going places...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> Honestly the 6 stats are kinda silly... Wisdom shouldn't really be a thing and strength/constitution can't be separated.



yeah as soon as I started writing out the 'not' stats I realized I would want to combine and change them anyway.


----------



## Haplo781

I'm puttering around with something myself and went with MAPS - Might, Agility, Presence, and Sense.


----------



## mamba

Branduil said:


> I fear at this point that even if WotC walks back their plans, the well is poisoned. You can no longer trust that WotC will leave the OGL alone like they promised and intended at its creation.



it is, which is why it should be changed so it is open (no registration, no reporting, no fee), perpetual and irrevocable.

Then it no longer is a matter of trust


----------



## MNblockhead

If the their new products interest me, I'll buy them. If not, I won't. While I find the legal discussions interesting, I don't see it affecting my purchase decisions.


----------



## J.Quondam

Some boxed text, maybe for my  #dungeon23 tomorrow:
"This is an empty room, but for a green devil's head carved onto one wall. It gaping mouth is dead black inside. Something barely legible is scrawled within."



#opendnd


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:
I, myself, have suggested e-mailing WotC.  E-mail and other contact should only be sent to official WotC business addresses.

Anyone publishing personal e-mail addresses, street addresses, phone numbers, or other contact information of WotC personnel will be promptly banned from the site.  

We will not tolerate anyone enabling or engaging in the harassment of individual WotC employees.  

Send your grievances to official business channels only, please.*


----------



## Yaarel

I am enthusiastic about the 2024 edition.

These OGL concerns will significantly effect the time and money I spend on 2024 onward.

In an extreme hypothetical, if the fears prove true about a draconian "not-OGL", that might mean abandoning D&D instead of celebrating its triumph in 2024.

For the moment, I am still in a wait-and-see mode, for the dust to settle.


----------



## Charlaquin

overgeeked said:


> Folk D&D vs official D&D. We’re still playing AD&D. You don’t need anything more than people to play with, your imagination, and maybe a randomizer.



Yeah, I’m feeling like I picked the right time to take an interest in the OSR. Obviously a lot of that is OGL content, but there’s enough that isn’t, and there’s also always homebrew.


----------



## Zaukrie

Shunning the movie guarantees less movies and TV. That's not good, like it or not.


----------



## mamba

Zaukrie said:


> Shunning the movie guarantees less movies and TV. That's not good, like it or not.



that is perfectly ok with me, won’t watch this movie, won’t watch anything else they make. Part of my response


----------



## darjr

mamba said:


> that is perfectly ok with me, won’t watch this movie, won’t watch anything else they make. Part of my response



Yea, lots of good fantasy out there.

And if it's a good movie us RPG folk won't make a dent.


----------



## Zaukrie

darjr said:


> Yea, lots of good fantasy out there.
> 
> And if it's a good movie us RPG folk won't make a dent.



If we won't make a dent, why boycott? Especially if it's good? I'm all for taking on big business, but you gotta be smart about it. Or take some high ground that really only effects you. Both are reasonable choices.


----------



## darjr

Zaukrie said:


> If we won't make a dent, why boycott? Especially if it's good? I'm all for taking on big business, but you gotta be smart about it. Or take some high ground that really only effects you. Both are reasonable choices.



I won't go see it cause my stomach couldn't take it. Ya know?

Not a big deal. D&D is a big part of my RPG hobby but it comes in many forms. 

It was more of a general TTRPG hobby before and can be again.


----------



## Vaalingrade

mamba said:


> that is perfectly ok with me, won’t watch this movie, won’t watch anything else they make. Part of my response



Yeah, the deal they want is to make the IP more valuable. The movie part of that apparatus.


----------



## mamba

Zaukrie said:


> If we won't make a dent, why boycott?



because they do not deserve my money


Zaukrie said:


> Especially if it's good?



does not matter, there is more good stuff to watch, does not have to be theirs


Zaukrie said:


> I'm all for taking on big business, but you gotta be smart about it. Or take some high ground that really only effects you. Both are reasonable choices.



ideally yes, you should be smart about it, but I can only decide for myself so I have little control over the overall response. Ultimately the ‘loss’ (and I use that word very loosely here) to me of not seeing a movie is so minimal to be nonexistent. Saves me $10 with no appreciable downside.


----------



## Yaarel

1. Table Top
2. Video Games
3. Movies
4. Merch

WotC want draconion control of 2, 3, and 4.


----------



## kenada

I submitted a ticket to have my D&D Beyond account deleted. WotC has lost my trust, and I don’t want to risk accidentally being tainted by the OGL 1.1. However, it’s been a while since I played or ran 5e, and I don’t care about 6e, so losing my purchases isn’t really a big deal.


----------



## Malmuria

overgeeked said:


> Folk D&D vs official D&D. We’re still playing AD&D. You don’t need anything more than people to play with, your imagination, and maybe a randomizer.




This interaction about "where the hobby is going" captures the vibe of folk dnd I think


----------



## Lanefan

Yaarel said:


> 1. Table Top
> 2. Video Games
> 3. Movies
> 4. Merch
> 
> WotC want draconion control of 2, 3, and 4.



And for some inexplicable reason also want draconian control of:

5. Songs/Music
6. Plays
7. Pantomimes

If there's a band out there willing to record and release a song titled something like "Mind Flayers" I'll gladly volunteer to bang out some lyrics for it.


----------



## Zardnaar

If true Fire and Blood. Boycott all things WotC related, boycott movie, all games, salt the fields burn it all and hear the lamentations of the CEO.


----------



## Lanefan

Zardnaar said:


> If true Fire and Blood. Boycott all things WotC related, boycott movie, all games, salt the fields burn it all and hear the lamentations of the CEO.



Just WotC, or Hasbro in general?

I very much suspect this is originating from higher up the ladder than the WotC division.


----------



## Incenjucar

Lanefan said:


> Just WotC, or Hasbro in general?
> 
> I very much suspect this is originating from higher up the ladder than the WotC division.



My assumption is Hasbro in general. So on top of D&D, no sharing Transformers, My Little Pony, GI Joe, or the various board games with my sibling's kids, for whom I had just gotten a copy of ABCs of D&D for Christmas. 

Given I managed to scrounge up $2K worth of 2E books alone as a child, I can at least find comfort that there will be quite a bit they won't get from me and my extended family if they force the choice. Going to be pretty lame not being able to share all that fun stuff with the kiddos, though.


----------



## Mecheon

Lanefan said:


> And for some inexplicable reason also want draconian control of:
> 
> 5. Songs/Music
> 6. Plays
> 7. Pantomimes
> 
> If there's a band out there willing to record and release a song titled something like "Mind Flayers" I'll gladly volunteer to bang out some lyrics for it.



I wouldn't really call it inexplicable. There's plenty of D&D inspired music out there (Most obvious being 'Dungeon Master' but there's others), there's that one play about Raistilin, and if you infer by 'Pantomimes' they actually are referring to LARPs, no surprise they'd want a slice out of that pie as well. Basically trying to cover all bridges and trying to catch anything they can


----------



## Zardnaar

Lanefan said:


> Just WotC, or Hasbro in general?
> 
> I very much suspect this is originating from higher up the ladder than the WotC division.




 Up to the individual person. 

 Wiith 4E personally I limited it to just WotC stuff MtG, D&D etc.


----------



## S'mon

Dausuul said:


> Make noise.
> 
> That's what matters above all. Make Wizards know that you are unhappy. Loudly, repeatedly, in channels they will see. (There's a 1D&D playtest survey up right now where you can enter text responses; filling it with angry comments could start them worrying about their big upcoming release.) Tell other people and get them making noise too.
> 
> If you aren't making noise, you won't be heard.
> 
> Boycotting is good too. But, again, make sure they know _why_. If you cancel your DDB subscription, be sure to say why you're doing it.




I agree about 'make noise'.

If the worst happens, for now I'll likely continue playing 5e D&D with my home groups, and on Roll20 if Roll20 even survives. Obviously I'll not buy any WoTC product or give them money otherwise. 

If WotC somehow succeeds in revoking the OGL (which I don't believe will happen), I have a friend Kimberly Pauley who's publishing a 3PP supplement _The Tales Were True_ who'll be badly affected. I'll want to advise her on how to publish her work _sans_ OGL if necessary. I think it should be doable.


----------



## delericho

For the moment, I retain a little hope that this delay indicates they've thought better of their approach. However if they do attempt to deauthorize the previous OGL, _even if they fail to do so, and even if they later change their minds_, I'm done with them, permanently.

Ironically, that means that my final D&D product is the "Starter Set". Which has a nice symmetry, given that my first was the Red Box all those years ago.

In my case, it almost certainly means I'm done with gaming as a whole. As I've said elsewhere, I'm currently running what is probably my last-ever campaign anyway, and right now the thought of rolling any dice turns my stomach.

I'm yet to decide just how Scorched Earth to go beyond that. I'm tempted, but I don't think I can really be bothered.


----------



## Staffan

Mecheon said:


> I wouldn't really call it inexplicable. There's plenty of D&D inspired music out there (Most obvious being 'Dungeon Master' but there's others), there's that one play about Raistilin, and if you infer by 'Pantomimes' they actually are referring to LARPs, no surprise they'd want a slice out of that pie as well. Basically trying to cover all bridges and trying to catch anything they can



The pantomimes thing has to be a rhetorical device where they're listing increasingly outlandish things. Much like "I don't want to hear from them right now. I don't care if they're communicating by letter, phone, fax, e-mail, telegram, carrier pigeon or smoke signals, I don't want to hear it."


----------



## Ondath

kenada said:


> I submitted a ticket to have my D&D Beyond account deleted. WotC has lost my trust, and I don’t want to risk accidentally being tainted by the OGL 1.1. However, it’s been a while since I played or ran 5e, and I don’t care about 6e, so losing my purchases isn’t really a big deal.



How did you manage to do it? When I try to sign in to D&D Beyond support, it just takes me to my WotC account page and doesn't sign me in for the support portal.


----------



## Bitbrain

Reply to OP.

My group is sticking with 5e for now anyway, but I personally am going to start purchasing from the folks over at Basic Fantasy and also Shadow of the Demon Lord.


----------



## Delazar

Rarely if ever have I used third party material, so I guess nothing changes for me.


----------



## DEFCON 1

My response will be the same as it has always been--  buy stuff I want to own, and not buy stuff I do not want to own.

It goes no further than that.  Someone or some business offers a good or service to me, I make a decision to buy it or not buy it, and that's where it ends... there is no further communication or concern.  And who or what are the peoples/companies involved have no bearing on anything for me because I do not personify companies in a way where "trust" or "liking" or "hating" companies are emotions I have towards them.

Hasbro and WotC will do what they do, and somewhere down the line they may make a product I wish to own or might not.  And so I'm not going to make any declarations about my intentions right now either way, because I know that declaration at this moment in time is meaningless.


----------



## kenada

Ondath said:


> How did you manage to do it? When I try to sign in to D&D Beyond support, it just takes me to my WotC account page and doesn't sign me in for the support portal.



On some pages, there’s a “Submit a Request” button at the bottom (e.g., on the account deletion page). I clicked that and filled out the form. They responded last night asking for information regarding my account, which I provided, and for me to confirm I understood the consequences.


----------



## dave2008

I suggest we set up a Gofundme page to raise money to for legal fees if WotC tries to sue people for using the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a)


----------



## Doc_Klueless

MGibster said:


> I suspect I'll be in a distinct minority here, but, as a consumer, I don't really care what WotC does with the OGL.  For pretty much the entirety of 5th edition, I don't think I've purchased a single game product that was under the OGL.  That isn't to say I don't have a detached interest in what's happening, just that I'm not going to boycott or otherwise avoid WotC products because of this.



This is me. And I suspect the great majority of WotC customers. Changing, deleting, etc. won't impact ... say... 90-99% of WotC customers.


----------



## DEFCON 1

One other important thing...

...someone go contact Devin at the LEGAL EAGLE YouTube channel about all of this, so that he can make a video about it.  That'll be much more entertaining to watch than all the attorneys here just writing everything down.


----------



## Retreater

Doc_Klueless said:


> This is me. And I suspect the great majority of WotC customers. Changing, deleting, etc. won't impact ... say... 90-99% of WotC customers.



Wait until Matt Colville comes out against it. Wait until Paizo comes out against it. Wait until Matt Mercer and Critical Role come out against it.
If it's as draconian and terrible of a contract as it seems - it will impact 3PPs (of course), but also merchandise, live streams, YouTube, wikis - a lot of stuff.
This is going to kill their brand if they don't change it.


----------



## Umbran

Yaarel said:


> 1. Table Top
> 2. Video Games
> 3. Movies
> 4. Merch
> 
> WotC want draconion control of 2, 3, and 4.




And, wanting control of 2, 3, and 4 is okay.  They can have that.
The license, unfortunately, also exerts control on 1, which they'd let loose on a couple of decades ago.


----------



## Umbran

Mecheon said:


> and if you infer by 'Pantomimes' they actually are referring to LARPs, no surprise they'd want a slice out of that pie as well.




There is no pie there for WotC.  Nobody* larps based off the d20 engine - larps generally run diceless systems, and D&D doesn't convert to diceless well..


*or almost nobody.  As in "that's not a thing" in larp circles.


----------



## kenada

I assumed pantomimes referred to TikTok rather than LARP or cosplay.


----------



## Vaalingrade

The reason they and a lot of other companies now include 'pantomime' again is Tik Tok skits.

Because a weird acting over voiceover sketch would be something worth totally-not-stealing-because-we-made-an-extortive-contract.

Edit: beaten


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Branduil said:


> I fear at this point that even if WotC walks back their plans, the well is poisoned. You can no longer trust that WotC will leave the OGL alone like they promised and intended at its creation.



I think if they came out with a OGL 1.0(b) that simply added a clause that it is non-revocable. That might remove the poison IMO.


----------



## MGibster

FormerLurker said:


> Consider also if this goes ahead it might mean a company like Paizo is forced out of business as they rely on the OGL and can't make a brand new game in 6 months. Which means 125 employees are out of work as the second biggest name in tabletop gaming goes away...



I do understand that.  I'm also cognizant that there are many posters here who have a financial stake in the OGL and I can appreciate how they must feel as this threatens their livlihood.  The RPG industry, and more broadly speaking the entertainment industry as a whole, is a bit odd because there's a strong parasocial relationship between authors and artists with their customers.  Most of us probably wouldn't care all that much if there was a spat between Domino's Pizza and the other pizza companies in the area.  And it's because we don't know or care who the CEO of Domino's is or who came up with the recipe for their sauce.  We just dont have that kind of relationship with Domino's like we do with WotC, Paizo, or EN Publishing.  I could send a message to Morrus right now and there's a decent chance I could get a personal reply which is unlikely to happen with Domino's.


----------



## Yaarel

If I do an oil painting of an Elf Wizard. That is my artwork. I own the painting. Not Hasbro corporate executives.

Even if I am portraying SRD content, such as a High Elf Evocation Wizard . It is still my artwork. I have the legal right. It is part of "folk D&D" as a community tradition, a subculture, a sport like tennis or football.

This is Intellectual Property that the OGL licenses to the living tradition.

The oil painting is mine.

If my artistic medium is computer digital art, including 3d portraits of an Elf Wizard, that is my artwork, I own it.

And if I make an NFT out of it − or a videogame out of it − or a digital character portrait builder for others to create portraits of their own characters, it is my property. Hasbro lacks a claim on it.


----------



## South by Southwest

Retreater said:


> Wait until Matt Colville comes out against it. Wait until Paizo comes out against it. Wait until Matt Mercer and Critical Role come out against it.
> If it's as draconian and terrible of a contract as it seems - it will impact 3PPs (of course), but also merchandise, live streams, YouTube, wikis - a lot of stuff.
> This is going to kill their brand if they don't change it.



I think that's right. Angry boycotts, Gofundmes, and Twitter posts from regular Janes and Joes like us won't do much unless they groundswell to the point of significantly damaging Hasbro's revenue from D&D, which I think unlikely, but what _would_ cause a major about-face is sustained bad press from the major online popularizers of D&D. Over on Youtube, Dungeon Craft/Professor Dungeon Master has discussed this in guarded terms, and Questing Beast has been slightly sharper in his words (still careful, though). But imagine the following strictly hypothetical scenario of Matt Mercer speaking openly right during the intro to Critical Role's weekly session:



> Mercer: _The new OGL rules are absurd. If WotC and Hasbro honestly expect that much control and money, we'll have to re-evaluate our relationship with them. _
> Riegel: _Are they seriously expecting people to go along with this, though??_
> Ray: _Looks like._
> Mercer: _I mean, there's always OSR._




That would be something Hasbro would not have the luxury to ignore. Ditto for Matt Colville and a few others. Hasbro is a service industry corporation, after all; there is a certain amount of bad press they cannot afford to receive and they know it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

In another thread someone said something to me I will share here:

Go buy 3pp books, especially starter sets (like paizo.com - Pathfinder Beginner Box) and donate them to churchs, schools and libraries.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

I've been excited about the 50th anniversary, but I've been dreading switching to a new edition. I like 5th but I haven't had enough time with it. Due to a long standing Pathfinder campaign my Table didn't switch to 5th edition till 2018. Then we lost 2 years during the Pandemic.

I expect to stick with 5th edition like I did with 3rd edition. I've already stopped buying new 5th edition products because the game has moved into a space where I don't feel comfortable or safe. Plus, there is plenty of 5th edition material to keep me occupied till I die.

I know that's overstating things a bit. The temptation will be great, and I will probably end up buying an occasional book from Wizards.


----------



## Nadan

GMforPowergamers said:


> In another thread someone said something to me I will share here:
> 
> Go buy 3pp books, especially starter sets (like paizo.com - Pathfinder Beginner Box) and donate them to churchs, schools and libraries.



Kid this day are raise with smart phones, I really doubt they will play them instead watch more brain-rotting TikTok


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Nadan said:


> Kid this day are raise with smart phones, I really doubt they will play them instead watch more brain-rotting TikTok



my niece and nephew learned to play a bit as kids... now both in HS (god time flys) and the younger of them (niece) has started (helped really) a gaming club and has a dozen TTRPG players in a small town.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Keeping playing D&D but not spending any money on wotc products probably sends a stronger message than abandoning D&D completely. wotc will see that the game is still popular but earnings are still going down.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I have to imagine WotC has a freaking _team_ plying the CR folks with the sweetest of sweetheart deals plus promising to bear their children to sign the OGL.

That or drunkenly berating them with 'I created you, therefor I will always be bigger than you' corpo rambling.

It's kind of amazing that Logal Paul is only the _second_ biggest career sundering blunder of this week.


----------



## TheSword

So basically a thread where a lot of people who don’t spend much money with WOTC state how they aren’t going to spend any more money with WOTC, and explain why they don’t need to, urging other people to do the same…

… and we wonder why WOTC wants to revise the license situation?


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Vaalingrade said:


> I have to imagine WotC has a freaking _team_ plying the CR folks with the sweetest of sweetheart deals plus promising to bear their children to sign the OGL.
> 
> That or drunkenly berating them with 'I created you, therefor I will always be bigger than you' corpo rambling.
> 
> It's kind of amazing that Logal Paul is only the _second_ biggest career sundering blunder of this week.



I can't wait to see a dramatic movie about this some day.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Keeping playing D&D but not spending any money on wotc products probably sends a stronger message than abandoning D&D completely. wotc will see that the game is still popular but earnings are still going down.



this looks like (and I know it is well intentioned and not what I am saying it looks like but looks like) something a corp person would WANT out as an idea... "Don't buy our books just give us lots of talk and name recognition... you will show us how bad we are when you keep our product relevant and in the popular side of things... keep playing"

If you want to hurt them move on. SPend that money elsewhere. Tell everyone you know "D&D is dead, Rifts is the game to play now" and tell them every chance you get. Show them as Rifts booms even if it doesn't MATCH D&D just let them see the money flow

_I choose rifts since it was the first TTRPG I learned but insert TORG, Vampire, Savage worlds, Fate, what ever_


----------



## Incenjucar

TheSword said:


> So basically a thread where a lot of people who don’t spend much money with WOTC state how they aren’t going to spend any more money with WOTC, and explain why they don’t need to, urging other people to do the same…
> 
> … and we wonder why WOTC wants to revise the license situation?



I guess if you count thousands or tens of thousands of dollars as not much money.


----------



## Vaalingrade

TheSword said:


> So basically a thread where a lot of people who don’t spend much money with WOTC state how they aren’t going to spend any more money with WOTC, and explain why they don’t need to, urging other people to do the same…
> 
> … and we wonder why WOTC wants to revise the license situation?



Yup. Really funny and droll as long as you don't think about the ruined careers and hungry homeless children this could result in!


----------



## TheSword

Vaalingrade said:


> Yup. Really funny and droll as long as you don't think about the ruined careers and hungry homeless children this could result in!



It’s not funny. I’m on the record as saying it is a shame…

… and the direct result of the success of 3pp, and people effectively playing 5e but not contributing to WOTC because they play through the lens of AIME or Level Up or any number of alternatives.

When you look at it in hindsight, how can any corporate entity not act to protect its interest in those circumstances. The community has made the Rod of Lordly Might for its own back. Or in another sense are victims of their own success.


----------



## Incenjucar

TheSword said:


> It’s not funny. I’m on the record as saying it is a shame…
> 
> … and the direct result of the success of 3pp, and people effectively playing 5e but not contributing to WOTC because they play through the lens of AIME or Level Up or any number of alternatives.
> 
> When you look at it in hindsight, how can any corporate entity not act to protect its interest in those circumstances. The community has literally made the Rod for its own back. Or in another sense are victims of their own success.



This doesn't sync with the fact that they've been doing better than they ever have. They're not an underdog here.


----------



## J.Quondam

TheSword said:


> … and the direct result of the success of 3pp, and people effectively playing 5e but not contributing to WOTC because they play through the lens of AIME or Level Up or any number of alternatives.



But people very clearly _are_ contributing to WotC. I mean, that's precisely _why_ they're the successful 900 lb gorilla that they are. 

Unlike many creators and small publishers that could be wiped out by the license "update", WotC is absolutely not suffering financially by the current OGL. Arguably, WotC's immense success is largely _because_ of the OGL1.0 and the creators it has enabled, not despite it.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Let's face it. We all knew this would happen when Hasbro bought the game.


----------



## TheSword

Incenjucar said:


> This doesn't sync with the fact that they've been doing better than they ever have. They're not an underdog here.



Neither are they a charity. It’s their corporate responsibility to make profit for their shareholders. 

I’m sure they want to do that with a thriving D&D community but my bet is that they think that the big players are in too deep to cut tail and run, and if they aren’t well DMsGuild fulfills a similar purpose for them.


----------



## Incenjucar

TheSword said:


> Neither are they a charity. It’s their corporate responsibility to make profit for their shareholders.
> 
> I’m sure they want to do that with a thriving D&D community but my bet is that they think that the big players are in too deep to cut tail and run, and if they aren’t well DMsGuild fulfills a similar purpose for them.



The player base is also not a charity, and we owe them nothing.


----------



## overgeeked

Incenjucar said:


> The player base is also not a charity, and we owe them nothing.



This is the “downside” of the old argument that RPGs, despite being expensive to get into, are actually cheap in the long run because they offer a massive amount of entertainment for few dollars. Once you get in, you can play forever without buying anything ever again. Which is why it’s inherently difficult to sell just rules for a game of imagination.


----------



## Incenjucar

overgeeked said:


> This is the “downside” of the old argument that RPGs, despite being expensive to get into, are actually cheap in the long run because they offer a massive amount of entertainment for few dollars. Once you get in, you can play forever without buying anything ever again. Which is why it’s inherently difficult to sell just rules for a game of imagination.



Yep! It's why you need to make sure that your audience has affection enough for you to look for excuses to send you money. My Patreon + Twitch bill is triple digits every month for a bunch of people and things that are 100% free for me to access, because I like them and I want them to get paid even though I don't have to pay them a dime.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Incenjucar said:


> Yep! It's why you need to make sure that your audience has affection enough for you to look for excuses to send you money. My Patreon + Twitch bill is triple digits every month for a bunch of people and things that are 100% free for me to access, because I like them and I want them to get paid even though I don't have to pay them a dime.



this is what  RPG companies need to deal with (From the smallest DMs guild seller to Wotc/Hasbro) if you want to continue to make money you have few options... splat roll out like 3e, subscription like 4e, or (the best but least predictable) the growth of 5e.

Other then that you have the edition treadmill. "Hey look remember that book you use every week for 8 years, let get you to rebuy it with some updates and errata and this time you get a vote and a voice in what we fix"


----------



## Vaalingrade

TheSword said:


> When you look at it in hindsight, how can any corporate entity not act to protect its interest in those circumstances.



By.... doing the same thing that made them billions over the last decade?

Why would anyone protect the goose that lays the golden eggs when you can dissect it in the vain hope of finding out how it does that and breeding your own army of supergeese?


----------



## see

Lakesidefantasy said:


> Let's face it. We all knew this would happen when Hasbro bought the game.



Hasbro "bought the game" in September 1999, predating the release of any version of the OGL or SRD.


----------



## Scribe

TheSword said:


> Neither are they a charity. It’s their corporate responsibility to make profit for their shareholders.


----------



## Dausuul

Incenjucar said:


> This doesn't sync with the fact that they've been doing better than they ever have. They're not an underdog here.



Exactly. D&D is booming like never before, even in the salad days of the '80s. You can argue whether 3PPs are contributing to that and how much, but there's no question that Wizards-owned D&D and third-party publishers can coexist and flourish.

None of us knows how all this is going to shake out, but I'm noticing a pattern here:

D&D grows like gangbusters alongside a vigorous 3PP community.
The owner of D&D gets dollar signs in their eyes and chases increasingly dubious dreams of empire, while at the same time trying to claw back market share from the 3PPs.
D&D suffers a crisis and collapse. At the owner of D&D, heads roll.
The new stewards of the game dump the grand plans, go back to the drawing board, and look for ways to re-engage the community.
Repeat.
We've seen this full cycle play out twice now, first with TSR and then with Wizards in the 3E/4E era. We are now in phase 2 of the third cycle. It's far from certain that the rest will play out the same way as before... but I suspect that's what's coming.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

see said:


> Hasbro "bought the game" in September 1999, predating the release of any version of the OGL or SRD.



yeah 3e, 3.5, the board games, 4e essentials, and 5e have all been under Hasbro


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TheSword said:


> Neither are they a charity. It’s their corporate responsibility to make profit for their shareholders.
> 
> I’m sure they want to do that with a thriving D&D community but my bet is that they think that the big players are in too deep to cut tail and run, and if they aren’t well DMsGuild fulfills a similar purpose for them.



if  making us all happy and feel like part of the family made them more profit they would do so. If throwing us to the wolves made them more money they would do so.


Scribe said:


>



yup 100% this


----------



## Vaalingrade

It's what happens sadly often when someone new takes over at a company.

"I'm new and better than the last guy. I will promise the investors that they will make massive short term and short-sighted gains in the year and a half I'll be here before leaping from the burning husk I make out of the company to get those gains with a parachute made of the finest gold woven together with human misery."


----------



## payn

Vaalingrade said:


> It's what happens sadly often when someone new takes over at a company.
> 
> "I'm new and better than the last guy. I will promise the investors that they will make massive short term and short-sighted gains in the year and a half I'll be here before leaping from the burning husk I make out of the company to get those gains with a parachute made of the finest gold woven together with human misery."


----------



## see

Anyway.

We still don't know _exactly_ what's happening here, we've got partial reports based on leaks, plus various statements from lawyers.

However, if we assume that WotC/Hasbro really and truly intends to try to _revoke_ the OGL 1.0a with regard to already-released material in the case of people who have not agreed to the OGL 1.1, there is one obvious "So how do we respond?"

We respond by contacting organizations in the Open Source and Free Software movements to pass _legislation_ to eliminate this supposed right to revoke. The GPL 2, the BSD license, the MIT license, the Mozilla Public License . . . all would be revocable under this theory. That's a _huge_ deal, if you know how much of the modern world is built on software released under those licenses.

And while court precedent, according to some lawyers, currently supports revocation, the law governing contracts and licenses can be amended by legislation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

see said:


> We respond by contacting organizations in the Open Source and Free Software movements to pass _legislation_ to eliminate this supposed right to revoke.



one of the others (a real lawyer) works with lawmakers and said he had one ask how to write a law the next group of lawmakers could not overturn... you can't. Becuse before they cross out your law they will cross out the part that says they can't.


----------



## S'mon

GMforPowergamers said:


> one of the others (a real lawyer) works with lawmakers and said he had one ask how to write a law the next group of lawmakers could not overturn... you can't.



That's how legislation has always worked, yup.


----------



## see

GMforPowergamers said:


> one of the others (a real lawyer) works with lawmakers and said he had one ask how to write a law the next group of lawmakers could not overturn... you can't. Becuse before they cross out your law they will cross out the part that says they can't.



Yes, a future legislature could repeal the law. And? The law would still prevent revocation of the licenses as long as the law was in effect, which would be the point.


----------



## cbwjm

I'm going to buy the books because from what I've seen so far, OneDnD is looking good, and watch the DnD movie because it looks like it's going to be a lot of fun. These potential changes to the OGL aren't really going to impact me.


----------



## mhd

I'll leave that to the legal eagles here, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some distinct difference between the OGL and all the software licenses, never mind that revoking one doesn't immediately create a precedent for all those. So I don't expect Big Tech or EFF lawyers to come to the aid of our tiny (by comparison) cottage industry.

And the Free Software people would just go "Why didn't you use something proper like the GNU FDL anyway?".


----------



## Dausuul

mhd said:


> I'll leave that to the legal eagles here, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some distinct difference between the OGL and all the software licenses, never mind that revoking one doesn't immediately create a precedent for all those. So I don't expect Big Tech or EFF lawyers to come to the aid of our tiny (by comparison) cottage industry.



Considering the enormous overlap between "people who work in tech" and "D&D fans," I wouldn't be too sure of that.


----------



## mhd

Dausuul said:


> Considering the enormous overlap between "people who work in tech" and "D&D fans," I wouldn't be too sure of that.



Do you think gaming FAANG devs will lobby the EFF or their employers to sic their lawyers on this? I don't really think this connection will help a lot here.

Again, IANAL: But let's assume that WotC does enact a terrible reign. A lot of that will happen without any big lawsuits. No direct threat for software licenses.

Okay, then lawsuit does happen. If the WotC/Hasbro lawyers are smart, they phrase it so that this still doesn't imply anything for other licenses. But assume that they fail to do that or the opposing lawyers point out that this would wreak havoc. Lawsuit still takes time. Then it can go through the instances. At any point in time, this might wake up the software giant, but not necessarily. Once it's done and there's a plausible scenario that someone will revoke a software license that would hurt, some lobbying might happen. Or just money for the "underdog lawyers" fighting this.

What are we going to do in the mean time?

(And again, this was me blindly assuming that the connection can be made. I personally don't even see _who_ could revoke e.g. the MIT license.)


----------



## darjr

If I were suddenly in charge of WotC I’d clean up the OGL and consult Creative Commons experts and make sure the new OGL is open and even less likely to be either revocable in any way or obfuscated to creat fud over it.


----------



## Shiroiken

So far I've been pretty pleased with the 1D&D playtest, making a complete boycott unlikely for me. However, we may purchase a single copy of the PHB for the entire group, and continue to use the older material for non-PC related material. Most of my group is considering dropping Beyond as a response, but I only have the free version myself (and only for the playtest).


----------



## Clint_L

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.


----------



## Incenjucar

Clint_L said:


> I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.



It doesn't hurt to be ready. I'm very much hoping this is all a big misunderstanding; I already boycott a lot of things and adding yet another company would not spark joy. But if they go full EA they go in the pile.

But hopefully this is all just silly chicken little nonsense and I'll be able to happily buy up all the 5.5E goodness and teach my sibling and their kids how to play and get back into DMing and designing and buying BG3 and maybe some of those Dicelings when the kiddos are big enough to not eat them.

Hopefully.


----------



## mamba

Clint_L said:


> I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.



I am all for talking about it, we can still decide to not follow through. Simply sitting tight just looks like accepting it or not caring.


----------



## see

mhd said:


> (And again, this was me blindly assuming that the connection can be made. I personally don't even see _who_ could revoke e.g. the MIT license.)



Under the legal theory presented in the first post of the thread "Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.", "unless the word 'irrevocable' appears in the license, the license can be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason."

None of the licenses I listed have the word "irrevocable" in them, any more than the OGL has. (Neither does the GNU FDL, incidentally.) So, under that theory, anyone who has ever released material under any of those licenses can take back their material by revoking that license for their material.

So, that's the context for my _very specific_ scenario -- "if we assume that WotC/Hasbro really and truly intends to try to _revoke_ the OGL 1.0a with regard to already-released material in the case of people who have not agreed to the OGL 1.1". 

We _don't know_ that's the current situation, because, of course, "We still don't know _exactly_ what's happening here, we've got partial reports based on leaks, plus various statements from lawyers."

But _if_ we are in the world where WotC/Hasbro has decided to say, "The OGL 1.0a didn't say 'irrevocable', so you people using the SRD, RSRD, SRD5, or other Open Game Content derived from them (like Pathfinder or Level Up!) can't use that content under the OGL 1.0a anymore"?

Then, yes, all those specific software licenses are, in fact, also under threat, and the thing to do is legislative action to eliminate that sort of revocability.

If we're not in that world -- if WotC/Hasbro is not going to go around trying to shut down people from continuing to use OGC relelased under the OGL 1.0a under the OGL 1.0a -- then I don't see any reason to "respond" to WotC/Hasbro at all. They want to put the SRD for the new version under whatever license they like, that's their business, and we can ignore them like it's 2008 all over again.


----------



## J.Quondam

Clint_L said:


> I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.



A fair point, and I even said that in the wake of the last leak a few weeks ago.
But it's also important to realize that the current hubbub is occurring because the worst fears originating from that previous leak seem to be confirmed by legit journalists and industry insiders who have seen the text of the new license.

Since that's the case, it's important that WotC hears that a lot of people in the hobby will be unhappy if they follow through.


----------



## mhd

see said:


> None of the licenses I listed have the word "irrevocable" in them, any more than the OGL has. (Neither does the GNU FDL, incidentally.) So, under that theory, anyone who has ever released material under any of those licenses can take back their material by revoking that license for their material.
> 
> So, that's the context for my _very specific_ scenario



Again and again, IANAL, but that's truly specific, assuming that all the flack that first post got isn't true and this isn't just about the license being _available_ but _also_ applies to past material being released under said license. Which would be a very huge loop hole that somehow never occurred to one of the many, many lawyers employed by the tech industry. I do consider that highly unlikely. If it would be that easy to be so evil, Oracle would have done it already.


----------



## Clint_L

J.Quondam said:


> A fair point, and I even said that in the wake of the last leak a few weeks ago.
> But it's also important to realize that the current hubbub is occurring because the worst fears originating from that previous leak seem to be confirmed by legit journalists and industry insiders who have seen the text of the new license.
> 
> Since that's the case, it's important that WotC hears that a lot of people in the hobby will be unhappy if they follow through.



That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.

I'm not going anywhere near a torch and pitchfork until I know what's what.


----------



## Nikosandros

Clint_L said:


> That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.



The journalist from Gizmodo published excerpts from the leaked document that she received. The president of Kickstart confirmed that the royalties terms are exactly the same as in the leaked document. That's quite compelling evidence, in my opinion.


----------



## Ondath

Clint_L said:


> That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.
> 
> I'm not going anywhere near a torch and pitchfork until I know what's what.



You do know that a credentialed journalist got their hands on the entire OGL v1.1 and wrote a lengthy analysis where lawyers were consulted as well, right?

I know you've been skeptical of the news since the beginning, but at some point you have to admit that we have plenty of proof to show that our worries are well founded and that legitimate response is needed if we want WotC to change course.


----------



## darjr

Clint_L said:


> I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.



We have creators who were in these NDA meetings walking away from OGL content, or postponing projects, paying layers, vocally very not happy. Those are facts.

Edit: I am wrong here. The article in question has folks talking based upon the leaked information.
@Clint_L FYI.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> We have creators who were in these NDA meetings walking away from OGL content, or postponing projects, paying layers, vocally very not happy. Those are facts.



who do we have that we know was in the meeting that is postponing something?


----------



## Ondath

GMforPowergamers said:


> who do we have that we know was in the meeting that is postponing something?



Griffon's Saddlebag said he's taking until January 13 to think about what to do with OGL v1.1, and it sounded like he was under NDA and knew more about the details but couldn't disclose them.


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> who do we have that we know was in the meeting that is postponing something?



Christian Hoffers latest article has folks.

Edit: I misposted. The article in question has folks talking on the basis of the leaked information.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Christian Hoffers latest article has folks.



thank you, where is that article if you don't mind?


----------



## J.Quondam

Clint_L said:


> That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.
> 
> I'm not going anywhere near a torch and pitchfork until I know what's what.



Well in all fairness, the reason you haven't heard from first parties is because they're silenced by NDAs. So the only information the greater hobby community possibly _can_ get is through leaks, because these negotiations around the new "Open" Gaming License are decidedly not open.

I guess we all have to set our own skepticism threshold. Personally, I've decided that this _second _round of leaks has proven to be pretty damning, and that the "torches and pitchforks" are merited at this point. Imo, such noise really is the only way passionate outsiders can make our voices heard before it's too late.


----------



## Yaarel

In this case the "leaks" are by ethical whistleblowers.


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> thank you, where is that article if you don't mind?



Ope! I was wrong. This article does not have folks state they were under the NDA or went to any of the meetings.

I'll update my other posts.

@Clint_L 









						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


----------



## Yaarel

J.Quondam said:


> these negotiations around the new "Open" Gaming License are decidedly not open.



Well said.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Possible points of contact for complaints:

Hasbro
Hasbro customer service: Customer Service
Hasbro PR representative at HasbroBrandPR@hasbro.com
*Investor Relations: https://investor.hasbro.com/contact-us*
Debbie Hancock, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations
Hasbro, Inc.
1027 Newport Avenue
P.O. Box 1059
Pawtucket, RI 02861-1059
Phone (401) 431-8697

WotC
Twitter: @Wizards_DnD
Customer support page: https://support.wizards.com/hc/en-us

Anyone have better email or mailing addresses to send complaints? Wizards' website is horrible trying to find actual contact info


----------



## darjr

Mike Shea posted his dungeons of Fate!









						Dungeons of Fate
					

Fantasy dungeon delving house rules for Fate Accelerated by Michael E. Shea. Download the PDF of Dungeons of Fate. Originally posted on 10 December 2013. Character Creation Begin the game by naming yo...




					slyflourish.com


----------



## MichaelSomething

It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?


----------



## Cadence

darjr said:


> Mike Shea posted his dungeons of Fate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dungeons of Fate
> 
> 
> Fantasy dungeon delving house rules for Fate Accelerated by Michael E. Shea. Download the PDF of Dungeons of Fate. Originally posted on 10 December 2013. Character Creation Begin the game by naming yo...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slyflourish.com




Is that the right link (it's dated 2014), or has it been unavailable?


----------



## darjr

Cadence said:


> Is that the right link (it's dated 2014), or has it been unavailable?



It's been out a while he just recently promoted it. I didn't know anything about it and I follow that hoopy frood.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MichaelSomething said:


> It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?



That is the idea of a 'take over' sometimes a 'hostile take over' and I promise we can't do that. At least not unless we have more business' peeps here.


----------



## payn

MichaelSomething said:


> It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?



Seems legit.


----------



## Clint_L

All I know is that there are a ton of rumours, but most of the actual lawyers weighing in are basically advising folks to cool their jets because there is way too limited information to draw strong conclusions at this point. My best friend, the guy I started playing D&D with 40+ years ago, is a partner at a big corporate law firm, and all our many conversations about law qualify me to say is that the law is complicated as hell and I am wise not to jump to any conclusions. (Also, two of the guys in my home group are lawyers but they are both crown prosecutors, so I doubt they would have much to say on this topic - anyhow, my point is that I am VERY uncomfortable making any assumptions because the one thing I have learned is that I don't know much about law).


----------



## Scars Unseen

TheSword said:


> So basically a thread where a lot of people who don’t spend much money with WOTC state how they aren’t going to spend any more money with WOTC, and explain why they don’t need to, urging other people to do the same…
> 
> … and we wonder why WOTC wants to revise the license situation?



I _want_ to spend money on WotC.  I _want_ the game to be in a state where it's a game I feel worth supporting.  I've been playing some version of D&D or another since I was 9 years old.  If WotC was being a good custodian of their IP and then pushing it forward, I'd be buying every book.  I'm 100% not against WotC or Hasbro as organizations.  It's their _actions_ that have pushed me away.  Their release strategies, their disdain for any lore they didn't personally write, and most recently, their seeming intent on clawing back the very open publishing industry they helped create.

They could absolutely win me back.  But just like how they pushed me away, it'll have to be through their actions.



see said:


> Anyway.
> 
> We still don't know _exactly_ what's happening here, we've got partial reports based on leaks, plus various statements from lawyers.
> 
> However, if we assume that WotC/Hasbro really and truly intends to try to _revoke_ the OGL 1.0a with regard to already-released material in the case of people who have not agreed to the OGL 1.1, there is one obvious "So how do we respond?"
> 
> We respond by contacting organizations in the Open Source and Free Software movements to pass _legislation_ to eliminate this supposed right to revoke. The GPL 2, the BSD license, the MIT license, the Mozilla Public License . . . all would be revocable under this theory. That's a _huge_ deal, if you know how much of the modern world is built on software released under those licenses.
> 
> And while court precedent, according to some lawyers, currently supports revocation, the law governing contracts and licenses can be amended by legislation.



Good luck passing legislation with a House that can't even decide on a Speaker.  Maybe Europe can save us.



MichaelSomething said:


> It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?



The problem with this is that anyone with enough money to make this happen will be the kind of person who doesn't spend that kind of money just to leave perceived money on the table (regardless of whether it's really there or not).  And as for a _lot_ of people buying a few shares, well if we had enough people that could organize to make that happen, we'd be better off collectively boycotting the game, letting Hasbro's shares tank, and _then_ buying them out for cheaper.



Clint_L said:


> All I know is that there are a ton of rumours, but most of the actual lawyers weighing in are basically advising folks to cool their jets because there is way too limited information to draw strong conclusions at this point. My best friend, the guy I started playing D&D with 40+ years ago, is a partner at a big corporate law firm, and all our many conversations about law qualify me to say is that the law is complicated as hell and I am wise not to jump to any conclusions. (Also, two of the guys in my home group are lawyers but they are both crown prosecutors, so I doubt they would have much to say on this topic - anyhow, my point is that I am VERY uncomfortable making any assumptions because the one thing I have learned is that I don't know much about law).




The lawyers don't all agree on their conclusions.
If it gets to a point where lawyers are needed, damage will have already been done.
Waiting until the industry's head is on the chopping block to raise objections is probably not going to be very effective.
The time to talk and complain about this is now, not after it's published and in effect.  Letting Hasbro set the pace on this will work to no one's advantage but Hasbro's.


----------



## Umbran

Yaarel said:


> Even if I am portraying SRD content, such as a High Elf Evocation Wizard . It is still my artwork.




But a picture of an elf wizard shooting lightning _isn't_ SRD content.  It is something that can be modeled in a game with SRD content.


----------



## Yaarel

Umbran said:


> But a picture of an elf wizard shooting lightning _isn't_ SRD content.  It is something that can be modeled in a game with SRD content.



A Drow is 3e SRD content, among other Elf cultures. At least the Drow is also a 5e SRD monster.

An artistic portrait of a Drow Wizard casting a _Lightningbolt_ or "_Tiny Hut_", would also be fair use of the SRD.

Any media that portray a Dragonborn or Tiefling are also fair use of the SRD.

If Hasbro wants to retain certain Property Identity, then obviously dont add it to the SRD.

But the content that is already in the historical SRDs − those genies are out of the bottle.


----------



## mamba

Clint_L said:


> I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.



because sitting tight now is sure to get noticed and factored in 

You need to make your opinion known before the decision is made, not after. Boycotts can be called off too if it is warranted


----------



## reelo

cbwjm said:


> I'm going to buy the books because from what I've seen so far, OneDnD is looking good, and watch the DnD movie because it looks like it's going to be a lot of fun. These potential changes to the OGL aren't really going to impact me.



So basically: "I'm fine with sh***y behaviour, as long as it doesn't affect me."


----------



## S'mon

Yaarel said:


> A Drow is 3e SRD content, among other Elf cultures. At least the Drow is also a 5e SRD monster.
> 
> An artistic portrait of a Drow Wizard casting a _Lightningbolt_ or "_Tiny Hut_", would also be fair use of the SRD.
> 
> Any media that portray a Dragonborn or Tiefling are also fair use of the SRD.
> 
> If Hasbro wants to retain certain Property Identity, then obviously dont add it to the SRD.
> 
> But the content that is already in the historical SRDs − those genies are out of the bottle.




Although notably the 5e SRD scrubbed the descriptive text from the 3e SRD. There may be some 5e SRD monsters that don't have OGC descriptive text. In which case you have no particular right to depict them based off WoTC text or art. The 5e PHB races do have descriptions in the 5e SRD though, so Dragonborn & Tiefling seem fine.


----------



## Aldarc

Even if WotC walks back the OGL 1.1, I'm curious how this will affect the D&D and broader TTRPG community in the shorter and longer terms.


----------



## Yaarel

S'mon said:


> Although notably the 5e SRD scrubbed the descriptive text from the 3e SRD. There may be some 5e SRD monsters that don't have OGC descriptive text. In which case you have no particular right to depict them based off WoTC text or art. The 5e PHB races do have descriptions in the 5e SRD though, so Dragonborn & Tiefling seem fine.



Fair enough about the need for an SRD textual description.

But art can refer to both the 3e SRD and 5e SRD.


----------



## see

Scars Unseen said:


> Good luck passing legislation with a House that can't even decide on a Speaker.  Maybe Europe can save us.



Contract law in the US is mostly state law, even when applied by the Federal courts; a legislative strategy should probably focus on state legislatures, not Congress.


----------



## mhd

Aldarc said:


> Even if WotC walks back the OGL 1.1, I'm curious how this will affect the D&D and broader TTRPG community in the shorter and longer terms.



People sometimes draw connections to the software world and especially its open-source/free software sub-cultures, but I don't really see anything like that happen. RPG creation is just too visual and not inherently collaborative. So this would be closer to a AAA video game being made by volunteers than something like Linux. It's a bit like giving kids celery sticks instead of french fries.

You'll get a few more people that care more about "anti-corporate" gaming. So maybe one or two now-OGL legacy game engines being licensed even more openly, a handful of new itch "Truly Free" games, and not much more.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

I think the time to push is now, not "wait and see".

WotC hasn't formally published, so they're not committed yet. Backlash now allows them two outs:  either (1) internally change direction, and comply with what their customers want (presuming: retain OGL1.0 in an irrevocable state), or (2) say "that's not what we were going to do" and go public with a compliant version immediate. Both actions defuse tension.

If we wait to push and they publish 1.1 deauthorizing 1.0, and then backlash starts, the lawyers can get involved true -- but that gets convoluted and takes forever. In the face of public backlash once published, a corporation is much more likely to double down and hunker behind their lawyers, which could end up worse in the long run.

Its almost always better to deter conflict than fight. We're still in a space where deterrence can work.


----------



## South by Southwest

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Its almost always better to deter conflict than fight. We're still in a space where deterrence can work.



I do think that's right. My hope is that they'll look all this over very closely while having their internal fights about what to do, and that cooler heads ultimately will prevail. Scorched-earth tactics do work sometimes, but they're never a healthy default.


----------



## mhd

Speaking of "scorching", this reminded me slightly of the GIF licensing issues that happened between 1999 and 2004. You know, the graphics format that has birthed countless memes, basically the only way to have something animated (or transparent) on the early web. 

And all of a sudden, licensing fees were demanded. So there was a rather big backlash, many applications dropped GIF support, web pages were encouraged to use the "PNG" alternative.

There even was a "Burn All Gifs" page for activism.

This stopped when the patents expired.

When we're talking about books, I wouldn't encourage anything with "Burn" in the title, but a bit of activism and switching, at least until the courts make their decisions might be in our future.


----------



## bostonmyk

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I think the time to push is now, not "wait and see".
> 
> WotC hasn't formally published, so they're not committed yet. Backlash now allows them two outs:  either (1) internally change direction, and comply with what their customers want (presuming: retain OGL1.0 in an irrevocable state), or (2) say "that's not what we were going to do" and go public with a compliant version immediate. Both actions defuse tension.
> 
> If we wait to push and they publish 1.1 deauthorizing 1.0, and then backlash starts, the lawyers can get involved true -- but that gets convoluted and takes forever. In the face of public backlash once published, a corporation is much more likely to double down and hunker behind their lawyers, which could end up worse in the long run.
> 
> Its almost always better to deter conflict than fight. We're still in a space where deterrence can work.



The best response for the near term is to buy stuff 3rd party stuff from the likely targets prior to the release date. They'll need the revenue to survive and then fight if necessary. It is the very least, tangible thing I can do knowing so little.  I'm a little relieved that most of my holiday gifts and buys were mostly 3rd party.

Mike


----------



## payn

reelo said:


> So basically: "I'm fine with sh***y behaviour, as long as it doesn't affect me."



There will be a whole lot of this soon.

"So you are 35 and now hate D&D. Big whoop. I hated D&D until I was 35. I figured it out and so will you."


----------



## mhd

If this OGL turns me  35 again, I'm buying all the supplements.


----------



## MoonSong

My how to respond. 

Support 3rd parties. These Paizo pocket books and Levelup pdfs look pretty eppealing right now. And get these Paizo games on GOG.

Hurry. Finally finalize my Third Dawn pet project and make it public while it is still possible. I might take the time to edit and embellish, but I gotta hurry now while it is still possible.

Dust my PT project. It is is own thing and way low risk going forward. 

Stay informed for develpments. Look at what is going to happen with current 3ps to see where to go next.

Put a moratorium on buying Hasbro products. No more ponies, transformers, magic cards  and specially D&D products until the situation is sorted out.

Reach out. I havent filled the survey yet. What a better way to give feedback than to take advantage of it.

Join the discussion, help with engagement here and on the other platforms I frequent.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I'm having a conversation with my best friend deciding if stopping to use our 5e content and using 5e as our system is the ''good'' thing to do (knowing full well that it wont change a thing for anyone but us).
> 
> I fear dropping D&D will just cause my group to stop playing 'cause they dont want to try new things.
> 
> What a dilemma!




 I'd suggest waiting to see if WotC backs off on this, I believe they will, if they don't then boycott until they do. I personally think WotC was already kind of divided on this and at this point with this huge backlash 1.1 OGL is already dead before release and some powerful people could be thrown under the bus anyday now.

 I suspect WotC is in a state of civil war right now, this has already done this much damage to their business and it's not even been full released? So they've gone completely silent while they fight it out.

 Someone going to have to be sacrificed, someone important to qeunch the rage, a fall guy or  gal.

So far now I've signed the petition and made complaints to official D&D Twitter and on the D&D Beyond Forums (there is so much nerd rage that official D&D social media like D&D Beyond & Discord stopped censoring folks complaining about OGL 1.1, like I think it was so much after awhile they knew censoring it was pointless and only made WotC look worse).


----------



## Morrus

MoonSong said:


> Support 3rd parties. These Paizo pocket books and Levelup pdfs look pretty eppealing right now. And get these Paizo games on GOG.



I can get behind that!


----------



## reelo

Maybe (hopefully!) WotC/Hasbro/5E becomes unpopular enough in these parts that I can finally motivate people to try Mythras and/or The One Ring.


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> I can get behind that!



wasn’t on the Dungeon Delver KS (spent too much on other stuff at the time already), will pick it up once it comes to DT (I am mostly into PDFs, take up much less room)


----------



## MoonSong

mamba said:


> wasn’t on the Dungeon Delver KS (spent too much on other stuff at the time already), will pick it up once it comes to DT (I am mostly into PDFs, take up much less room)



I prefer physical books, but if it isn't on Amazon or on Ebay -and it is one of the chosen retailers by a given parcel service- getting my hands on it is near impossible.


----------



## MGibster

overgeeked said:


> This is the “downside” of the old argument that RPGs, despite being expensive to get into, are actually cheap in the long run because they offer a massive amount of entertainment for few dollars. Once you get in, you can play forever without buying anything ever again. Which is why it’s inherently difficult to sell just rules for a game of imagination.



I categorically reject the argument that RPGs are or ever have been an expensive hobby to get into.  I started playing around 1987/88, but earnestly started purchasing my own RPG books in 1989.  Back then, I think the AD&D 2nd edition PHB was $18, or $43 in today's money when adjusted for inflation, which was not too expensive for most middle class Americans.  Back in '89, I was making bank with my $15 weekly allowance and it only took me two weeks to save up for most AD&D products.


reelo said:


> So basically: "I'm fine with sh***y behaviour, as long as it doesn't affect me."



I'm not really sure changing the OGL is naughty word behavior.  On the surface of it, it appears as though WotC has the right to change the license agreement, though maybe a court will say different, and I'm not convinced they have an obligation to keep the license as is in perpetuity.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

reelo said:


> So basically: "I'm fine with sh***y behaviour, as long as it doesn't affect me."



I am sure that is not uncommon.


----------



## ersatzphil

Henadic Theologian said:


> I suspect WotC is in a state of civil war right now, this has already done this much damage to their business and it's not even been full released? So they've gone completely silent while they fight it out.



Given that Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford, James Wyatt et al. worked at Wizards through the 4e transition and it’s issues, I strongly suspect the divide isn’t in the D&D studio, but the D&D studio vs. other parts of Hasbro. I forget now where I read it, but I remember some freelancer commenting that Crawford specifically was deathly afraid of ever repeating anything like that debacle.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am sure that is not uncommon.



no, but it doesn’t make it any better


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

I heard a couple of months ago that Ray Winninger quit WOTC because Hasbro was planning to scrap the OGL and he was totally opposed. I didn't give it any credence to the rumor at the time, but knowing what we know now that seems a whole lot more credible.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mhd said:


> If this OGL turns me  35 again, I'm buying all the supplements.



sorry not sorry, if we get a sip of the fountain of youth I will let the OGL go


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> no, but it doesn’t make it any better



no it doesn't.

I expect to see more and more of it though


----------



## MoonSong

MGibster said:


> I'm not really sure changing the OGL is naughty word behavior. On the surface of it, it appears as though WotC has the right to change the license agreement, though maybe a court will say different, and I'm not convinced they have an obligation to keep the license as is in perpetuity.



"Linus Torrovald has the right to change the license to the Linux core and demand royalties for every Mac, smarphone, android device and game console ever sold. I'm not convinced he has an obligation to keep the license in perpetuity" 

Lots of people contributed to the OGC-included your truly- in good faith under the promise that it was a perpetual thing. Now WotC wants to renege on that promise and  privatize all of the OGC for its own use while negating us access to the content we created unless we agree to draconian terms that still prevent us from giving ongoing support to games already existing. This affects a lot of people, including Paizo and the publishers running this very site.


----------



## ersatzphil

The Myopic Sniper said:


> I heard a couple of months ago that Ray Winninger quit WOTC because Hasbro was planning to scrap the OGL and he was totally opposed. I didn't give it any credence to the rumor at the time, but knowing what we know now that seems a whole lot more credible.



Someone on Reddit recently pointed out that a lot of this is mirroring the events in '93/'94, when TSR tried to claim everything concerning D&D online was theirs, and pointed to the old rec.games.frp.dnd from the UseNet days. The flame wars were legendary. To my amusement, I noted that one of the contributors to that thread was Ray Winninger.

"Compatible with the world's most litigious roleplaying game" 

_edit: _Was the following written 30 years ago, or 3 days ago?
"_Terms like Armor Class, Round, Turn etc. are completly save. As far as I know <owners of DnD IP> has got some kind of legal claim on the term "saving throw", but I do not remember the particulars. Remember, game systems are not copyrightable. They might be patentable (Parker has a patent on Monopoly, as far as I know), but no RPG has been patented yet. Given the state of the hobby, with any number of commercial and free systems sharing any number of mechanics it would be very hard to defend the patent against "prior art" claims._"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MoonSong said:


> "Linus Torrovald has the right to change the license to the Linux core and demand royalties for every Mac, smarphone, android device and game console ever sold. I'm not convinced he has an obligation to keep the license in perpetuity"
> 
> Lots of people contributed to the OGC-included your truly- in good faith under the promise that it was a perpetual thing. Now WotC wants to renege on that promise and  privatize all of the OGC for its own use while negating us access to the content we created unless we agree to draconian terms that still prevent us from giving ongoing support to games already existing. This affects a lot of people, including Paizo and the publishers running this very site.



the people effected I feel sorry for. BUt mind you those people are the ones that are in the field writing and being paid.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

ersatzphil said:


> Someone on Reddit recently pointed out that a lot of this is mirroring the events in '93/'94, when TSR tried to claim everything concerning D&D online was theirs, and pointed to the old rec.games.frp.dnd from the UseNet days. The flame wars were legendary. To my amusement, I noted that one of the contributors to that thread was Ray Winninger.



I definitely feel like the people making these decisions don't have the fan memory of why we have the OGL and what could go wrong if they try to change it. 

This might be a sign we are not going to get any movement. If they were willing to let Ray Winninger go over this issue, junior design staff aren't going to step out of line seeing what happened to Ray. I imagine many have polished up their resumes even if it means leaving the industry. 

Sad times.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

The Myopic Sniper said:


> I definitely feel like the people making these decisions don't have the fan memory of why we have the OGL and what could go wrong if they try to change it.
> 
> This might be a sign we are not going to get any movement. If they were willing to let Ray Winninger go over this issue, junior design staff aren't going to step out of line seeing what happened to Ray. I imagine many have polished up their resumes even if it means leaving the industry.
> 
> Sad times.



at times like this I think of getting on an airplane. 

Everytime you fly in the states they tell you if you have a child with you and the breathing masks are needed affix your first... you can't help them if you can't breathe.

People getting fired form WotC wont help. People quitting WotC wont help.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ersatzphil said:


> Someone on Reddit recently pointed out that a lot of this is mirroring the events in '93/'94, when TSR tried to claim everything concerning D&D online was theirs, and pointed to the old rec.games.frp.dnd from the UseNet days. The flame wars were legendary. To my amusement, I noted that one of the contributors to that thread was Ray Winninger.
> 
> "Compatible with the world's most litigious roleplaying game"
> 
> _edit: _Was the following written 30 years ago, or 3 days ago?
> "_Terms like Armor Class, Round, Turn etc. are completly save. As far as I know <owners of DnD IP> has got some kind of legal claim on the term "saving throw", but I do not remember the particulars. Remember, game systems are not copyrightable. They might be patentable (Parker has a patent on Monopoly, as far as I know), but no RPG has been patented yet. Given the state of the hobby, with any number of commercial and free systems sharing any number of mechanics it would be very hard to defend the patent against "prior art" claims._"



This is fascinating. Particularly as an insight into the kind of thinking that lead to the OGL. Indeed, it seems like if the OGL hadn't happened with WotC (just 6 years later), these sort of issues may well have caused another company to create something similar, which would likely have given them quite a boost (nowhere near as big as the OGL gave 3E of course).


----------



## MoonSong

GMforPowergamers said:


> the people effected I feel sorry for. BUt mind you those people are the ones that are in the field writing and being paid.



And how is that a counterpoint? Just getting paid for it doesn't turn a good or neutral act into an immoral one. Pathfinder is way more than merely a copy of third edition, just like levelup isn't just repacked 5e. 3pps both totally amateur and 'professional' ones are all on the same boat here.  (Yes, I've been paid on the past, but I'm not raking the dough. It isn't even recurrent enough to count as a side gig. I've spent way more in the hobby than I've collected as payment for working on the ogl, and when I've been lucky enough to get paid, it was a godsend that helped me go through hard times)


----------



## mhd

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is fascinating. Particularly as an insight into the kind of thinking that lead to the OGL. Indeed, it seems like if the OGL hadn't happened with WotC (just 6 years later), these sort of issues may well have caused another company to create something similar, which would likely have given them quite a boost (nowhere near as big as the OGL gave 3E of course).



I'd say it's a mixture between the ever-existing RPG infights (Judges Guild, Role Aids, Palladium), the software world showing an alternative way and some small games already going baby steps in that direction (Fudge, Fuzion).

A big player coming out with this was basically the second best thing that could've happened (the best being a proper free license). I'd guess that without WotC doing that, we'd have some kind of semi-popular free thing as a sub-scene taking the place of the OSR, and D&D xE still being king of the hill.


----------



## MGibster

MoonSong said:


> Lots of people contributed to the OGC-included your truly- in good faith under the promise that it was a perpetual thing. Now WotC wants to renege on that promise and  privatize all of the OGC for its own use while negating us access to the content we created unless we agree to draconian terms that still prevent us from giving ongoing support to games already existing. This affects a lot of people, including Paizo and the publishers running this very site.




I get that it affects a lot of people.  But from my point of view, creating the OLG was a business decision that made sense for WotC at the time, and now they don't think it's in their best interst so they're changing it, which, as I said, appears to be within their rights.  Likewise, for those companies that hitched their wagon to WotC, it was a business decision that made sense, but if they put all their eggs in one basket, that was probably a bad decision.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

mhd said:


> A big player coming out with this was basically the second best thing that could've happened (the best being a proper free license). I'd guess that without WotC doing that, we'd have some kind of semi-popular free thing as a sub-scene taking the place of the OSR, and D&D xE still being king of the hill.



That seems likely, but I suspect D&D would have been "king of the hill" by a far smaller degree without the d20 revolution. I've never seen anything like it happen to FLGSes (except when TCGs came in). Basically half the other RPGs got booted or had reduced display space in favour of d20 products, all of which are essentially a sign saying "BUY 3E!!!". 3E only got a bit more space than AD&D by itself.

And without 3PP adventure support, I can confidently say my main group would have given up on 3E in about 2003. I think king of the hill is the wrong analogy - it's more like the largest market share, but instead of being 75%+ of the market (as it was in 3E days), it'd be more like 30-40% back then. And I think this would have lead to some very different decisions re: 4E too (not ones anyone would like, I suspect).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> now they don't think it's in their best interst so they're changing it, which, as I said, appears to be within their rights



I mean, definitely not.

Absolutely not.

Because the_ entire reason_ those people put their eggs in that basket was because WotC insisted the OGL was safe harbour. Not only that, but WotC even had a previous episode of going against the OGL, and publicly said they regretted it, and came back to the OGL!

So it's truly ludicrous to portray this as people just "putting all their eggs in one basket". You don't get to lie about how something works, encourage people to come part of it, then flip the script and try to screw them, then blame THEM for getting screwed. That's outrageous lol. You know who does that? Multi-Level Marketers, Pyramid Schemes, and so on? You're saying that approach is cool?

Even the way they're doing is fundamentally dishonest. They're literally trying to use an actual honest-to-god legal loophole (rarely seen!) to try and "deauthorize" the OGL when the OGL was written in such a way that was absolutely not intended.


----------



## mhd

Ruin Explorer said:


> That seems likely, but I suspect D&D would have been "king of the hill" by a far smaller degree without the d20 revolution.



I'd say the hill itself would've been smaller. And you're right, while the current situation seems a bit removed from the d20 peak and thus one could imagine a situation where this would've happened without that boost, a critical mass of either the whole industry or D&D-ish gaming might've been necessary to make mainstream and streaming notice and thus really ignite things.

On a personal note, without 3E being open I probably wouldn't have stuck around with D&D back then. Heck, the lack of the same quantity and quality as back then is what keeps me from going more in with 5E – WotC's own products being rather mediocre for my taste.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I mean, just to add to that without a ton of confusing edits, what would have been within their rights would be WotC to say "Okay guys, we don't think the OGL is working out well for us, you can all keep playing with it, but for 1D&D, you're going to need to sign up to GSL2, which doesn't have the poison pill of GSL1, but does have X requirements and Y carrots as to why you might want to do it". It doesn't even really matter how extreme X requirements were so long as they're not poison pills or the like because it's fundamentally offering you an honest choice.

That would be "within their rights".

Loopholing a particular term in in attempt to do the _exact opposite_ of what a licence was intended to do? That is being a greedy, amoral, untrustworthy crook.


----------



## mamba

MGibster said:


> I get that it affects a lot of people.  But from my point of view, creating the OLG was a business decision that made sense for WotC at the time, and now they don't think it's in their best interst so they're changing it, which, as I said, appears to be within their rights.  Likewise, for those companies that hitched their wagon to WotC, it was a business decision that made sense, but if they put all their eggs in one basket, that was probably a bad decision.



a little too flippant from my perspective because up until a week or so ago WotC assured everyone that they license would never go away.

As to whether WotC can, that is untested, 'appears to be within their rights' is not the term I would use. Chances are it is not actually in their rights, unless you consider 'might makes right' a form of right.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, definitely not.
> 
> Absolutely not.



There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights.  We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site.  One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.  



Ruin Explorer said:


> So it's truly ludicrous to portray this as people just "putting all their eggs in one basket". You don't get to lie about how something works, encourage people to come part of it, then flip the script and try to screw them, then blame THEM for getting screwed. That's outrageous lol. You know who does that? Multi-Level Marketers, Pyramid Schemes, and so on? You're saying that approach is cool?



I don't find it ludicrous at all.  Does the license say it cannot be revoked or changed?  Because WotC seems to be of the opinion that they're free to change it.


----------



## Clint_L

Here's why I am being cautious:

1. It's possible that Hasbro/WotC are being Bond villains right now and basically trying to stifle competition, revoke the existing OGL, etc, the way some of the more extreme "leaks" have implied (I'm thinking particularly of the one that reads like a ten year old wrote it, not a contract lawyer). In that case, yeah, man the barricades! Pass me a torch!

2. It's possible that what we are getting is fragments of negotiations between lawyers, management, etc., and people are leaking things in an attempt to strengthen their position. For example, what if what people are assuming is language from a new OGL is actually language from a specific contract negotiation? Suddenly the situation looks a lot different.

We know for sure that going forward, Hasbro wants renumeration from people using D&D to make money past certain thresholds. That's not unreasonable. The question that we don't really know yet is how this relates to existing products, and whether the terms will be such the there will be a chilling effect of the release of future products, which would be bad for fans and creators.


----------



## S'mon

MGibster said:


> There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights.  We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site.  One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.




Hopefully all lawyers here agree that one party to a contract cannot change the terms of that contract without the agreement of the other party to that contract.
The actual issue at hand is whether one side can *unilaterally terminate* this 'perpetual' licence agreement, and we have some disagreement on that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights. We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site. One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.



What you can technically get away with and "within your rights" in the normal usage are entirely different things.

There's no "right" for a corporation to use a loophole to reverse the well-stated, well-recorded purpose of a licence.

It's something they may technically be able to get away with. But it's not a right or anything like that. It's not normal. It's not decent. It's appropriate. It's not honest.


MGibster said:


> I don't find it ludicrous at all. Does the license say it cannot be revoked or changed? Because WotC seems to be of the opinion that they're free to change it.



Essentially, yes it does say it cannot be changed, only new version added in future.

Clauses 4 & 9. It's perpetual, and if WotC does change it in any way you don't like, you can any authorized version of the licence.

The understanding PUBLICLY PROMOTED BY WOTC AND ITS STAFF, both when they introduced the OGL with 3E, and when they reintroduced the OGL with 5E, was that whilst they could offer new versions of the OGL, you could always rely on a previous version that they'd previously offered. Let's be really clear on this, because WotC were - this WAS intended to be irrevocable in the sense that no version would stop being legally effective, only that new versions could be added. Ryan Dancey has been incredibly clear about that. You could not ask for more clarity.

Deauthorizing the licence is essentially an attempt to end-run around the entire purpose of licence, and goes against literally everything WOTC, ITS STAFF AND EMPLOYEES have ever said about the licence until literally last month. Hell, even the statement on Beyond last month doesn't mention deauthorizing the existing version. For obvious reasons.

Whether it technically works legally is almost irrelevant, because it was certainly unexpected and legally relatively novel, and certainly went against how WotC themselves described the OGL as operating. Repeatedly. Over the course of years.


----------



## Incenjucar

Clint_L said:


> Here's why I am being cautious:
> 
> 1. It's possible that Hasbro/WotC are being Bond villains right now and basically trying to stifle competition, revoke the existing OGL, etc, the way some of the more extreme "leaks" have implied (I'm thinking particularly of the one that reads like a ten year old wrote it, not a contract lawyer). In that case, yeah, man the barricades! Pass me a torch!
> 
> 2. It's possible that what we are getting is fragments of negotiations between lawyers, management, etc., and people are leaking things in an attempt to strengthen their position. For example, what if what people are assuming is language from a new OGL is actually language from a specific contract negotiation? Suddenly the situation looks a lot different.
> 
> We know for sure that going forward, Hasbro wants renumeration from people using D&D to make money past certain thresholds. That's not unreasonable. The question that we don't really know yet is how this relates to existing products, and whether the terms will be such the there will be a chilling effect of the release of future products, which would be bad for fans and creators.



It's reasonable to be cautious, but it's easier or harder depending on how much skin you have in the game, how much you've been burned in the past, etc. I respect that you are reserving judgement, but we have all seen things like all the shows being erased from HBO's catalog, the GSL (and I love 4e very much!) etc., so it's also reasonable for folks to be cynical about this. At the core I hope we can all respect each other's feelings in both directions, and try to avoid falsehoods.

At a minimum I think that this being _at all_ an issue shows that the TTRPG community should safeguard against this sort of thing in the future - we need something that anyone can use as a free base forever. 

I'm reserving judgement until we have the facts, but at a minimum we know that Kickstarter is showing us some unpleasant numbers, and that alone is reason to start considering next steps. Those of us providing how we will respond if this is not All A Dream are doing so in hopes of applying what little pressure the customer base can at this stage, and recognizing that the OGL is not a guarantee any longer, even if WotC reverses all of our fears.


----------



## mamba

MGibster said:


> There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights.  We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site.  One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.



a judge weighing in is no more definite either, that is why appellate courts exist



MGibster said:


> I don't find it ludicrous at all.  Does the license say it cannot be revoked or changed?  Because WotC seems to be of the opinion that they're free to change it.



they can be of the opinion the Earth is flat, that does not make it so.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MoonSong said:


> And how is that a counterpoint? Just getting paid for it doesn't turn a good or neutral act into an immoral one.



I am saying (I think) I agree I don't care if pathfinder or level up goes on. I don't play either. I don't care if 100 books come out next year if they are ones I wont use. I DO care about the people BEHIND PF and LU who could lose there jobs over this. 
I also am not worried about fans who wont be able to buy 3pp, I worry about the writers who need to sell them.


MoonSong said:


> Pathfinder is way more than merely a copy of third edition, just like levelup isn't just repacked 5e. 3pps both totally amateur and 'professional' ones are all on the same boat here.



yes PF and LU are changes... but they are piggy backing off of 3e and 5e.


MoonSong said:


> (Yes, I've been paid on the past, but I'm not raking the dough. It isn't even recurrent enough to count as a side gig. I've spent way more in the hobby than I've collected as payment for working on the ogl, and when I've been lucky enough to get paid, it was a godsend that helped me go through hard times)



most of the 3pp spend more gaming then they make... it's only the upper 5% that make any money and only the top of them that make more then the 750k... I understand that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> a judge weighing in is no more definite either, that is why appellate courts exist



man that is scary... lets say that a 3pp sues, wotc gets an injunction (not sure that is the word) so they can't publish while spending a year in court and a million dollars. and wins... then WotC/Hasbro appeals and gets another order (injunction?) and they have to do another 4-6 months another million dollars and more court... and MAYBE it gets upheld maybe WotC wins... then what another appeal another set of time and another million dollars?


----------



## MonsterEnvy

While it’s bad pr if Wizards releases 1.1 in the form suggested by the leak, (and I don’t think they will) I personally don’t actually care very much if they do, cause it only affects a few groups already making money.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MonsterEnvy said:


> While it’s bad pr if Wizards releases 1.1 in the form suggested by the leak, (and I don’t think they will) I personally don’t actually care very much if they do, cause it only affects a few groups already making money.



You don't care that they'll deauthorize the OGL and cause huge problems for or destroy virtually every single game using the OGL?

Did you miss that bit?


----------



## MoonSong

MonsterEnvy said:


> While it’s bad pr if Wizards releases 1.1 in the form suggested by the leak, (and I don’t think they will) I personally don’t actually care very much if they do, cause it only affects a few groups already making money.



You don't care if @Morrus gets into bankruptcy -either by leonine royalties or under legal fees- abd this site has to close? 

You don't care that ALL ongoing support for older editions and games that only survive in a legal way thanks to the OGL ceases entirely?


----------



## MonsterEnvy

MoonSong said:


> You don't care if @Morrus gets into bankruptcy -either by leonine royalties or under legal fees- abd this site has to close?
> 
> You don't care that ALL ongoing support for older editions and games that only survive in a legal way thanks to the OGL ceases entirely?



I doubt it would force bankruptcy, and I don’t believe it can retroactively apply.


----------



## mamba

MonsterEnvy said:


> I doubt it would force bankruptcy, and I don’t believe it can retroactively apply.



I take this as a 'yes, I do not care'


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Ruin Explorer said:


> You don't care that they'll deauthorize the OGL and cause huge problems for or destroy virtually every single game using the OGL?
> 
> Did you miss that bit?



It won’t outright destroy them, but no I don’t really care that much honestly. It’s callous of me I admit, and I can understand other peoples outrage. But I personally just don’t have a horse in the race.

The other RPGs I am interested outside of D&D don’t use the OGL.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MonsterEnvy said:


> I doubt it would force bankruptcy, and I don’t believe it can retroactively apply.



I have been a big "I don't care if 3pp went away" but since Morus himself asked I try to clarify... I wish no ill will on any of the people. I feel bad for any and all people displaced, even if I am not sway by the companies they own/work for. 

I feel the same way for major league sports... if tomorrow football baseball and basketball all went away, I would not miss them. HOWEVER there would be LOTS of people out of work and THAT I care about (not millionaires or higher though... if you make $1,000,000 or more personally I don't feel bad if you have to live off that for a while although that makes sense for ball players not TTRPG makers)


----------



## Branduil

MonsterEnvy said:


> It won’t outright destroy them, but no I don’t really care that much honestly. It’s callous of me I admit, and I can understand other peoples outrage. But I personally just don’t have a horse in the race.
> 
> The other RPGs I am interested outside of D&D don’t use the OGL.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> You don't care that they'll deauthorize the OGL and cause huge problems for or destroy virtually every single game using the OGL?



Honestly?  No.  I view this as a conflict between different companies, none of which I have any stake in.


----------



## Vaalingrade

And that right there is how bad actors become emboldened to be worse. Because if they can play to the apathy of people, they'll never lose.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

The Myopic Sniper said:


> I heard a couple of months ago that Ray Winninger quit WOTC because Hasbro was planning to scrap the OGL and he was totally opposed. I didn't give it any credence to the rumor at the time, but knowing what we know now that seems a whole lot more credible.




 When I saw the leak I had a feeling this was the true reason, at least we know now that Ray Winninger had the brass ones to stand up for the fandom, mad respect. Too bad the rest of the D&D studio didn't have his guts, if they'd provided a unified from Hasbro would have had to listen, instead they let Ray twist in the wind and fight the forces of evil alone.

 I now want Ray to be President of WotC, Cynthia Williams can leave and take CEO Chris Cox with her.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MonsterEnvy said:


> The other RPGs I am interested outside of D&D don’t use the OGL.



Lucky I guess. 

That said a guy on another site said that and then listed them and like three of them were OGL he just didn't know lol.


----------



## Vaalingrade

MonsterEnvy said:


> The other RPGs I am interested outside of D&D don’t use the OGL.



Are you absolutely sure about that?

A lot og games you might expect aren't connected to it actually are, like FATE.


----------



## MichaelSomething




----------



## Mecheon

Also I just remembered from the last time I was in a community where we had a big problem like this (The Skyrim Paid Workshop drama, for those who know), there are websites out there that let you send faxes to numbers at no charge to yourself

Now, I'm not saying find these webites and send quite a few faxes to WotC over the weekend to make your opposition to what they're doing absolutely clear. I'm also not saying "Hey, there are ways to absolutely flood a fax machine and waste the ink, causing more income wasted on that behalf"

But I am saying that people definitely did do that during the Skyrim mod debacle, and doing so was probably one of the reasons Valve had to respond in downright quick speeds to that


----------



## Aldarc

Vaalingrade said:


> Are you absolutely sure about that?
> 
> A lot og games you might expect aren't connected to it actually are, like FATE.



Fate also uses the Creative Commons License, so changes to the OGL won't really have any effect on Fate.


----------



## Clint_L

Mecheon said:


> Also I just remembered from the last time I was in a community where we had a big problem like this (The Skyrim Paid Workshop drama, for those who know), there are websites out there that let you send faxes to numbers at no charge to yourself
> 
> Now, I'm not saying find these webites and send quite a few faxes to WotC over the weekend to make your opposition to what they're doing absolutely clear. I'm also not saying "Hey, there are ways to absolutely flood a fax machine and waste the ink, causing more income wasted on that behalf"
> 
> But I am saying that people definitely did do that during the Skyrim mod debacle, and doing so was probably one of the reasons Valve had to respond in downright quick speeds to that



Can we maybe not advocate for DDoS attacks?


----------



## Dausuul

MichaelSomething said:


>



I checked out the text of that license, and it looks significantly worse than OGL 1.0a. It contains the same maybe-a-loophole that Wizards is currently trying to exploit (the absence of the word "irrevocable"), and it also contains a clause forbidding the following:

_"Racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material."_

Even though I agree with many of the goals of this clause, it absolutely does not belong in an open license; in the hands of a bad actor such as Hasbro has just demonstrated itself to be, it could be abused in any number of ways.

Turns out that it's rather tricky to write an open gaming license that is both truly open and legally rock solid.


----------



## mamba

Dausuul said:


> I checked out the text of that license, and it looks significantly worse than OGL 1.0a. It contains the same maybe-a-loophole that Wizards is currently trying to exploit (the absence of the word "irrevocable"), and it also contains a clause forbidding the following:
> 
> _"Racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material."_



I am not sure that makes it significantly worse, that just means the creator of the original IP does not want their game to be dragged into controversial topics and have the reputation tarnished.

Sounds like good reasons to revoke the license

For a generic open license the following is more problematic

“The Work must include the phrase “Compatible with the Cypher System” or the “Compatible with the Cypher System” logo on the cover of the Work.”


----------



## Dausuul

mamba said:


> I am not sure that makes it significantly worse, that just means the creator of the original IP does not want their game to be dragged into controversial topics and have the reputation tarnished.
> 
> Sounds like good reasons to revoke the license



What constitutes "repugnant" views? What is an "overt political agenda?" Think of this clause in the hands of, say, NuTSR, and imagine them wielding the power to make these decisions about your game.

An open license is _open_. That means you have to be okay with the idea that people are gonna publish stuff you won't like. If you're not okay with that, you shouldn't attach your name to an open license.

(And this, by the way, is why Wizards chose to separate the OGL from the d20 STL, and put all the stuff granting access to trademarks and logos and compatibility notices in the latter.)


----------



## mamba

Dausuul said:


> What constitutes "repugnant" views? What is an "overt political agenda?" Think of this clause in the hands of, say, NuTSR, and imagine them wielding the power to make these decisions about your game.



I understand where you are coming from, but as I said, having to say that your product is for the Cypher system is a much bigger issue for a truly open license.

Look at it this way: how much of the OGL licensed content could live with the former but not the latter…

Ultimately why reinvent the wheel at all, use CC-BY-SA, that seems to be what the OGL intended to be. Just leave your PI out of what you license under it, much like it is not covered under the OGL


----------



## SteveC

J.Quondam said:


> But people very clearly _are_ contributing to WotC. I mean, that's precisely _why_ they're the successful 900 lb gorilla that they are.
> 
> Unlike many creators and small publishers that could be wiped out by the license "update", WotC is absolutely not suffering financially by the current OGL. Arguably, WotC's immense success is largely _because_ of the OGL1.0 and the creators it has enabled, not despite it.



I think this is the point. I was just on Amazon and I see that the D&D PHB is #125 in all books right now. Why would that be the case? What is WotC doing to bring people into gaming at the moment compared to the dozens of people streaming games and talking about dungeons and dragons. If you took away the third party people who are incredibly enthusiastic about the game, what do you have? It has been a long time since WotC actively participated and made content to bring people into gaming. Do they still have anything to do with Acquisitions Inc?

I'm not the target market for D&D anymore, that's been pretty clear to me for some time now, but the people who do interact with it as a lifestyle are doing so through the exact people who will be negatively affected. Maybe WotC has plans to bring in new streamers, but when I think about this, I just have a "hi there, fellow gamers!" sort of meme in my head.

And for what it's worth: I had been planning on picking up DandDone and if my online group used the WotC service to play, I would have subscribed to that too just to keep playing. That online group, who are the target market, is unhappy right now and talking about other games.


----------



## Dausuul

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I'm having a conversation with my best friend deciding if stopping to use our 5e content and using 5e as our system is the ''good'' thing to do (knowing full well that it wont change a thing for anyone but us).
> 
> I fear dropping D&D will just cause my group to stop playing 'cause they dont want to try new things.
> 
> What a dilemma!



Just my two cents, but I wouldn't get hung up on this. You can keep playing 5E forever without giving Hasbro a dime; whatever tiny contribution you make to sustaining the "mindshare" of D&D is not worth worrying about.

If you stop buying anything from Wizards, and let them know you're doing that and why, that will send the message you want to send. (Particularly if you have an existing DDB subscription and cancel it -- that proves you are a current customer who really does feel strongly enough to become an ex-customer.)


----------



## JonM

Try pasting this into every comment box, on their surveys:

"Until WotC discontinues their attempt to close the Open Game License and cause irreparable harm to the RPG community, I will no longer be supporting this playtest, OneD&D, or any other WotC endeavors."

And, if you really want to drive it home, pick Very Dissatisfied for every rating choice.


----------



## Greggy C




----------



## Hex08

If the new version of the OGL upsets you, and there is every reason it should, then stop buying and playing D&D and let Hasbro know. Honestly though, I doubt it will matter. People who follow this stuff are in the minority and Hasbro won't miss those who jump ship. Most people play their games without following all of the online chatter.

Many others and I jumped ship when Pathfinder came out rather than switch to 4E and D&D kept on growing.


----------



## Yaarel

mamba said:


> Ultimately why reinvent the wheel at all, use CC-BY-SA, that seems to be what the OGL intended to be. Just leave your PI out of what you license under it, much like it is not covered under the OGL



The OGL is useful because the agreement itself distinguishes the Property Identity that one keeps for oneself versus the Open Gaming Content that one grants to the public.

Any replacement license needs to include this same dichotomy.


----------



## mhd

Yaarel said:


> Any replacement license needs to include this same dichotomy.



Is this so much different from the old "You're allowed to copy the char sheets on page 33/34?" So you'd just say that your book is CC-BY-SA, expect the artwork and the spell and monster names in Appendix A and B?


----------



## mamba

Yaarel said:


> The OGL is useful because the agreement itself distinguishes the Property Identity that one keeps for oneself versus the Open Gaming Content that one grants to the public.
> 
> Any replacement license needs to include this same dichotomy.



I am not sure. I get the need for the distinction, but could I not say ‘this is licensed under … and this other part is not’ in the document itself? Or is the problem that it then is not part of the license?

If so, why not have an SRD that is just OGC and keep the PI out if it?

imo there are ways around the PI issue when using a CC license, I agree that the distinction is needed in some form


----------



## Branduil

At this point, for me the only acceptable response from WotC is a true update to the OGL, with the only changes being

Adding the word "irrevocable"
Transferring ownership of the OGL to a neutral foundation made up of open-source advocates
They can do whatever they want with OD&D, make GSL 2.0 and see if anyone is foolish enough to sign up, but the OGL must be preserved.


----------



## Yaarel

mamba said:


> Or is the problem that it then is not part of the license?



Yes.



mamba said:


> If so, why not have an SRD that is just OGC and keep the PI out if it?



Presentation.

For the SRD it might work. But when using the license in a marketable gaming product, it becomes trickier.

A gaming product for players to use, needs to integrate everything seemlessly in an appealing experience − both SRD and PI together.

License agreement needs to call attention to the fact that some parts remain protected and unavailable.


----------



## ctorus

mamba said:


> I am not sure that makes it significantly worse, that just means the creator of the original IP does not want their game to be dragged into controversial topics and have the reputation tarnished.
> 
> Sounds like good reasons to revoke the license



Fine, but then it's not an open license. It places ill-defined and context-dependent restrictions on what the user can do, so it can't be safely used.


----------



## TheSword

ctorus said:


> Fine, but then it's not an open license. It places ill-defined and context-dependent restrictions on what the user can do, so it can't be safely used.



Nothing in life is safe or guaranteed. Plenty of people have opportunistic businesses without guarantees. In fact there are lots of contracts that renew yearly or are subject to termination at either parties request.

An unrevocable, unfettered, completely open license to use someone else’s IP would actually be a pretty terrible thing. ‘Open’ to all sorts of abuse.


----------



## Vaalingrade

TheSword said:


> An unrevocable, unfettered, completely open license to use someone else’s IP would actually be a pretty terrible thing. ‘Open’ to all sorts of abuse.



Mr. TheSword? The Public Domain is on Line 1.


----------

