# WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting



## Alzrius

Hm, interesting that they're putting out an OGL version 1.1.

My question is, given that the new 1D&D SRD that they mention will almost certainly _only_ be put out for the OGL v1.1, does that mean that you _can't_ use it if you prefer to publish products under the current OGL v1.0a? I ask because there are technically two versions of the OGL out right now, the original v1.0 and the current v1.0a (though I'm unclear on what the differences between them are), and insofar as I know there's never been a problem using any SRD with either of them, regardless of which they were released under.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Is there already a "special agreement" for Solasta: Crown of the Magister, or do the creators of that game need to get one in the future?


----------



## darjr

Kobold Avenger said:


> Is there already a "special agreement" for Solasta: Crown of the Magister, or do the creators of that game need to get one in the future?



I did go and check. And while Solastia is using the SRD they don't state they are using the OGL but they have a special agreement with WotC. I wonder what that means?


----------



## Scribe

Kobold Avenger said:


> Is there already a "special agreement" for Solasta: Crown of the Magister, or do the creators of that game need to get one in the future?




I believe there was yes.


----------



## darjr

At first blush? This is not great.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> I did go and check. And while Solastia is using the SRD they don't state they are using the OGL but they have a special agreement with WotC. I wonder what that means?



Yeah. I followed that development pretty closely and WotC gave them a special license to use the SRD as a base but not any D&D content otherwise. that's why it is all custom subclasses, etc.


----------



## Voadam

Wow.

I see very little incentive to use this announced 1.1 OGL over the existing irrevocable OGL.


----------



## Reynard

What does share-alike mean? Like, posting stuff here? And is the OGL 1.1 really saying you have to register everything with WotC? Is there going to be a content clause, then?


----------



## Morrus

Kobold Avenger said:


> Is there already a "special agreement" for Solasta: Crown of the Magister, or do the creators of that game need to get one in the future?



Aren't they using the OGL 1,0a which does not require any special agreement? I haven't followed Solasta, but that seems to be my recollection. I could well be wrong about that!


----------



## darjr

Morrus said:


> Aren't they using the OGL 1,0a which does not require any special agreement? I haven't followed Solasta, but that seems to be my recollection. I could well be wrong about that!



This is what they say on their web site.


----------



## Rabulias

darjr said:


> I did go and check. And while Solastia is using the SRD they don't state they are using the OGL but they have a special agreement with WotC. I wonder what that means?



I think they did have a special agreement, but if you click the *License *button on the main Solasta menu, you get:


----------



## Morrus

That $750K royalty thing is going to be ... interesting. As one of those publishers at that threshold, we're going to be having a lot of meetings in the near future, I predict!


----------



## Reynard

Rabulias said:


> I think they did have a special agreement, but if you click the *License *button on the main Solasta menu, you get:
> 
> View attachment 270254



Right -- it was the ability to use the OGL and SRD in a video game that required the special license. Normally that is not allowed under the terms of the OGL.


----------



## Alzrius

@Morrus this is a tangential point, but do you happen to know what the differences are between the OGL v1.0 and the current OGL v1.0a? The news about the v1.1 has me interested in the changes in the prior versions.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I am not a creator. But it does not sound like the sky is falling. A little more restrictive, but I mean, making 750k a year does not look like it affects most people (less than 20 as they say).


----------



## Reynard

This bit is interesting too:

*First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.*

This would seem to indicate that things likes character creation utilities and discord bots and the like are all out of bounds. It is anyone's guess how vehemently WotC will pursue these things, though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Reynard said:


> Right -- it was the ability to use the OGL and SRD in a video game that required the special license. Normally that is not allowed under the terms of the OGL.




So it sounds like all wotc wants is that video game designers ask them politely?


----------



## Morrus

Reynard said:


> Right -- it was the ability to use the OGL and SRD in a video game that required the special license. Normally that is not allowed under the terms of the OGL.



Which clause of the OGL do you interpret as prohibiting video games?


----------



## Malcolm Serabian

darjr said:


> At first blush? This is not great.



Not sure what you see as a problem… I can’t imagine very many creators are making more than 50K a year, except for Kickstarter things. And if you’re generating over 750K a year asking for a royalty sounds okay to me. Of course I‘m not a creator and I know the margins are small on rpg products, but if you must pass that royalty cost along to the customer. I’d hope it wouldn’t be a huge per piece price increase. 

I can kind of see privacy issues with telling WorC how much your making and what you are making - but if it’s a Kickstarter that info is out there already so not really…

id love to hear from you what you think might be issues as I can’t really think of one. 

(just to be clear, I’m asking cause I‘m interested… I’m not trying to argue or challenge you… )


----------



## Loren the GM

Reynard said:


> This bit is interesting too:
> 
> *First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.*
> 
> This would seem to indicate that things likes character creation utilities and discord bots and the like are all out of bounds. It is anyone's guess how vehemently WotC will pursue these things, though.



I'll also be interested to see what happens with things like VTT conversions of Kickstarter adventures. As a Roll20 module or Foundry module isn't a static electronic file like a PDF, will these now require a special license to convert and sell? And will things like Level Up be required to acquire a special license to do things like provide the online tools (obviously not the current iteration, as that is all under the previous OGL, but if they or another creator making something similar were to publish a new version under 1.1?)


----------



## darjr

Oh! That NFT bit. I think I know what caused that!


----------



## darjr

Malcolm Serabian said:


> Not sure what you see as a problem… I can’t imagine very many creators are making more than 50K a year, except for Kickstarter things. And if you’re generating over 750K a year asking for a royalty sounds okay to me. Of course I‘m not a creator and I know the margins are small on rpg products, but if you must pass that royalty cost along to the customer. I’d hope it wouldn’t be a huge per piece price increase.
> 
> I can kind of see privacy issues with telling WorC how much your making and what you are making - but if it’s a Kickstarter that info is out there already so not really…
> 
> id love to hear from you what you think might be issues as I can’t really think of one.
> 
> (just to be clear, I’m asking cause I‘m interested… I’m not trying to argue or challenge you… )



No worries.

Just a first blush. Might just be an aversion to change. You make great points.


----------



## Thanlis

Alzrius said:


> Hm, interesting that they're putting out an OGL version 1.1.
> 
> My question is, given that the new 1D&D SRD that they mention will almost certainly _only_ be put out for the OGL v1.1, does that mean that you _can't_ use it if you prefer to publish products under the current OGL v1.0a? I ask because there are technically two versions of the OGL out right now, the original v1.0 and the current v1.0a (though I'm unclear on what the differences between them are), and insofar as I know there's never been a problem using any SRD with either of them, regardless of which they were released under.



We can't know for sure until the final version is published, but based on this I would certainly assume that One D&D will only be licensed under OGL v1.1. This is a normal kind of practice; if you look around in the world of Creative Commons you'll see material licensed under specific versions of the license. 

I am not 100% sure there are any differences between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a. The Open Gaming Foundation version of the license is versioned as 1.0a, but the copyright notice references only version 1.0. I don't have a copy of the 3.0 or 3.5 d20 SRDs handy or I'd check to see what was used.

The big open question is whether or not you'll be able to replicate One D&D mechanics using material in the existing D&D 5th Edition SRD, which is licensed under OGL 1.0a. If so, you could use the existing OGL, although I suspect you'd want to be pretty careful. If not, you'd be forced to OGL 1.1.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

darjr said:


> Oh! That NFT bit. I think I know what caused that!




And I guess, the creator badge helps them tell you, that those products are up to date.


----------



## mamba

Voadam said:


> Wow.
> 
> I see very little incentive to use this announced 1.1 OGL over the existing irrevocable OGL.



As a stand-alone license, sure, but once they tie the 1D&D SRD to it (which I assume they will), that might change.


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> @Morrus this is a tangential point, but do you happen to know what the differences are between the OGL v1.0 and the current OGL v1.0a? The news about the v1.1 has me interested in the changes in the prior versions.



Here's v1.0:

The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and
is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights
Reserved.
1. Definitions: (a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark
owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)”Derivative
Material” means copyrighted material including derivative works and
translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification,
correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation,
abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be
recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute” means to reproduce,
license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise
distribute; (d)”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and
includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent
such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement
over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified
as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered
by this License, including translations and derivative works under
copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) “Product
Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying
marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories,
storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork,
symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts,
themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations;
names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments,
personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places,
locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other
trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity
by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes
the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names, mark,
sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or
its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game
License by the Contributor (g) “Use”, “Used” or “Using” means to use,
Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create
Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means
the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that
contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be
Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice
to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or
subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself.
No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content
distributed using this License.
3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate
Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this
License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royaltyfree,
non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use,
the Open Game Content.
5. Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing
original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions
are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights
to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6. Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT
NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT
NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying
or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and
the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original
Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity,
including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly
licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each
element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility
or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark
in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as
expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner
of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product
Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the
ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity
used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in
and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must
clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are
Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish
updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version
of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game
Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with
every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the
Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have
written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any
of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open
Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation
then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail
to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30
days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the
termination of this License.
14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable,
such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary
to make it enforceable.
15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc


----------



## Alzrius

Thanlis said:


> We can't know for sure until the final version is published, but based on this I would certainly assume that One D&D will only be licensed under OGL v1.1. This is a normal kind of practice; if you look around in the world of Creative Commons you'll see material licensed under specific versions of the license.



Actually, upon re-reading the current OGL, it turns out the answer was there all along, specifically on part 9:



> 9. Updating the License:  Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License.  You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.




So that makes it very clear that, even if the 1D&D SRD is only published under the OGL v1.1, it doesn't matter; you can use it with the existing OGL just fine.


----------



## Voadam

UngeheuerLich said:


> So it sounds like all wotc wants is that video game designers ask them politely?



No, it looks like they are trying to lock out video game designers from making stuff under the 1.1 OGL to try to require them to have a separate specific license with WotC. There does not seem to be an indication that just asking politely is sufficient on its own. WotC could respond with yes and nothing else for a video game developer polite ask, but I think this is to set up a monetary license and WotC approval situation.


----------



## Thanlis

Alzrius said:


> So that makes it very clear that, even if the 1D&D SRD is only published under the OGL v1.1, it doesn't matter; you can use it with the existing OGL just fine.




You are 100% correct -- I was just doing a compare of the two versions (thanks, Morrus) and I noticed the same thing.

I'd be interested in putting a small bet down on WotC deciding that the new license will be completely new, and not just a new version.


----------



## Retreater

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am not a creator. But it does not sound like the sky is falling. A little more restrictive, but I mean, making 750k a year does not look like it affects most people (leess than 20 as they say).



Yes, only around 20 publishers. Which are, you know, the biggest ones in the industry. We heard here it's EN World Publishing. I would guess MCDM (Matt Colville); Darrington Press (Matt Mercer); Kobold Press; Free League, Monte Cook Games, Goodman Games, & Paizo (for their compatible 5E product lines). 
So yeah, it's going to be "just a few" publishers. But it's going to be the majority of 5e compatible content.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

> Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)




I don't understand what's being accomplished here, other than, I guess, giving in-house OGL-haters data for the next time WotC has this in-house fight.


----------



## darjr

Though it looks like all publishers need to report to wotc. I see this as a burden upon the small publishers and even wotc.


----------



## Retreater

Just for me, it's too much "we want all the money" back-to-back statements. The most significant changes we're hearing about One D&D is how they're changing how they make money - not even so much what the game is going to offer for fans and gamers.
They need to come out with some positive news - and fast.


----------



## antiwesley

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't understand what's being accomplished here, other than, I guess, giving in-house OGL-haters data for the next time WotC has this in-house fight.



The remains of Hasbro that have a say in DnD have openly said that they feel DnD is not being monetized enough. This big change allows those people to be satisified as the big guns will now have to pay royalities.


----------



## Reynard

Morrus said:


> Which clause of the OGL do you interpret as prohibiting video games?



So it seems I was remembering the OGL FAQ from back in the day that said it was possible but in order to comply with the license the SRD info had to be accessible. The link directly to the FAQ seems to be broken but a few different searches shows the same thing:


----------



## Voadam

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't understand what's being accomplished here, other than, I guess, giving in-house OGL-haters data for the next time WotC has this in-house fight.



This is so that those who are below the royalty limit are still on WotC's radar and they will have another source of market data.

Lots of kickstarter people will be on this reporting threshold.


----------



## Thanlis

I let my computer tell me the differences between the 1.0 Morrus posted and the 1.0a on the OGF site. The only difference it found was in the Grant and Consideration section: royaltyfree changed to royalty-free. So I would say that's a fairly insignificant difference.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> This bit is interesting too:
> 
> *First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.*
> 
> This would seem to indicate that things likes character creation utilities and discord bots and the like are all out of bounds. It is anyone's guess how vehemently WotC will pursue these things, though.



Considering they're investing heavily in their own VTT, likely quite vehemently.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Retreater said:


> Just for me, it's too much "we want all the money" back-to-back statements. The most significant changes we're hearing about One D&D is how they're changing how they make money - not even so much what the game is going to offer for fans and gamers.



I read it as that way too, but since the OGL is irrevocable by design and you can just shrug and use v1.0a indefinitely instead. Why would anyone use version 1.1? I don't really see how that changes things in Wizard's favor.


----------



## overgeeked

mamba said:


> As a stand-alone license, sure, but once they tie the 1D&D SRD to it (which I assume they will), that might change.



But, if the new game is backwards compatible with the old SRD, why bother? You gain literally nothing by switching. Except the need to report your earnings to big brother and pay a royalty if you're lucky enough to make $750k a year off D&D stuff.


----------



## darjr

OK, this is what bugs me. It may not actually be an open license. Not with the revenue part. I'd be VERY interested in hearing more of what you think @Morrus

I know you probably have a lot of internal discussions and thinking to do though.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Somebody get Ryan Dancey on the phone so I can thank him for making sure that any version of the OGL could never be revoked. I'm sure they say his name over at Hasbro in hushed, hateful tones.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Retreater said:


> Just for me, it's too much "we want all the money" back-to-back statements. The most significant changes we're hearing about One D&D is how they're changing how they make money - not even so much what the game is going to offer for fans and gamers.
> They need to come out with some positive news - and fast.



That's colored by the fact that most of the "news" came from a "fireside chat" meant for _shareholders_, not customers. It's understandable that making money would be the focus over all other concerns. (And this is coming from me - someone who's pretty anti-capitalist, in spite of being pro-market).


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> Actually, upon re-reading the current OGL, it turns out the answer was there all along, specifically on part 9:
> 
> So that makes it very clear that, even if the 1D&D SRD is only published under the OGL v1.1, it doesn't matter; you can use it with the existing OGL just fine.



You're right. But that doesn't make sense for WotC. Why would they bother if no matter what they do it's all OGL anyway? There's something missing. Another shoe to drop in all this. It doesn't do any good for WotC to bother unless something else is changing.


----------



## Morrus

darjr said:


> OK, this is what bugs me. It may not actually be an open license. Not with the revenue part. I'd be VERY interested in hearing more of what you think @Morrus
> 
> I know you probably have a lot of internal discussions and thinking to do though.



I’m really not sure yet. Obviously we’ll be paying very close attention.


----------



## Voadam

overgeeked said:


> But, if the new game is backwards compatible with the old SRD, why bother? You gain literally nothing by switching. Except the need to report your earnings to big brother and pay a royalty if you're lucky enough to make $750k a year off D&D stuff.



Particularly with the Section 9 stuff if the new 1.1 is actually version 1.1 of the OGL.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

@Morrus I think we would all love a full article on your thoughts on this, once you've had time to digest it. No pressure!


----------



## Loren the GM

Thanlis said:


> I let my computer tell me the differences between the 1.0 Morrus posted and the 1.0a on the OGF site. The only difference it found was in the Grant and Consideration section: royaltyfree changed to royalty-free. So I would say that's a fairly insignificant difference.



Also in the Copyright, it is now an LLC instead of Inc.

The version of the OGL 1.0a that I'm finding (included with the SRD document on WotC site) also includes a copyright for the SRD content before the end of the OGL license.

Screenshot for comparison - most of the issues are just formatting of quotes and spacing copied and pasted from different files.


----------



## Mistwell

I mean, the royalty is only on the portion of income above $750K so if you're just slightly above that number it should be fairly meaningless. Let's say it's a 2% royalty. That's what, $5,000 if you make $1 Million in income off SRD material?


----------



## eyeheartawk

overgeeked said:


> You're right. But that doesn't make sense for WotC. Why would they bother if no matter what they do it's all OGL anyway? There's something missing. Another shoe to drop in all this. It doesn't do any good for WotC to bother unless something else is changing.



It's the only thing I can reason out too. Something else has to be coming out yet to tie to this somehow. Since there won't be a new (non-compatible) SRD there is no reason why anyone would switch to this new, worse, OGL. They wouldn't just announce a useless thing like this that also is likely to garner ill will without having some way to make it benefit them. I fear worse news is on the horizon.


----------



## overgeeked

overgeeked said:


> But, if the new game is backwards compatible with the old SRD, why bother? You gain literally nothing by switching. Except the need to report your earnings to big brother and pay a royalty if you're lucky enough to make $750k a year off D&D stuff.





eyeheartawk said:


> It's the only thing I can reason out too. Something else has to be coming out yet to tie to this somehow. Since there won't be a new (non-compatible) SRD there is no reason why anyone would switch to this new, worse, OGL. They wouldn't just announce a useless thing like this that also is likely to garner ill will without having some way to make it benefit them. I fear worse news is on the horizon.



Oh...duh. Access to their VTT. I'd bet they'll only allow 1.1 content on their platform.


----------



## Art Waring

I guess this is what they meant by "under monetized."


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> Here's v1.0:
> 
> The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and
> is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights
> Reserved.
> 1. Definitions: (a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark
> owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)”Derivative
> Material” means copyrighted material including derivative works and
> translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification,
> correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation,
> abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be
> recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute” means to reproduce,
> license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise
> distribute; (d)”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and
> includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent
> such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement
> over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified
> as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered
> by this License, including translations and derivative works under
> copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) “Product
> Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying
> marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories,
> storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork,
> symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts,
> themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations;
> names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments,
> personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places,
> locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
> abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other
> trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity
> by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes
> the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names, mark,
> sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or
> its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game
> License by the Contributor (g) “Use”, “Used” or “Using” means to use,
> Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create
> Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means
> the licensee in terms of this agreement.
> 2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that
> contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be
> Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice
> to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or
> subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself.
> No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content
> distributed using this License.
> 3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate
> Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
> 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this
> License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royaltyfree,
> non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use,
> the Open Game Content.
> 5. Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing
> original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions
> are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights
> to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
> 6. Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT
> NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT
> NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying
> or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and
> the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original
> Open Game Content you Distribute.
> 7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity,
> including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly
> licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each
> element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility
> or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark
> in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as
> expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner
> of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product
> Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the
> ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity
> used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in
> and to that Product Identity.
> 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must
> clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are
> Open Game Content.
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish
> updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version
> of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game
> Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
> 10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with
> every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
> 11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the
> Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have
> written permission from the Contributor to do so.
> 12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any
> of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open
> Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation
> then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
> 13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail
> to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30
> days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the
> termination of this License.
> 14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable,
> such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary
> to make it enforceable.
> 15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
> Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc



Hm, this is a bit confusing because, based on a review of some old products that use the OGL v1.0 and others which use the OGL v1.0a, this identifies itself as the former but uses the language of the latter.

Specifically, the only differences that I've found are in Section 7. The OGL v1.0 says the following:



> 7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.




Whereas Section 7 of the OGL v1.0a says the following (with additional words emboldened):



> 7. Use of Product Identity:  You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark *or Registered Trademark* in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark *or Registered Trademark*. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.




In other words, they added a few words to indicate that language dealing with trademarks also applied to registered trademarks, since the two aren't exactly the same thing.


----------



## eyeheartawk

overgeeked said:


> Oh...duh. Access to their VTT. I'd bet they'll only allow 1.1 content on their platform.



You're right, it's so obvious we should all have thought of it immediately. 

Normally I'd thumbs up a comment like this, but in this case, I can't bring myself to thumbs up something so gross.


----------



## overgeeked

overgeeked said:


> Oh...duh. Access to their VTT. I'd bet they'll only allow 1.1 content on their platform.



And 1.1 doesn't allow apps, programs, websites, etc. So it's a lot of exclusive content on their VTT.

Literally writing it into 1.1 that DNDBeyond is the one and only digital place for OneD&D.


----------



## darjr

What do other publishers on here think?

Any incentive to switch? An One D&D SRD doesn't seem like it would be enough, nor the badge.


----------



## darjr

eyeheartawk said:


> You're right, it's so obvious we should all have thought of it immediately.
> 
> Normally I'd thumbs up a comment like this, but in this case, I can't bring myself to thumbs up something so gross.



A week ago people were talking about that there wasn't third party access on dndbeyondd or the vtt.

Edit: moderated the comment some.


----------



## Alzrius

Loren the GM said:


> Also in the Copyright, it is now an LLC instead of Inc.
> 
> The version of the OGL 1.0a that I'm finding (included with the SRD document on WotC site) also includes a copyright for the SRD content before the end of the OGL license.
> 
> Screenshot for comparison - most of the issues are just formatting of quotes and spacing copied and pasted from different files.



Interesting that WotC changed from an Inc. to an LLC. That said, the specifics of what's under the Section 15 of each product that uses the OGL (which includes the different SRDs) are going to be different, as the license requires them to list a copyright notice for each such product in any work which uses the OGL. Which is to say, that's a difference between the SRDs rather than the different versions of the OGL itself.


----------



## eyeheartawk

darjr said:


> A week ago people were screaming that there wasn't third party access on dndbeyondd or the vtt.



Those people weren't me.

But if it was me, I would say that the gulf between "There is no third party content available" and "We'll be taking a cut of your sales (as I would be very surprised if you could buy this new VTT content on anything but their own platform) and then also taking royalties, oh and looking at your financials" is pretty vast.


----------



## darjr

eyeheartawk said:


> Those people weren't me.
> 
> But if it was me, I would say that the gulf between "There is no third party content available" and "We'll be taking a cut of your sales (as I would be very surprised if you could buy this new VTT content on anything but their own platform) and then also taking royalties, oh and looking at your financials" is pretty vast.



They take a cut on DMSguild? How would access to the VTT have been different? In fact I thought everyone assumed it would be a DMSguild like arrangement? If it's an OGL 1.1 arrangement it'll be considerably cheaper for the VAST majority of publishers.


----------



## Loren the GM

Alzrius said:


> Interesting that WotC changed from an Inc. to an LLC. That said, the specifics of what's under the Section 15 of each product that uses the OGL (which includes the different SRDs) are going to be different, as the license requires them to list a copyright notice for each such product in any work which uses the OGL. Which is to say, that's a difference between the SRDs rather than the different versions of the OGL itself.



Of course. I totally spaced on that as I was doing the comparison, that of course makes sense for Section 15. Thanks for the reminder on that!


----------



## eyeheartawk

darjr said:


> They take a cut on DMSguild? How would access to the VTT have been different? In fact I thought everyone assumed it would be a DMSguild like arrangement? If it's an OGL 1.1 arrangement it'll be considerably cheaper for the VAST majority of publishers.



I find the terms on DMs Guild to be pretty bad (mainly in the revenue split and the IP terms for your own content), but putting that aside do DMs Guild participants also pay a royalty on top of that or have to open their books? Because, I don't think they do? That's an honest question, I'm actually not so sure I don't much follow that space.


----------



## Malmuria

Some of the 5e creators who are being very vocal about this on twitter are coming off as very entitled to me.  They're framing an updated OGL as being a matter of "allowing" creative expression or not, ignoring not only that you can still use the existing OGL, but that you can also create as much ttrpg stuff you want for...other games.  Or even your own game.  Lots of people do it.  What they want is continued access to the 5e _market_, which is big and has lots of people wanting to spend money.


----------



## darjr

eyeheartawk said:


> I find the terms on DMs Guild to be pretty bad (mainly in the revenue split and the IP terms for your own content), but putting that aside do DMs Guild participants also pay a royalty on top of that or have to open their books? Because, I don't think they do? That's an honest question, I'm actually not so sure I don't much follow that space.



I get you dint.
DMsGuild takes 50% of your sales and essentially owns the rights.

Edited the above, in the DMsGuild yiu agree not to sell those products anywhere else.


----------



## Alzrius

overgeeked said:


> You're right. But that doesn't make sense for WotC. Why would they bother if no matter what they do it's all OGL anyway? There's something missing. Another shoe to drop in all this. It doesn't do any good for WotC to bother unless something else is changing.



My guess (and I want to stress that this is just a guess) is that this is the very most that they _can_ do, at least where they OGL is concerned. 

I mean, I think WotC knows that even if they don't post a 1D&D SRD, the game is likely back-compatible enough with 5E that it won't matter, so they're going to save themselves the bad press by posting a new SRD anyway. What I can't figure out is why they think anyone would use the OGL v1.1 when it has reporting requirements, registration requirements, and mandates royalties, instead of just using the existing OGL v1.0a. 

Section 9 of the OGL flat-out states that any Open Game Content (including the 1D&D SRD) can be used with any version of the OGL, so there's no reason for anyone to use the new version, as that seems to offer additional restrictions for no real advantages. The only thing I can think of is that they'll say this is a separate license that doesn't count as a new version of the OGL in terms of using its Open Game Content with older versions of the OGL...but the very fact that they're calling it the "OGL v1.1" flies in the face of that.


----------



## eyeheartawk

The opening of your financials really bothers me. That's something you have to do if you have like a separate bespoke licensing agreement for some IP. Like say you're making an "official" Star Wars RPG or something. That's not really in-line with what the OGL has been and should be. They're changing it to be more like the former that I described. 

Not good.


----------



## Retreater

eyeheartawk said:


> I read it as that way too, but since the OGL is irrevocable by design and you can just shrug and use v1.0a indefinitely instead. Why would anyone use version 1.1? I don't really see how that changes things in Wizard's favor.



Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.


----------



## overgeeked

Everyone was worried about WotC splitting the fandom with an updated edition, looks like it'll be because of the updated OGL. If the speculation of DNDBeyond and the VTT being exclusively 1.1, this will literally create a digital divide between OneD&D and 5E.


----------



## GDGD

darjr said:


> I get you dint.
> DMsGuild takes 50% of your sales and essentially owns the rights.
> 
> Edited the above, in the DMsGuild yiu agree not to sell those products anywhere else.




With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales. If it does, it's still a net win after you cough up 50% of the revenues. If not, you'd be better off under the OGL either on DriveThru or doing your own thing.


----------



## Nikosandros

Retreater said:


> Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.



But Section 9, specifies that you can use any version of the license with material released under any version. So, what prevents someone from using 1.0 with material released under 1.1?


----------



## Reynard

Retreater said:


> Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.



ninja'd by @Nikosandros 

Not apparently. The OGL states that you can use any OGC with any version of the OGL. If they release the 1D&D SRD by way of the 1.1 OGL, you can still use that in your 1.0a OGL product.

*_9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute a ny Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. *_


----------



## eyeheartawk

Nikosandros said:


> But Section 9, specifies that you can use any version of the license with material released under any version. So, what prevents someone from using 1.0 with material released under 1.1?



The fact that, admittedly presumably, that you wouldn't be able to sell it on the new digital hub that Hasbro wants to make central to everything. If it's as big as they're hoping that'll be a big factor to consider.


----------



## J.Quondam

Nikosandros said:


> But Section 9, specifies that you can use any version of the license with material released under any version. So, what prevents someone from using 1.0 with material released under 1.1?



Is the term "version" specifically defined anywhere? I suspec that word could be leveraged at least  to cause some legal indigestion for small-time creators.


----------



## Reynard

eyeheartawk said:


> The fact that, admittedly presumably, that you wouldn't be able to sell it on the new digital hub that Hasbro wants to make central to everything. If it's as big as they're hoping that'll be a big factor to consider.



Which can only really be the case if Beyond becomes not just convenient, but essential.


----------



## Alzrius

Nikosandros said:


> But Section 9, specifies that you can use any version of the license with material released under any version. So, what prevents someone from using 1.0 with material released under 1.1?



Absolutely nothing.

However, upon further thought, I'm wondering if WotC will create some new version of the old d20 STL – the now-defunct separate license that a lot of third-party publishers agreed to use back during the d20 boom, accepting several additional restrictions for the right to use the red-and-white d20 logo on the cover of their books – likely with a stipulation that you can only use it in products that use the OGL v1.1.


----------



## darjr

GDGD said:


> With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales. If it does, it's still a net win after you cough up 50% of the revenues. If not, you'd be better off under the OGL either on DriveThru or doing your own thing.



Agreed, unless you absolutely want to use WotC IP.


----------



## Reynard

J.Quondam said:


> Is the term "version" specifically defined anywhere? I suspec that word could be leveraged at least  to cause some legal indigestion for small-time creators.



"*_9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute a ny Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. *"_


----------



## Dire Bare

Morrus said:


> That $750K royalty thing is going to be ... interesting. As one of those publishers at that threshold, we're going to be having a lot of meetings in the near future, I predict!



Well, it's good to hear ENPublishing is in the top 20!!!


----------



## Mistwell

Art Waring said:


> I guess this is what they meant by "under monetized."



The money involved with these changes is very small. I don't think this is what they meant (and they said what they meant and it wasn't this).


----------



## AnotherGuy

I feel this was inevitable. Just look at how 3PP are successfully milking the player base with monthly subscriptions for additional content being produced. Everyone is doing it now - Level Up, Dragonix, Collville etc. WotC needed to safeguard their their online platform from 3PP - and basically said if you want to join pay the tax.

WotC cannot easily compete with 20 3PP producing monthly content - and typically of a high standard.


----------



## Mistwell

darjr said:


> What do other publishers on here think?
> 
> Any incentive to switch? An One D&D SRD doesn't seem like it would be enough, nor the badge.



I am guessing publishers will want to know WHAT the royalty is set to. For example (no basis for these numbers) if it's 1% on income above $750K I doubt many will care a lot, and if it's 20% on income above $750K they will care a lot.


----------



## Dire Bare

Retreater said:


> Just for me, it's too much "we want all the money" back-to-back statements. The most significant changes we're hearing about One D&D is how they're changing how they make money - not even so much what the game is going to offer for fans and gamers.
> They need to come out with some positive news - and fast.



There is definitely a change towards greater monetization of the OGL. Eh, doesn't bother me in the slightest, at least not with what we've heard so far.

The new license only requires royalties for publishers making over $750,000 in sales, and only on those sales above that limit. That's new for those publishers, and I'm sure they aren't happy about it, but it seems more than fair to me . . . use the D&D rules to make lots of money, share some of that revenue with D&D (or the company publishing D&D).

This affects fan-publishers and small-time publishers not in the least, other than new reporting requirements. Which again, is a change, and one not likely welcomed, but a small ask for the use of the D&D rules.

The clarified restrictions around other types of products than RPG books is, just that, clarification. I'm okay with it.


----------



## Art Waring

Mistwell said:


> The money involved with these changes is very small. I don't think this is what they meant (and they said what they meant and it wasn't this).



But we also don't know the contents of the finalized 1.1 version until release, there could be other limitations, such as needing corporate approval for your book based on content, or other factors that we aren't privy to yet.


----------



## darjr

eyeheartawk said:


> The opening of your financials really bothers me. That's something you have to do if you have like a separate bespoke licensing agreement for some IP. Like say you're making an "official" Star Wars RPG or something. That's not really in-line with what the OGL has been and should be. They're changing it to be more like the former that I described.
> 
> Not good.



this i agree with

I think it'll be a burden to far. In that if there is any wait on wotc during the publishing cycle small publishers will get hurt.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Which can only really be the case if Beyond becomes not just convenient, but essential.



Which they will very likely push for. One big way of doing that is making only 1.1 stuff available on Beyond.


----------



## glass

Malcolm Serabian said:


> Not sure what you see as a problem…



I am not @darjr, but for me the revenue reporting requirement seem unnecessarily intrusive. Not to mention, un-open.



GDGD said:


> With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales.



Or you have a product idea that can only be done on DMsGuild.



Nikosandros said:


> But Section 9, specifies that you can use any version of the license with material released under any version. So, what prevents someone from using 1.0 with material released under 1.1?



IANAL, but I fear the word "authorized" is doing some heavy lifting in the existing s.9. Possibly 1.1 could include some language to the effect that "versions of OGL prior to 1.1 are not authorized for content released under 1.1"?


----------



## Alzrius

The more I think about this, the more I think that WotC is going to have to provide some sort of incentive to get other companies to use the OGL v1.1. Given that what they've said here so far only seems to relate to additional restrictions, there's going to need to be some other reason for third-party publishers to use it, rather than sticking with existing versions of the license. 

I'm still guessing some new, separate license that will let third-parties use an "official" compatibility logo, a la the d20 STL, but I'm not sure that alone will be enough to make these changes palatable to most publishers.


----------



## irrg

Thanlis said:


> You are 100% correct -- I was just doing a compare of the two versions (thanks, Morrus) and I noticed the same thing.
> 
> I'd be interested in putting a small bet down on WotC deciding that the new license will be completely new, and not just a new version.



There is no obligation for WotC to use semantic versioning here, but, a full rewrite _would_, if they followed semver principles from software here, justifiably be called 2.0 instead of 1.1.


----------



## AnotherGuy

glass said:


> I am not @darjr, but for me the revenue reporting requirement seem unnecessarily intrusive. Not to mention, un-open.



How else can one fairly apply royalty/commission?


----------



## Dire Bare

eyeheartawk said:


> I find the terms on DMs Guild to be pretty bad (mainly in the revenue split and the IP terms for your own content), but putting that aside do DMs Guild participants also pay a royalty on top of that or have to open their books? Because, I don't think they do? That's an honest question, I'm actually not so sure I don't much follow that space.



DM's Guild creators pay 50% royalties (25% to WotC, 25% to OneBookShelf) and WotC retains the rights to their work. That is hefty, but still a pretty good deal if you want to create and sell D&D content using not just the rules, but WotC's IP. Plus, the DM's Guild is more "visible" for many creators than publishing something similar on other sites, even DriveThruRPG.

And if those terms are too onerous for any given creator, you still have the OGL. DriveThruRPG.com, a sister-site to the DM's Guild, charges creators 25% royalties. I imagine other retail sites have similar deals, and you always have the option of building your own company website with a store.

If you want to publish your "Guide to Faerun's Best Eateries" book and charge for it, the DM's Guild is your only real option. If you are content with publishing instead, "Guide to Fantasy Restaurants" without using any WotC IP, you have lots of options. However, your Realms-specific book might get more visibility on the DM's Guild site and see increased sales, balancing out the higher royalties.

I'd be interested in hearing from creators who do both, sell OGL and Guild products. Does the Guild really boost sales enough to balance out that higher royalty fee? I imagine opinions vary . . . .


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> Which can only really be the case if Beyond becomes not just convenient, but essential.



Oh, I don't think it needs to be essential to be worth it. D&D Beyond really is convenient - convenient enough that it already has a fairly thriving population of subscribers (my daughter maintains a sub there and she uses it with all of her D&D games, many of which are online). If I was a smallish 3pp and going with OGL 1.1 was the price to pay for having access to the D&D Beyond distribution channel, I'd probably do it assuming there wasn't some additional toxic provision.


----------



## darjr

AnotherGuy said:


> How else can one fairly apply royalty/commission?



True, but I think the opposition is regardless of why WotC wants it.


----------



## Alzrius

glass said:


> IANAL, but I fear the word "authorized" is doing some heavy lifting in the existing s.9. Possibly 1.1 could include some language to the effect that "versions of OGL prior to 1.1 are not authorized for content released under 1.1"?



I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think it works that way. Looking at Section 9 again:



> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License.  You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.




The work "authorized" is only mentioned with regard to any version of the License being something which you can publish Open Game Content under. Said Open Game Content can come from "any version of this License," authorized or not.

Or at least, that's my read on it.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> Which they will very likely push for. One big way of doing that is making only 1.1 stuff available on Beyond.



But they can't make Beyond the only outlet for 1D&D stuff, because of section 9. So they would have to convince 3PPs that Beyond is important enough to their model that they should go 1.1. And to do that, they have to have much more serious reach with Beyond than they have now.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Alzrius said:


> The more I think about this, the more I think that WotC is going to have to provide some sort of incentive to get other companies to use the OGL v1.1. Given that what they've said here so far only seems to relate to additional restrictions, there's going to need to be some other reason for third-party publishers to use it, rather than sticking with existing versions of the license.
> 
> I'm still guessing some new, separate license that will let third-parties use an "official" compatibility logo, a la the d20 STL, but I'm not sure that alone will be enough to make these changes palatable to most publishers.



Compatibility with their platform will be incentive enough.


----------



## Reynard

billd91 said:


> Oh, I don't think it needs to be essential to be worth it. D&D Beyond really is convenient - convenient enough that it already has a fairly thriving population of subscribers (my daughter maintains a sub there and she uses it with all of her D&D games, many of which are online). If I was a smallish 3pp and going with OGL 1.1 was the price to pay for having access to the D&D Beyond distribution channel, I'd probably do it assuming there wasn't some additional toxic provision.



What percentage of D&D players use Beyond? What percentage of those use 3PP content?


----------



## darjr

AnotherGuy said:


> Compatibility with their platform will be incentive enough.



I want to hear from publishers on this.

I wonder if it’s incentive for Russ? DMSGuild hasn’t been.


----------



## Alzrius

AnotherGuy said:


> Compatibility with their platform will be incentive enough.



Sorry, by "their platform" do you mean D&D Beyond? Because whether or not they'll allow third-party publishers to post their content on D&DB strikes me as being an entirely separate issue.


----------



## Sacrosanct

As a publisher, I want to know if it's net or gross.  I don't want to make any assumptions.  Gross?  Then I qualify for over $50,000.   Net?  Then I'm still technically in the red lol.

And yeah, I can work with the current OGL and not need the new one if it's Gross.  Maybe.  It depends on what 1DnD will ultimately look like for the SRD.


----------



## GreyLord

UngeheuerLich said:


> So it sounds like all wotc wants is that video game designers ask them politely?




I think this could also be targetted towards competitors of Beyond and others who may profit greatly electronically off of these ideas but which WotC sees nothing from.


----------



## Reynard

AnotherGuy said:


> Compatibility with their platform will be incentive enough.



Only if it is actually useful, and that can only be the case of Beyond makes it easy to get 3PP content into its format and system, which as I understand it has been a real struggle thus far.


----------



## Reynard

Sacrosanct said:


> As a publisher, I want to know if it's net or gross.  I don't want to make any assumptions.  Gross?  Then I qualify for over $50,000.   Net?  Then I'm still technically in the red lol.



What, you didn't get an NDA email? /s


----------



## AnotherGuy

Reynard said:


> But they can't make Beyond the only outlet for 1D&D stuff, because of section 9. So they would have to convince 3PPs that Beyond is important enough to their model that they should go 1.1. And to do that, they have to have much more serious reach with Beyond than they have now.



I think that's the plan looking into the future. They're laying the groundwork. I do believe they're gonna hook players in addition to just the DMs eventually.


----------



## kenmarable

Alzrius said:


> I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think it works that way. Looking at Section 9 again:
> 
> 
> 
> The work "authorized" is only mentioned with regard to any version of the License being something which you can publish Open Game Content under. Said Open Game Content can come from "any version of this License," authorized or not.
> 
> Or at least, that's my read on it.



Yep and that matches how Ryan Dancey as official representative of WotC at the time explained it. That’s also why 4e had a GSL rather than updated OGL. If OGL v1.1 is going to have increased restrictions it better also have benefits as good or better (such as access to sell on DDB or their VTT) or no one will use it.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Reynard said:


> What, you didn't get an NDA email? /s



No.  I guess I'm not big enough.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Reynard said:


> But they can't make Beyond the only outlet for 1D&D stuff, because of section 9. So they would have to convince 3PPs that Beyond is important enough to their model that they should go 1.1. And to do that, they have to have much more serious reach with Beyond than they have now.



You remember how in 4E you couldn't get anybody to make a character without using Character Builder? 

Imagine that but tied into a full 3d accelerated virtual tabletop, and what DnD Beyond offers now, plus whatever else is in the works. Plus, you can throw in free electronic versions of books (like they did with the recent Dragonlance release, if you ordered the bundle from their own webstore) but those are only accessible on Beyond and you can see how it all adds up to a pretty enticing proposition for users. 

That's the leverage.


----------



## Reynard

AnotherGuy said:


> I think that's the plan looking into the future. They're laying the groundwork. I do believe they're gonna hook players in addition to just the DMs eventually.



Probably, but I don't see it. Maybe younger players engage D&D differently enough that beyond will become "essential" for most of them. I find it not worth the trouble.


----------



## Reynard

eyeheartawk said:


> You remember how in 4E you couldn't get anybody to make a character without using Character Builder?
> 
> Imagine that but tied into a full 3d accelerated virtual tabletop, and what DnD Beyond offers now, plus whatever else is in the works. Plus, you can throw in free electronic versions of books (like they did with the recent Dragonlance release, if you ordered the bundle from their own webstore) but those are only accessible on Beyond and you can see how it all adds up to a pretty enticing proposition for users.
> 
> That's the leverage.



Not if WotC doesn't provide some coding service for your content. Most of the people I have worked with and for making 5E content aren't coders. Asking small 3PP to take on the additional expense of finding people to code their stuff for Beyond and the VTT is probably not going to work. The margins are slim enough as it is.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Reynard said:


> Not if WotC doesn't provide some coding service for your content. Most of the people I have worked with and for making 5E content aren't coders. Asking small 3PP to take on the additional expense of finding people to code their stuff for Beyond and the VTT is probably not going to work. The margins are slim enough as it is.



Dollars to donuts, they will. 

They'll make importing your content as accessible as, say, Squarespace makes web design accessible. 

For the causal chain to make sense, to get to their goal of _Making All The Money™, _they will.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Reynard said:


> Probably, but I don't see it. Maybe younger players engage D&D differently enough that beyond will become "essential" for most of them. I find it not worth the trouble.



I'm with you. The youngster in my group has an account there and he's just a player.


----------



## Bedrockgames

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am not a creator. But it does not sound like the sky is falling. A little more restrictive, but I mean, making 750k a year does not look like it affects most people (leess than 20 as they say).




I think the issue is it makes companies that have been very independent, more beholden to WOTC. Reporting your company's revenue to another company is not something businesses do lightly. Giving royalties also could be an issue. I suspect it will present a significant choice for those 750k companies. It also gives WOTC a lot of crucial information about sales in the hobby in general.


----------



## GreyLord

Mistwell said:


> I mean, the royalty is only on the portion of income above $750K so if you're just slightly above that number it should be fairly meaningless. Let's say it's a 2% royalty. That's what, $5,000 if you make $1 Million in income off SRD material?




That would be 20K, not 5K.  I don't know what percentage they would want, but I would think something more akin to 5% than 2% if they stick more to general royalties.  OR, it could be a changing scale, say 1% at 750K, 2% at 1 million, 3% at 2 million, 4% at 5 million, and 5% at 10 million and above.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Not if WotC doesn't provide some coding service for your content. Most of the people I have worked with and for making 5E content aren't coders. Asking small 3PP to take on the additional expense of finding people to code their stuff for Beyond and the VTT is probably not going to work. The margins are slim enough as it is.



Or they will make it like homebrewing things in DNDBeyond. Click this, type there, press a button. The vast majority of subclasses, spells, magic items, etc are minor variations on gain proficiency here, add a bonus here, add a die there, advantage, disadvantage, etc. It also makes the background changes make more sense. It's easier to pick two languages, two skills, and a feat than it would be to program in something like the noble's peasant mind control. They only have to code that once instead of a hundred minor variations on the theme.


----------



## Loren the GM

Reynard said:


> But they can't make Beyond the only outlet for 1D&D stuff, because of section 9. So they would have to convince 3PPs that Beyond is important enough to their model that they should go 1.1. And to do that, they have to have much more serious reach with Beyond than they have now.



D&D Beyond has over 10 million registered users, and it is becoming the front door for WotC to communicate with their customers. As THE official destination for all things digital D&D, having product in their store with a user base that big would definitely be a big draw for creators. If integration into the platform is offered as part of that store front, that is even bigger draw (the character options offered are now available in the character builder, the magic items are now in the magic item database, the adventure can be built out fully into the coming VTT and sold, etc.).

We don't know registered user numbers for DM's Guild, but I would guess it is significantly lower than that. Web traffic analysis suggests they get less than a million visits each month. DrivethruRPG is estimated around 2 million visits a month, and their users are across all RPG's and not just D&D. DND Beyond gets about 14 million a month. That would indicate a much larger sales audience than either of the other major store fronts for D&D content, and a huge draw for creators.


----------



## J.Quondam

To be clear, has the actual verbiage of this updated OGL been released, or is the only info the material in the PR/blog post at DDB?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Loren the GM said:


> D&D Beyond has over 10 million registered users, and it is becoming the front door for WotC to communicate with their customers. As THE official destination for all things digital D&D, having product in their store with a user base that big would definitely be a big draw for creators.



This here is the #1 reason to use the new OGL, as a publisher.  For this publisher anyway.


----------



## Alzrius

J.Quondam said:


> To be clear, has the actual verbiage of this updated OGL been released, or is the only info the material in the PR/blog post at DDB?



The latter.


----------



## Malmuria

Dire Bare said:


> There is definitely a change towards greater monetization of the OGL. Eh, doesn't bother me in the slightest, at least not with what we've heard so far.




I'm not in favor of the game being, at or near its core, a subscription-based service, even if I'm not going to subscribe one way or another.  I just can't help note the irony that some of the people campaigning for #opendnd have monetized every aspect of their "creative" process.  They're peddling kickstarters with $175 tiers and Patreons with $20/month subscription levels; wotc would get skewered for charging those kinds of prices.  I put "creative" in quotation marks because these products are highly derivative of wotc's game and book design at best and at worst are full of problematic fantasy tropes.  It's like listening to an airbnb host complain about corporate greed.


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> What percentage of D&D players use Beyond? What percentage of those use 3PP content?



Would I care? Probably not. I'd be more interested in knowing how many subscribing users there are and what the trend is more than the proportion of the full D&D community. Having access to a user base of millions (and growing) where they can get my published materials easily onto their character sheets without having to set up custom material? And all I have to do is report a few bits of financial info on my sales and, if I break into the big time, pay a royalty?


----------



## J.Quondam

Alzrius said:


> The latter.



Ah. So there's still room for... umm... "surprises."


----------



## overgeeked

Loren the GM said:


> D&D Beyond has over 10 million registered users, and it is becoming the front door for WotC to communicate with their customers. As THE official destination for all things digital D&D, having product in their store with a user base that big would definitely be a big draw for creators. If integration into the platform is offered as part of that store front, that is even bigger draw (the character options offered are now available in the character builder, the magic items are now in the magic item database, the adventure can be built out fully into the coming VTT and sold, etc.).
> 
> We don't know registered user numbers for DM's Guild, but I would guess it is significantly lower than that. Web traffic analysis suggests they get less than a million visits each month. DrivethruRPG is estimated around 2 million visits a month, and their users are across all RPG's and not just D&D. DND Beyond gets about 14 million a month. That would indicate a much larger sales audience than either of the other major store fronts for D&D content, and a huge draw for creators.



Wow. I knew it was big, but damn.


----------



## Nikosandros

J.Quondam said:


> To be clear, has the actual verbiage of this updated OGL been released, or is the only info the material in the PR/blog post at DDB?



The latter. 1.1 will be released in 2023.


----------



## overgeeked

Malmuria said:


> I'm not in favor of the game being, at or near its core, a subscription-based service, even if I'm not going to subscribe one way or another.  I just can't help note the irony that some of the people campaigning for #opendnd have monetized every aspect of their "creative" process.  They're peddling kickstarters with $175 tiers and Patreons with $20/month subscription levels; wotc would get skewered for charging those kinds of prices.  I put "creative" in quotation marks because these products are highly derivative of wotc's game and book design at best and at worst are full of problematic fantasy tropes.  It's like listening to an airbnb host complain about corporate greed.



While I like a lot of the creatives involved and a fair amount of their actual output, as someone who started in 1984, I can't help but notice that a whole lot of 3PP are selling older-edition content and ideas to players new to D&D with 5E.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Alzrius said:


> Sorry, by "their platform" do you mean D&D Beyond? Because whether or not they'll allow third-party publishers to post their content on D&DB strikes me as being an entirely separate issue.



Hmmm I've been following @overgeeked's thought process that D&D Beyond will have an  exclusive 1D&D section. Perhaps this is a wrong train of thought but it makes sense to me and for WotC to put these structures in before they begin releasing 1D&D material. I imagine the online platform will see some heavy investment to make it more marketable going into the future.


----------



## overgeeked

AnotherGuy said:


> Hmmm I've been following @overgeeked's thought process that D&D Beyond will have an  exclusive 1D&D section. Perhaps this is a wrong train of thought but it makes sense to me and for WotC to put these structures in before they begin releasing 1D&D material. I imagine the online platform will see some heavy investment to make it more marketable going into the future.



Yeah, it's pure speculation, but it's the only thing that makes any sense at all. Without that, creating a more restrictive OGL makes no sense.


----------



## Alzrius

AnotherGuy said:


> Hmmm I've been following @overgeeked's thought process that D&D Beyond will have an  exclusive 1D&D section. Perhaps this is a wrong train of thought but it makes sense to me and for WotC to put these structures in before they begin releasing 1D&D material. I imagine the online platform will see some heavy investment to make it more marketable going into the future.



That's entirely possible. Trying to guess exactly what WotC is going to do with D&DB is, at this point, gazing into a crystal ball; there's no way we can be sure of what they'll do, though insofar as the new OGL v1.1 goes, I do think they're going to try offering some sort of incentive(s) to entice third-party publishers to use it. If they allow compatible material on D&DB, requiring it to use the OGL v1.1 could potentially be one way to do it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GreyLord said:


> I think this could also be targetted towards competitors of Beyond and others who may profit greatly electronically off of these ideas but which WotC sees nothing from.



Does not sound too dumb.


----------



## Mistwell

GreyLord said:


> That would be 20K, not 5K.  I don't know what percentage they would want, but I would think something more akin to 5% than 2% if they stick more to general royalties.  OR, it could be a changing scale, say 1% at 750K, 2% at 1 million, 3% at 2 million, 4% at 5 million, and 5% at 10 million and above.



No I am pretty sure I did that calculation correctly. Again, it's ONLY ON THE PORTION ABOVE $750K. So if you made $1M in income from SRD sales, you pay a royalty only on the last $250K. $250K * 2% = $5000. And yes it might be a sliding scale.


----------



## GreyLord

Mistwell said:


> No I am pretty sure I did that calculation correctly. Again, it's ONLY ON THE PORTION ABOVE $750K. So if you made $1M in income from SRD sales, you pay a royalty only on the last $250K. $250K * 2% = $5000. And yes it might be a sliding scale.




Ah, I was putting against the entirety of the million rather than just the remainder over 750K.


----------



## Malmuria

overgeeked said:


> While I like a lot of the creatives involved and a fair amount of their actual output, as someone who started in 1984, I can't help but notice that a whole lot of 3PP are selling older-edition content and ideas to players new to D&D with 5E.



I see a lot of "50 new magic items!  13 new subclasses!  Get access to the NPC deck!  Back this adventure path in which the BBEG are orientalized Egyptian gnolls, only $100!"

I'm sorry but go to exalted funeral and pick a product completely at random and it will have more soul and craft put into it than these 5e hustles.


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> That's entirely possible. Trying to guess exactly what WotC is going to do with D&DB is, at this point, gazing into a crystal ball; there's no way we can be sure of what they'll do, though insofar as the new OGL v1.1 goes, I do think they're going to try offering some sort of incentive(s) to entice third-party publishers to use it. If they allow compatible material on D&DB, requiring it to use the OGL v1.1 could potentially be one way to do it.



Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.


----------



## Alzrius

overgeeked said:


> Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.



Well, one idea I've mentioned before is that they may put out something like the old d20 STL; a separate license used in conjunction with the OGL v1.1 so that you can use an "official" compatibility logo on the cover of your book (remember that old red-and-white d20 logo from the 3E boom years?).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Alzrius said:


> That's entirely possible. Trying to guess exactly what WotC is going to do with D&DB is, at this point, gazing into a crystal ball; there's no way we can be sure of what they'll do, though insofar as the new OGL v1.1 goes, I do think they're going to try offering some sort of incentive(s) to entice third-party publishers to use it. If they allow compatible material on D&DB, requiring it to use the OGL v1.1 could potentially be one way to do it.




Which seems to indicate they don't kill the OGL and actually plan to bring 3rd party creators on board for a fee if it is successful.
So time to panick? Probably not.

Grats to @Morrus for achieving that mark of being noticed.


----------



## overgeeked

Malmuria said:


> I'm sorry but go to exalted funeral and pick a product completely at random and it will have more soul and craft put into it than these 5e hustles.



Absolutely. That’s one major reason I like the OSR. So much weird and wild creativity.


----------



## Voadam

overgeeked said:


> Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.



I remember the Kenzer people saying that being able to label their 3e Kalamar stuff as official D&D was worth far more to them than what they could do under the OGL and they were happy with that as part of their settlement with WotC for WotC's infringement of their IP in the Dragon archive CD.

WotC has a few options for offering up different incentives. Until they announce something it will be a lot of speculation.

Until WotC announces more all they have announced is a new license with downsides that can be avoided by using the old one.


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> Well, one idea I've mentioned before is that they may put out something like the old d20 STL; a separate license used in conjunction with the OGL v1.1 so that you can use an "official" compatibility logo on the cover of your book (remember that old red-and-white d20 logo from the 3E boom years?).



Uh…I’m sure most 3PP would take the exclusive use of a sales platform with 15 million views a month.


----------



## Alzrius

overgeeked said:


> Uh…I’m sure most 3PP would take the exclusive use of a sales platform with 15 million views a month.



I have no doubt they would, if it's offered. But there's no reason WotC can't do both.


----------



## Alzrius

Voadam said:


> I remember the Kenzer people saying that being able to label their 3e Kalamar stuff as official D&D was worth far more to them than what they could do under the OGL and they were happy with that as part of their settlement with WotC for WotC's infringement of their IP in the Dragon archive CD.



The funny thing is that I remember hearing a few years ago (though I can't find any mention of it now) another case involving the same underlying issue; that someone put out a compilation archive which included licensed material. It went to trial, and the company that put out the archive won; so precedent was set in a manner that wouldn't favor Kenzer if something like that happened today! (Though, again, this is all hearsay on my part.)


----------



## glass

AnotherGuy said:


> How else can one fairly apply royalty/commission?



Well, "not at all" seemed to work for 1.0A.



Alzrius said:


> The work "authorized" is only mentioned with regard to any version of the License being something which you can publish Open Game Content under. Said Open Game Content can come from "any version of this License," authorized or not.



Exactly. The licence that has to be "authorised" is the one you want to publish under. Far from alleviating my concern, that is the source of it.


----------



## Morrus

overgeeked said:


> Uh…I’m sure most 3PP would take the exclusive use of a sales platform with 15 million views a month.



Are you? You say a lot of stuff.


----------



## overgeeked

Voadam said:


> I remember the Kenzer people saying that being able to label their 3e Kalamar stuff as official D&D was worth far more to them than what they could do under the OGL and they were happy with that as part of their settlement with WotC for WotC's infringement of their IP in the Dragon archive CD.



That's a rather unique situation though, yeah? That's not likely to help anyone else. Having a little black, red, and white badge saying "d20" on the cover isn't going to boost most company's sales like that.


Voadam said:


> WotC has a few options for offering up different incentives. Until they announce something it will be a lot of speculation.
> 
> Until WotC announces more all they have announced is a new license with downsides that can be avoided by using the old one.



Right. And some of us are speculating why they'd do that. Why release a new, more restrictive OGL when the old one is trivial to use. One of the very few reasons that make sense is DNDBeyond exclusivity.


Alzrius said:


> I have no doubt they would, if it's offered. But there's no reason WotC can't do both.



No, of course not.


----------



## Alzrius

glass said:


> Well, "not at all" seemed to work for 1.0A.
> 
> 
> Exactly. The licence that has to be "authorised" is the one you want to publish under. Far from alleviating my concern, that is the source of it.



I mean, I _suppose_ that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> What does share-alike mean? Like, posting stuff here? And is the OGL 1.1 really saying you have to register everything with WotC? Is there going to be a content clause, then?



I haven’t read the whole thread so not sure if this has been address already, but it didn’t seem to have been in the first few pages. Share-alike is a kind of copyright license that requires copies or adaptations to be published under the same license as the original. I don’t know if the OGL is a share-alike license, but that would make sense from my (limited) understanding of the OGL. If that’s correct, I suspect they’re using the term “share-alike content” to refer generally content published under either OGL. So, “If you’re making share-alike content, very little is going to change from what you’re already used to” basically means, if you’re used to making content under OGL 1.0, very little will change should you make content under OGL 1.1


----------



## darjr

Alzrius said:


> I mean, I _suppose_ that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.



Not to mention there are probably laws to protect folks agains shenanigans like that.


----------



## delericho

Hurrah! They've invented the GSL.


----------



## overgeeked

Morrus said:


> Are you?



Well, "most" yeah. For folks like you and the other 19 companies world-wide making more than $750,000 a year on D&D the maths might be entirely different. The creators making less than that (i.e. most) might be really enticed into signing on to 1.1 for an exclusive platform with 14 million views a month.


----------



## Art Waring

Alzrius said:


> I mean, I _suppose_ that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.



If they could have done that they would have done it already when they released the 4e GSL. This is probably the best solution they can present to the actually-open original OGL.


----------



## Alzrius

darjr said:


> Not to mention there are probably laws to protect folks agains shenanigans like that.



Even in the OGL itself, I suspect that would run afoul of Section 4, which says that it grants you a "perpetual" (among other terms) license, which according to Section 13 can only be terminated if you fail to obey its terms. Given that there's no clause about the license being "de-authorized," I think that's probably not going to happen.


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> I mean, I _suppose_ that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.



And we're right back to the idea that being legally right and being able to afford to prove it in court are two wildly separate things.


----------



## RangerWickett

eyeheartawk said:


> The opening of your financials really bothers me.



I mean, I'd be down if WotC reciprocated. Tell us how many units you sell, Hasbro, and who gets what cut of the profits, and how much all your employees and freelancers make. Transparency will lead to more accountability and better treatment of the little guy, but only if the big guy plays by the same rules.


----------



## Alzrius

overgeeked said:


> And we're right back to the idea that being legally right and being able to afford to prove it in court are two wildly separate things.



It's certainly true that the legal system itself can be weaponized when adverse parties have major differences in what they can afford, but given how the OGL is both brief and comparatively clear...maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time not seeing anything like what you're describing quickly going to summary judgment in a way that won't be in WotC's favor.


----------



## mamba

eyeheartawk said:


> I read it as that way too, but since the OGL is irrevocable by design and you can just shrug and use v1.0a indefinitely instead. Why would anyone use version 1.1? I don't really see how that changes things in Wizard's favor.



yeah, if I have a choice of using 1.0a or 1.1, I see no reason to ever use 1.1. Still kinda unsure about the new SRD and how that works out. If this really can be used with 1.0a, then I am not sure why WotC even bothers with this 1.1 iteration


----------



## kenmarable

overgeeked said:


> And we're right back to the idea that being legally right and being able to afford to prove it in court are two wildly separate things.



But also keep in mind that the language of the OGL is specifically based on open-source software licenses, and if WotC wanted to try taking it to court to revoke an irrevocable license, there would be many interested parties even larger than Hasbro that would be quite keen on making sure that precedent is not set. I can't see the WotC legal team being willing to take that risk when there are easier ways to avoid it.

(Not to mention anyone spending some time Googling and hitting archive.org can find plenty of official WotC statements from Ryan Dancey that would count against WotC's case.)


----------



## Dire Bare

Malmuria said:


> I'm not in favor of the game being, at or near its core, a subscription-based service, even if I'm not going to subscribe one way or another.  I just can't help note the irony that some of the people campaigning for #opendnd have monetized every aspect of their "creative" process.  They're peddling kickstarters with $175 tiers and Patreons with $20/month subscription levels; wotc would get skewered for charging those kinds of prices.  I put "creative" in quotation marks because these products are highly derivative of wotc's game and book design at best and at worst are full of problematic fantasy tropes.  It's like listening to an airbnb host complain about corporate greed.



There are fans who share their created content only to share their passion for the hobby. They distribute their fan-work for free, or for a very low cost on sites like DriveThruRPG or the DM's Guild, mostly for the visibility rather than hopes of making any money. Some use the OGL  or the DM's Guild license, others the WotC fan content policy, others don't worry about licenses and policies at all. I am 100% certain WotC isn't going to crack down on this sort of community sharing, like TSR did in the days of old.

And there are fans who love the idea of possibly making a living, or at least a decent side-hustle, designing for their favorite game. They share their content on DriveThru, DM's Guild, and other sites very much hoping to make money. Like anyone offering art for profit, they have to balance maximizing their income and offering a "fair deal" to their customers. That includes Kickstarters (and other crowdfunding options) and subscription fees . . . . 

And it's all okay. If any publisher offers a deal you don't like, just don't patronize them. There is so much good content out there, ranging from free to pricey, you can afford to be choosy. Complaining about these creators trying to make money from their creative endeavors . . . . sigh.

Most of the products designed to supplement D&D . . . . carry forward D&D's fantasy tropes and of course the rules themselves. Of course they do, they wouldn't be D&D supplements otherwise, seems an odd complaint. The quality of OGL and Guild products vary widely, in both game design, world-building, and moving away from problematic fantasy tropes. There are a good number of creators out there who are very aware of problematic tropes in fantasy literature and D&D, and work to avoid those in their products. There are plenty of creators who take D&D . . . and take it into some very innovative and creative places.

WotC has released some details of the upcoming OGL changes . . . and they will impact folks creating for the game. There will be reporting requirements that didn't exist before, and royalties for the big-time publishers. Of course these folks aren't going to be happy about these changes. But I agree, what is being asked of creators using the OGL (so far, at least) seems more than reasonable. You want to use somebody else's game to make some money, jumping through some (small) hoops to do so, or sharing some of that revenue if you make a lot, doesn't seem unfair to me.


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> I mean, I _suppose_ that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.



That would be the argument if they went that route.

If it came to it, it would be Paizo fighting it. Everybody else would be on the periphery watching.


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> It's certainly true that the legal system itself can be weaponized when adverse parties have major differences in what they can afford, but given how the OGL is both brief and comparatively clear...maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time not seeing anything like what you're describing quickly going to summary judgment in a way that won't be in WotC's favor.



You have infinitely more faith in the judicial system (insert Dana Carvey clip here) than I do.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Welp.

Now we know how they plan to (fail to) monetize 5.5e.


----------



## glass

Alzrius said:


> I mean, I _suppose_ that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.



I _really_ hope you're right, but I still have my doubts. If "authorized" does not mean what I think it means, then what does it mean? Why is it there in the first place?



Alzrius said:


> Even in the OGL itself, I suspect that would run afoul of Section 4, which says that it grants you a "perpetual" (among other terms) license, which according to Section 13 can only be terminated if you fail to obey its terms. Given that there's no clause about the license being "de-authorized," I think that's probably not going to happen.



Nobody is talking about anything being "de-authorized". That is clearly impossible.

This is about the 1D&D SRD which has not been released as Open Content (on the basis of not existing yet), and what might be possible when it eventually is. Which is at worst a minor inconvenience unless there is some pretty big carrot attached to the 1.1 OGL.

But again IANAL (or a publisher for that matter - although I aspire to be one one day), so maybe I am worrying about nothing.


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.



it’s the current edition of the license, not of the actual game content, so you are not publishing a retroclone. Also, most stuff is adventures, monster manuals, etc to begin with, not other TTRPGs, so it would not be retroclone anyway


----------



## Remathilis

Ok, I'm not a lawyer or a publisher, but from what I'm guessing is going to happen.

1. They are shutting down any competing software that competes against D&D Beyond or the VTT unless they ask WotC for a license. Ditto video games. 

2. They are going to probably use the carrot of access to said software to get people to use 1.1.

3. They aren't too concerned with hobbyists selling PDFs, but I think they will want to funnel them to DMsGuild. They are looking at the bigger companies and wanting them to bend the knee. 

4. And some will. Imagine Keith Baker's Eberron or Darrington Press's Exandria Reborn on D&D Beyond. Much like how Blood Hunter or Gunslinger is there already. It will give them a closer sense of "official" than some of it had.

5. Mostly, I think they want to make sure they never create another Paizo situation again.

But for now, I see it as WotC protecting their investment in software and such.


----------



## J.Quondam

Having two significantly different OGLs floating around seems like a _major_ headache in the making.
I honestly won't be surprised if WotC decides to release OneD&D under a completely new open license that they can say is clearly distinct from the existing OGL lineage. Call it "Open D&D License" or something, and avoid the confusion on a topic that is already super-confusing for most people, if the volume of social media derp is any indication.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> yeah, if I have a choice of using 1.0a or 1.1, I see no reason to ever use 1.1. Still kinda unsure about the new SRD and how that works out. If this really can be used with 1.0a, then I am not sure why WotC even bothers with this 1.1 iteration



One possibility is that WotC will require compliance with 1.1 if you want to see on their marketplace(s) for Beyond and/or the VTT.


----------



## Reynard

J.Quondam said:


> Having two significantly different OGLs floating around seems like a _major_ headache in the making.
> I honestly won't be surprised if WotC decides to release OneD&D under a completely new open license that they can say is clearly distinct from the existing OGL lineage. Call it "Open D&D License" or something, and avoid the confusion on a topic that is already super-confusing for most people, if the volume of social media derp is any indication.



Where have I seen this before....


----------



## Alby87

Retreater said:


> Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.



Time for the NOSR (New Old School Renaissance)!


Reynard said:


> Which can only really be the case if Beyond becomes not just convenient, but essential.




Just an example: they put all new material on Beyond with a time-exclusive of, say, one year. New adventures, new subclasses, new rules, only accessible via Beyond. THEN, after a year, there will be also the book. They did this already for Dragonlance, albeit for two weeks between electronic and book release, but still...

---
Reading the OGL, Section 4:

*Grant and Consideration:*_ In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content._

This is perpetual until the license is valid. Until the OGL license is valid, every content under it is licensed perpetually. But the OGL needs to be valid.

Section 9:
*Updating the License:*_ Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any *authorized version* of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License._

Authorized version. If WotC will revoke the authorization, section 4 will be voided, and so all the "perpetual grants". There are no writings about not revokability of the OGL authorization.

I'm no lawyer, but if this loophole is usable, they could kill all the previous OGL 1.0a releases...


----------



## Reynard

Alby87 said:


> Just an example: they put all new material on Beyond with a time-exclusive of, say, one year. New adventures, new subclasses, new rules, only accessible via Beyond. THEN, after a year, there will be also the book. They did this already for Dragonlance, albeit for two weeks between electronic and book release, but still...



I can't see WotC wanting to get out of the dead tree trade, because that is what this would do.


----------



## darjr

For the folks that do not remember. There was a bloke putting things on a web site. An IP Lawyer. I think it was monster stat blocks. WotC sent a cease and desist and he came here to post on the thread about it. Said WotC would back down, and they did. If I remember correctly it was all based on the "rules can't be copyrighted" argument. I'll see if I can find that thread.


----------



## Alzrius

glass said:


> I _really_ hope you're right, but I still have my doubts. If "authorized" does not mean what I think it means, then what does it mean? Why is it there in the first place?



Well, I can't speak to what WotC intended when they put out the license, but given that the use of the term comes right after a sentence talking about how "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License," it's to reference any version of the OGL put out by someone who isn't Wizards of the Coast or a designated agent of theirs. I have no idea how likely such a thing is, or who would do that or why, but then again licensing terms tend (in my experience) to try and cover various contingencies regardless of likelihood.


glass said:


> Nobody is talking about anything being "de-authorized". That is clearly impossible.
> 
> This is about the 1D&D SRD which has not been released as Open Content (on the basis of not existing yet), and what might be possible when it eventually is. Which is at worst a minor inconvenience unless there is some pretty big carrot attached to the 1.1 OGL.
> 
> But again IANAL (or a publisher for that matter - although I aspire to be one one day), so maybe I am worrying about nothing.



Well, then I misunderstood you before. I thought you were mentioning the use of the term "authorized" out of a worry that WotC would try to say that older versions of the OGL were no longer authorized to publish Open Game Content from newer versions of the license, which I see as being very unlikely on their part and unlikely to succeed if they tried. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean with regard to mentioning that particular word?


----------



## darjr

Alby87 said:


> Time for the NOSR (New Old School Renaissance)!
> 
> 
> Just an example: they put all new material on Beyond with a time-exclusive of, say, one year. New adventures, new subclasses, new rules, only accessible via Beyond. THEN, after a year, there will be also the book. They did this already for Dragonlance, albeit for two weeks between electronic and book release, but still...
> 
> ---
> Reading the OGL, Section 4:
> 
> *Grant and Consideration:*_ In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content._
> 
> This is perpetual until the license is valid. Until the OGL license is valid, every content under it is licensed perpetually. But the OGL needs to be valid.
> 
> Section 9:
> *Updating the License:*_ Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any *authorized version* of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License._
> 
> Authorized version. If WotC will revoke the authorization, section 4 will be voided, and so all the "perpetual grants". There are no writings about not revokability of the OGL authorization.
> 
> I'm no lawyer, but if this loophole is usable, they could kill all the previous OGL 1.0a releases...



But the OGL 1.0 is ALREADY authorized. It's done. And if OGL 1.1 is released, presumably it'll be authorized as well.


----------



## Morrus

Alby87 said:


> Time for the NOSR (New Old School Renaissance)!
> 
> 
> Just an example: they put all new material on Beyond with a time-exclusive of, say, one year. New adventures, new subclasses, new rules, only accessible via Beyond. THEN, after a year, there will be also the book. They did this already for Dragonlance, albeit for two weeks between electronic and book release, but still...
> 
> ---
> Reading the OGL, Section 4:
> 
> *Grant and Consideration:*_ In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content._
> 
> This is perpetual until the license is valid. Until the OGL license is valid, every content under it is licensed perpetually. But the OGL needs to be valid.
> 
> Section 9:
> *Updating the License:*_ Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any *authorized version* of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License._
> 
> Authorized version. If WotC will revoke the authorization, section 4 will be voided, and so all the "perpetual grants". There are no writings about not revokability of the OGL authorization.
> 
> I'm no lawyer, but if this loophole is usable, they could kill all the previous OGL 1.0a releases...



The license has no language pertaining to ‘de-authorization’. We can post our armchair legal opinions here on the forum, and people can make     videos and post tweets, but if that angle was attempted? It would be decided in a courtroom, by lawyers and judges, not by random bystanders on the internet.

The lengthy ensuing legal battles would certainly keep my news business running for years! Not just Paizo, but other companies which have used the OGL to share non D&D stuff, such as Evil Hat. It’ll be a firework show, for sure.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Where have I seen this before....



If they're repeating the mistakes of the GSL, at least they could bring back some of the "mistakes" of 4E that made it great.


----------



## Bedrockgames

overgeeked said:


> And we're right back to the idea that being legally right and being able to afford to prove it in court are two wildly separate things.




I could be wrong but I think very little of the common wisdom regarding RPGs and IP have been tested in the courts. That can sometimes produce unexpected results if it ever goes there.


----------



## Alzrius

Alby87 said:


> Section 9:
> *Updating the License:*_ Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any *authorized version* of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License._
> 
> Authorized version. If WotC will revoke the authorization, section 4 will be voided, and so all the "perpetual grants". There are no writings about not revokability of the OGL authorization.
> 
> I'm no lawyer, but if this loophole is usable, they could kill all the previous OGL 1.0a releases...



There is no provision in the OGL for revoking authorization. On the contrary, it expressly states that the license is perpetual in nature.


----------



## MoonSong

Alzrius said:


> Section 9 of the OGL flat-out states that any Open Game Content (including the 1D&D SRD) can be used with any version of the OGL, so there's no reason for anyone to use the new version, as that seems to offer additional restrictions for no real advantages. The only thing I can think of is that they'll say this is a separate license that doesn't count as a new version of the OGL in terms of using its Open Game Content with older versions of the OGL...but the very fact that they're calling it the "OGL v1.1" flies in the face of that.



I think the loophole would be that they would call the content in the 1DD something other than OGC. That way locking it into the new version of the OGL while technically letting it open.


----------



## Morrus

darjr said:


> For the folks that do not remember. There was a bloke putting things on a web site. An IP Lawyer. I think it was monster stat blocks. WotC sent a cease and desist and he came here to post on the thread about it. Said WotC would back down, and they did. If I remember correctly it was all based on the "rules can't be copyrighted" argument. I'll see if I can find that thread.



Frylock. Also, Americans saying ‘bloke’ makes me happy.


----------



## Alzrius

MoonSong said:


> I think the loophole would be that they would call the content in the 1DD something other than OGC. That way locking it into the new version of the OGL while technically letting it open.



That's true, though if they're creating an entirely new category of material then I have to wonder if they're closer to drafting an entirely new license, rather than a v1.1 iteration of the OGL.

Though given that they're adding registration provisions, royalty requirements, and language about the mediums the OGL covers, I suppose WotC thinks otherwise.


----------



## Malmuria

Dire Bare said:


> Complaining about these creators trying to make money from their creative endeavors . . . . sigh.



My point is that the whole #opendnd thing is really about creators having access to a particular market and in terms favorable to them.  You can search the hashtag for yourself on twitter, but what I see is that some people are claiming an ethical high ground on the basis of being small and independent, yet they are apparently not so small or so independent that they would risk creating things for a non-wotc game.  Despite their tone, it's really not about ethics or creative expression or "community," it's about who gets to profit and by how much.


----------



## J.Quondam

Reynard said:


> Where have I seen this before....



Well yeah, they'd have to walk a very fine line to avoid another GSLtastrophy, from a PR perspective. But publicity aside, they could certainly still make it an open license much like the existing one. They could even copy-paste much of existing OGL verbiage and layer on their new conditions and requirements. 

The main point, though, would be to make it _legally distinct_ from the OGL, to avoid these sorts of issues over what  constitutes "authorized" or "updated version" or whatever. Give the new open license a name other than "OGL," and those concerns vanish, wouldn't they?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Alzrius said:


> Actually, upon re-reading the current OGL, it turns out the answer was there all along, specifically on part 9:
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes it very clear that, even if the 1D&D SRD is only published under the OGL v1.1, it doesn't matter; you can use it with the existing OGL just fine.



Which is why I don't understand why anyone would sign onto a version of the license that is any more restrictive than the current one.  You can copy material they publish for 1.1 and release it under 1.0, if I understand section 9 correctly.


----------



## Alzrius

J.Quondam said:


> The main point, though, would be to make it _legally distinct_ from the OGL, to avoid these sorts of issues over what  constitutes "authorized" or "updated version" or whatever. Give the new open license a name other than "OGL," and those concerns vanish, wouldn't they?



In that case, yes. If this was a separate license altogether, then the points about the OGL Section 9 and similar concerns become moot. Just like how the OGL is like a lot of open-software licenses, but isn't _the same license_ as any of them, a brand new license on WotC's part would technically be outside the purview of the OGL, even if it was created to do a lot of the same things.

But I'm no lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> Though it looks like all publishers need to report to wotc. I see this as a burden upon the small publishers and even wotc.



A good reason to ignore it then.


----------



## Dire Bare

Malmuria said:


> I see a lot of "50 new magic items!  13 new subclasses!  Get access to the NPC deck!  Back this adventure path in which the BBEG are orientalized Egyptian gnolls, only $100!"
> 
> I'm sorry but go to exalted funeral and pick a product completely at random and it will have more soul and craft put into it than these 5e hustles.



There is a lot of creativity and innovation in the OSR space, for sure. But there is an equally large amount of derivitive crap, many also carrying forward those problematic tropes in fantasy literature and D&D. The genesis of the OSR was to create "clones" of D&D . . . can't get more derivative than that!

There is also a lot of creativity and innovation in the D&D 5E space as well, just as there was when D&D 3E was the current edition. Yes, there's a lot of crap, derivative, full of problematic tropes . . . .

The OSR movement is wonderful and worth paying attention to for amazing games and supplements, but it isn't superior to modern D&D in innovation, creativity, use of tropes, or any other metric other than perhaps personal taste.


----------



## glass

Alby87 said:


> I'm no lawyer, but if this loophole is usable, they could kill all the previous OGL 1.0a releases...



I do not think there is any case to be made that OGL 1.0A was not the "authorized version" for any content released under it. The only concern in my mind is about future content (not so much even for 5.5, but 6e and beyond could be increasingly more different).


----------



## Alzrius

Micah Sweet said:


> Which is why I don't understand why anyone would sign onto a version of the license that is any more restrictive than the current one.  You can copy material they publish for 1.1 and release it under 1.0, if I understand section 9 correctly.



Well, as I noted before, the current guess is that WotC will offer something (maybe more than one something) to sweeten the deal.


----------



## Micah Sweet

antiwesley said:


> The remains of Hasbro that have a say in DnD have openly said that they feel DnD is not being monetized enough. This big change allows those people to be satisified as the big guns will now have to pay royalities.



Unless they ignore 1.1 and continue publishing under 1.0, which i see no reason they wouldn't do.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> Unless they ignore 1.1 and continue publishing under 1.0, which i see no reason they wouldn't do.



Really me either. Not yet anyway.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> Really me either. Not yet anyway.



My guess is that the answer lies somewhere behind those NDA emails.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> Which is why I don't understand why anyone would sign onto a version of the license that is any more restrictive than the current one.  You can copy material they publish for 1.1 and release it under 1.0, if I understand section 9 correctly.



We haven’t heard about the carrot yet.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GDGD said:


> With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales. If it does, it's still a net win after you cough up 50% of the revenues. If not, you'd be better off under the OGL either on DriveThru or doing your own thing.



Unless you want to use WotC IP.  That's another reason to use the Guild, and the most important one to me as a consumer.


----------



## mamba

Malmuria said:


> I see a lot of "50 new magic items!  13 new subclasses!  Get access to the NPC deck!  Back this adventure path in which the BBEG are orientalized Egyptian gnolls, only $100!"



lol, saw that AP yesterday too


----------



## Henadic Theologian

overgeeked said:


> Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.




 Actually given that it will take time to adapt D&D Beyond to 3rd party content, the one incentive they have to getting folks to switch over to the One D&D OGL/SRD is more extensive access to none setting content then the 5e OGL/SRD offers.

 The most obvious case in point is races.

 the 5e SRD/OGL excludes all PHB subraces except 1 subrace per race. One D&D doesn't have subraces, so you get them all. Elf (including Wild, High, Drow), Dwarf (Mountain and Hill), Gnome (Rock and Forest), Halfling (Stout and Lightfoot), Orcs, Dragonborn, Tieflings (Abyssal, Infernal, Daemonic), and of then secretly aren't for other books, then the Goliath (Fire, Frost, Storm, Cloud, Hill, and Stone) and the Ardling (I forget what its types are). That is alot more then what the 5e SRD offers. And they might be adding more races still.

 And Feats in D&D One aren't optional, they are embedded in Backgrounds and class capstones, which means offering only 1 feat is not enough, they will have to open up much greater access to them then in 5e SRD/OGL.

 plus Class types, power source mechanics, maybe even Bastions, etc...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Dire Bare said:


> DM's Guild creators pay 50% royalties (25% to WotC, 25% to OneBookShelf) and WotC retains the rights to their work. That is hefty, but still a pretty good deal if you want to create and sell D&D content using not just the rules, but WotC's IP. Plus, the DM's Guild is more "visible" for many creators than publishing something similar on other sites, even DriveThruRPG.
> 
> And if those terms are too onerous for any given creator, you still have the OGL. DriveThruRPG.com, a sister-site to the DM's Guild, charges creators 25% royalties. I imagine other retail sites have similar deals, and you always have the option of building your own company website with a store.
> 
> If you want to publish your "Guide to Faerun's Best Eateries" book and charge for it, the DM's Guild is your only real option. If you are content with publishing instead, "Guide to Fantasy Restaurants" without using any WotC IP, you have lots of options. However, your Realms-specific book might get more visibility on the DM's Guild site and see increased sales, balancing out the higher royalties.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing from creators who do both, sell OGL and Guild products. Does the Guild really boost sales enough to balance out that higher royalty fee? I imagine opinions vary . . . .



I've never seen DMsGuild as more visible than DrivethruRPG.  Is that a common feeling?


----------



## Malmuria

Dire Bare said:


> There is a lot of creativity and innovation in the OSR space, for sure. But there is an equally large amount of derivitive crap, many also carrying forward those problematic tropes in fantasy literature and D&D. The genesis of the OSR was to create "clones" of D&D . . . can't get more derivative than that!
> 
> There is also a lot of creativity and innovation in the D&D 5E space as well, just as there was when D&D 3E was the current edition. Yes, there's a lot of crap, derivative, full of problematic tropes . . . .
> 
> The OSR movement is wonderful and worth paying attention to for amazing games and supplements, but it isn't superior to modern D&D in innovation, creativity, use of tropes, or any other metric other than perhaps personal taste.




To give an example of the kind of #opendnd discourse I'm talking about, I'll screenshot rather than link:





This account goes on to talk about how they love the game and are just trying to grow it for the sake of the "community" etc etc.  What are they selling that they can't sell with the new OGL?  They are selling NFTs.  There have been whole threads about this and we don't need to get into it, but IMO this is grift, not creativity.  Which is bad enough, but the fact they using the language of "openness" and "community" makes it really hollow sounding, to me.

In terms of 5e vs indie game products in general, certainly there's a lot of variance in quality, and it's all a matter of taste.  But I'll take the top 20 indie/osr games vs the top 20 5e products any day (in terms of game design, art production, layout and usability, writing, or just sheer creativity).

edit: now Alexander Macris, the fascist game designer (sorry, "far right libertarian"), is standing up against wotc on behalf of the "community."  What a time to be alive.


----------



## Alzrius

Micah Sweet said:


> I've never seen DMsGuild as more visible than DrivethruRPG.  Is that a common feeling?



I've personally always seen DriveThruRPG as being more visible...but given that I buy a lot of Pathfinder 1E-compatible materials, and am not really interested in 5E content, that's probably more of a "me" thing.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> I've never seen DMsGuild as more visible than DrivethruRPG.  Is that a common feeling?



Yes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> While I like a lot of the creatives involved and a fair amount of their actual output, as someone who started in 1984, I can't help but notice that a whole lot of 3PP are selling older-edition content and ideas to players new to D&D with 5E.



Is that a bad thing?


----------



## mamba

Remathilis said:


> Ok, I'm not a lawyer or a publisher, but from what I'm guessing is going to happen.
> 
> 1. They are shutting down any competing software that competes against D&D Beyond or the VTT unless they ask WotC for a license. Ditto video games.



that is already the case today, so no change.


Remathilis said:


> 2. They are going to probably use the carrot of access to said software to get people to use 1.1.



I hope so, not sure how they think anyone will switch otherwise 


Remathilis said:


> 5. Mostly, I think they want to make sure they never create another Paizo situation again.



Paizo is selling books and PDFs, which the 1.1 OGL allows, and since you can just stick with 1.0a too, I am not sure how they can prevent it with releasing 1.1


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> that is already the case today, so no change.



Is it?


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> One possibility is that WotC will require compliance with 1.1 if you want to see on their marketplace(s) for Beyond and/or the VTT.



that would work, they will need to offer some incentive though, just releasing it and hope people will switch on their own does not feel like a sound strategy, there will have to be something to make it worthwhile


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> Well, "most" yeah. For folks like you and the other 19 companies world-wide making more than $750,000 a year on D&D the maths might be entirely different. The creators making less than that (i.e. most) might be really enticed into signing on to 1.1 for an exclusive platform with 14 million views a month.



Most creators, yes.  Not necessarily most content.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> that would work, they will need to offer some incentive though, just releasing it and hope people will switch on their own does mot feel like a sound strategy, there will have to be something to make it worthwhile



I mean, we have no idea what form it will take and chances are it isn't finalized for WotC. These NDA'd discussions with 3PPs probably are helping find that final form.


----------



## MoonSong

mamba said:


> Paizo is selling books and PDFs, which the 1.1 OGL allows, and since you can just stick with 1.0a too, I am not sure how they can prevent it with releasing 1.1



Paizo also sells videogames, which the new license prohibits.


----------



## Reynard

MoonSong said:


> Paizo also sells videogames, which the new license prohibits.



Well, they were, until Owlcat switched to Warhammer.


----------



## Alzrius

MoonSong said:


> Paizo also sells videogames, which the new license prohibits.



That doesn't really matter if Paizo doesn't use the OGL v1.1.

I mean, I don't know how much the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a can be used with video games, but insofar as the OGL v1.1 goes, you can't be bound to the terms of a license that you're not a party to.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Alzrius said:


> Well, as I noted before, the current guess is that WotC will offer something (maybe more than one something) to sweeten the deal.



Well, they would really have to.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> We haven’t heard about the carrot yet.



So they announced the stick first?  Weird, as I thought they were trying to assuage concerns.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> Is that a bad thing?



Maybe. Maybe not. Partially it feels gross because it's repackaging old stuff to new people who don't know any better. And so much of it's so badly done.


Micah Sweet said:


> Most creators, yes.  Not necessarily most content.



Maybe. I don't know the precise quantity of output of the top 20 non-WotC companies and I certainly don't know the combined output of _everyone_ else, so I couldn't say how they stack up.


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> Is it?



I was basing this on the OP

“Will this affect the D&D content and services players use today? It shouldn’t. The top VTT platforms already have custom agreements with Wizards to do what they do.”


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> Yes.



Weird.  I look at both all the time.


----------



## darjr

Malmuria said:


> To give an example of the kind of #opendnd discourse I'm talking about, I'll screenshot rather than link:
> 
> View attachment 270264
> 
> This account goes on to talk about how they love the game and are just trying to grow it for the sake of the "community" etc etc.  What are they selling that they can't sell with the new OGL?  They are selling NFTs.  There have been whole threads about this and we don't need to get into it, but IMO this is grift, not creativity.  Which is bad enough, but the fact they using the language of "openness" and "community" makes it really hollow sounding, to me.
> 
> In terms of 5e vs indie game products in general, certainly there's a lot of variance in quality, and it's all a matter of taste.  But I'll take the top 20 indie/osr games vs the top 20 5e products any day (in terms of game design, art production, layout and usability, writing, or just sheer creativity).
> 
> edit: now Alexander Macris, the fascist game designer (sorry, "far right libertarian"), is standing up against wotc on behalf of the "community."  What a time to be alive.



He's an NFT bro!!!!!!

Well dang.

Thats one great thing about the new license.


----------



## Von Ether

darjr said:


> Though it looks like all publishers need to report to wotc. I see this as a burden upon the small publishers and even wotc.




It's for those who make above $50,000. 


> Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)




It's the sad state of the industry that most publishers are going to be ignore it because it doesn't pertain to them anyway. 

 (Gee, I wish I fit in that bracket.  ) From where I sit in my "no need to report my revenue" chair, it still seems a bit more molehill than mountain.  Not saying that's going to change.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. Partially it feels gross because it's repackaging old stuff to new people who don't know any better. And so much of it's so badly done.
> 
> Maybe. I don't know the precise quantity of output of the top 20 non-WotC companies and I certainly don't know the combined output of _everyone_ else, so I couldn't say how they stack up.



People can mostly buy and sell what they want though.  If you're not familiar with old stuff it's not old stuff to you, and product research prior to purchase is a thing.


----------



## J.Quondam

Micah Sweet said:


> So they announced the stick first?  Weird, as I thought they were trying to assuage concerns.



An orange stick kinda looks like a carrot?


----------



## Micah Sweet

J.Quondam said:


> An orange stick kinda looks like a carrot?



What makes this look like a positive on the face of it?


----------



## Alzrius

Micah Sweet said:


> What makes this look like a positive on the face of it?



Expressly disallowing NFTs, I suppose.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> So they announced the stick first?  Weird, as I thought they were trying to assuage concerns.



Is there a question in there?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> Is there a question in there?



No, just an observation.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Alzrius said:


> Expressly disallowing



Never mind.


----------



## SkidAce

Reynard said:


> ninja'd by @Nikosandros
> 
> Not apparently. The OGL states that you can use any OGC with any version of the OGL. If they release the 1D&D SRD by way of the 1.1 OGL, you can still use that in your 1.0a OGL product.
> 
> *_9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute a ny Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. *_



I notice that "distributed" is written in past tense, so maybe a loophole where since this new version hadn't been published when 1.0 said that?

IANAL.  (not even close)


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> So they announced the stick first? Weird, as I thought they were trying to assuage concerns.



They probably haven't gotten all the legal loopholes on that closed. The point of this was to announce that Yes Virginia, there is a SRD and there are changes coming to the OGL.


----------



## Alzrius

SkidAce said:


> I notice that "distributed" is written in past tense, so maybe a loophole where since this new version hadn't been published when 1.0 said that?
> 
> IANAL.  (not even close)



As soon as something is distributed, its distribution is in the past, so the past tense writing would apply. (I'm not a lawyer either, but that'd be my guess.)


----------



## darjr

Just occurred to me on reddit. The VTT's that don't have a license with WotC don't need one if they don't sell OGL 1.1 stuff. Even if they host games that players use OGL 1.1 stuff. For instance Owlbear Rodeo need not worry about this at all, not even the old OGL. I suspect many others don't either.


----------



## Uta-napishti

This is *extremely* dissapointing.  Man, I am mad. My take on this is that it goes way too far on poisoning the market for third party products.  I think that this is the day that 3rd party publishers will have to decide to stick with 5E, and the community will have to release our own patches / updates to that SRD rather than moving on to basing our work on One DnD.

The open OGL 1.0 and the 5E SRD was what got me into creating D&D compatible products in the first place (although part of that license is that you aren't allowed to say D&D Compatible), and there is no way I am going to move to a less open license for any future work.  Ya lost me Guys!   Is is too easy just to say that this is the inevitable train wreck result once you start bringing in Microsoft executives to run a company whose ecosystem was created by open licenses?   No, I think I'll build my stuff back here in the free ecosystem, and ignore new design from WoTC now.


----------



## Malmuria

Uta-napishti said:


> move to a less open license for any future work.



what aspect of the new (unreleased) license is "less open"?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Remathilis said:


> 4. And some will. Imagine Keith Baker's Eberron or Darrington Press's Exandria Reborn on D&D Beyond. Much like how Blood Hunter or Gunslinger is there already. It will give them a closer sense of "official" than some of it had.



Coincidentally, I literally just got home from a coffee meeting with Keith. Not to misspeak for him, but we talked about this.  He doesn't own Eberron.  Anything he does for Eberron currently has to be published through DM's Guild, and for anything printed, he has to ask them for permission for them to print (since DMs Guild doesn't have that).  What that looks like going forward is up in the air (although I have to think WoTC would reach out to him for a 1DnD version at some point.  IIRC, Eberron is only behind FR in popularity).


----------



## AnotherGuy

Micah Sweet said:


> So they announced the stick first?  Weird, as I thought they were trying to assuage concerns.



Well the other way round is worse. Nobody likes having "the catch" sprung on them.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

overgeeked said:


> If they're repeating the mistakes of the GSL, at least they could bring back some of the "mistakes" of 4E that made it great.




 They are bring back elements of 4e back, they just brought back Astral Dominions in SJ and meaningful power sources in 1D&D and sort of class roles.


----------



## Sacrosanct

_edit_  nevermind, already addressed and I didn't get that far


----------



## Dausuul

Malmuria said:


> what aspect of the new (unreleased) license is "less open"?



The part where you have to pay royalties if you hit a certain threshold. That's not an open license. Also having to open your books to Hasbro.

I don't see why they need to revise the OGL in order to control what goes on D&D Beyond. That could be made part of the terms of service on DDB. This seems like another attempt to do what the 4E GSL tried to do and failed -- claw back some of the control that the OGL deliberately surrendered. I hope it meets the same fate and gets roundly rejected.

(As far as NFTs go, NFT makers are a bunch of scam artists and I shed no tears for them. But "paper publishing or static files only" hits a whole lot more than NFTs.)


----------



## glass

Alzrius said:


> Well, then I misunderstood you before. I thought you were mentioning the use of the term "authorized" out of a worry that WotC would try to say that older versions of the OGL were no longer authorized to publish Open Game Content from newer versions of the license, which I see as being very unlikely on their part and unlikely to succeed if they tried. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean with regard to mentioning that particular word?



That's almost what I was saying, except it is not "no longer". Since an SRD that has not been written yet has by definition not been released under any version of the licence, its authorization status is currently undefined. If my fears are grounded (and to be clear, I am not saying they are - this is something I fear not something I know), then the OGL 1.0A will not be a an "authorized version" for material released under material released under OGL 1.1 (not "no longer", because it never will have been, simply "not".)



Malmuria said:


> what aspect of the new (unreleased) license is "less open"?



The requirements to preregister, provide non-trivial paperwork, and potentially pay royalties. Except it is not so much "less" as "not at all".

IAstillNAL.


----------



## Alzrius

glass said:


> That's almost what I was saying, except it is not "no longer". Since an SRD that has not been written yet has by definition not been released under any version of the licence, its authorization status is currently undefined. If my fears are grounded (and to be clear, I am not saying they are - this is something I fear not something I know), then the OGL 1.0A will not be a an "authorized version" for material released under material released under OGL 1.1 (not "no longer", because it never will have been, simply "not".)



Presuming I'm understanding you correctly (and I confess that I'm still not sure that I am), then I don't think there's anything to worry about. The "authorization status" is with regard to existing versions of the Open Game License (e.g. v1.0, v1.0a, and will presumably apply to the forthcoming v1.1 once it's released), not with regard to any SRDs that are released under any version of the OGL.

Section 9 says that any Open Game Content "originally distributed under any version of this License," may be copied, modified, and distributed under any "authorized version" of the License. So authorization only matters with regard to the license that's doing the copying, modifying, and distributing, not which license the Open Game Content is originally released under. Which means that so long as there's no question that v1.0 and v1.0a are still considered "authorized," then anything released as Open Game Content under v1.1 can be used with them.

Or at least, that's my lay reading.


----------



## glass

Alzrius said:


> Presuming I'm understanding you correctly (and I confess that I'm still not sure that I am), then I don't think there's anything to worry about. The "authorization status" is with regard to existing versions of the Open Game License (e.g. v1.0, v1.0a, and presumably the forthcoming v1.1), not with regard to any SRDs that are released under any version of the OGL.



Yes, I know you do not think there is anything to worry about. But I do, and as much as I hope that you are right and I am wrong, I am usually only wrong when I _don't_ want to be....  



Alzrius said:


> Section 9 says that any Open Game Content "originally distributed under any version of this License," may be copied, modified, and distributed under any "authorized version" of the License. Which means that so long as there's no question that v1.0 and v1.0a are still considered "authorized," then anything released as Open Game Content under v1.1 can be used with them.



The question is, "authorized" for what? 1.0 and 1.0A can (and indeed must) remain "authorized" for things released under them, without necessarily being "authorized" for things released under 1.1.


----------



## Dausuul

Alzrius said:


> Presuming I'm understanding you correctly (and I confess that I'm still not sure that I am), then I don't think there's anything to worry about. The "authorization status" is with regard to existing versions of the Open Game License (e.g. v1.0, v1.0a, and will presumably apply to the forthcoming v1.1 once it's released), not with regard to any SRDs that are released under any version of the OGL.
> 
> Section 9 says that any Open Game Content "originally distributed under any version of this License," may be copied, modified, and distributed under any "authorized version" of the License. So authorization only matters with regard to the license that's doing the copying, modifying, and distributing, not which license the Open Game Content is originally released under. Which means that so long as there's no question that v1.0 and v1.0a are still considered "authorized," then anything released as Open Game Content under v1.1 can be used with them.
> 
> Or at least, that's my lay reading.



They must also be considered versions of the same license. v1.1 might declare itself to be a new distinct license.


----------



## Alzrius

glass said:


> The question is, "authorized" for what? 1.0 and 1.0A can (and indeed must) emain "authorized" for things released under them, without necesarily bein "authorized" for things released under 1.1.



I think I mentioned this previously (there've been a lot of posts in a short time  ), but I think that's with regard to the previous sentence in that clause regarding who may issue updated versions of the OGL. That is, it's only "authorized" if it comes from WotC or their designated agent.


----------



## Alzrius

Dausuul said:


> They must also be considered versions of the same license. v1.1 might declare itself to be a new distinct license.



I mean, I suppose it could, but I have a hard time seeing someone declare "this Open Game License version 1.1 is a separate and distinct license, and is in no way an iteration of the Open Game License version 1.0" and be taken seriously.


----------



## codo

GDGD said:


> With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales. If it does, it's still a net win after you cough up 50% of the revenues. If not, you'd be better off under the OGL either on DriveThru or doing your own thing.



Except for the fact that publishing on DMsGuild allows you to use WotC's worlds and intellectually property.  Good luck publishing your new Dragonlance adventure on DriveThru Rpg.  

I'm sorry but a company allowing other game devolopers to play in their their toys in their world, and just asking for a cut of the profits and that you only publish your work in their online store isn't some sinister, evil plot.  Sure taking a 50% cut may seem like a lot, but DriveThru RPG will take a 30-35% cut as well, if you sell books through them instead.


----------



## glass

Alzrius said:


> I think I mentioned this previously (there've been a lot of posts in a short time  ), but I think that's with regard to the previous sentence in that clause regarding who may issue updated versions of the OGL. That is, it's only "authorized" if it comes from WotC or their designated agent.



I think you did say that, and it may well have been what was meant at the time. But that does not mean the vulnerability is not there, even if accidentally.



Alzrius said:


> I mean, I suppose it could, but I have a hard time seeing someone declare "this Open Game License version 1.1 is a separate and distinct license, and is in no way an iteration of the Open Game License version 1.0" and be taken seriously.



This OTOH, I fully agree with.


----------



## Dausuul

Alzrius said:


> I mean, I suppose it could, but I have a hard time seeing someone declare "this Open Game License version 1.1 is a separate and distinct license, and is in no way an iteration of the Open Game License version 1.0" and be taken seriously.



I'll defer to anyone with IP law expertise on whether that would stick.


----------



## SkidAce

Uta-napishti said:


> ... No, I think I'll build my stuff back here in the free ecosystem, and ignore new design from WoTC now.



I kinda agree with you in spirit, but the big ocean effect of "current" version of D&D will eventually leave us behind.

Kinda reminds me of all the 1E AD&D players sticking to their guns with their edition when 2 and 3 came along.
Perfectly viable, fun, and sustainable for a local group.

NEVER gonna maintain the numbers of a current version. IMO.


----------



## Morrus

codo said:


> Except for the fact that publishing on DMsGuild allows you to use WotC's worlds and intellectually property.  Good luck publishing your new Dragonlance adventure on DriveThru Rpg.
> 
> I'm sorry but a company allowing other game devolopers to play in their their toys in their world, and just asking for a cut of the profits and that you only publish your work in their online store isn't some sinister, evil plot.  Sure taking a 50% cut may seem like a lot, but DriveThru RPG will take a 30-35% cut as well, if you sell books through them instead.



50% is what distributors take when selling into retail. Every book you buy from a store, the publisher (effectively) paid out 50% royalties on.


----------



## J.Quondam

Dausuul said:


> They must also be considered versions of the same license. v1.1 might declare itself to be a new distinct license.



Or call it by a new name entirely, "NuOGL" or something, while keeping it "open," for some values of "open."


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

darjr said:


> But the OGL 1.0 is ALREADY authorized. It's done. And if OGL 1.1 is released, presumably it'll be authorized as well.




That is nice and all, but this is starting to feel like the jump from 3.0 to 3.5. They were supposed to be backward-compatible also, but as soon as 3.5 was out, sales started to tank for anything 3.0 from 3PPs. That will happen again when the revised rules tied to the new OGL come out in 2024. People will want stuff they don't have to adjust or fix before they can use it, so all that old 5E stuff using the old OGL will just die off. Note, I am talking about stuff published to use with the Core Books, not stuff with their own setting/rules that use the OGL as a basis.


----------



## Alzrius

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> That is nice and all, but this is starting to feel like the jump from 3.0 to 3.5. They were supposed to be backward-compatible also, but as soon as 3.5 was out, sales started to tank for anything 3.0 from 3PPs. That will happen again when the revised rules tied to the new OGL come out in 2024. People will want stuff they don't have to adjust or fix before they can use it, so all that old 5E stuff using the old OGL will just die off. Note, I am talking about stuff published to use with the Core Books, not stuff with their own setting/rules that use the OGL as a basis.



I don't think that's the same thing as what we're talking about here, though. You're right that once 3.5 was announced, 3.0 was seen as obsolete. But while that might be the case for 1D&D and 5E, that's a separate consideration from the OGL v1.1, because (presuming we're all reading it right), Section 9 of the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a will allow for the 1D&D SRD to be used with those older iterations of the OGL. So publishers will be able to put out 1D&D-compatible material without using the new version of the license.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Retreater said:


> Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.



Unless 1D&D is very different when it's published than what we've seen so far, you could definitely publish something compatible with it under the prior OGL. The number of customers who will notice or care can be counted on fingers of one hand.


----------



## Uta-napishti

SkidAce said:


> I kinda agree with you in spirit, but the big ocean effect of "current" version of D&D will eventually leave us behind.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of all the 1E AD&D players sticking to their guns with their edition when 2 and 3 came along.
> Perfectly viable, fun, and sustainable for a local group.
> 
> NEVER gonna maintain the numbers of a current version. IMO.



No, I think there is a good chance you are right and this will assign some of us to an OGL 1.0a backwater.  There is, however a small chance that enough of the ecosystem will stay OGL 1.0a that we will keep a critical mass of players on 5E.  Man this makes me mad, I mostly liked the One DnD stuff, but I won't touch it now.


----------



## J.Quondam

Uta-napishti said:


> No, I think there is a good chance you are right and this will assign some of us to an OGL 1.0a backwater.  There is, however a small chance that enough of the ecosystem will stay OGL 1.0a that we will keep a critical mass of players on 5E.  Man this makes me mad, I mostly liked the One DnD stuff, but I won't touch it now.



Well, at least wait to see what the actual license is before making a rash decision. 
Keep in mind that everything being written here right now is speculation based on a PR about a license that won't be released for another couple months.


----------



## Uta-napishti

Alzrius said:


> I don't think that's the same thing as what we're talking about here, though. You're right that once 3.5 was announced, 3.0 was seen as obsolete. But while that might be the case for 1D&D and 5E, that's a separate consideration from the OGL v1.1, because (presuming we're all reading it right), Section 9 of the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a will allow for the 1D&D SRD to be used with those older iterations of the OGL. So publishers will be able to put out 1D&D-compatible material without using the new version of the license.



I don't think your assumption that OGL 1.0a would apply to new material released under 1.1 can hold just because of some clause in 1.0a.  The new stuff will just be released under a license that doesn't have the "any version" clause any more, and that will be that, it will break porting stuff.


----------



## Inchoroi

I admit to being a bit of an idiot; nor am I a lawyer.

However, I find all of this to be incredibly suspicious. You know, it's the, "It'll be like this! until it isn't."


----------



## Alzrius

Uta-napishti said:


> I don't think your assumption that OGL 1.0a would apply to new material released under 1.1 can hold just because of some clause in 1.0a.  The new stuff will just be released under a license that doesn't have the "any version" clause any more, and that will be that, it will break porting stuff.



If the new stuff is released under an iteration of the Open Game License (which is what WotC's press release is making it sound like, calling it OGL v1.1 and all), then the Section 9 from the existing versions of the OGL will apply. If they make a new license, though, then the OGL wouldn't apply.


----------



## Uta-napishti

J.Quondam said:


> Well, at least wait to see what the actual license is before making a rash decision.
> Keep in mind that everything being written here right now is speculation based on a PR about a license that won't be released for another couple months.



I disagree.  They have just now told us essentially what is in the document.  It is the* proper time to get really angry so that they can walk back any horrible decisions before they are set in stone.*  Corporations don't make U-Turns that easily, so you have to shoot down their trial baloons with extreme prejudice for them to get the message in time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> Agreed, unless you absolutely want to use WotC IP.



There's a baffling amount of stuff sold on DMs Guild that uses no protected content at all.


----------



## Uta-napishti

Alzrius said:


> If the new stuff is released under an iteration of the Open Game License (which is what WotC's press release is making it sound like, calling it OGL v1.1 and all), then the Section 9 from the existing versions of the OGL will apply. If they make a new license, though, then the OGL wouldn't apply.



Open source software licenses that say "you can use this work under this lisence, or any future version of this lisence" for instance the GPL are actually applied to the work in question.  The clause you are relying on in 1.0a will not be the governing license for OneDnD because OneDnD will never be released under it. You can't write a lisence that says, this lisence applies to work that was never released under this lisence or any other work under other versions of this license.  Those clauses need to be in a lisence actually attached to the work, not some other version.  I.E. it's quite easy to make a version of the OGL that siloes itself off by itself not having that clause, and only that version of the OGL will apply to the given work.


----------



## Alzrius

Uta-napishti said:


> Open source lisences that say "you can use this work under this lisence, or any future version of this lisence" are actually applied to the work in question.  You can't write a lisence that says, this lisence applies to work that was never release under the lisence.  I.E. it's quite easy to make a version of the OGL that siloes itself off by itself not having that clause, and only that version of the OGL will apply to the given work.  You can't write a lisence that applies itself to works that were never lisenced under it.



The thing of it is, they're not writing a license that says "this applies to work never released under the license." Section 9 is very clear in that it applies to Open Game Content released under any versions of the OGL. So long as a future license identifies itself as being an iteration of the Open Game License, then you can use Open Game Content released under it with prior versions of the OGL.

Any Open Game Content released under any version of the OGL, in other words, can be used with any other version of the OGL.


----------



## Uta-napishti

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> There's a baffling amount of stuff sold on DMs Guild that uses no protected content at all.



They are effectively giving WoTC copyright for their work in exchange for eyeballs


Alzrius said:


> The thing of it is, they're not writing a license that says "this applies to work never released under the license." Section 9 is very clear in that it applies to Open Game Content released under any versions of the OGL. So long as a future license identifies itself as being an iteration of the Open Game License, then you can use Open Game Content released under it with prior versions of the OGL.
> 
> Any Open Game Content released under any version of the OGL, in other words, can be used with any other version of the OGL.



Yeah except that Section 9, regardless of what is says, doesn't apply to works that weren't released under a lisence that contains Section 9.  We'll see what 1.1 has in it.


----------



## Alzrius

Uta-napishti said:


> Yeah except that Section 9, regardless of what is says, doesn't apply to works that weren't released under a lisence that contains Section 9.  We'll see what 1.1 has in it.



I'm dubious of the idea that the OGL v1.1 will need to reproduce Section 9 in order for Open Game Content published under it to be used with prior versions of the license. That said, you're right that we'll see what v1.1 looks like soon enough.


----------



## Nylanfs

Reynard said:


> So it seems I was remembering the OGL FAQ from back in the day that said it was possible but in order to comply with the license the SRD info had to be accessible. The link directly to the FAQ seems to be broken but a few different searches shows the same thing:



The original Gentleman's Agreement that was used before the OGL was finalized and published and the earliest FAQ's stated that the OGC data HAD to be human readable so that it could be used by another publisher. This is the exact reason why PCGen's engine is licensed under the LGPL, and the data that drives the engine is all plain text files and every book has the OGL with it and proper Sec. 15 lines.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Uta-napishti said:


> They are effectively giving WoTC copyright for their work in exchange for eyeballs



Most of these folks don't seem to be that sophisticated. For many of them, they just assume DMs Guild is the place to publish, probably because they don't use DriveThruRPG themselves or know that a creator's content feed on both sites shows items from _both_ sides.

(In other words, the way to play it is to produce something for DMs Guild that does use protected IP and will get people to check it out, and then have a whole lot more in their feed on DriveThruRPG that the site will also tell customers they created. Some of the bigger sellers seem to be following this exact strategy.)


----------



## codo

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> That is nice and all, but this is starting to feel like the jump from 3.0 to 3.5. They were supposed to be backward-compatible also, but as soon as 3.5 was out, sales started to tank for anything 3.0 from 3PPs. That will happen again when the revised rules tied to the new OGL come out in 2024. People will want stuff they don't have to adjust or fix before they can use it, so all that old 5E stuff using the old OGL will just die off. Note, I am talking about stuff published to use with the Core Books, not stuff with their own setting/rules that use the OGL as a basis.



3rd edition and 5th edition are very different games.  3rd and 3.5 are much more complicated, and they have a lot more small fiddley pieces that interact with each other.  5e on the other hand involves fewer options, and the options you do choose tend to be larger and more self contained.  

Look at feats.  What is 1 feat in 5E, in 3E will be a feat chain of 3 or 4 feats, each with its own class, skill, level, and other prerequisites. 

The reason that most people didn't really think that 3E 3PP books were backward compatible with 3.5 is that so many of them referred to specific detailed rules, like specific feats or class features, that had slightly changed between the editions.  This actually made a lot of them difficult to use.  

Because 5E's rules are less interconnected, detailed, and fine-grained the 3PP books should be more compatible with 1D&D.  Truthfully I don't buy all that many 3PP book, but most of ones I have looked at mostly contain things like are campaign settings, adventures, a bunch of subclasses for existing classes, monsters, or specific detailed subsystems for things like base building, naval combat, or more detailed and varied weapons and the like.  Most of the books I have looked at seem like they should be more or less backward compatible with 1d&D.


----------



## Uta-napishti

Also, notice that now videos, websites and other media other than print are not going to be allowed to use OGL 1.1 content.
*That means no competing with D&D Beyond kids, No Level Up Tools website next time, and also that there might never be another Critical Role *(at least there will not be using OneDnD or later)    --- this deal keeps getting worse all the time!


----------



## Alzrius

Uta-napishti said:


> Also, notice that now videos, websites and other media other than print are not going to be allowed to use OGL 1.1 content.
> *That means no competing with D&D Beyond kids, No Level Up Tools website next time, and also that there might never be another Critical Role *(at least there will not be using OneDnD or later)    --- this deal keeps getting worse all the time!



Does it? I've never actually sat down and watched an episode of Critical Role, but I don't think that they or any other actual-play series ever used the OGL, did they?


----------



## Oofta

overgeeked said:


> And 1.1 doesn't allow apps, programs, websites, etc. So it's a lot of exclusive content on their VTT.
> 
> Literally writing it into 1.1 that DNDBeyond is the one and only digital place for OneD&D.



Under the OGL 1.1.  We don't know yet what other options there will be.


----------



## Uta-napishti

Alzrius said:


> Does it? I've never actually sat down and watched an episode of Critical Role, but I don't think that they or any other actual-play series ever used the OGL, did they?



No, you're right, CR probably didn't ask for permission at all, and used non-SRD proprietary player's handbook stuff on the air even, so the OGL changes wouldn't hurt or help them exactly,  The other two examples stand.

I think for streamers  it's more that these changes are a signal that if you get too successfull in the DnD ecosystem in any medium.  Wizards is going to show up rattling a moneybox.  MCDM and Kobold Press are on Notice, because their kickstarters won't stay under 750K per year.

I have nothing against WoTC making Ocean liners full of money, what sickens me is the mountains of cash aren't enough that they can't keep themselves from trying to now skim even more off of everyone else in the ecosystem that they built up through the previous open license space.  I'm not even completely convinced that they *are* trying to make more money from ecosystem royalties vs the much blunter, dumber goal of discouraging competition before it starts for new projects like D&DBeyond Ongoing Subscription $.


----------



## codo

Uta-napishti said:


> Also, notice that now videos, websites and other media other than print are not going to be allowed to use OGL 1.1 content.
> *That means no competing with D&D Beyond kids, No Level Up Tools website next time, and also that there might never be another Critical Role *(at least there will not be using OneDnD or later)    --- this deal keeps getting worse all the time!



The success of Critical Role has never had anything to do with the OGL.  They may have published their first campaign setting books under the OGL(I think, I am not sure on this one), but their massive success is due to their streaming, which isn't governed by the OGL in any way.  A lot of different issues tend to get conflated together.   Any intellectual property issue involving copyright, trademark, licensing and a host of other issues all tend to get lumped together as the "OGL".  It can make following the discussion difficult sometimes.


----------



## overgeeked

Alzrius said:


> Does it? I've never actually sat down and watched an episode of Critical Role, but I don't think that they or any other actual-play series ever used the OGL, did they?



I was wondering about the video clause myself. I'm not sure how they'd interact. Videos of people playing the game could be considered derivative works. But yeah, I don't see WotC picking a fight with Critical Role. They're making a lot of money directly off of each other. I mean if anyone's going to have a chance of pulling in more fans than WotC if the fandom splits it's Paizo and/or CR. Like I said in the initial rumor thread, if WotC handles this badly enough, Paizo is going into immediate production of Pathfinder 5E. I wonder if they'll talk to the CR people and join up. After all, when CR was a home game they were using Pathfinder. New from Paizo and Critical Role...that would be huge.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

This is all a bit much to digest, but I've come to two conclusions:

1. I have no interest in adopting D&D 5.5 now.

2. We all owe a huge debt to Ryan Dancey for the way the original OGL is constructed.


----------



## overgeeked

codo said:


> The success of Critical Role has never had anything to do with the OGL.  They may have published their first campaign setting books under the OGL(I think, I am not sure on this one), but their massive success is due to their streaming, which isn't governed by the OGL in any way.  A lot of different issues tend to get conflated together.   Any intellectual property issue involving copyright, trademark, licensing and a host of other issues all tend to get lumped together as the "OGL".  It can make following the discussion difficult sometimes.



In the title sequence of every Critical Role episode is a disclaimer about WotC copyrights and trademarks.


----------



## Uta-napishti

I agree, I should have kept my mouth shut about CR, as they don't use the OGL in their show.  Mea Culpa.  I also apologize while we're apologizing about my inability to spell the word lisence, er... licensce, license consistently.  Sorry people


----------



## Oofta

I am not a lawyer but ... oh.  Wait.  I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know what any of this means.  I'll wait until morrus pipes in with an overview that dumbs it down enough for us muggles to understand instead of making pointless speculative assumptions.

It would make sense if they're trying to protect their investment in DDB and the new VTT while getting a little bit back from those companies making a lot of money off of their IP.


----------



## codo

overgeeked said:


> In the title sequence of every Critical Role episode is a disclaimer about WotC copyrights and trademarks.



Yes, Critical Role is using WotC's copyrighted and trademarked work.  They are not the OGL.  They are relying on good old fair use.  Just like every videogame streamer ever.


----------



## Uta-napishti

Oofta said:


> I am not a lawyer but ... oh.  Wait.  I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know what any of this means.  I'll wait until morrus pipes in with an overview that dumbs it down enough for us muggles to understand instead of making pointless speculative assumptions.
> 
> It would make sense if they're trying to protect their investment in DDB and the new VTT while getting a little bit back from those companies making a lot of money off of their IP.



For the record, despite not being a lawyer, I disagree with Morrus about the whole Section 9 thing as you can read above.  I.e. I think his summary at the top of the thread about being able to pick which version of the OGL applies to a work is only good for interchanging OGLs that have that Section 9 clause, and should that be removed, I think it would break compatibility for bringing future work back to 1.0a.


----------



## Oofta

Uta-napishti said:


> For the record, despite not being a lawyer, I disagree with Morrus about the whole Section 9 thing as you can read above.  I.e. I think his summary at the top of the thread about being able to pick which version of the OGL applies to a work is only good for interchanging OGLs that have that Section 9 clause, and should that be removed, I think it would break compatibility for bringing future work back to 1.0a.





How does that relate to what I wrote?  Morrus stated that they needed to look at this more closely.  I don't think we really understand what this means and until the dust settles it's all just speculation and panic.  I kind of skimmed a lot (I have other things to do than read every post carefully in this) but I see a lot of what seems like overreactions.  Maybe they aren't.  Maybe the sky really is falling this time.  Or maybe some people are getting upset about nothing.

But seriously, I am not a lawyer.  Someone somewhere that _is_ a lawyer will look this over and people like morrus will get some more details.


----------



## Reynard

Nylanfs said:


> The original Gentleman's Agreement that was used before the OGL was finalized and published and the earliest FAQ's stated that the OGC data HAD to be human readable so that it could be used by another publisher. This is the exact reason why PCGen's engine is licensed under the LGPL, and the data that drives the engine is all plain text files and every book has the OGL with it and proper Sec. 15 lines.



Oh man,  PCgen...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

As someone that occasionally does 3rd party freelancing, it will be interesting to see what incentives they decide to add to the new OGL and SRD to encourage publishers to transition to it. I imagine something connected to D&D Beyond and the new VTT is likely, but we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Weird.  I look at both all the time.



I know many people who think WotC owns the DMsGuild and don't even know what DriveThruRPG is. Hell, even I knew about DMsGuild before I knew what DriveThruRPG was, as someone that played 5e before any other TTRPG.


----------



## Incenjucar

Needs more carrot. Could be a nice deal if it comes with enough support to make up for the fees, or if they add a whole lot more usable content. Otherwise it seems like more paperwork and accountability without clear benefit.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

This does not seem like a big deal to me.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> This is all a bit much to digest, but I've come to two conclusions:
> 
> 1. I have no interest in adopting D&D 5.5 now.
> 
> 2. We all owe a huge debt to Ryan Dancey for the way the original OGL is constructed.



Why?


----------



## Nylanfs

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> There's a baffling amount of stuff sold on DMs Guild that uses no protected content at all.



I and @Mike Myler  have pointed this out multiple times since DMsG launched.


----------



## Nylanfs

MonsterEnvy said:


> Why?



On 2, because it ensured that D&D could never die. People REALLY keep forgetting how close we were to completely losing D&D at the time.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

MonsterEnvy said:


> Why?



(1) Because WotC appears to be trying to build a walled garden around something designed not to be walled in, and doesn't appear to be offering value in return for it. 
(2) Because Dancey's genius was ensuring what he released as Open couldn't really be taken away despite WotC shenanigans referred to in (1).


----------



## teitan

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am not a creator. But it does not sound like the sky is falling. A little more restrictive, but I mean, making 750k a year does not look like it affects most people (less than 20 as they say).



Not really. You could stick to 1.0a and nothing happens. 1.1 just seems a replay of the GSL but more open and at the same time more closed. It’s not going to go well. It’s part of that monetization strategy. Really they just need to bring the minis and spellcards etc back in house.


----------



## teitan

darjr said:


> OK, this is what bugs me. It may not actually be an open license. Not with the revenue part. I'd be VERY interested in hearing more of what you think @Morrus
> 
> I know you probably have a lot of internal discussions and thinking to do though.



I think what it is is that it gives you a Badge, a compatibility logo and they won’t offer a OneD&D compatibility logo unless you accept the 1.1 OGL.


----------



## Alzrius

teitan said:


> I think what it is is that it gives you a Badge, a compatibility logo and they won’t offer a OneD&D compatibility logo unless you accept the 1.1 OGL.



I agree, but they'll probably keep that to a separate license, rather than baking it into the text of the v1.1 OGL, since presumably the license will otherwise allow for other games to release SRDs of their own (as has been done with the existing OGLs), making the issuance of a compatibility logo for 1D&D somewhat awkward if it's part of the new OGL unto itself.


----------



## MNblockhead

Reynard said:


> Probably, but I don't see it. Maybe younger players engage D&D differently enough that beyond will become "essential" for most of them. I find it not worth the trouble.



I wonder if this is the case with the 20-30 crowd.  I know my son and his friends, who are in middle school, play full pen and paper. No DDB, no VTT.  I've offered to let them use my DDB account and my VTT, they just have no interest. They are all into video games and live on their electronic devices (phones, iPads, etc.) but when it comes to DnD, it just books, pen, and paper. I find that very interesting. It me and my group of players in our 40s and 50s that are using DDB and VTTs.  It would be interesting to see the percentage of players using online tools versus pen and paper broken down by age category. I think it may not be tied to generation necessarily.


----------



## teitan

Alzrius said:


> I agree, but they'll probably keep that to a separate license, rather than baking it into the text of the v1.1 OGL, since presumably the license will otherwise allow for other games to release SRDs of their own (as has been done with the existing OGLs), making the issuance of a compatibility logo for 1D&D somewhat awkward if it's part of the new OGL unto itself.



It would be inessential to those other games since 1.0a already exists. They’re tying it altogether as spelled out in the FAQ.


----------



## MNblockhead

Reynard said:


> Not if WotC doesn't provide some coding service for your content. Most of the people I have worked with and for making 5E content aren't coders. Asking small 3PP to take on the additional expense of finding people to code their stuff for Beyond and the VTT is probably not going to work. The margins are slim enough as it is.



Coding isn't necessary, but prepping your material, editing, and QCing for another media is still a lot of work. With VTTs it is harder because there isn't a lot of consolidation.  But because most of the major VTTs have ways that allow you to bring your DDB content into their platforms, that would make DDB much more valuable to TTPs, assuming WotC doesn't try to block this in the future.


----------



## Alzrius

teitan said:


> It would be inessential to those other games since 1.0a already exists. They’re tying it altogether as spelled out in the FAQ.



Right, but imagine how much confusion it could cause if someone used the FATE SRD with the OGL v1.1, and put some sort of 1D&D compatibility logo on it as per a line in the text of the license itself that said they could (or had to) do that.

Now, that seems like an outlier, since I don't see that being good for anyone. But if it's not good for WotC, they're probably not going to want that to happen, since it could hurt the compatibility logo's utility. Hence why they'll probably limit it to a separate license rather than being part of the v1.1 OGL itself.


----------



## DorkForge

I wasn't too concerned about when they declared D&D was under monetized, since that's a massive blanket and nobody will bat an eye if they started to churn out dice, shirts, and other accessories that Etsy makes a killing off of.

However, this just feels bad. Whatever the royalty is set to it's extremely likely that WotC will be double-dipping on those publishers for VTT content. A % of your sale like DMs Guild, then the OGL royalty tax once you get over the threshold.
Depending on what that percentage is and what the cut they take is, I wouldn't be surprised if bigger publishers started to just work around it with loop holes, and I wouldn't blame them. This is the kind of greediness people were worried about from that Hasbro chat.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

DorkForge said:


> However, this just feels bad. Whatever the royalty is set to it's extremely likely that WotC will be double-dipping on those publishers for VTT content. A % of your sale like DMs Guild, then the OGL royalty tax once you get over the threshold.



The DMsGuild license is different from the OGL. If you publish things under the DMsGuild license, you're not restrained to the same terms as you are by the OGL.


----------



## MNblockhead

Malmuria said:


> I'm not in favor of the game being, at or near its core, a subscription-based service, even if I'm not going to subscribe one way or another.  I just can't help note the irony that some of the people campaigning for #opendnd have monetized every aspect of their "creative" process.  They're peddling kickstarters with $175 tiers and Patreons with $20/month subscription levels; wotc would get skewered for charging those kinds of prices.  I put "creative" in quotation marks because these products are highly derivative of wotc's game and book design at best and at worst are full of problematic fantasy tropes.  It's like listening to an airbnb host complain about corporate greed.



To be fair, however, economy of scale is important. When you back some someone on patreon, you are generally supporting a single creator or a small publisher. You pay more because you like their content and it is something that might not get made otherwise. Often there is a small community that builds around it and at certain tiers their make be customized rewards.  With Kickstarter, you are helping fund a particular product to get made, often with crazy high production values that you would never get with a mass-produced product. The expectations and relationship between the creators and customers is quite different than that in retail transactions. And you do see some minor blowback on larger companies that use Kickstarter and Patreon more like retail transactions (subscriptions and pre-sales).  I don't have an issue with it, but when it comes to major publishers, I tend to just wait until the product is available to purchase on-line rather than back on Kickstarter or support via Patreon. If I'm confident that the product is going to be published anyway and if I don't feel that I'm supporting someone who might not otherwise be able to bring their vision to fruition, then I can just wait and see if I like the final product and but it when it is generally available.


----------



## MNblockhead

Morrus said:


> The license has no language pertaining to ‘de-authorization’. We can post our armchair legal opinions here on the forum, and people can make     videos and post tweets, but if that angle was attempted? It would be decided in a courtroom, by lawyers and judges, not by random bystanders on the internet.
> 
> The lengthy ensuing legal battles would certainly keep my news business running for years! Not just Paizo, but other companies which have used the OGL to share non D&D stuff, such as Evil Hat. It’ll be a firework show, for sure.



It would at least finally give me some TTRPG legal drama that is an alternative to the NuTSR thread.


----------



## darjr

@Frylock 

I wonder if he'd care to make a comment here.



darjr said:


> For the folks that do not remember. There was a bloke putting things on a web site. An IP Lawyer. I think it was monster stat blocks. WotC sent a cease and desist and he came here to post on the thread about it. Said WotC would back down, and they did. If I remember correctly it was all based on the "rules can't be copyrighted" argument. I'll see if I can find that thread.






Morrus said:


> Frylock. Also, Americans saying ‘bloke’ makes me happy.


----------



## Alzrius

MNblockhead said:


> It would at least finally give me some TTRPG legal drama that is an alternative to the NuTSR thread.



What, all the stuff over Gary's estate isn't doing it for you?


----------



## MNblockhead

Micah Sweet said:


> I've never seen DMsGuild as more visible than DrivethruRPG.  Is that a common feeling?



I go to DTRPG frequently. I rarely go to DMs Guild. The only time I've found DMs Guild the better shop is when I am running an official WotC adventure and want to some well-designed aids, improved VTT maps, etc. But I've only run one official WotC adventure since 2014.  So other than a few things I bought for helping run Curse of Strahd, I've only gone to DMs Guild to by some Adventurer's League adventures for some quick one-shots with my kids and to get legal PDFs of some old 1e adventures and the original Grey Hawk.  But I've bought a LOT of stuff on DTRPG. Also, a number of Kickstarters I've backed use DTRPG for fulfillment. 

If WotC better integrates DMs Guild with DDB, however, it would GREATLY increase the visability of DMs Guild over DTRPG. Actually, with all the developers they are hiring, I wouldn't be surprised if they ditch One Bookshelf and find a way to distribute PDFs through DDB.


----------



## Dire Bare

Micah Sweet said:


> I've never seen DMsGuild as more visible than DrivethruRPG.  Is that a common feeling?



The DM's Guild IS more visible to consumers, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Both websites are just as easy to visit, shop, and purchase games . . . but the DM's Guild is the place to go for official D&D community content. That's not important to everybody, but it is important to a lot of folks.

But what I was talking about was visibility from the perspective of a publisher. You'll get more eyeballs on your product, and ideally more purchases, if it is on the DM's Guild rather than DriveThruRPG. Can I back that up with stats? No, but it is a common belief, and makes sense.

That's part of the reason why you find a lot of product on the DM's Guild that doesn't use WotC IP, and could have just as easily have been published under the OGL on DriveThruRPG.


----------



## Dire Bare

Malmuria said:


> To give an example of the kind of #opendnd discourse I'm talking about, I'll screenshot rather than link:
> 
> View attachment 270264
> 
> This account goes on to talk about how they love the game and are just trying to grow it for the sake of the "community" etc etc.  What are they selling that they can't sell with the new OGL?  They are selling NFTs.  There have been whole threads about this and we don't need to get into it, but IMO this is grift, not creativity.  Which is bad enough, but the fact they using the language of "openness" and "community" makes it really hollow sounding, to me.
> 
> In terms of 5e vs indie game products in general, certainly there's a lot of variance in quality, and it's all a matter of taste.  But I'll take the top 20 indie/osr games vs the top 20 5e products any day (in terms of game design, art production, layout and usability, writing, or just sheer creativity).
> 
> edit: now Alexander Macris, the fascist game designer (sorry, "far right libertarian"), is standing up against wotc on behalf of the "community."  What a time to be alive.



I think we're talking past one another.

I was pushing back against your idea that designers in the OSR space were more creative and innovative than designers working in the D&D 5E space. That's pretty much it.

Are there game designers being hypocritical in their criticism of the OGL 1.1 already? Sure, I'll believe that! The folks selling NFTs are definitely being hypocritical, but I don't much care about what's going on there, as NFTs are a waste of energy and digital space, IMO.


----------



## Reynard

It occurs to me that wrapped up in a lot of the "analysis" of this is an undercurrent of desire to see WotC fail and collapse. There's a certain expectation of poetic justice for the Goliath to fall and D&D to be "freed."


----------



## BovineofWar

I'm really curious where this goes. My gut feel is that a lot of this is just posturing. "Here is the 1.1 OGL that specifically says video games, VTTs, and electronic tooling were never supported under the OGL, so we at WoTC reserve the right to sue any competitors to D&D Beyond or the official D&D VTT or the next gen official D&D video games that don't line up for a license and behave."

I doubt they would try to enforce things on the 3PP for written works with that big gaping 1.0a OGL loop hole? But hey, weirder things have happened in D&D (specifically TSR) history...


----------



## darjr

So I gotta say. I think this is a non-starter. 

Not because I think it's terrible, really, but because I think there isn't anybody who would want to use it instead of just staying with OGL 1.0a.

I can't think of anyone really.

The thing is the OGL 1.0a is valuable most importantly because it's a safe harbor. OGL 1.1 is not. Not if your anywhere close to making 50K a year. Or just selling things with that license.

First, I think the DNDBeyond thing is speculation and if it was going to be an important component I think WotC would have highlighted it. Maybe.

Kobold Press? Why? Are they even using significant parts of the current SRD now? 

MCDM? Well absolutely not. I mean I just can't see them doing this license at all. On basic principles really. 

Paizo? Do not make me laugh.

Goodman Games? I bet they could de OGLize their new kickstarter and everything else they do going forward. Sure they have or had a special license with WotC for the OAR books but really I've been suspecting that's been dead for a while now.

ENWorld publishing? Maybe? Waiting to hear from Russ, but really I'd bet that they'd go forward as being the vanguard of the OGL 1.0a and A5E before they went with WotC on an OGL 1.1.

Monte Cook? no.
Green Ronin? I actually feel bad about suggesting that one.

Free League? Again why? Especially since their games are very different than 5e anyway.

So who?


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> (1) Because WotC appears to be trying to build a walled garden around something designed not to be walled in, and doesn't appear to be offering value in return for it.
> (



It does not really give me that impression at all. Because they want to charge royalties if you make 750k in a year?
And we don’t know the actual terms yet.


----------



## kenmarable

Dire Bare said:


> The DM's Guild IS more visible to consumers, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Both websites are just as easy to visit, shop, and purchase games . . . but the DM's Guild is the place to go for official D&D community content. That's not important to everybody, but it is important to a lot of folks.
> 
> But what I was talking about was visibility from the perspective of a publisher. You'll get more eyeballs on your product, and ideally more purchases, if it is on the DM's Guild rather than DriveThruRPG. Can I back that up with stats? No, but it is a common belief, and makes sense.
> 
> That's part of the reason why you find a lot of product on the DM's Guild that doesn't use WotC IP, and could have just as easily have been published under the OGL on DriveThruRPG.



I don’t have stats to back that up either but plenty of publishers who would be in the position to have hard numbers have said in the past that unless you have a Kickstarter or Patreon to pre-fund it, 5e content goes to DriveThruRPG to die. If I recall, many have said the difference in sales for 5e content between the two sites is orders of magnitude (plural orderS) and DMs Guild numbers aren’t super high to begin with. So _for your average 3pp_, the increase in visibility and sales at DMs Guild more than make up for the higher cut out of your revenue even when not using WotC IP (again, aside from Kickstarters or Patreon which are often more profitable than DMs Guild but involve a lot more work and rely heavily on other skills as well).


----------



## dbolack

J.Quondam said:


> Ah. So there's still room for... umm... "surprises."



Such as who pays for an audit...


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Reynard said:


> This bit is interesting too:
> 
> *First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.*
> 
> This would seem to indicate that things likes character creation utilities and discord bots and the like are all out of bounds. It is anyone's guess how vehemently WotC will pursue these things, though.



This is what I predicted was coming.  They are going digital and monetizing—-and are not wanting to share as much of that pie.

Interesting.


----------



## darjr

kenmarable said:


> I don’t have stats to back that up either but plenty of publishers who would be in the position to have hard numbers have said in the past that unless you have a Kickstarter or Patreon to pre-fund it, 5e content goes to DriveThruRPG to die. If I recall, many have said the difference in sales for 5e content between the two sites is orders of magnitude (plural orderS) and DMs Guild numbers aren’t super high to begin with. So _for your average 3pp_, the increase in visibility and sales at DMs Guild more than make up for the higher cut out of your revenue even when not using WotC IP (again, aside from Kickstarters or Patreon which are often more profitable than DMs Guild but involve a lot more work and rely heavily on other skills as well).



I agree. 

The strange thing is though, currently, if you get big enough with a big enough name for being on the DMSGuild, switching to DriveThru can be a boon, and freeing. The primary example is M.T. Black. 

See his plans here.








						A Publishing Experiment — M.T. Black Games
					

A change of publishing direction




					www.mtblackgames.com
				





	
		Anyway, the verdict is in. After a week on sale, the book has exceeded my expectations. It has sold about 950 copies at the time of writing, so I should be picking up a Platinum Best Seller badge in a few days. I'm thrilled and grateful to everyone who has bought a copy. It helped that the low production costs helped me give this an attractive price point. I also want to acknowledge the great assistance I got from good press coverage.

What's next? I plan to write more Fifth Edition content on DTRPG. While it would make sense to follow up with some player options, the muse insists I deliver a particular adventure that's been on my heart, and so it must be.  I don't imagine I will easily replicate the success I've had with _The Book of Wondrous Magic_, but it's an encouraging start to this new direction.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MNblockhead said:


> I go to DTRPG frequently. I rarely go to DMs Guild. The only time I've found DMs Guild the better shop is when I am running an official WotC adventure and want to some well-designed aids, improved VTT maps, etc. But I've only run one official WotC adventure since 2014.  So other than a few things I bought for helping run Curse of Strahd, I've only gone to DMs Guild to by some Adventurer's League adventures for some quick one-shots with my kids and to get legal PDFs of some old 1e adventures and the original Grey Hawk.  But I've bought a LOT of stuff on DTRPG. Also, a number of Kickstarters I've backed use DTRPG for fulfillment.



Yeah, other than stuff to specifically flesh out Strixhaven, Witchlight or the Radiant Citadel, generally speaking, I find DTRPG to be a much better place to go, which often much more creative approaches to subjects and a lot of extremely high quality work.

That said, things like @Nixlord's mighty Monster Manual Expanded books need to be DMs Guild, given how many product identity critters he publishes variants of. But if he ever does a book of completely original monsters (which sounds like it might be in the cards), I think there's an excellent chance it'd be on DTRPG instead.


----------



## kenmarable

darjr said:


> I agree.
> 
> The strange thing is though, currently, if you get big enough with a big enough name for being on the DMSGuild, switching to DriveThru can be a boon, and freeing. The primary example is M.T. Black.
> 
> See his plans here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Publishing Experiment — M.T. Black Games
> 
> 
> A change of publishing direction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mtblackgames.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the verdict is in. After a week on sale, the book has exceeded my expectations. It has sold about 950 copies at the time of writing, so I should be picking up a Platinum Best Seller badge in a few days. I'm thrilled and grateful to everyone who has bought a copy. It helped that the low production costs helped me give this an attractive price point. I also want to acknowledge the great assistance I got from good press coverage.
> 
> What's next? I plan to write more Fifth Edition content on DTRPG. While it would make sense to follow up with some player options, the muse insists I deliver a particular adventure that's been on my heart, and so it must be.  I don't imagine I will easily replicate the success I've had with _The Book of Wondrous Magic_, but it's an encouraging start to this new direction.



Oh, exactly! DMs Guild can help with discoverability if you don't have some other solid marketing plan or existing recognition with fans. But if you can build a big enough following there's plenty more you can do elsewhere - especially for someone like MT Black who managed to ride the early wave of DMsGuild well. Now people look for _his _products rather than relying on stumbling across them on the storefront. But for those who don't have that recognition and are relying on the storefront to be their primary marketing, DMs Guild is a much better bet to start with.


----------



## dbolack

Morrus said:


> We haven’t heard about the carrot yet.



I have to assume that access to some resources ( trademarks, platforms, etc. ) would require the material is under the new license rather than the old - and that's the carrot.


----------



## dbolack

Micah Sweet said:


> So they announced the stick first?  Weird, as I thought they were trying to assuage concerns.



Whose concerns? Shareholders or licensee partners


----------



## dbolack

codo said:


> I'm sorry but a company allowing other game devolopers to play in their their toys in their world, and just asking for a cut of the profits and that you only publish your work in their online store isn't some sinister, evil plot.  Sure taking a 50% cut may seem like a lot, but DriveThru RPG will take a 30-35% cut as well, if you sell books through them instead.



This is not remotely equivalent.  DriveThru is a distribution layer and its fees are analogous to distribution cuts given to Chessex/Alliance/Wizards (whoever is lying about a publisher being out of business so they don't have to restock these days ) - not a royalty.


----------



## Dausuul

Voadam said:


> I remember the Kenzer people saying that being able to label their 3e Kalamar stuff as official D&D was worth far more to them than what they could do under the OGL and they were happy with that as part of their settlement with WotC for WotC's infringement of their IP in the Dragon archive CD.
> 
> WotC has a few options for offering up different incentives. Until they announce something it will be a lot of speculation.
> 
> Until WotC announces more all they have announced is a new license with downsides that can be avoided by using the old one.



David Kenzer's day job is IP law. He knows how to navigate the pitfalls of publishing D&D material outside the OGL -- in fact, he appears to have started before the OGL, when TSR was running the show. Most RPG writers lack that expertise.



Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that wrapped up in a lot of the "analysis" of this is an undercurrent of desire to see WotC fail and collapse. There's a certain expectation of poetic justice for the Goliath to fall and D&D to be "freed."



I absolutely do not want WotC to collapse. I want them to move forward under the same OGL which they used for their most successful editions of D&D. I want 1D&D to thrive and support a thriving 3PP community as well.

I won't go so far as to say the OGL was responsible for the success of 3E and 5E, but at the very least those editions proved the OGL need not stand in the way of success.


----------



## Alzrius

Dausuul said:


> David Kenzer's day job is IP law. He knows how to navigate the pitfalls of publishing D&D material outside the OGL -- in fact, he appears to have started before the OGL, when TSR was running the show. Most RPG writers lack that expertise.



And after it, since _Kingdoms of Kalamar_ for D&D 4E was also published without a license.


----------



## Jimmy Dick

Good thing I play Pathfinder 2e. I don't give a rat's behind what WotC does to screw up their game because Paizo is not going to be using their new OGL. In fact, I think Paizo might very well market more of its Pathfinder 2e products to the 5e community and cash in.

Plus I have news for everyone who thinks the new edition is going to be fully compatible with 5e. Keep dreaming. The lore will remain the same, but the characters are going to change significantly. The only way it will be considered compatible is if the GMs and players call rebuilding characters to fit the new system to be fully compatible. Even then, they will be different and the game will play differently. That's why Paizo did not go the compatible route with 2e. They knew the new system was not fully compatible and was never designed to be. It's a very different rules system with a lot of similarities to Pathfinder 1e and the concept of D&D through its evolutions, but different enough that it plays differently.


----------



## dbolack

Dausuul said:


> David Kenzer's day job is IP law. He knows how to navigate the pitfalls of publishing D&D material outside the OGL -- in fact, he appears to have started before the OGL, when TSR was running the show. Most RPG writers lack that expertise.



My copy of Kalamar is dated 1994, so this is correct.


----------



## Nylanfs

BovineofWar said:


> I'm really curious where this goes. My gut feel is that a lot of this is just posturing. "Here is the 1.1 OGL that specifically says video games, VTTs, and electronic tooling were never supported under the OGL, so we at WoTC reserve the right to sue any competitors to D&D Beyond or the official D&D VTT or the next gen official D&D video games that don't line up for a license and behave."



Those things WERE allowed under the OGL, they couldn't be made using the d20 STL though because of the wording around the dice mechanics and generating results.

And PCGen has a 20+ year history of showing that.


----------



## codo

dbolack said:


> This is not remotely equivalent.  DriveThru is a distribution layer and its fees are analogous to distribution cuts given to Chessex/Alliance/Wizards (whoever is lying about a publisher being out of business so they don't have to restock these days ) - not a royalty.



I'm sorry I might not have been clear.   I was just talking about the current DMsguild, not any new royalties under the new OGL.  This is a very nuanced topic with lots of technical terms. When we are discussing these complicated topics, I think we should all try to more specific with our terminology, and clarifying our points.  It is really easy in these long complicated threads for people to talk past each other.


----------



## Sly Gryphon

> Which clause of the OGL do you interpret as prohibiting video games?




The original poster is incorrect; there is nothing that prohibits video games (or NFTs) in OGL 1.0a; which is why the restriction is being added in 1.1 (although this restriction won't be binding, due to the "any" version distribution clause).

In fact converting an OGL text document into a computer program (including a video game) would seem to be explicitly listed "including into other computer languages".

[Aside: Interestingly "potation", which I looked up an apparent means the act of drinking, is also explicitly allowed. So you are allowed to drink OGL material (or perhaps make a cocktail based off it).]

It will be interesting to see what the offer in return for those who chose to use the new OGL 1.1, e.g. perhaps marketing or listing of products for those who report revenue. The versions aren't binding (due to the "any" clause), so they would have to offer something.

(Note that the inability to close an open licence is actually an intended feature of the open source movement)

So that means it is also good that they are doing a new version of the OGL, allowing both backwards and forwards compatibility ("you may use any version for content originally distributed under any version") compared to 4E which used an incompatible and different GSL.


----------



## Remathilis

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that wrapped up in a lot of the "analysis" of this is an undercurrent of desire to see WotC fail and collapse. There's a certain expectation of poetic justice for the Goliath to fall and D&D to be "freed."



There is a heavy dose of fan entitlement going around. An assumption that D&D would be better without WotC and in the hands of the fans. What would happen if WotC fails, of course, is a dozen Paizos all would be fighting for some shred of the market using different versions of SRD based games. It would balkanize D&D's fan base once and for all.


----------



## Incenjucar

This makes me wonder all the more of the viability of a DMsGuild conversion guide offering. Build the core parts under 1.0 and, if there's any gap, add a cheap or free conversion guide under 1.1.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Remathilis said:


> What would happen if WotC fails, of course, is a dozen Paizos all would be fighting for some shred of the market using different versions of SRD based games. It would balkanize D&D's fan base once and for all.



"No good, I've known too many Spaniards fantasy heartbreakers."


----------



## dbolack

Remathilis said:


> There is a heavy dose of fan entitlement going around. An assumption that D&D would be better without WotC and in the hands of the fans. What would happen if WotC fails, of course, is a dozen Paizos all would be fighting for some shred of the market using different versions of SRD based games. It would balkanize D&D's fan base once and for all.



Eh. It's just the current version of folks who would type T$R in every post on the ADD echo...


----------



## dbolack

codo said:


> I'm sorry I might not have been clear.   I was just talking about the current DMsguild, not any new royalties under the new OGL.  This is a very nuanced topic with lots of technical terms. When we are discussing these complicated topics, I think we should all try to more specific with our terminology, and clarifying our points.  It is really easy in these long complicated threads for people to talk past each other.




When you compared the rate for DMSGuild to the rate for DriveThru, you were comparing different things, which is what I was talking about.


----------



## Remathilis

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "No good, I've known too many Spaniards fantasy heartbreakers."


----------



## mamba

Uta-napishti said:


> Also, notice that now videos, websites and other media other than print are not going to be allowed to use OGL 1.1 content.
> *That means no competing with D&D Beyond kids, No Level Up Tools website next time, and also that there might never be another Critical Role *(at least there will not be using OneDnD or later)    --- this deal keeps getting worse all the time!



Seems like quite an overreaction. VTTs already have separate licenses and I doubt Critical Role needs any license to stream them playing.

I am not sure much changed at all here, outside of reporting income and paying a fee if it exceeds 750k. Not a fan of those, but I certainly do not see the issues you bring up. Not sure of the LevelUp tools, they might be the most gray area to me. Don’t see any issue with eg map generators, but not sure what else they have.

Otoh if you can choose to stay on 1.0a as some say, even that is mostly moot. Still waiting for the carrot that makes the stick sufficiently interesting…


----------



## Yaarel

Sly Gryphon said:


> (Note that the inability to close an open licence is actually an intended feature of the open source movement)



Does it become "misleading" or legally problematic to call it an "Open Gaming License 1.1", if its terms are no longer an "open license"?


----------



## dbolack

Yaarel said:


> Does it become "misleading" or legally problematic to call it an "Open Gaming License 1.1", if its terms are no longer an "open license"?




Not really. It is the name of the license and they own the license.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> Does it become "misleading" or legally problematic to call it an "Open Gaming License 1.1", if its terms are no longer an "open license"?




It is still very open.
I mean. 50k income per year is not that bad. After taxes and expenditures it is way less, but still quite some income. And since you have to do bookkeeping for taxes anyway, reporting it to wotc if you go over the margin does not seem too much of an effort.
The first blurb, I assume is just new form of accepting. So instead of accwpting the terms by printing the ogl verbatim into your book, you now have to also make some clicks online.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

UngeheuerLich said:


> I mean. 50k income per year is not that bad.



A shockingly large number of "name brand" creators don't reach this threshold, unfortunately.


----------



## FrogReaver

Incenjucar said:


> This makes me wonder all the more of the viability of a DMsGuild conversion guide offering. Build the core parts under 1.0 and, if there's any gap, add a cheap or free conversion guide under 1.1.



I would be afraid that the conversion guide would run afoul of the 1.0 OGL.  Which presumably (to my understanding) would mean WOTC could take legal action against you for breach of the original 1.0 license - whether they would or not is still a question.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> A shockingly large number of "name brand" creators don't reach this threshold, unfortunately.




So thw carrot everyone is speaking of might be targeted at them.
Integrate it into dndbeyond and maybe raise their income aove the treshold.

I am still not sure, why the reporting needs to be in the OGL. It could just come with a contract when using dndbeyond or so like there is with dmsguild.
Maybe we are all missing something here.


----------



## FrogReaver

UngeheuerLich said:


> So thw carrot everyone is speaking of might be targeted at them.
> Integrate it into dndbeyond and maybe raise their income aove the treshold.
> 
> I am still not sure, why the reporting needs to be in the OGL. It could just come with a contract when using dndbeyond or so like there is with dmsguild.
> Maybe we are all missing something here.



My guess - because OGL 1.1 can be used for more than DMsGuild or Beyond content and they would have no basis to know who to demand royalties from if they didn't ask for the income information in the same document stating what royalties are owed.  Courts are unlikely to let them do a fishing expedition into all the other companies using the OGL 1.1 on the off chance one might be in breach of contract with no actual evidence they are.  And most likely, even if they could do the fishing expedition - the legal fees needed to do so would cost far more than the royalties they would gain.


----------



## John R Davis

So if you run 2-3 , 5k-10k KS a year and have other sales in the year mounting to 2-4k, nothing has really changed?


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

D&D nedds the new and fresh ideas by the 3PPs, and these can also enjoy the open licence of Pathfinder.

WotC should give their blessing for the actual-play shows because these have been a fabulous tool of advertising. 
DMGuilds works as a channel for advertising and distribution.

What if the VTT would allow to change the pose of the characters to can create machinima 3D webcomics? 

Hasbro should be realistic and get ready because if 2023 is going to be a bad economic year then people will have to save money and this can't be spent so much in entertaiment.

* Really I feel curiosity about the update of new PC species and classes created by the 3PPs in the SRD.


----------



## FrogReaver

John R Davis said:


> So if you run 2-3 , 5k-10k KS a year and have other sales in the year mounting to 2-4k, nothing has really changed?



If you mean in terms of royalties - nothing has changed there.  There is going to be quite a mine field when it comes to converting 1.0 OGL content and derivates to 1.1 OGL content IMO. 

This is because the 1.0 OGL license states the product must be royalty free and the 1.1 demands royalties.


----------



## Voadam

John R Davis said:


> So if you run 2-3 , 5k-10k KS a year and have other sales in the year mounting to 2-4k, nothing has really changed?



Other than being limited to print and PDFs, reporting to WotC about what you put out, and having to use their creator badge in your works. Your example of someone expecting to make up to $34K per year on OGL revenue will not need to report their revenue.

From their DnD beyond statement:

For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:  

Accept the license terms *and let us know what you’re offering for sale *
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year) 
*Include a Creator Product badge on your work *


----------



## Voadam

Hmm reading over the Beyond statement one assertion strikes me as a bit off.

"D&D merchandise, like minis and novels, were never intended to be part of the OGL and OGL 1.1 won’t change that. Creators wishing to leverage D&D for those forms of expression will need, *as they always have needed*, custom agreements between us."

As far as I can tell there is nothing in the 1.0 OGL preventing someone from writing a D&D novel including things like the description of sahuagin or ropers and full on vancian spell casting wizards using spells like prismatic spray etc. from the srd and declare the D&D bits OGC. This would not authorize using Forgotten Realms or Eberron or carrion crawlers but they could do a novel set in a fantasy world using D&D OGC material.

I am not aware of anyone doing this, but the OGL seems to authorize it. 

I vaguely remember hearing something about an OGC t-shirt with the full OGL on it being sold as merchandise at a convention.


----------



## Greg Benage

I'm glad they're committed to releasing a 1D&D SRD. However, I'd note they don't _have_ to make _anything _in the 1D&D SRD Open Game Content, which would effectively be the same as having no 1D&D SRD with respect to Section 9 and previous versions of the OGL. Previous SRDs have designated all content in the document except PI as OGC, but that obviously isn't mandatory.

Maybe the new SRD designates content you could pull from the 5.1 SRD anyway as Open Game Content, but designates new content as One Game Content (just to have confusing acronyms), which can only be used by third parties publishing under the 1.1 OGL. If they change enough things like class tables and spell lists and then designate those things as One Game Content, they could conceivably make it difficult to hang 1D&D-based content on a previous version of the license.

Anyway, that would be the kind of strategy that would make sense of the "why would anyone use this?" question, given Section 9. I'll be very interested to see what they do with monsters. If they high-board off _Monsters of the Multiverse_ and really revamp the way they handle monsters, then they're cooking with Crisco in my opinion.

All speculation, obviously, but I think they clearly have a path to work around Section 9 if that's what they want to do.

ETA: I'd also strengthen my language if I don't want someone retro-clowning me: "Any Work that uses One Game Content is subject to the terms of the Open Game License v1.1."


----------



## vecna00

I don't hate it, and I think it would be fine. The sky doesn't seem to be falling.


----------



## Ondath

As a big fan of open content both in software and in gaming, I'm really annoyed by this. Obviously the sky isn't falling, but it also doesn't bode well for the game's future direction. They clearly want to milk the potential revenue through all possible avenues, and I think this will be detrimental for the community in the long run.

Good thing the old OGL 1.0a is irrevocable, and it looks like I'll be staying within that ecosystem for my future games.


----------



## Yora

First we have to look into the text of the new licence and the content of the SRD it applies to and then we can start making statements on what is allowed and how things will work.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

So, if the new OGL isn’t as good, why would publishers not just keep using the current OGL?

I’m assuming there’s some sort of benefit to using the new OGL?


----------



## Hussar

Olaf the Stout said:


> So, if the new OGL isn’t as good, why would publishers not just keep using the current OGL?
> 
> I’m assuming there’s some sort of benefit to using the new OGL?



At the moment, no one really knows.  We haven't, as it were, seen the carrot yet.

But, speculatively, probably the biggest carrot will be access to the D&D Beyond platform in some form.  Granted, that's not guaranteed.  After all, you don't use the OGL to sell on DM's Guild.  All that stuff there is closed content.  Presumably, the stuff that's allowed on D&D Beyond will go in a similar direction.  

Another thought is that some of the new races will be included in the SRD.  After all, the 5e SRD includes Dragonborn, so, it's likely that if Ardlings become a new race, they will be included in the new SRD which, likely, you will need to use the newest OGL to use.  Or, am I misunderstanding that?  Can you use an older OGL with a newer SRD?  I'm getting confused as I type this, so, Y'know what?  I'm going to shut my trap and let other people answer better than I can.  

:/


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Loren the GM said:


> I'll also be interested to see what happens with things like VTT conversions of Kickstarter adventures. As a Roll20 module or Foundry module isn't a static electronic file like a PDF, will these now require a special license to convert and sell? And will things like Level Up be required to acquire a special license to do things like provide the online tools (obviously not the current iteration, as that is all under the previous OGL, but if they or another creator making something similar were to publish a new version under 1.1?)



Why is a Roll20 Module or Foundry Module not static as far as I can tell a FantasgyGrounds Mod is static or at least as static as a web page.


----------



## Hussar

UngainlyTitan said:


> Why is a Roll20 Module or Foundry Module not static as far as I can tell a FantasgyGrounds Mod is static or at least as static as a web page.



Never minding though that a Roll20 Module isn't published under the OGL.  At least, not if it's anything like Fantasy Grounds.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

FrogReaver said:


> If you mean in terms of royalties - nothing has changed there.  There is going to be quite a mine field when it comes to converting 1.0 OGL content and derivates to 1.1 OGL content IMO.
> 
> This is because the 1.0 OGL license states the product must be royalty free and the 1.1 demands royalties.



That’s not how it works.


----------



## Staffan

GDGD said:


> With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales. If it does, it's still a net win after you cough up 50% of the revenues. If not, you'd be better off under the OGL either on DriveThru or doing your own thing.



If you sell on "regular" DrivethruRPG I believe they take 30-35%, depending on whether you sell that thing exclusively via DTRPG or not. So you're effectively paying Wizards another 20% on top of that in exchange for access to their IP and a more visible storefront. Whether that's a good deal or not is something for the writer/publisher to decide.


Reynard said:


> ninja'd by @Nikosandros
> 
> Not apparently. The OGL states that you can use any OGC with any version of the OGL. If they release the 1D&D SRD by way of the 1.1 OGL, you can still use that in your 1.0a OGL product.
> 
> *_9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute a ny Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. *_



Yeah, to my understanding it's like this:
OGL 1.0a offers a few things, which we can call A, B, and C in exchange for some considerations, which we can call O.
If OGL 1.1 only offers A and B, or demands further considerations P and R in order to offer A, B, and C, no-one is going to use it and instead keep using 1.0. So they need to sweeten the pot somehow, either offering A, B, as well as D and F (but not C) in exchange for O, P, and R. But you'd be able to use either license to create new stuff, but you can't mix and match (using A, B, C, and D).



Dausuul said:


> They must also be considered versions of the same license. v1.1 might declare itself to be a new distinct license.



That would, I think, break any connection to pre-existing OGC. In other words, I could not make an adventure for 5.5e and include a monster from Tome of Horrors (released under 1.0a).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Sacrosanct said:


> As a publisher, I want to know if it's net or gross.  I don't want to make any assumptions.  Gross?  Then I qualify for over $50,000.   Net?  Then I'm still technically in the red lol.
> 
> And yeah, I can work with the current OGL and not need the new one if it's Gross.  Maybe.  It depends on what 1DnD will ultimately look like for the SRD.



It appears to me that for 1.1 open content and going by what we have seen in the UAs the 5.1 SRD should be a good enough basis to work with for now, but I would expect that D&D will gradually drift from that 1.1 OGL base. So by 10 - 20 years you would have to use the new licences.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Hussar said:


> Never minding though that a Roll20 Module isn't published under the OGL.  At least, not if it's anything like Fantasy Grounds.



Yep you are correct but I do not see the issue with mods of OGC content. The files are still static information. The automation on FantasyGrounds is a language parser that drives a die roller. It does not modify any original gaming content.


----------



## teitan

dbolack said:


> Eh. It's just the current version of folks who would type T$R in every post on the ADD echo...



No these people glorify TSR like it was the best company and forget how the company treated fans even during the Gary years when Blume was running things.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Remathilis said:


> There is a heavy dose of fan entitlement going around. An assumption that D&D would be better without WotC and in the hands of the fans. What would happen if WotC fails, of course, is a dozen Paizos all would be fighting for some shred of the market using different versions of SRD based games. It would balkanize D&D's fan base once and for all.



It's not fan entitlement to complain that the new version of something is objectively worse for literally everybody except the giant corporation. Tell me, how is OGL 1.1 better for anybody but Hasbro?


----------



## eyeheartawk

The reason I'm really inclined to believe that the carrot is integration into the 2024 DnD Beyond/VTT ecosystem (whatever that ends up being called) is that bit about the $750K threshold for royalties. How would they enforce that? The easiest answer? From sales data. On their own digital storefront.


----------



## Morrus

eyeheartawk said:


> The reason I'm really inclined to believe that the carrot is integration into the 2024 DnD Beyond/VTT ecosystem (whatever that ends up being called) is that bit about the $750K threshold for royalties. How would they enforce that? The easiest answer? From sales data. On their own digital storefront.



Many of those creators generate that revenue from Kickstarter.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Morrus said:


> Many of those creators generate that revenue from Kickstarter.



Yeah sure, but these are MBAs we are talking about. When creating a net to capture free money, why would they limit it to just big Kickstarters they notice, you know?

Plus when tied into their own storefront you can far more easily run reports, etc. You could even automatically take your cut once the threshold is met. Alot less friction there.


----------



## zooey

The revenue reporting will be useful to Hasbro for identifying what sorts of products are in demand.  Adventure modules are down?  Put Yawning Portal 2 on hold.  Four different ninja-related 3rd party books sold over $50k?  See what the developers can do with Kara-Tur next quarter.


----------



## Dragonsbane

Should be interesting. I wonder if this will be a chance for other games to allow more publishing from people to counter this a little. There are soooooooo many other games out there people can try, and its a shame more don't. 

The amount of blatant monetization leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Although my group plays other games now, I had considered trying the new D&D when it comes out, I have played it since the 80s, but... that desire is fading every new article I read about WofC and D&D One.


----------



## eyeheartawk

I think this might be even worse of an "open" license than Chaosium's.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

zooey said:


> The revenue reporting will be useful to Hasbro for identifying what sorts of products are in demand.  Adventure modules are down?  Put Yawning Portal 2 on hold.  Four different ninja-related 3rd party books sold over $50k?  See what the developers can do with Kara-Tur next quarter.




This might be the answer to @eyeheartawk 's question.
We might profit, because wotc knows better what we want.


----------



## Loren the GM

UngainlyTitan said:


> Why is a Roll20 Module or Foundry Module not static as far as I can tell a FantasgyGrounds Mod is static or at least as static as a web page.






Hussar said:


> Never minding though that a Roll20 Module isn't published under the OGL.  At least, not if it's anything like Fantasy Grounds.




Many products are produced through Kickstarter (or independently) that use the OGL. These are then ported to VTT platforms, which often includes dynamic elements like character builders, compendiums, rollable tables, etc. If the original property was built using the OGL, then whatever content is produced for the VTT still includes OGL content and would need to abide by that license, even though the actual module being sold is under a license with whichever storefront is being sold.  If they use any OGL 1.1 content that touches these dynamic elements, that could potentially be a problem (IANAL, and of course we don't have actual OGL 1.1 text yet so don't know what ACTUALLY will be allowed or not).

Official conversions of WotC modules (Curse of Strahd, for example) wouldn't fall under this category as they have a separate license with the VTT outside of the OGL, but the MANY third-party products that are created this way would definitely need to evaluate what the new OGL means to them.


----------



## Alzrius

Greg Benage said:


> ETA: I'd also strengthen my language if I don't want someone retro-clowning me: "Any Work that uses One Game Content is subject to the terms of the Open Game License v1.1."



I'm not sure that would hold water, personally.

I mean, they _could_ insert language like that, but if there's any "One Game Content" (i.e. 1D&D Open Game Content) that in any way overlaps with Open Game Content currently in use from a different SRD, e.g. content such as a race called "dwarves," or a class called "cleric," etc., then almost anything could be put forward as being "One Game Content" even if it's not.

Now, the obvious counter to that would be that you have to look at the Section 15 to see if the 1D&D SRD is being cited, which would ideally clear things up. Even then, though, I'm not sure you'd be able to make a "if you use this, you're subject to the OGL v1.1" clause fly, simply because that language would be part of the OGL v1.1 itself (not the 1D&D SRD), and so in order to be bound by that clause you have to actually _use_ the OGL v1.1. You can't be held subject to the terms of a license you aren't a party to. Hence, if someone uses Open Game Content originally released under the OGL v1.1 in an OGL v1.0a product via the latter's Section 9, they haven't actually used the OGL v1.1 to begin with.


----------



## Ranger REG

UngeheuerLich said:


> This might be the answer to @eyeheartawk 's question.
> We might profit, because wotc knows better what we want.



But that's the thing, though. Why should any third-party publisher report the revenue of their products that contains OGC to WotC/Hasbro?


----------



## dbolack

teitan said:


> No these people glorify TSR like it was the best company and forget how the company treated fans even during the Gary years when Blume was running things.



They do _now_.


----------



## SteveC

This is really interesting stuff. The most important thing is that just about everything we are seeing at the moment is pure speculation. I know a few people have already mentioned this but if we shut down comments on that basis, we don't have much to discuss.

With that in mind, here's my speculation: WotC is trying to bring together all content under the umbrella of the new VTT and D&D Beyond. They want to bring everyone to use that platform, that seems really obvious. The obvious carrot is integration with that platform.

But what does that mean for other platforms? I use Foundry, but haven't used it for 5E yet. I know there's a module to import material from D&D Beyond, and I expect that will no longer be allowed in the 1D&D world. I wonder if WotC will continue the "special license" they have with any VTT company at that point.

This all gets back to how compatible 1D&D will be with 5E. If the new game truly is backwards compatible, there's no reason that companies really need to move forward to the new edition at all because their games can just be parallel to it and still use any new content. That's why I'm of the belief that 1D&D will be different enough so as not to make that easy to do. That is 100% speculation on my part, but I think it's likely.

But, as Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong, let's go have pie.


----------



## tomBitonti

So, i’m getting a different read of this than seems prevalent:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish
updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version
of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game
Content *originally* distributed under any version of this License.

Bold added by me.

How does this apply to new content?  I can get it to apply, it seems, only after using the current license.  Which would be bizarre.

TomB


----------



## dbolack

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yep you are correct but I do not see the issue with mods of OGC content. The files are still static information. The automation on FantasyGrounds is a language parser that drives a die roller. It does not modify any original gaming content.



Working from the assumption that is absolutely correct:

Being correct and being able to prove it should you choose to defend your correctness in court when the aggressor gets to select the venue are two very, very, very different things.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

SteveC said:


> This is really interesting stuff. The most important thing is that just about everything we are seeing at the moment is pure speculation. I know a few people have already mentioned this but if we shut down comments on that basis, we don't have much to discuss.
> 
> With that in mind, here's my speculation: WotC is trying to bring together all content under the umbrella of the new VTT and D&D Beyond. They want to bring everyone to use that platform, that seems really obvious. The obvious carrot is integration with that platform.
> 
> But what does that mean for other platforms? I use Foundry, but haven't used it for 5E yet. I know there's a module to import material from D&D Beyond, and I expect that will no longer be allowed in the 1D&D world. I wonder if WotC will continue the "special license" they have with any VTT company at that point.



So this prompted me to scan the D&DBeyond "Term of Service", now I am not a lawyer not did I read it very closely but a quick scan of the TOS would appear to me that the use of importers or webscrapers is a violation of the TOS. 
They may not have gone after the like of Beyond20 but that you are in violation of the TOS. 


SteveC said:


> This all gets back to how compatible 1D&D will be with 5E. If the new game truly is backwards compatible, there's no reason that companies really need to move forward to the new edition at all because their games can just be parallel to it and still use any new content. That's why I'm of the belief that 1D&D will be different enough so as not to make that easy to do. That is 100% speculation on my part, but I think it's likely.
> 
> But, as Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong, let's go have pie.



My guess as I have said before all that is out now is free forever but that this may not apply to the SRD for the new content.


----------



## dbolack

Ranger REG said:


> But that's the thing, though. Why should any third-party publisher report the revenue of their products that contains OGC to WotC/Hasbro?



This is a common thing in licenses that are not acquired with a flat fee ( $0 is still a flat fee ) for auditing and renewal purposes.


----------



## Bitbrain

_reads entirety of thread_

Not entirely sure about the full implications of a new OGL, but it sounds like even more incentive for me to just stick with 5e and ignore 1D&D completely.


----------



## Remathilis

Bitbrain said:


> _reads entirety of thread_
> 
> Not entirely sure about the full implications of a new OGL, but it sounds like even more incentive for me to just stick with 5e and ignore 1D&D completely.



Not to pick on you, but this thinking confuses me.

Are you a publisher of third party content that makes over 50k in sales annually? Then this doesn't really concern you. This has zero effect on the average player or consumer. There will still be third party content. This doesn't even relate to DMsGuild. I'm sure WotC is going to make sure that the major 3pp studios like Kobold or Darrington Press aren't going to pull a Paizo on them again. Again, unless you are making a living selling D&D adjacent material, this is a tempest in a teapot.

Further, it has nothing to do with One D&D directly, except for the fact they are using the rules update to coincide with the updated OGL. 5e and 1D are mostly compatible, so even if your favorite publisher doesn't move to 1D for some reason, there is no reason why you couldn't use their stuff with 1D. 

Listen, buy One D&D or don't. But don't frame the decision as some moral stance. The sheer amount of virtue signaling that frames not upgrading your PHB as "sticking it to WotC's corporate overlords" is laughable. Especially when we're over a year away from it's final form.


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

Here's my random speculation after skimming a bunch of the discussions going on: YMMV

Currently, Hasbro's got an issue with Magic and whether they're flooding the market to essentially print money.  Shareholders are concerned.

They're going to have their own online platform.  They probably want to drive traffic there and find a way to make money off it.

Given they've talked about 1D&D being backward-compatible, and given that the OGL is able to be used from any previous edition...  I wonder if this talk about the royalties etc is just to bolster shareholder confidence.  A way to say 'hey, here's a way that we're having residuals come to us.'  New game stuffs will continue to be released, under new or old OGL - I don't feel anyone's going to be stifled.  Personally, I felt at the time of the 3.x  OGL that, largely, a lot of third-party materials and splatbooks were just... Not Good.  The market got flooded and those companies ceased to be.  I hope this won't be the case coming up.

On the talk of them seeing another company's financials.... I see why that may be objectionable to some people, but as long as that information is staying private, I don't see the harm.  From their standpoint, I feel it's a way for them to really get real numbers on the 'health' of D&D, their main product, to really look at its profitability beyond what they make.  Any business would be right to have someone they're going into business with look at their numbers and really do some forensic accounting on it - that's why there was an issue at Disney+ hiding costs and faking health by shunting things to appear on the Disney Channel first so the Channel eats the cost of it.  That's why Peter Jackson had his lawsuit with New Line - they were 'paying' their own subsidiaries first and then claiming to him there was no revenue left to split.

I know it's a serious concern for ENWorld's publishing, for other people who hit that line, but again, it feels like, as we live in a content-driven age, a lot of these videos or posts out there seem to be out to just have discussions for page clicks.  I hope I don't sound like I'm disparaging anyone's comments - I just come from an auditing background in a few industries, and currently work for a bank that's either always buying or merging with other banks.

Again, YMMV


----------



## Umbran

Remathilis said:


> The sheer amount of virtue signaling ...




*Mod Note:*
This comprises an assertion that the person's concerns are not sincere.
You are not in a position to make that assertion.
So, please don't.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Greg Benage said:


> I'm glad they're committed to releasing a 1D&D SRD. However, I'd note they don't _have_ to make _anything _in the 1D&D SRD Open Game Content, which would effectively be the same as having no 1D&D SRD with respect to Section 9 and previous versions of the OGL. Previous SRDs have designated all content in the document except PI as OGC, but that obviously isn't mandatory.
> 
> Maybe the new SRD designates content you could pull from the 5.1 SRD anyway as Open Game Content, but designates new content as One Game Content (just to have confusing acronyms), which can only be used by third parties publishing under the 1.1 OGL. If they change enough things like class tables and spell lists and then designate those things as One Game Content, they could conceivably make it difficult to hang 1D&D-based content on a previous version of the license.
> 
> Anyway, that would be the kind of strategy that would make sense of the "why would anyone use this?" question, given Section 9. I'll be very interested to see what they do with monsters. If they high-board off _Monsters of the Multiverse_ and really revamp the way they handle monsters, then they're cooking with Crisco in my opinion.
> 
> All speculation, obviously, but I think they clearly have a path to work around Section 9 if that's what they want to do.
> 
> ETA: I'd also strengthen my language if I don't want someone retro-clowning me: "Any Work that uses One Game Content is subject to the terms of the Open Game License v1.1."



If so, I'd definitely lose respect for them.  That's a move designed to literally make the rich get richer.


----------



## Micah Sweet

teitan said:


> No these people glorify TSR like it was the best company and forget how the company treated fans even during the Gary years when Blume was running things.



They made some of (most of IMO) the best content, but no, they certainly weren't the best company.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> They made some of (most of IMO) the best content, but no, they certainly weren't the best company.



Agreed. They had their share of duds, but at least they took proper swings. They tried and sometimes failed, but when they succeeded, they produced classics. The only time WotC really seems to have tried (4E), the fans rejected it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Not to pick on you, but this thinking confuses me.
> 
> Are you a publisher of third party content that makes over 50k in sales annually? Then this doesn't really concern you. This has zero effect on the average player or consumer. There will still be third party content. This doesn't even relate to DMsGuild. I'm sure WotC is going to make sure that the major 3pp studios like Kobold or Darrington Press aren't going to pull a Paizo on them again. Again, unless you are making a living selling D&D adjacent material, this is a tempest in a teapot.
> 
> Further, it has nothing to do with One D&D directly, except for the fact they are using the rules update to coincide with the updated OGL. 5e and 1D are mostly compatible, so even if your favorite publisher doesn't move to 1D for some reason, there is no reason why you couldn't use their stuff with 1D.
> 
> Listen, buy One D&D or don't. But don't frame the decision as some moral stance. The sheer amount of virtue signaling that frames not upgrading your PHB as "sticking it to WotC's corporate overlords" is laughable. Especially when we're over a year away from it's final form.



It matters to the consumer if it changes 3PP content going forward from those 20 companies, especially if you prefer that content as its being produced now over what that license might encourage it to be.

For example, I absolutely love Level Up.   I would be very sad if EN Publishing decided to change their design in light of this.


----------



## darjr

4e GSL posted by SlyFlourish with some noted highlights in light of the OGL 1.1 discussion.
					

Mike Shea copied the 4e GSL into notion and highlighted some bits he thought was interesting and in light of the OGL 1.1 discussion.  I was going to post it into one of the other many threads but figured it kinda stood on it's own.  Bolded bits are   Wizards may update or revise the License at...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## DorkForge

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The DMsGuild license is different from the OGL. If you publish things under the DMsGuild license, you're not restrained to the same terms as you are by the OGL.



I'm aware, I wasn't saying you'd pay the DM's Guild fee. I was using it as an example of them taking a cut at point of purchase. e.g. a 3rd party publisher sells a product on Beyond, the VTT store whatever it will be, WotC get's let's say a 20% cut. 
If that publisher then does really well, then they start paying the royalty in addition to that.
Though I could just be blinded by general distaste for building book keeping and royalties into the OGL, it just _feels_ too greedy/the wrong way to grab more money.


----------



## darjr

From a year ago. The gentleman's dissertation was on the OGL.


----------



## darjr

Oh! The old OGL FAQ seems to be missing from WotCs site. When did that happen?

Here is a copy.


			FAQ: Open Game License


----------



## mamba

With the OGL having formed the basis for the OSR and basically creating BX/BECMI/AD&D clones, I assume the same could be done in the other direction. Use the 5e SRD as a basline and update it with OneD&D changes. Not to copy verbatim, but to keep compatible with wherever 5e is going in its new incarnation.

Also, I don’t really think that for adventures etc. it matters whether you base them on the 5e SRD or the next one, except in some fringe cases you basically have to construct specifically for this.

I for one am curious how this shakes out and what ‘the carrot’ is.


----------



## darjr

Something.

If WotC's plans come to fruition then the revenue from Movies and TV and Merch will dwarf that from the RPG and make the 3pp revenue seem absolutely invisible.

Is it worth the PR hit and the effort involved?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

darjr said:


> Something.
> 
> If WotC's plans come to fruition then the revenue from Movies and TV and Merch will dwarf that from the RPG and make the 3pp revenue seem absolutely invisible.
> 
> Is it worth the PR hit and the effort involved?



Probably if they can pull it off.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I mean of the 10 million plus that have signed up on D&DBeyond, how many of them even know that this even happening?


----------



## darjr

UngainlyTitan said:


> I mean of the 10 million plus that have signed up on D&DBeyond, how many of them even know that this even happening?



Seeing that they turned off comments on that OGL 1.1 post? Maybe enough.


----------



## MockingBird

darjr said:


> Seeing that they turned off comments on that OGL 1.1 post? Maybe enough.



What post are you referring to? I'm bored and just reading everything I can.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

darjr said:


> Seeing that they turned off comments on that OGL 1.1 post? Maybe enough.



Unless I'm mistaken, official posts by WotC on D&D Beyond have never had open comment sections.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, official posts by WotC on D&D Beyond have never had open comment sections.



I thought some of them have. I think I saw them open when it went up. I went back to comment.

But that could be. OK.


----------



## Scribe

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, official posts by WotC on D&D Beyond have never had open comment sections.



Wonder why. :>


----------



## UngainlyTitan

darjr said:


> Seeing that they turned off comments on that OGL 1.1 post? Maybe enough.



considering it usually takes about 2 people to shut down a thread here maybe not.


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> I thought some of them have. I think I saw them open when it went up. I went back to comment.
> 
> But that could be. OK.



Most of DDB posts have comments, but the one about the OGL does not.


----------



## MNblockhead

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, other than stuff to specifically flesh out Strixhaven, Witchlight or the Radiant Citadel, generally speaking, I find DTRPG to be a much better place to go, which often much more creative approaches to subjects and a lot of extremely high quality work.
> 
> That said, things like @Nixlord's mighty Monster Manual Expanded books need to be DMs Guild, given how many product identity critters he publishes variants of. But if he ever does a book of completely original monsters (which sounds like it might be in the cards), I think there's an excellent chance it'd be on DTRPG instead.



I'll have to check out @Nixlord 's Mighty Monster Manual.  I backed Coleville's latest monster book. I like taking "common" monster but adding different abilities that make them interesting in more tactical and flavorful ways. Like one-shot legendary actions, minion actions, etc. I'm finding that I don't really need MORE monsters, I need ways to make monsters in general more interesting.


----------



## MNblockhead

dbolack said:


> Not really. It is the name of the license and they own the license.



Well, sure, but a significant number in the Open Source community have clear expectations of what it means for a license to be open. It is a bit like offering software for "free" with lots of small-print caveats. I don't have a problem with the licenses themselves. Creators are free to limit the use of their products as they like within the confines of the law, but it leaves a bad taste when people and companies use "open" but have limits that make it less than completely open. It feels like they are trying to capitalize on the good-will of the open source movement while still trying to keep some control.


----------



## MNblockhead

LuisCarlos17f said:


> D&D nedds the new and fresh ideas by the 3PPs, and these can also enjoy the open licence of Pathfinder.
> 
> WotC should give their blessing for the actual-play shows because these have been a fabulous tool of advertising.
> DMGuilds works as a channel for advertising and distribution.
> 
> What if the VTT would allow to change the pose of the characters to can create machinima 3D webcomics?
> 
> Hasbro should be realistic and get ready because if 2023 is going to be a bad economic year then people will have to save money and this can't be spent so much in entertaiment.
> 
> * Really I feel curiosity about the update of new PC species and classes created by the 3PPs in the SRD.



I don't imagine that they about people recording live plays.  It is when the few that become wildly popular that they start selling significant amounts of merch and develop their own source books and TV shows, that WotC, Hasbro, and their partners become concerned.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Scribe said:


> Wonder why. :>



Have you seen the comment section on D&D Beyond? Even on the positive articles, they're toxic.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MNblockhead said:


> I'll have to check out @Nixlord 's Mighty Monster Manual.  I backed Coleville's latest monster book. I like taking "common" monster but adding different abilities that make them interesting in more tactical and flavorful ways. Like one-shot legendary actions, minion actions, etc. I'm finding that I don't really need MORE monsters, I need ways to make monsters in general more interesting.



The Monster Manual Expanded series is as close to a killer app for the DMs Guild as I can imagine. Three books big enough to kill a medium-sized pet, each with lots of variants of the monsters in WotC's monster books, plus monsters from previous editions.

Because sometimes, you want more/better goblins, orcs and giants, rather than something completely different, especially if you're upscaling an adventure or you just want to keep games fresh without completely changing the tone of an adventure.

Do note that, with their size and tons of original art, the hardcover prices will give you a bit of sticker shock the first time you see them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Have you seen the comment section on D&D Beyond? Even on the positive articles, they're toxic.



How soon does the toxicity start on those? I tune out when I see the first few posts always being "first" and "second," like it's 2009.


----------



## SkidAce

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Have you seen the comment section on D&D Beyond? Even on the positive articles, they're toxic.



Thee are definitely toxic threads there, but many of them are okay (or at least in the topics I check)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> How soon does the toxicity start on those? I tune out when I see the first few posts always being "first" and "second," like it's 2009.



It's basically a Youtube comments section. So there are often the "first!" comments, and some positive ones, but often devolves into complaining about things that aren't even relevant to the article.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

SkidAce said:


> Thee are definitely toxic threads there, but many of them are okay (or at least in the topics I check)



I meant the "home page articles" comment sections.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I meant the "home page articles" comment sections.



I just checked and all but three have comments enabled.

The ones that dint are the OGL 1.1 post, the one that is a link to buy Dragonlance, and the one that is about Galesong


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

darjr said:


> I just checked and all but three have comments enabled.
> 
> The ones that dint are the OGL 1.1 post, the one that is a link to buy Dragonlance, and the one that is about Galesong



Yeah. The ones posted by WotC never have comments open, from what I've seen. The normal D&D Beyond articles (Class 101, upcoming book previews, etc) normally do.


----------



## MNblockhead

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The Monster Manual Expanded series is as close to a killer app for the DMs Guild as I can imagine. Three books big enough to kill a medium-sized pet, each with lots of variants of the monsters in WotC's monster books, plus monsters from previous editions.
> 
> Because sometimes, you want more/better goblins, orcs and giants, rather than something completely different, especially if you're upscaling an adventure or you just want to keep games fresh without completely changing the tone of an adventure.
> 
> Do note that, with their size and tons of original art, the hardcover prices will give you a bit of sticker shock the first time you see them.



Given the Kickstarters I've backed, not much of a sticker shock. But I'll probably stick with the PDFs.  I run my games on VTT when I'm abroad for work, so I need all my gaming material on my laptop.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Yeah. The ones posted by WotC never have comments open, from what I've seen. The normal D&D Beyond articles (Class 101, upcoming book previews, etc) normally do.



Most of them say DnDBeyond staff? Including that one?

However I get the point. It seams the ones about the business have comments disabled. The dragon+ one and the two Hadozee ones and the sales page ones, for instance. The content or game oriented ones seem to have comments enabled.

Note that there are some about the business that do have comments enabled. Like the news recap one.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

I'm getting a real  "Critical Role ate our lunch" vibe from this ogl.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> The ones that dint are the OGL 1.1 post, the one that is a link to buy Dragonlance, and the one that is about Galesong



It says bad things about the world that they didn't trust people commenting about Galesong not to be terrible.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm getting a real  "Critical Role ate our lunch" vibe from this ogl.



Critical Role brought a whole lot more people to WotC's restaurant. If anyone at Hasbro views Critical Role as the enemy, they should go into another line of work.


----------



## darjr

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm getting a real  "Critical Role ate our lunch" vibe from this ogl.



I gotta say I don’t get this take. I’ve seen it several times.

I thought it was common knowledge that CR and WotC already have a special agreement in place for most things and the one book so far was sold in a weird way that probably had something to do with that even though it was OGL. Also wasn’t it OGL because of the Pathfinder stuff?


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The Monster Manual Expanded series is as close to a killer app for the DMs Guild as I can imagine. Three books big enough to kill a medium-sized pet, each with lots of variants of the monsters in WotC's monster books, plus monsters from previous editions.
> 
> Because sometimes, you want more/better goblins, orcs and giants, rather than something completely different, especially if you're upscaling an adventure or you just want to keep games fresh without completely changing the tone of an adventure.
> 
> Do note that, with their size and tons of original art, the hardcover prices will give you a bit of sticker shock the first time you see them.



For me the killer app is not yet another monster book, it’s a working toolkit to design monsters on the fly. Luckily, Blog of Holding already did that. Now it’s just a matter of doing the math to break that down to replicate 4E monster design in 5E.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm getting a real  "Critical Role ate our lunch" vibe from this ogl.




They partnered woth critical role several times....


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> For me the killer app is not yet another monster book, it’s a working toolkit to design monsters on the fly.



I'm talking about a killer app _for the DMs Guild._ A toolkit to build monsters on the fly should go to DTRPG, unless your monster examples are, for some reason, all beholders, Slaadi and carrion crawlers.


----------



## overgeeked

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm getting a real  "Critical Role ate our lunch" vibe from this ogl.



Well, yeah. They’re doing the lifestyle brand thing way, way better at Critical Role than WotC. CR episodes have about 15-20 minutes of commercials at the start of every episode and another 15-20 minutes of commercials during their break. They move a lot of merch.


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm talking about a killer app _for the DMs Guild._ A toolkit to build monsters on the fly should go to DTRPG, unless your monster examples are, for some reason, all beholders, Slaadi and carrion crawlers.



Why? DriveThru gets a fraction of the views.


----------



## ChaosOS

It's worth noting that there's basically nothing WotC can do about CR/Dimension 20 merch; they've all been very carefully to build their own IP that's separate from core D&D, which is why the shadowy patron in season 1 of the animated series is "The Whispered One". As an Eberron fan, it's too bad that no major AP will touch the setting unless it's WotC endorsed/run, but that's the reality of how IP works.

I'm firmly of the belief that the reason they don't have the final OGL terms yet is because they're negotiating with the major 3PP to hash out the stick (royalties) vs. carrots (access to what's up until now been a walled garden of DDB). There's a lot that WotC can offer publishers that would get them to take the financial reporting + royalties deal, from marketplace to access to requirements that WotC promote their products.


----------



## overgeeked

ChaosOS said:


> It's worth noting that there's basically nothing WotC can do about CR/Dimension 20 merch; they've all been very carefully to build their own IP that's separate from core D&D, which is why the shadowy patron in season 1 of the animated series is "The Whispered One". As an Eberron fan, it's too bad that no major AP will touch the setting unless it's WotC endorsed/run, but that's the reality of how IP works.



Which makes me really wonder about Acquisitions Incorporated and their upcoming Kickstarter for the next season. That tease of the Dark Sun book makes me really curious. 


ChaosOS said:


> I'm firmly of the belief that the reason they don't have the final OGL terms yet is because they're negotiating with the major 3PP to hash out the stick (royalties) vs. carrots (access to what's up until now been a walled garden of DDB). There's a lot that WotC can offer publishers that would get them to take the financial reporting + royalties deal, from marketplace to access to requirements that WotC promote their products.



I doubt they’re going to find much to discuss or much reason to. WotC holds all the cards. They can simply make demands and the 3PP can choose to abide or walk. It’s a safe bet the vast majority of fans will simply migrate to the new edition without missing a beat. For most of them it’s their first edition change.


----------



## mamba

MNblockhead said:


> I'll have to check out @Nixlord 's Mighty Monster Manual.  I backed Coleville's latest monster book. I like taking "common" monster but adding different abilities that make them interesting in more tactical and flavorful ways. Like one-shot legendary actions, minion actions, etc. I'm finding that I don't really need MORE monsters, I need ways to make monsters in general more interesting.



I'd recommend them, have been the best monster books I found so far, not counting MCDM's as I have not taken a closer look on that.

I also prefer a larger variety of 'standard' monsters, I do not need a whole book of weirdos I never use


----------



## mamba

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm getting a real  "Critical Role ate our lunch" vibe from this ogl.



Not sure, I don't see CR even having to use OGL for what they do.


----------



## Blue

codo said:


> I'm sorry but a company allowing other game devolopers to play in their their toys in their world, and just asking for a cut of the profits and that you only publish your work in their online store isn't some sinister, evil plot.



This is correct.

However, that's not _*at all*_ the same thing as adjusting the OGL to do the same things.  And doing those same things to an existing Open License is... well, neither sinister nor evil, but it is greedy, shortsighted, and will burn goodwill.  Because an Open License servers a much different purpose then other types of licenses.  Go read some of Ryan Dancy's articles about it.  Or read about Open Licenses in software.

They have no need to use the OGL at all.  Every TSR edition of D&D survived without it.  Many RPG publishers flourish without some form of Open License.  They could easily take OneD&D and not have an open license at all, or move to a different, more restricted license like the GSL during the 4e era.  But trying to put those requirements specifically on an Open LIcense is a big deal.


----------



## Minigiant

Micah Sweet said:


> If so, I'd definitely lose respect for them.  That's a move designed to literally make the rich get richer.



I never got this line of thinking.

Almost every publicly traded major company attempts to make more money and will slide in various degrees against consumer wishes to do so. It's the nature of the public share beast.

Almost any of the 3PP would be doing the sameat some level if they swapped places with WOTC. And I'm saying almost to be charitable to fellow ENWorlders who are 3PPs as I am a cynical Brooklynite.


----------



## Voadam

kenada said:


> That assumes the 1.0a will be is an authorized version of the OGL for use with the 2024 rules SRD, which seems very unlikely. WotC is the copyright holder of the SRD text, so they can (re)release it under whatever terms they want. They could even release a 5.2 SRD that does nothing but bump the license version to 1.1.



9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

I wouldn't want to be a WotC lawyer arguing that the 1.0 OGL that WotC licensed out is not an authorized version of the license that gives licensees the right to use OGC distributed under the 1.1 version of the OGL under the terms of the 1.0 version of the OGL.

There is an argument to be made that way, but it is not a slam dunk one that I would feel confident banking on as winning in court and making business plans around as a strategy.

Particularly given the history of the OGL, WotC's past statements on future revisions of the OGL, and the fact that WotC is the licensor trying to argue against interpreting an arguably ambiguous term in their contract against the licensee's favor.



kenada said:


> My non-lawyer understanding (based on working with open-source software) is if you want to mix OGC that was released under the 1.0a OGL with that which is only 1.1 OGL, then the aggregate must be released under the 1.1 OGL (as allowed by section 9 of the 10.a OGL), but you would still have to honor the requirements of the 1.0a OGL for the incorporated content.
> 
> For example, you release a product that uses a monster from the Pathfinder bestiary, converting it to the 2024 rules. That conversion would have to be made available under the 1.0a OGL, but the other stuff would remain exclusively OGL 1.1. If it’s not possible to do the conversion without “tainting” it the OGL 1.1 SRD, then you can’t use the monster or do the conversion.



That's an arguable interpretation, but there is also a strong argument that WotC is contractually bound by Section 9 of the 1.0 OGL to allow OGC distributed under any version of the OGL to be copied, modified, and distributed under the 1.0 OGL.


----------



## Minigiant

I wonder about the line between 5e and 1DND. 1DND will keep a lot of 5e rules, mechanics, and assets. So the line between 5e SRD and 1DND's will be thin in some places.

Skimming the line between 5e and 1DND if you sell a big 1.0 OGL rulesbook will be tough later on.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> If so, I'd definitely lose respect for them. That's a move designed to literally make the rich get richer.



I too dislike capitalism, but until we get rid of it, we abide by its rules and motivation.


----------



## MNblockhead

mamba said:


> I'd recommend them, have been the best monster books I found so far, not counting MCDM's as I have not taken a closer look on that.
> 
> I also prefer a larger variety of 'standard' monsters, I do not need a whole book of weirdos I never use



I bought the entire bundle. Looks like a great resource to add some diversity to existing monsters.  I have to say that I really like Matt Coleville's additional mechanics and new stat block format. But the stat block format really is only helpful when using the PDF or print version. Once I put them into a VTT, doesn't really matter.  The main issue with any third-party book of monsters is that I have to do data entry if I want them in my VTT.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> If so, I'd definitely lose respect for them.  That's a move designed to literally make the rich get richer.



And the 3rd party publishers that you buy products from don't make moves to make them more money?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Minigiant said:


> I never got this line of thinking.
> 
> Almost every publicly traded major company attempts to make more money and will slide in various degrees against consumer wishes to do so. It's the nature of the public share beast.
> 
> Almost any of the 3PP would be doing the sameat some level if they swapped places with WOTC. And I'm saying almost to be charitable to fellow ENWorlders who are 3PPs as I am a cynical Brooklynite.



I am strongly against publicly traded companies as a concept, if that helps you understand my feelings, because they tend exactly to this sort of behavior.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And the 3rd party publishers that you buy products from don't make moves to make them more money?



Not at the expense of others, to my knowledge.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Not at the expense of others, to my knowledge.



Where are their books printed? Where do they get their paper from? What's their carbon footprint? What are the working conditions of all of the people involved in making the books and getting them delivered to your door?

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not exclusive to WotC or corporations.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> Why? DriveThru gets a fraction of the views.



But they take half the cut compared to DTRPG. If you have any sort of name recognition at all -- or even people just looking at "more by this author" on DMs Guild -- it's better to funnel those customers over to the other side of the fence.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Where are their books printed? Where do they get their paper from? What's their carbon footprint? What are the working conditions of all of the people involved in making the books and getting them delivered to your door?
> 
> There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not exclusive to WotC or corporations.



So I'm not allowed to have a specific concern about how publicly-traded companies operate, because there are other concerns?  I don't think so.


----------



## Minigiant

Micah Sweet said:


> Not at the expense of others, to my knowledge.



That's the thing, you don't see it.
And you don't see it because most of them are small and no one targets their IPs much.

Private companies can get greedy when they get big. And do it much worse as they only answer to internal shareholders.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Minigiant said:


> That's the thing, you don't see it.
> And you don't see it because most of them are small and no one targets their IPs much.
> 
> Private companies can get greedy when they get big. And do it much worse as they only answer to internal shareholders.



Public companies answer to people who have no interest in the product beyond its financial success.  That, to me, is a problem.  The fact that there are other problems doesn't change that, and no one is required to be angry about everything.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> I never got this line of thinking.
> 
> Almost every publicly traded major company attempts to make more money and will slide in various degrees against consumer wishes to do so. It's the nature of the public share beast.
> 
> Almost any of the 3PP would be doing the sameat some level if they swapped places with WOTC. And I'm saying almost to be charitable to fellow ENWorlders who are 3PPs as I am a cynical Brooklynite.




This is a general problem in this hobby.
Most people just want it to be free.
Putting out a new edition?
They just want us to spend 150 dollars again for books we already bought 10 years ago.
Tell me a different hobby where you have to only spend 150 dollars every 10 years...


----------



## Zardnaar

UngeheuerLich said:


> This is a general problem in this hobby.
> Most people just want it to be free.
> Putting out a new edition?
> They just want us to spend 150 dollars again for books we already bought 10 years ago.eeos
> Tell me a different hobby where you have to only spend 150 dollars every 10 years...




 Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it. 

 Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.


----------



## Zardnaar

I'm more in wait and see mode. 

 New version of 5E may be released under  new OGL or D&D beyond. 

 There's no PIzo like company waiting in the wings and the no poison pill like GSL. Convenient as OGL no and they can say you can still use it if you like for your own stuff. 

They can't revoke OGL they might be able to obsolete it.

 To early to say atm.

 Those if use who had negative vibes about "monetization" usually doesn't mean good things for the consumer.


----------



## Hussar

Zardnaar said:


> Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it.
> 
> Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.



Again, though, how many hobbies are even as remotely as cheap as RPG gaming?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Zardnaar said:


> Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it.
> 
> Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.




You can still use it today. Still a good game. I'd actually say, that if you only spent 150 dollars, you have a better game than when you spent 500 dollars.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hussar said:


> Again, though, how many hobbies are even as remotely as cheap as RPG gaming?



I can't name a single one.
Even for my chess club I pay about 50 dollars per year. Half of it goes to the league. Half stays with the club.


----------



## Bluenose

Zardnaar said:


> Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it.
> 
> Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.



That rather depends on the game involved, doesn't it? My copy of Barbarians of Lemuria was a lot less than $150 and is still in quite regular use.


----------



## Mortus

Hussar said:


> Again, though, how many hobbies are even as remotely as cheap as RPG gaming?



Good point. You could have saved $15 a year the last 10 years to have the $150 ready for 1D&D in 2024.


----------



## overgeeked

Zardnaar said:


> Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it.
> 
> Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.



It’s so weird how everyone says you can play with your old books forever and how no matter the price the books are cheap compared to the amount of fun you can have…and yet the vast majority of gamers simply shelve their old books the second new books are available.


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> But they take half the cut compared to DTRPG. If you have any sort of name recognition at all -- or even people just looking at "more by this author" on DMs Guild -- it's better to funnel those customers over to the other side of the fence.



Also, you don't own it anymore if you publish on DMsGuild.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> Again, though, how many hobbies are even as remotely as cheap as RPG gaming?



Football. All you need is one ball.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> Again, though, how many hobbies are even as remotely as cheap as RPG gaming?




 Paradox Interactive games. You'll probably spend more than $150 each one with various dlc but I'n terms of per hour entertainment it destroys D&D. 

 D&D 3 hours a week plus canceled sessions. Hell due to Covid restrictions I've ran maybe 10 hours of D&D since August 2021. 

 Each Paradox title is thousands of hours. Added bonus they don't say no, you don't have to smell anyone and they don't tend to cancel at last minute.

 So beats D&D on price, initial buy in and convenience. Generally get 7-8 years of content. Currently Stellaris bis my thing but Hearts of Iron 2, Crusader Kings II and EUIV have done me well.


----------



## GDGD

Micah Sweet said:


> Public companies answer to people who have no interest in the product beyond its financial success.  That, to me, is a problem.



I'm not seeing why. Financial success = success. Is there a game out there you're thinking of that's financially unsuccessful but is successful in some other way? Or the reverse, financially successful games that fail in other ways? I'd be very curious to see this game that's wildly financially successful but is a terrible game everyone hates.


----------



## Reynard

Zardnaar said:


> Paradox Interactive games. You'll probably spend more than $150 each one with various dlc but I'n terms of per hour entertainment it destroys D&D.
> 
> D&D 3 hours a week plus canceled sessions. Hell due to Covid restrictions I've ran maybe 10 hours of D&D since August 2021.
> 
> Each Paradox title is thousands of hours. Added bonus they don't say no, you don't have to smell anyone and they don't tend to cancel at last minute.
> 
> So beats D&D on price, initial buy in and convenience. Generally get 7-8 years of content. Currently Stellaris bis my thing but Hearts of Iron 2, Crusader Kings II and EUIV have done me well.



I have a friend who plays or runs 3 different campaigns on a weekly basis. If that accounts for 10 hours of table time -- never mind the GM prep time, which is still part of the hobby -- and granting two weeks off a year, that is still 1000 hours of RPG a year. If he GM'd all 3 of those games for different groups, that would be something like 10,000 ROG man-hours per year.

Just because you would prefer to play Stellaris -- and apparently don't particularly like playing with other humans -- doesn't make it a better deal than D&D.


----------



## Zardnaar

Reynard said:


> I have a friend who plays or runs 3 different campaigns on a weekly basis. If that accounts for 10 hours of table time -- never mind the GM prep time, which is still part of the hobby -- and granting two weeks off a year, that is still 1000 hours of RPG a year. If he GM'd all 3 of those games for different groups, that would be something like 10,000 ROG man-hours per year.
> 
> Just because you would prefer to play Stellaris -- and apparently don't particularly like playing with other humans -- doesn't make it a better deal than D&D.




  The question veas asked I've answered. Don't like the answer tough. 

 I've spent less in Paradix titles since 2009 than I've spent in 5E alone. 

 Added bonus I didn't not generally buy anything paradox related but online friends do. 

 Well I don't really pay money for D&D either tbf. Well not my money anyway. 

  Anyway it's less effort, more hours played and cheaper as well. 

 Due to lack of hours played these days I've had the "is it time to quit D&D" discussion.

 I own Victoria 3 haven't played it yet. Cost me 0.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Zardnaar said:


> Paradox Interactive games. You'll probably spend more than $150 each one with various dlc but I'n terms of per hour entertainment it destroys D&D.
> 
> D&D 3 hours a week plus canceled sessions. Hell due to Covid restrictions I've ran maybe 10 hours of D&D since August 2021.
> 
> Each Paradox title is thousands of hours. Added bonus they don't say no, you don't have to smell anyone and they don't tend to cancel at last minute.
> 
> So beats D&D on price, initial buy in and convenience. Generally get 7-8 years of content. Currently Stellaris bis my thing but Hearts of Iron 2, Crusader Kings II and EUIV have done me well.



Stellaris is probably my favorite video game of all time.


----------



## overgeeked

GDGD said:


> I'm not seeing why. Financial success = success. Is there a game out there you're thinking of that's financially unsuccessful but is successful in some other way? Or the reverse, financially successful games that fail in other ways? I'd be very curious to see this game that's wildly financially successful but is a terrible game everyone hates.



You're conflating three separate issues. Financial success, popularity, and being a well-designed game.

The first two are generally inexorably linked. The third, however, is not directly tied to the first two. A well-designed game doesn't mean it's popular or a financial success. Conversely, being popular or financially successful in no way implies it's a well-designed game. There are quite a few popular and financially successful games that are abhorrently designed. There are also mountains of well-designed games that are neither popular nor financially successful.

Other kinds of success include, but are not limited to: successfully getting the author's vision out to the world, successfully conveying the concept to the reader, successfully eliciting a particular type of game play at the table, etc.


----------



## Reynard

Zardnaar said:


> The question veas asked I've answered. Don't like the answer tough.
> 
> I've spent less in Paradix titles since 2009 than I've spent in 5E alone.
> 
> Added bonus I didn't nt generally buy anything paradox related but online friends do.
> 
> Well I don't really pay money for D&D either tbf. Well not my money anyway.
> 
> Anyway it's less effort, more hours played and cheaper as well.
> 
> Due to lack of hours played these days I've had the "is it time to quit D&D" discussion.



You can see how your situation isn't universal, though, right? And it doesn't serve to undermine the position that D&D is among the cheapest hobbies out there when measuring expenditure to hours of entertainment, right? I mean, if we really wanted to quibble, wouldn't you have to include everything you have spend on your PC (or whatever you are using to play those games with)?


----------



## Micah Sweet

GDGD said:


> I'm not seeing why. Financial success = success. Is there a game out there you're thinking of that's financially unsuccessful but is successful in some other way? Or the reverse, financially successful games that fail in other ways? I'd be very curious to see this game that's wildly financially successful but is a terrible game everyone hates.



Everyone doesn't have to hate it.  _I _and the people I play with have to be irritated by changes that may have something to do with prioritizing keeping shareholders happy over making design decisions for a product we buy.


----------



## Zardnaar

Micah Sweet said:


> Stellaris is probably my favorite video game of all time.




 It would be on my shortlist currently in 2 multi player games. 

 EUIV was also a timesuck. 

 They derailed my fomsole addiction anyway. The rare few console games I buy now are usually a few years old at deep discounts eg 70% off including all dlc etc.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> You're conflating three separate issues. Financial success, popularity, and being a well-designed game.
> 
> The first two are generally inexorably linked. The third, however, is not directly tied to the first two. A well-designed game doesn't mean it's popular or a financial success. Conversely, being popular or financially successful in no way implies it's a well-designed game. There are quite a few popular and financially successful games that are abhorrently designed. There are also mountains of well-designed games that are neither popular nor financially successful.
> 
> Other kinds of success include, but are not limited to: successfully getting the author's vision out to the world, successfully conveying the concept to the reader, successfully eliciting a particular type of game play at the table, etc.



Said far better than I could have.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> You can see how your situation isn't universal, though, right? And it doesn't serve to undermine the position that D&D is among the cheapest hobbies out there when measuring expenditure to hours of entertainment, right? I mean, if we really wanted to quibble, wouldn't you have to include everything you have spend on your PC (or whatever you are using to play those games with)?



If you asked your question with an agenda in mind beyond getting a fair answer, that's not their problem, to be honest.


----------



## Voadam

UngeheuerLich said:


> They just want us to spend 150 dollars again for books we already bought 10 years ago.
> Tell me a different hobby where you have to only spend 150 dollars every 10 years...




Sure. 

I buy running shoes as my normal knocking about shoes year round. I spend literally zero extra dollars to go out my back door and hit the trail behind my house about three times a week.

I still use the weights I was using in the 80s.

I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of audio books from the library. 20 years of library audio books as part of my regular commuting.

Of course I don't need to buy anything to play RPGs. I have plenty of existing stuff I could use for the rest of my life. The SRDs for 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e are all sufficient to play (I used them to DM games without owning the core books for years, I spent my RPG budget on modules, settings, sourcebooks, and such instead). There are plenty of other free great games to be found online. I have played plenty of RPGs where I did not own any of the books at the time (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Star Frontiers, GURPS, Shadowrun, Vampire the Masquerade, Mage the Ascension, others). I buy lots of RPG stuff as part of my RPG hobby, but I don't need to at all. I have friends who have played for decades without buying anything.

WotC putting out the 3.5 SRD got me reading and being engaged with 3.5 day one and then playing and buying 3.5 stuff right away.

WotC not putting out anything similar for 4e led to me entirely ignoring 4e for a couple years until I was in a group that played 4e. WotC had partially switched policy then by at least releasing the H1 Shadowfell basic rules packet as a free PDF which eased the transition a lot for me. I was happy with a lot of 3.5 when 4e came out and I had a ton of d20 stuff that I enjoyed including a lot of d20 adventures that looked fun that I had not run yet so I was happy with the not current D&D stuff.

Paizo putting out their big fairly comprehensive SRD got me reading and then playing Pathfinder fairly right away in both Beta and 1e.

5e was similar to 4e initially, the initial lack of SRD and such meant I put the new books on an Amazon wishlist but kept playing and actively buying Pathfinder stuff until the group I was in started playing 5e a number of years into the edition. I had downloaded a playtest packet and my group tried it out once but went back to Pathfinder and Vampire and such fairly quickly. I vaguely remember at 5e's release there was a basic rules packet and no initial SRD, I downloaded the basic rules but it was not enough for me to really be engaged and dive in. When they did release an SRD I was glad there were finally OGC terms for dragonborn and warlocks but I was shocked at how little stuff there was for players, a warlock built out of the SRD could not even cast eldritch blast. It was not like the 3e or Pathfinder SRD where you could explore fairly full core options so I quickly put 5e stuff aside until my group decided to get into it.

I really like both 4e and 5e, but there are plenty of things I would potentially really like that I am not going to focus the majority of my hobby time on if my group is not doing it and I am happy with stuff I have. I am currently happy with a lot of 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar

Reynard said:


> You can see how your situation isn't universal, though, right? And it doesn't serve to undermine the position that D&D is among the cheapest hobbies out there when measuring expenditure to hours of entertainment, right? I mean, if we really wanted to quibble, wouldn't you have to include everything you have spend on your PC (or whatever you are using to play those games with)?




 Old PC Paradox games don't require high end PCs. 

 And it's using multi purpose devices. I can play Stellaris on gamepass on the Xbox for example. 

 We gonna own a tv regardless the PS4 was an insurance replacement, and we own Xbox and PCs anyway. 

 The consoles get used more to run TV apps vs gaming machines. 

 I use the PC for retrogaming as well.  Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri dates from 1999.


----------



## Greg Benage

Complaining about the cost of a hobby is a time-honored tradition (I just spent $250 on foot pegs for my motorcycle), but complaining about a company that literally gives you a basic, playable version of their game for free seems a bit whack. Hasbro can pursue all the monetization strategies they want (that's the business folks' job, after all), but none of them will produce unless they provide something people are willing to spend money on.

So this usually amounts to complaining about what fellow hobbyists are willing to spend money on. I get this too: For example, MMO players seem very interested in spending money to avoid playing the game, and I feel this negatively impacts my experience.

And here's the thing: I could see this becoming an issue in D&D, too. If Hasbro adds a bunch of expensive sizzle to the experience, and most players want to spend money on the sizzle, it might become difficult to find players for a free or low-budget game. I'm already guilty of this when I go look for a game on Roll20: I want to play in a game with dynamic lighting and compendium support, so I limit my searches to games where the DM has ponied up for that. The free or low-budget DM probably has more players than they can handle, so they won't miss me. But if Hasbro makes it so that _players_ have to pay up to play in my game with all the features I want to use...yeah, I'm probably going to expect my players to pay up. If most DMs think like I do, then yeah, it could absolutely become a lot more difficult to play on the cheap.

Hasbro still has to bring the goods, though. No one's going to spend money on sizzle that sucks (I hope, probably naively).


----------



## Zardnaar

Greg Benage said:


> Complaining about the cost of a hobby is a time-honored tradition (I just spent $250 on foot pegs for my motorcycle), but complaining about a company that literally gives you a basic, playable version of their game for free seems a bit whack. Hasbro can pursue all the monetization strategies they want (that's the business folks' job, after all), but none of them will produce unless they provide something people are willing to spend money on.
> 
> So this usually amounts to complaining about what fellow hobbyists are willing to spend money on. I get this too: For example, MMO players seem very interested in spending money to avoid playing the game, and I feel this negatively impacts my experience.
> 
> And here's the thing: I could see this becoming an issue in D&D, too. If Hasbro adds a bunch of expensive sizzle to the experience, and most players want to spend money on the sizzle, it might become difficult to find players for a free or low-budget game. I'm already guilty of this when I go look for a game on Roll20: I want to play in a game with dynamic lighting and compendium support, so I limit my searches to games where the DM has ponied up for that. The free or low-budget DM probably has more players than they can handle, so they won't miss me. But if Hasbro makes it so that _players_ have to pay up to play in my game with all the features I want to use...yeah, I'm probably going to expect my players to pay up. If most DMs think like I do, then yeah, it could absolutely become a lot more difficult to play on the cheap.
> 
> Hasbro still has to bring the goods, though. No one's going to spend money on sizzle that sucks (I hope, probably naively).




 I'm not complaining about my expenditure on 5E. It's around 2k but hard to say due to exchange rate fluctuating.

 I've played Alpha Centauri more and it cost me $10 iirc.


----------



## Greg Benage

Zardnaar said:


> I'm not complaining about my expenditure on 5E. It's around 2k but hard to say due to exchange rate fluctuating.



It definitely sounds like you should stop doing that, though I gather you already have. Thumbs up!


----------



## Zardnaar

Greg Benage said:


> It definitely sounds like you should stop doing that, though I gather you already have. Thumbs up!




 I don't mind as I loved the books. The newer books are kinda bland fluff wise though meh. 

 Not sure on 3E era but probably looking at 5-10k maybe more if you include minis. 

 D&D lifestyle brand holds 0 appeal. In the 90's a D&D book was about a weeks rent now it's dinner for two at a pub. Weeks rent is two books.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

It occurs to be they will likely release the next packet before they release the One D&D SRD.


----------



## Dausuul

GDGD said:


> I'm not seeing why. Financial success = success. Is there a game out there you're thinking of that's financially unsuccessful but is successful in some other way? Or the reverse, financially successful games that fail in other ways? I'd be very curious to see this game that's wildly financially successful but is a terrible game everyone hates.



Monopoly? 

But quite aside from @overgeeked's excellent answer, the financial success of the shareholder does not require, and may even oppose, the long-term health of the company and its product. If Hasbro takes actions that juice its share price for a quarter, and I sell my shares during that quarter, I have profited even if those same actions harm the company a few years down the line*.

From what I've seen, long-term success requires a mix of profit motive with the desire to do good work that produces genuine value. Without the first, you lose sight of the realities of the business world and go bust. Without the second, you end up parasitizing your own company until it shrivels.

*In a world with perfect information and perfectly rational investors, this could never happen, since investors would see the long-term consequences and knock down the share price. Also in such a world, no one would ever invest in a Ponzi scheme. Since Ponzi schemes exist, we can conclude that we do not live in such a world.


----------



## GDGD

Zardnaar said:


> I use the PC for retrogaming as well.  Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri dates from 1999.



My favourite game is still the original Pool of Radiance, 1988 IIRC. All the goldbox games are on gog now, so the temptation is always there to sink a few hundred hours more playtime into them.

On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time. You had mentioned 3 hours per week, but there's also time spent writing adventures, crafting campaigns, creating characters, drawing maps, and so on. If that isn't your thing, then it's irrelevant, but I know for myself I spend exponentially more time on all the other stuff than I do on actually playing, and I absolutely consider those hours to be part of the value I get from the game.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> If you asked your question with an agenda in mind beyond getting a fair answer, that's not their problem, to be honest.



Lol. I didn't ask a question. I made an assertion, one that's pretty self evident.


----------



## Zardnaar

GDGD said:


> My favourite game is still the original Pool of Radiance, 1988 IIRC. All the goldbox games are on gog now, so the temptation is always there to sink a few hundred hours more playtime into them.
> 
> On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time. You had mentioned 3 hours per week, but there's also time spent writing adventures, crafting campaigns, creating characters, drawing maps, and so on. If that isn't your thing, then it's irrelevant, but I know for myself I spend exponentially more time on all the other stuff than I do on actually playing, and I absolutely consider those hours to be part of the value I get from the game.



 Once upon a time I did more time on prep. 

 But there was also more inspiration available eg Dragon magazine or book. 

 Now I barely prep beyond the initial work and maybe a half hour or hour.


----------



## BovineofWar

GDGD said:


> On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time.



Time spent on this website reading and complaining about D&D...

I do not want to compare time surfing the internet for D&D to game time stats, too scary!


----------



## GDGD

Dausuul said:


> Monopoly?
> 
> But quite aside from @overgeeked's excellent answer, the financial success of the shareholder does not require, and may even oppose, the long-term health of the company and its product. If Hasbro takes actions that juice its share price for a quarter, and I sell my shares during that quarter, I have profited even if those same actions harm the company a few years down the line*.
> 
> From what I've seen, long-term success requires a mix of profit motive with the desire to do good work that produces genuine value. Without the first, you lose sight of the realities of the business world and go bust. Without the second, you end up parasitizing your own company until it shrivels.
> 
> *In a world with perfect information and perfectly rational investors, this could never happen, since investors would see the long-term consequences and knock down the share price. Also in such a world, no one would ever invest in a Ponzi scheme. Since Ponzi schemes exist, we can conclude that we do not live in such a world.



Funnily enough, I was thinking of Monopoly too. But do we get to write it off as a terrible game? Lots of people love it. I love it, even though objectively I can't defend it mechanically, thematically, or in any other way. Soccer is the same. An awful game that seems to generate enormous revenue. But obviously my opinion isn't shared by the majority, so it is what it is.

My one comment on share value is that only very poorly run companies take a short-term view. Boosting value in the short term at the expense of the long term might please a small number of shareholders who are succeeding in timing the market, but that number would be so small as to be irrelevant to any sort of realistic corporate strategy. Shares are two-sided: They exist as a means of wealth generation for shareholders, yes, but primarily as a means of generating equity financing for the company. Equity financing is a good thing, because it's interest free. Conversely, it's bad because the shareholders own part of the company and get a say in how it's run (and often expect dividends). But I know a lot of shareholders, and I don't know any who think it's good for their investment if the company starts ignoring their customers and cranking out inferior products.


----------



## Zardnaar

GDGD said:


> Funnily enough, I was thinking of Monopoly too. But do we get to write it off as a terrible game? Lots of people love it. I love it, even though objectively I can't defend it mechanically, thematically, or in any other way. Soccer is the same. An awful game that seems to generate enormous revenue. But obviously my opinion isn't shared by the majority, so it is what it is.
> 
> My one comment on share value is that only very poorly run companies take a short-term view. Boosting value in the short term at the expense of the long term might please a small number of shareholders who are succeeding in timing the market, but that number would be so small as to be irrelevant to any sort of realistic corporate strategy. Shares are two-sided: They exist as a means of wealth generation for shareholders, yes, but primarily as a means of generating equity financing for the company. Equity financing is a good thing, because it's interest free. Conversely, it's bad because the shareholders own part of the company and get a say in how its run (and often expect dividends). But I know a lot of shareholders, and I don't know any who think it's good for their investment if the company starts ignoring their customers and cranking out inferior products.




 I don't think monopoly is that popular now. It's popular enough to keep in print it I doubt it's earning a massive amount. 

 It's also very American in design.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GDGD said:


> My favourite game is still the original Pool of Radiance, 1988 IIRC. All the goldbox games are on gog now, so the temptation is always there to sink a few hundred hours more playtime into them.
> 
> On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time. You had mentioned 3 hours per week, but there's also time spent writing adventures, crafting campaigns, creating characters, drawing maps, and so on. If that isn't your thing, then it's irrelevant, but I know for myself I spend exponentially more time on all the other stuff than I do on actually playing, and I absolutely consider those hours to be part of the value I get from the game.



That's true.  I spend a lot of time engaging with D&D outside of the table.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GDGD said:


> Funnily enough, I was thinking of Monopoly too. But do we get to write it off as a terrible game? Lots of people love it. I love it, even though objectively I can't defend it mechanically, thematically, or in any other way. Soccer is the same. An awful game that seems to generate enormous revenue. But obviously my opinion isn't shared by the majority, so it is what it is.
> 
> My one comment on share value is that only very poorly run companies take a short-term view. Boosting value in the short term at the expense of the long term might please a small number of shareholders who are succeeding in timing the market, but that number would be so small as to be irrelevant to any sort of realistic corporate strategy. Shares are two-sided: They exist as a means of wealth generation for shareholders, yes, but primarily as a means of generating equity financing for the company. Equity financing is a good thing, because it's interest free. Conversely, it's bad because the shareholders own part of the company and get a say in how it's run (and often expect dividends). But I know a lot of shareholders, and I don't know any who think it's good for their investment if the company starts ignoring their customers and cranking out inferior products.



Glad to hear it, but I have no such trust.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Zardnaar said:


> In the 90's a D&D book was about a weeks rent now it's dinner for two at a pub. Weeks rent is two books.



I want to have lived where you lived in the 1990s.


----------



## Zardnaar

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I want to have lived where you lived in the 1990s.




 Small Town NZ 3 bedroom house $100 NZD ($50-75 usd a week). Minimum wage was $6-$8 a week. If you didn't mind a dump you could get rent down to around $30-40 NZD (15-20 usd). 

  Student allowance was $150 NZ a week, rent $50 (room in small city) 2E phb $45, boxed set about ,$60. 

 Looking at adds in Dragon even with exchange rate they were selling books at $8-$16 usc. Paperback book here was around $15.95, a small one like a D&D one was $12.95. 

 Videogames are about the same price if not cheaper both in actual price and inflation adjusted. I payed $350 NZD for a Megadrive the games were $150 a pop which was what my friends corporate father was paying in rent for the house. 

 We don't have rent or mortgage to pay I would hate to do that now.


----------



## darjr

Morrus said:


> Football. All you need is one ball.



Not true, all the beers after add up!


----------



## GDGD

Micah Sweet said:


> Glad to hear it, but I have no such trust.



Fair. But keep in mind that Hasbro has been public since 1968 and has owned D&D since 1999. That's respectively 54 and 23 years of history. If serving the wants and needs of shareholders was such a death knell to the products, I'm sure we would all have abandoned D&D long ago.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

GDGD said:


> Fair. But keep in mind that Hasbro has been public since 1968 and has owned D&D since 1999. That's respectively 54 and 23 years of history. If serving the wants and needs of shareholders was such a death knell to the products, I'm sure we would all have abandoned D&D long ago.



They're just waiting until everyone lets their collective guard down!


----------



## Remathilis

Morrus said:


> Football. All you need is one ball.



My American brain wanted to point out the cost of all the pads and gear, until I realized you're British and talking about soccer.


----------



## Hussar

Ok let me revise my statement so that it is more accurate. 

There are very few hobbies where five or six people can play together for hundreds of hours per year for the money. 

The existence of cheaper hobbies, particularly ones you don’t typically play with four or five other people every time you play doesn’t really counter my point.


----------



## Clint_L

Greg Benage said:


> Complaining about the cost of a hobby is a time-honored tradition (I just spent $250 on foot pegs for my motorcycle), but complaining about a company that literally gives you a basic, playable version of their game for free seems a bit whack. Hasbro can pursue all the monetization strategies they want (that's the business folks' job, after all), but none of them will produce unless they provide something people are willing to spend money on.
> 
> So this usually amounts to complaining about what fellow hobbyists are willing to spend money on. I get this too: For example, MMO players seem very interested in spending money to avoid playing the game, and I feel this negatively impacts my experience.
> 
> And here's the thing: I could see this becoming an issue in D&D, too. If Hasbro adds a bunch of expensive sizzle to the experience, and most players want to spend money on the sizzle, it might become difficult to find players for a free or low-budget game. I'm already guilty of this when I go look for a game on Roll20: I want to play in a game with dynamic lighting and compendium support, so I limit my searches to games where the DM has ponied up for that. The free or low-budget DM probably has more players than they can handle, so they won't miss me. But if Hasbro makes it so that _players_ have to pay up to play in my game with all the features I want to use...yeah, I'm probably going to expect my players to pay up. If most DMs think like I do, then yeah, it could absolutely become a lot more difficult to play on the cheap.
> 
> Hasbro still has to bring the goods, though. No one's going to spend money on sizzle that sucks (I hope, probably naively).



Building on this, thus far Hasbro/WotC have been quite interested in keeping the game super affordable to play and thus expanding the player base. They have not been great at getting my D&D money, though. As a miniatures and terrain enthusiast, I spend a fortune on D&D and a tiny fraction of that (less than 5%, mostly through DnDBeyond) goes directly to Hasbro. Most of it goes to Dwarven Forge, Wizkids, Steamforged, Archon, and others. Looking at your example, a chunk of your D&D money is going to Roll20.

So I get why they are putting out a VTT to try to bring more of that money in house, just as they bought DnDBeyond to do the same.


----------



## darjr

Remathilis said:


> My American brain wanted to point out the cost of all the pads and gear, until I realized you're British and talking about soccer.



I stand by my criticism about the beer.

Besides enough beer and hi dint need the pads and helmet etc. dint need the football either really.


----------



## GDGD

Remathilis said:


> My American brain wanted to point out the cost of all the pads and gear, until I realized you're British and talking about soccer.



Don't forget about the cost of acting lessons. You need to learn how to really sell those dives if you want to win soccer games.


----------



## Minigiant

I wonder if big 3PPs will use the OGL 1.1 to get one of their classes on DNDB and get a break on their royalties.

I could only imagine the money you'd get putting your version of Warlord or Psion on DNDB.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> Ok let me revise my statement so that it is more accurate.
> 
> There are very few hobbies where five or six people can play together for hundreds of hours per year for the money.
> 
> The existence of cheaper hobbies, particularly ones you don’t typically play with four or five other people every time you play doesn’t really counter my point.




 Once again Paradox games only the host needs the dlc. If I host for my friends they get access to all my dlc. Which I often don't pay for.

 You can also pay a subscription fee which gives you the game, all dlc and as many players as you want. 

 They've also given away the base games for free so for a lot less than D&D beyond per month 1 person can essentially play with 12-30 players or whatever your PC and net can handle.

 Paradox Interactive runs rings around WotC in bang for buck.

 Ok just check you need the base game it's $5 a month per game for the dlcs. Which you often get for free or 75% off sales on steam are pretty much every other month. 

 Grand strategy games are great time sinks as well.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Minigiant said:


> I wonder if big 3PPs will use the OGL 1.1 to get one of their classes on DNDB and get a break on their royalties.
> 
> I could only imagine the money you'd get putting your version of Warlord or Psion on DNDB.



They need that kind of carrot to get people to sign on. But yes, creating high-quality classes like that with real demand would be a good incentive.


----------



## Hussar

Zardnaar said:


> Once again Paradox games only the host needs the dlc. If I host for my friends they get access to all my dlc. Which I often don't pay for.
> 
> You can also pay a subscription fee which gives you the game, all dlc and as many players as you want.
> 
> They've also given away the base games for free so for a lot less than D&D beyond per month 1 person can essentially play with 12-30 players or whatever your PC and net can handle.
> 
> Paradox Interactive runs rings around WotC in bang for buck.
> 
> Ok just check you need the base game it's $5 a month per game for the dlcs. Which you often get for free or 75% off sales on steam are pretty much every other month.
> 
> Grand strategy games are great time sinks as well.


----------



## MNblockhead

UngeheuerLich said:


> This is a general problem in this hobby.
> Most people just want it to be free.
> Putting out a new edition?
> They just want us to spend 150 dollars again for books we already bought 10 years ago.
> Tell me a different hobby where you have to only spend 150 dollars every 10 years...



I mean, I get not wanting to shell out another 150 dollars when your current books are still playable. All for saving money. What I don't get is why some in the hobby get so hot and bothered by reprints and new editions. I mean, just don't buy them.


----------



## MNblockhead

Zardnaar said:


> Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it.
> 
> Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.



You could have. You didn't have to buy the new edition books.


----------



## MNblockhead

Zardnaar said:


> I'm more in wait and see mode.



So am I. I'm not going to buy it sight unseen. If I don't like what I see when it is released, I can continue running games using the current rules and my home brew for many, many years. 


Zardnaar said:


> New version of 5E may be released under  new OGL or D&D beyond.
> 
> There's no PIzo like company waiting in the wings and the no poison pill like GSL. Convenient as OGL no and they can say you can still use it if you like for your own stuff.



Except Paizo is waiting in the wings. As are many other publishers. If people are really upset with the direction WotC goes in, there are plenty of alternatives available. 


Zardnaar said:


> They can't revoke OGL they might be able to obsolete it.
> 
> To early to say atm.
> 
> Those if use who had negative vibes about "monetization" usually doesn't mean good things for the consumer.



I want WotC to monetize the hell out of D&D, so long as they are putting out content that I enjoy and services that are useful to me. If they don't, well, I won't buy it. About the only thing I'm worried about is WotC somehow blocking ways for me to import my DDB content in Foundry. If they do that, their VTT will need to be amazing with attractive pricing or my spend on WotC digital content will greatly decrease.


----------



## MNblockhead

overgeeked said:


> It’s so weird how everyone says you can play with your old books forever and how no matter the price the books are cheap compared to the amount of fun you can have…and yet the vast majority of gamers simply shelve their old books the second new books are available.



Because they enjoy trying new rules?  The new books are attractive for them?  The cost is considered worth it?  I can easily argue why it is rational for me to by the 1DD books when they come out, even though I've said many times that I could continue playing with the 2014 rules and my homebrew for many many more years. Buying the new D&D rules is a lot more easy to justify than the amount of TTRPG material that I've bought that has been sitting on my shelves for years unplayed.


----------



## MNblockhead

Zardnaar said:


> The question veas asked I've answered. Don't like the answer tough.
> 
> I've spent less in Paradix titles since 2009 than I've spent in 5E alone.
> 
> Added bonus I didn't not generally buy anything paradox related but online friends do.
> 
> Well I don't really pay money for D&D either tbf. Well not my money anyway.
> 
> Anyway it's less effort, more hours played and cheaper as well.
> 
> Due to lack of hours played these days I've had the "is it time to quit D&D" discussion.
> 
> I own Victoria 3 haven't played it yet. Cost me 0.



Really it just comes down to each individual looking at their own use. Seems silly to argue over whether the cost of a hobby is expensive or cheap relative to other hobbies when that is entirely dependant on how much time an individual spends on each hobby.


----------



## MNblockhead

Reynard said:


> You can see how your situation isn't universal, though, right? And it doesn't serve to undermine the position that D&D is among the cheapest hobbies out there when measuring expenditure to hours of entertainment, right? I mean, if we really wanted to quibble, wouldn't you have to include everything you have spend on your PC (or whatever you are using to play those games with)?



That fact that one's situation isn't universal is why this is kinda a silly argument. How much you get out of money spend on a TTRPG or a computer game depends on home much time you spend playing each. 

Anecdotally, sure, I "feel" like most gamers get a LOT of value out of their TTRPG spend and that on a dollar to hour basis, the hobby is an incredible value. But then, also, anecdotally, I know that that many in the hobby buy a lot of material that they never play or even never even fully read. The spend may still be worth it in terms of the enjoyment of collecting games, but on a dollar per hour basis, these would not be a great deal. 

In terms of other hobbies of mine where the dollar spend stretch out to more hours of enjoyment, there are several that come to mind: shooting my pistol at the gun range, reading, and guitar playing.  But this is largely due to the fact that my TTRPG hobby is not just the core books, but lots of third-party materials, software licenses and VTT / DDB subscriptions, etc. Any my spend is absolutely dwarfed by those who get really into physical assets like minis, terrain, Beadle & Grim, etc. 

To me, the great thing about the TTRPG hobby is that is CAN be incredibly cheap but can also expand into whole ecosystem of related hobbies (collecting, painting, writing and world building).  It can size to fit all income ranges and fill as much or as little time as you want to dedicate to it.


----------



## MNblockhead

Clint_L said:


> Building on this, thus far Hasbro/WotC have been quite interested in keeping the game super affordable to play and thus expanding the player base. They have not been great at getting my D&D money, though. As a miniatures and terrain enthusiast, I spend a fortune on D&D and a tiny fraction of that (less than 5%, mostly through DnDBeyond) goes directly to Hasbro. Most of it goes to Dwarven Forge, Wizkids, Steamforged, Archon, and others. Looking at your example, a chunk of your D&D money is going to Roll20.
> 
> So I get why they are putting out a VTT to try to bring more of that money in house, just as they bought DnDBeyond to do the same.



Yeah, I really hope that the movie is successful and that part of monetization strategy is for Hasbro to produce its own affordable miniature set.  So much of the physical goods for the hobby seem targeted to adults with disposable income. I would love to see some lower production D&D plastic miniatures and terrain sets sold by Hasbro in the toy aisles of Target, Walmart, etc. that could be purchased for kids both just as toys and as D&D game aids. Seems strange that a toy company like Hasbro is leaving money on the table in this way. I suspect that the they don't see their being enough demand compared to better known IP.  But if the movie does well, that could change.


----------



## Minigiant

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> They need that kind of carrot to get people to sign on. But yes, creating high-quality classes like that with real demand would be a good incentive.



Getting a class and 3-4 subclasses on DNDB can bring in 750K with a good pricing structure, At which you could negotiate the level of the split.

Plus it gets the weight of WOTC and Hasbro behind you in protection and use of IP.


----------



## Reynard

Minigiant said:


> Getting a class and 3-4 subclasses on DNDB can bring in 750K with a good pricing structure, At which you could negotiate the level of the split.
> 
> Plus it gets the weight of WOTC and Hasbro behind you in protection and use of IP.



I don't think we have seen any indication that the new model is going to open up WotC's IP to 3PPs. Like, Kobold isn't going to be suddenly allowed to produce Eberron supplements willy nilly. That stuff is still gated behind other agreements (such as DMsGuild).


----------



## FrogReaver

MNblockhead said:


> Yeah, I really hope that the movie is successful and that part of monetization strategy is for Hasbro to produce its own affordable miniature set.  So much of the physical goods for the hobby seem targeted to adults with disposable income. I would love to see some lower production D&D plastic miniatures and terrain sets sold by Hasbro in the toy aisles of Target, Walmart, etc. that could be purchased for kids both just as toys and as D&D game aids. Seems strange that a toy company like Hasbro is leaving money on the table in this way. I suspect that the they don't see their being enough demand compared to better known IP.  But if the movie does well, that could change.



If the movie is successful they may focus more on ttrpg health than on potentially getting the community against them.


----------



## darjr

In some ways WotC is in the position IBM was with the PC. They tried many times to extract license money from the wider industry. While Microsoft actually made the lions share. WotC needs to figure out how to be MS instead of IBM.


----------



## Minigiant

Reynard said:


> I don't think we have seen any indication that the new model is going to open up WotC's IP to 3PPs. Like, Kobold isn't going to be suddenly allowed to produce Eberron supplements willy nilly. That stuff is still gated behind other agreements (such as DMsGuild).



What I mean is that it looks like WOTC will allow Kobold Press to assets on D&D Beyond and other pillars if they agree to the OGL 1.1. 

Allowing a 3pp to be on DNDB or D&D video games and fully integrated into them would HUGE be a large percent of 3PP.

Let's say Mage Hand Press gets their Warmage class on D&D Beyond, Baldur's Gate 4, and Xanatar's Back At a Again, I would expect them to make a lot more that a royalty fee would be 100% worth it.


----------



## Minigiant

darjr said:


> In some ways WotC is in the position IBM was with the PC. They tried many times to extract license money from the wider industry. While Microsoft actually made the lions share. WotC needs to figure out how to be MS instead of IBM.



I think that is what WOTC might be doing. The whole thing feels like WOTC is basically attempting to run D&D like a video game console company to me. They provide the platform and some basics then let the 3rd parties do the bulk of the content creation on their platform for a fee.


----------



## Reynard

Minigiant said:


> What I mean is that it looks like WOTC will allow Kobold Press to assets on D&D Beyond and other pillars if they agree to the OGL 1.1.



I don't think there is anything but speculation that this is the OGL 1.1 carrot, though. There's really nothing pointing toward that other than OGL1.1  reasserting that the OGL doesn't allow software.


----------



## Morrus

Reynard said:


> I don't think there is anything but speculation that this is the OGL 1.1 carrot, though. There's really nothing pointing toward that other than OGL1.1  reasserting that the OGL doesn't allow software.



It’s not reasserting. As I said before there’s nothing in the current OGL prohibiting software.


----------



## Nikosandros

Morrus said:


> It’s not reasserting. As I said before there’s nothing in the current OGL prohibiting software.



You are 100% correct, but WotC statement seems to imply that the OGL was never supposed to allow software.


----------



## darjr

I do get this feeling that whoever wrote that piece and/or pushing for the OGL 1.1 at WotC, doesn't understand the OGL 1.0a


----------



## Morrus

Nikosandros said:


> You are 100% correct, but WotC statement seems to imply that the OGL was never supposed to allow software.



I don’t think what ‘it seems to imply’ matters, to be honest. Everybody will infer what they infer. But their FAQ at the time (which has been posted here a few times) clearly indicates otherwise.

There’s a lot of misinformation about at the moment, and ‘the OGL doesn’t allow software’ has been stated as though it were fact several times. It’s important to point out the misinformation.


----------



## Dausuul

Morrus said:


> It’s not reasserting. As I said before there’s nothing in the current OGL prohibiting software.



Meeting the terms of the OGL with software does require building in some specific features. You have to make it possible to access all of the open content in human-readable form, together with the OGL notice, and you have to point out all the open content.

But it absolutely can be done.


----------



## darjr

A search for the OGL faq on wotcs site takes you to an interesting closed url.




			http://shadow.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c
		




			site:wizards.com OGL FAQ - Google Search


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> A search for the OGL faq on wotcs site takes you to an interesting closed url.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://shadow.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> site:wizards.com OGL FAQ - Google Search



I get an invalid URL


----------



## dbolack

Morrus said:


> I don’t think what ‘it seems to imply’ matters, to be honest. Everybody will infer what they infer. But their FAQ at the time (which has been posted here a few times) clearly indicates otherwise.
> 
> There’s a lot of misinformation about at the moment, and ‘the OGL doesn’t allow software’ has been stated as though it were fact several times. It’s important to point out the misinformation.




This wasn't even in the D20STL which was a more likely location for these kind fo restrictions.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> It’s not reasserting. As I said before there’s nothing in the current OGL prohibiting software.



They're sure implying that it's a reassertion.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> They're sure implying that it's a reassertion.



It’s not. I don’t know if I’m saying it wrong, but, again, the OGL does not prohibit software. Or ice sculptures. Or musicals. Or anything. It doesn’t prohibit any formats. You can read it for yourself. It’s quite short.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> It’s not. I don’t know if I’m saying it wrong, but, again, the OGL does not prohibit software. Or anything. It doesn’t prohibit any formats. You can read it for yourself. It’s quite short.



I agree with you.  I disagree with what I see as WotC's assertion otherwise.


----------



## grimslade

They are offering nothing new other than taking a cut of profits and a badge? This isn't a huge revenue bonus to Hasbro and just seems like it would piss off the biggest producers who expand D&D's audience. Short sighted and foolish.


----------



## Incenjucar

It doesn't matter what it was "supposed" to be, it is what it is. Legal documents don't have backsies.


----------



## Morrus

Incenjucar said:


> It doesn't matter what it was "supposed" to be, it is what it is. Legal documents don't have backsies.



That is one of the famous things about contracts. Doesn’t matter what anybody ‘implies’ later. The contract is the contract. I can’t imply that I didn’t really mean to pay my mortgage.


----------



## FrogReaver

Incenjucar said:


> It doesn't matter what it was "supposed" to be, it is what it is. Legal documents don't have backsies.



But law does often take into account all parties understanding of the contract at the time. So evidence that WOTC at the time thought the contract meant that would be quite relevant.


----------



## Dausuul

Micah Sweet said:


> They're sure implying that it's a reassertion.



Yes, they're doing this in a very careful way which _suggests_ that this was how the original OGL worked, but does not actually _say_ so.

This is par for the course with the OGL 1.1 announcement. They're being very weaselly, trying to convince people that nothing's really changing, when in fact the changes are quite substantial.



FrogReaver said:


> But law does often take into account all parties understanding of the contract at the time. So evidence that WOTC at the time thought the contract meant that would be quite relevant.



Morrus kindly posted a copy of Wizards's old FAQ here. It was very clear that the OGL permitted software, so long as you met certain requirements.

So that's how Wizards understood it at the time.


----------



## JEB

darjr said:


> WotC needs to figure out how to be MS instead of IBM.



Considering the current execs at Wizards are actually from Microsoft, you'd think this would be easy...


----------



## Dreamscape

JEB said:


> Considering the current execs at Wizards are actually from Microsoft, you'd think this would be easy...



That's assuming execs have something to do with with a corporation's success... the evidence seems to point the other way.


----------



## Reynard

Morrus said:


> It’s not reasserting. As I said before there’s nothing in the current OGL prohibiting software.



Right. Sorry. I was using their terminology.


----------



## Nylanfs

dbolack said:


> This wasn't even in the D20STL which was a more likely location for these kind fo restrictions.



The d20 STL restriction on randomly generated results that could be used to determine a positive or negative result absolutely excluded quite a lot of software. PCGen stripped out the files that allowed using rolling dice to generate ability scores for a couple of versions to attempt to stay compliant with the STL but we determined in the end to drop it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JEB said:


> Considering the current execs at Wizards are actually from Microsoft, you'd think this would be easy...



That reminds me, time to renew my Office subscription.


----------



## Malmuria

UngeheuerLich said:


> This is a general *problem* in this hobby.
> Most people just want it to be free.





UngeheuerLich said:


> You can still use it today. Still a good game.




I'm confused--is it a problem or a benefit that you can play ttrpgs for very cheap, even for free?  I don't consider it a problem, unless you mean the idea that individual designers, writers, and artists shouldn't get paid.

But Hasbro is a lot more than the designers, writers, and artists (many of them contract) that work on the game.  It's a  sizable corporation, not a small indie company.  And for them, the fact that the hobby is very cheap _is_ a problem.  It's a bug, not a feature.  Like TSR before them, they have to figure out how to get people to give them money even if they don't really need to in order to play the game.  

Let's say Hasbro at some point decided to sell dnd-related NFTs.  Would the response still be, "well if you don't like it, don't buy it"?  I'm guessing no--there would be reasonable criticisms of the corporation for engaging in predatory, environmentally-destructive, and potentially anti-consumer practices.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Malmuria said:


> I'm confused--is it a problem or a benefit that you can play ttrpgs for very cheap, even for free?  I don't consider it a problem, unless you mean the idea that individual designers, writers, and artists shouldn't get paid.




I think you got it it backwards.

I said: it is a wrong assumption that RPGs should be totally free. Many people play it without paying anything.
No problem. But there are people out there that are thinking, putting out a new book is somehow just a con of the company to take their money.

I think, if you want your hobby to be successful, you should consider spending some money. And you should be happy, that your edition makes enough money so valuable content is produced.

Edit: or I got you wrong...


----------



## Marandahir

There's a somewhat popular video game based on the 5e SRD and OGL 5.0a. 

Clearly video games and apps are excluded to make it so if you want to use their IP in the future they'd have to work out an individual licensing deal…

In addition, I can see how the royalties are important for highly profitable SRD sales when they will be building ontop of One D&D.


----------



## mamba

Marandahir said:


> There's a somewhat popular video game based on the 5e SRD and OGL 5.0a.



and got a license from WotC despite this






						Solasta: Crown of the Magister
					

Great news everyone!We've now officially received the license to use the System Reference Document 5.1 from Wizards of the Coast, further anchoring our will to make the most faithful video game adaptation with the Tabletop Ruleset to craft the game you are hoping for! For those who may not be...




					www.solasta-game.com


----------



## teitan

Zardnaar said:


> Except you usually spend more than $150 and usually don't get ten years out of it.
> 
> Looks at 3E stuff and weeps.



Isn’t that one kinda on you?


----------



## Zardnaar

teitan said:


> Isn’t that one kinda on you?




 Yup $150 is laughable. My cheapest edition was probably 4E 3 books and 2 or 2 years of DDI.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Zardnaar said:


> Yup $150 is laughable. My cheapest edition was probably 4E 3 books and 2 or 2 years of DDI.




No it is not.
If I divide my expenditures by the number of people who have played with me over the years + their own expenditures, we are looking at way less than that.


----------



## Zardnaar

UngeheuerLich said:


> No it is not.
> If I divide my expenditures by the number of people who have played with me over the years + their own expenditures, we are looking at way less than that.




 That's great all I'm claiming is per hour if entertainment D&Dvusnt the cheapest I've had. 

 Its 4X and grand strategy games. Similar cost to a phb around a 1000 hours or more per title. 

 D&D probably 3 hour sessions 20-30 sessions a year with breaks 2018-19 and Covid restrictions.

 And they win on convenience, cost per hour etc. Hell I still break out SMAC on occasion and I played that since 2001.


----------



## Staffan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> But they take half the cut compared to DTRPG. If you have any sort of name recognition at all -- or even people just looking at "more by this author" on DMs Guild -- it's better to funnel those customers over to the other side of the fence.



60-70%, not half. Unless DTRPG has changed their terms since I last looked at them, they take 30% if your product is exclusively sold there or 35% otherwise.



Nikosandros said:


> You are 100% correct, but WotC statement seems to imply that the OGL was never supposed to allow software.



The OGL never said any such thing, as has already been pointed out. The d20 STL had a bunch of restrictions in it that made software problematic, but not impossible.

And come to think of it, given their stated and implied aims with OGL 1.1, it seems those aims would be better served with a separate d20STL-style arrangement. You want to keep on trucking the way you have? Just use the OGL. You want access to the D&D Beyond marketplace and get your stuff integrated in the VTT? Sign this additional agreement.


----------



## Nikosandros

Staffan said:


> The OGL never said any such thing, as has already been pointed out.



Yes, all of this is clear to me. My point is that WotC made a misleading statement, not that people were wrong about OGL and software.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> Conversely, being popular or financially successful in no way implies it's a well-designed game.



Yeah, people _love_ playing games that don’t work!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Zardnaar said:


> That's great all I'm claiming is per hour if entertainment D&Dvusnt the cheapest I've had.
> 
> Its 4X and grand strategy games. Similar cost to a phb around a 1000 hours or more per title.
> 
> D&D probably 3 hour sessions 20-30 sessions a year with breaks 2018-19 and Covid restrictions.
> 
> And they win on convenience, cost per hour etc. Hell I still break out SMAC on occasion and I played that since 2001.



I’ve never gotten 8+ years of regular entertainment from any video game or board game, or any hobby item, other than the 5e phb. 

Averaging out the no-play weeks and the 3-games-in-a-week weeks, I’m generally getting 4-8 hours of direct play time, about as much “theory” time, and probably like 8 hours discussion time. Too much discussion time tbh. I don’t get enough work done on creative projects. 

5e has absolutely, unquestionably, brought me more hours of entertainment than anything else I’ve ever purchased.


----------



## Zardnaar

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve never gotten 8+ years of regular entertainment from any video game or board game, or any hobby item, other than the 5e phb.
> 
> Averaging out the no-play weeks and the 3-games-in-a-week weeks, I’m generally getting 4-8 hours of direct play time, about as much “theory” time, and probably like 8 hours discussion time. Too much discussion time tbh. I don’t get enough work done on creative projects.
> 
> 5e has absolutely, unquestionably, brought me more hours of entertainment than anything else I’ve ever purchased.




 Grand strategy games are often sa dbix, get updates and have ttat one more turn feeling of 4X. 

 Europe Unversalis for example you generally start in Europe and figure out the game. 

 Then you'll go play as Ottomans, Tinyrids or whatever. Then they do Aztec fflc so go play that. Africa is also there so African Prussia Songhai may appeal. Hmmn Great Zimbabwe. Hang on India is rich and they overhauled Shogun mechanics....... 

  WW2 may appeal Hearts of Iron, how about RPG elements in Crusader Kings. Oh sci Fi in Stellaris......

 Each titles roughly good for 1000- hours.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Zardnaar said:


> Grand strategy games are often sa dbix, get updates and have ttat one more turn feeling of 4X.
> 
> Europe Unversalis for example you generally start in Europe and figure out the game.
> 
> Then you'll go play as Ottomans, Tinyrids or whatever. Then they do Aztec fflc so go play that. Africa is also there so African Prussia Songhai may appeal. Hmmn Great Zimbabwe. Hang on India is rich and they overhauled Shogun mechanics.......
> 
> WW2 may appeal Hearts of Iron, how about RPG elements in Crusader Kings. Oh sci Fi in Stellaris......
> 
> Each titles roughly good for 1000- hours.



I know extremely few people who have played any of those for as many hours as I’ve played 5e. 

Regardless, your long term enjoyment of those games isn’t really indicative of a general case of them providing more hours of entertainment than the core books of an edition of D&D .


----------



## Zardnaar

doctorbadwolf said:


> I know extremely few people who have played any of those for as many hours as I’ve played 5e.
> 
> Regardless, your long term enjoyment of those games isn’t really indicative of a general case of them providing more hours of entertainment than the core books of an edition of D&D .




 I'm not claiming that though they're not for everyone. But you can probably replace them with a hobby of your choice.

  I run a 3 hour session if D&D throw in cancelatiins, real life, holidays etc might get 20-30 sessions a year. 

 Currently playing two online games if Stellaris twice a break (paused due to holidays atm), plus off line play. 

 I've got Crusader Kings 3 barely played and Victoria 3 completely unplayed sitting there. 

 Plus finishing up a second playthrough if Assassin's Creed Odyssey first one was 220 hours bought the complete game 75% off. That's 2-3 years of D&D gaming for $20-$30 bucks iirc.

 I don't have to prepare squat, don't have to worry to much people canceling and it's way more convenient. 

 CK3 and Vicky3 were also free via old EUIV players shouting me the games as a thank you as some of the people I game with date from EUIII other friends date from Call of Duty 2.

 So yeah D&D isn't that cheap is the main point. Few hundred hours on SMAC game was $7 iirc.

 Way to many hours on EUIV over 8 years.

 Tbf I don't really pay for D&D much these days either others do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Zardnaar said:


> I'm not claiming that though they're not for everyone. But you can probably replace them with a hobby of your choice.
> 
> I run a 3 hour session if D&D throw in cancelatiins, real life, holidays etc might get 20-30 sessions a year.
> 
> Currently playing two online games if Stellaris twice a break (paused due to holidays atm), plus off line play.
> 
> I've got Crusader Kings 3 barely played and Victoria 3 completely unplayed sitting there.
> 
> Plus finishing up a second playthrough if Assassin's Creed Odyssey first one was 220 hours bought the complete game 75% off. That's 2-3 years of D&D gaming for $20-$30 bucks iirc.
> 
> I don't have to prepare squat, don't have to worry to much people canceling and it's way more convenient.
> 
> CK3 and Vicky3 were also free via old EUIV players shouting me the games as a thank you as some of the people I game with date from EUIII other friends date from Call of Duty 2.
> 
> So yeah D&D isn't that cheap is the main point. Few hundred hours on SMAC game was $7 iirc.
> 
> Way to many hours on EUIV over 8 years.
> 
> Tbf I don't really pay for D&D much these days either others do.




Your buy in for PC gaming is having a PC with a somewhat up to date graphic processor.
So that is not that cheap either.

And don't say, you would need that PC anyway. Nope. You would get along woth something way cheaper.


----------



## Zardnaar

UngeheuerLich said:


> Your buy in for PC gaming is having a PC with a somewhat up to date graphic processor.
> So that is not that cheap either.
> 
> And don't say, you would need that PC anyway. Nope. You would get along woth something way cheaper.




 It was a cheap PC bought almost 9 years ago. And yes it had other uses. I don't play first person shooters or anything.

 Forgot it's not my PC either. Mines an antique gets used to print D&D pdfs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Zardnaar said:


> It was a cheap PC bought almost 9 years ago. And yes it had other uses. I don't play first person shooters or anything.
> 
> Forgot it's not my PC either. Mines an antique gets used to print D&D pdfs.




So you seem to be an exception. But that is ok. You are a D&D whale.


----------



## Zardnaar

UngeheuerLich said:


> So you seem to be an exception. But that is ok. You are a D&D whale.




 Even if I scwd it down to a few books grand strategy games still win in cost per hour.  It's not even close. 
 5E haven't spent that much relative to other editions a grand or two shrugs. Think I've got 30-40 books and a few pdfs. 

 Buying less though die to various reasons (decline in quality, no need for more adventures, no interesting setting etc).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Zardnaar said:


> Even if I scwd it down to a few books grand strategy games still win in cost per hour.  It's not even close.
> 5E haven't spent that much relative to other editions a grand or two shrugs. Think I've got 30-40 books and a few pdfs.
> 
> Buying less though die to various reasons (decline in quality, no need for more adventures, no interesting setting etc).




For you.
Definitely not for most people.
Also, everyone you play with needs their own copy.

If I go with that: my cheapest hobby is dota2... Many hours, no entry cost.
And then online chess.
But still D&D is very cheap.


----------



## overgeeked

On the off chance this wasn’t already posted, the Alexandrian is doing a series on the OGL. 









						Open Gaming License: A Brief History
					

What the heck is an Open Gaming License?And why should you care?The Open Gaming License, or OGL, is what lets people sell D&D-compatible adventures and supplements without getting Hasbro




					thealexandrian.net


----------



## Voadam

UngeheuerLich said:


> But still D&D is very cheap.




It can vary a lot.

I don't buy miniatures for my D&D. I know people who buy a lot. I've done very few kickstarters and mostly for low cost PDF stuff. I've read of people spending a lot on them.

I don't go to conventions.

I still spend a bunch monthly on my hobby as my hobby budget on things I want.

You can play D&D for zero dollars.

You can play D&D with just buying the core books.

You can spend a lot monthly.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Voadam said:


> It can vary a lot.
> 
> I don't buy miniatures for my D&D. I know people who buy a lot. I've done very few kickstarters and mostly for low cost PDF stuff. I've read of people spending a lot on them.
> 
> I don't go to conventions.
> 
> I still spend a bunch monthly on my hobby as my hobby budget on things I want.
> 
> You can play D&D for zero dollars.
> 
> You can play D&D with just buying the core books.
> 
> You can spend a lot monthly.




Yes. But you don't have to. That is the point. Even if you need to buy new core books. It is still not expensive. And you regularly see people freak out, because "Greedy WotC wants to sell you books you already own".
Hey, you can still play Civilization 2. Still works... but people who liked that game will possibly be happy that you can now buy Civilization 6, which is modernized and streamlined.
I for my part am happy, that I can soon buy Diablo 4. Diablo 3 is now 10 years old.
Why can't RPG people be happy about an upgrade?
Why should everyone stick to an edition that is 10 years old, just because you happen to have bought so many books.

(Minis are still perfectly usable no matter which edition.) 

Why do people hate the Idea, that today's young gamers can buy a modern edition. 
There are new gamers who will turn 14 in 2 years and buy their first book. 
They were 4, when 5e came out. 

Do you want to tell them, that they should buy the PHB, but not the DMG, and for the ranger class it is better to also have tasha's guide. 
Or do you want to tell them to just buy the new and improved core books that are based on the experience of 10 years?

Edit:
Or even better: just subscribe for 3€/month to get the core books.


----------



## Cadence

UngeheuerLich said:


> Why do people hate the Idea, that today's young gamers can buy a modern edition.
> There are new gamers who will turn 14 in 2 years and buy their first book.
> They were 4, when 5e came out.
> 
> Do you want to tell them, that they should buy the PHB, but not the DMG, and for the ranger class it is better to also have tasha's guide.
> Or do you want to tell them to just buy the new and improved core books that are based on the experience of 10 years?




Having a 13 yo with current copies of the books... I wonder if it would be nice if the new ones were released heading in to Black Friday weekend in 2024 to balance gifting and patience.


----------



## Sacrosanct

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. But you don't have to. That is the point. Even if you need to buy new core books. It is still not expensive. And you regularly see people freak out, because "Greedy WotC wants to sell you books you already own".
> Hey, you can still play Civilization 2. Still works... but people who liked that game will possibly be happy that you can now buy Civilization 6, which is modernized and streamlined.
> I for my part am happy, that I can soon buy Diablo 4. Diablo 3 is now 10 years old.
> Why can't RPG people be happy about an upgrade?
> Why should everyone stick to an edition that is 10 years old, just because you happen to have bought so many books.
> 
> (Minis are still perfectly usable no matter which edition.)
> 
> Why do people hate the Idea, that today's young gamers can buy a modern edition.
> There are new gamers who will turn 14 in 2 years and buy their first book.
> They were 4, when 5e came out.
> 
> Do you want to tell them, that they should buy the PHB, but not the DMG, and for the ranger class it is better to also have tasha's guide.
> Or do you want to tell them to just buy the new and improved core books that are based on the experience of 10 years?
> 
> Edit:
> Or even better: just subscribe for 3€/month to get the core books.



As someone who stuck with ADnD when 3 and 4e came out, I very much subscribe to the idea one can keep playing what they like and aren’t forced to buy the new thing. But I’m also not against the new thing because it adds choice. One DnD will be someone’s favorite edition. And that’s a good thing IMO


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. But you don't have to. That is the point. Even if you need to buy new core books. It is still not expensive. And you regularly see people freak out, because "Greedy WotC wants to sell you books you already own".
> Hey, you can still play Civilization 2. Still works... but people who liked that game will possibly be happy that you can now buy Civilization 6, which is modernized and streamlined.
> I for my part am happy, that I can soon buy Diablo 4. Diablo 3 is now 10 years old.
> Why can't RPG people be happy about an upgrade?
> Why should everyone stick to an edition that is 10 years old, just because you happen to have bought so many books.
> 
> (Minis are still perfectly usable no matter which edition.)
> 
> Why do people hate the Idea, that today's young gamers can buy a modern edition.
> There are new gamers who will turn 14 in 2 years and buy their first book.
> They were 4, when 5e came out.
> 
> Do you want to tell them, that they should buy the PHB, but not the DMG, and for the ranger class it is better to also have tasha's guide.
> Or do you want to tell them to just buy the new and improved core books that are based on the experience of 10 years?
> 
> Edit:
> Or even better: just subscribe for 3€/month to get the core books.



Well, gamers in general can do what they want, but since I'm not planning buy or play the new edition, if my own players buy those books there won't be much value in them for a game I run.

For the record, I prefer Diablo 2 over 3 regardless.  Don't know much about 4.


----------



## Malmuria

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. But you don't have to. That is the point. Even if you need to buy new core books. It is still not expensive. And you regularly see people freak out, because "Greedy WotC wants to sell you books you already own".




At the same time, it's not really to wotc's credit that the game can be played freely.  It's always been up to TSR/WOTC to figure out how to get "recurrent spending" for a game that is mostly based in the imagination of players.  That is, the fact that the game is cheap/free is a problem to be solved for the companies in charge, especially now that wotc is under pressure to keeping growing revenue.  It's good to be clear about that dynamic: wotc is trying to sell you stuff that you might want but don't need to play the game.

I would also make a distinction between the game 1) as a *hobby* and 2) as *consumer entertainment*.  As a hobby, what makes the game go is the activity and energy of the players.  Certainly you need a rulebook, but beyond that participating in the hobby is not about what you buy but about what you do.  The hobby, in this sense, is more what happens at the table and less what is in a given book.  If knitting is your hobby, you need yarn and supplies, but the sweater you make is, for better or worse, your own creation and not that of the yarn company.

As *consumer entertainment*, dnd is also cheap compared to, say, going out to the movies a lot.  But the thing about seeing a movie is that it is a passive experience.  You contribute nothing to making the movie happen other than the price of the ticket.

I think the 'why buy books you already own' sentiment comes from people who see dnd as more of a hobby than as entertainment.  If my hobby is basketball, and I already have a hoop, I don't need to go out and get a new one.  The hobby is not me getting a new hoop or new basketballs, the hobby is me going out and playing.  By contrast, if your interest is in watching professional basketball, then you must buy tickets or tv subscriptions to be entertained.


----------



## overgeeked

Malmuria said:


> At the same time, it's not really to wotc's credit that the game can be played freely.  It's always been up to TSR/WOTC to figure out how to get "recurrent spending" for a game that is mostly based in the imagination of players.  That is, the fact that the game is cheap/free is a problem to be solved for the companies in charge, especially now that wotc is under pressure to keeping growing revenue.  It's good to be clear about that dynamic: wotc is trying to sell you stuff that you might want but don't need to play the game.



And we’re repeatedly ignoring the fact that old books don’t disappear when the new ones come out. There’s nothing stopping people from continuing to play their old games except the fear of missing the latest new thing. WotC literally banks on people’s fear of missing the latest new thing. 


Malmuria said:


> I would also make a distinction between the game 1) as a *hobby* and 2) as *consumer entertainment*.  As a hobby, what makes the game go is the activity and energy of the players.  Certainly you need a rulebook, but beyond that participating in the hobby is not about what you buy but about what you do.  The hobby, in this sense, is more what happens at the table and less what is in a given book.  If knitting is your hobby, you need yarn and supplies, but the sweater you make is, for better or worse, your own creation and not that of the yarn company.
> 
> As *consumer entertainment*, dnd is also cheap compared to, say, going out to the movies a lot.  But the thing about seeing a movie is that it is a passive experience.  You contribute nothing to making the movie happen other than the price of the ticket.
> 
> I think the 'why buy books you already own' sentiment comes from people who see dnd as more of a hobby than as entertainment.  If my hobby is basketball, and I already have a hoop, I don't need to go out and get a new one.  The hobby is not me getting a new hoop or new basketballs, the hobby is me going out and playing.  By contrast, if your interest is in watching professional basketball, then you must buy tickets or tv subscriptions to be entertained.



There’s nothing about D&D as entertainment that requires the constant purchase of new stuff. You buy a DVD and can watch it as many times as you want. Same with books. Same with RPGs. You can read and re-read the books until they fall apart and then you can rebind them. You can play the game described in the books as many times as you want. Well, as many times as you can find players and time to get together. Even with D&D streams as entertainment, they’re all free on YouTube. No extra purchase required.


----------



## Voadam

Malmuria said:


> At the same time, it's not really to wotc's credit that the game can be played freely. It's always been up to TSR/WOTC to figure out how to get "recurrent spending" for a game that is mostly based in the imagination of players.



For 3.0 and 3.5 it was to their credit. The SRD allowed you to have the core rules free. I used the srd as my go to rules for 3.0 and 3.5 (I had the 3.0 PH in print and read it but for a while in the 3.0 era I was only doing online games and I never reached for my PH during a game or character creation or advancement, it was all srd referencing). I ran 3.0 and 3.5 games using only the SRD. (5e was enough for publishers to put out stuff but not enough 5e SRD material for players to make the PH range of characters).

This was a successful move on WotC's part in the 3e era as to my purchasing patterns. I bought a number of sourcebooks and modules from WotC even though I never bought a DMG in the 3e era. Even though I spent more on OGL books than WotC ones, this was mostly a shift from non-D&D books I had been purchasing in the past so it was useful in keeping me more in the D&D ecosystem and running D&D games and buying the occasional WotC product.

Same for Paizo when WotC shifted to 4e with no free SRD and Paizo Pathfinder started up with a free SRD. I used the free Pathfinder SRD and switched to Pathfinder and started buying Paizo and other OGL pathfinder stuff.


----------



## Malmuria

Voadam said:


> For 3.0 and 3.5 it was to their credit. The SRD allowed you to have the core rules free. I used the srd as my go to rules for 3.0 and 3.5 (I had the 3.0 PH in print and read it but for a while in the 3.0 era I was only doing online games and I never reached for my PH during a game or character creation or advancement, it was all srd referencing). I ran 3.0 and 3.5 games using only the SRD. (5e was enough for publishers to put out stuff but not enough 5e SRD material for players to make the PH range of characters).
> 
> This was a successful move on WotC's part in the 3e era as to my purchasing patterns. I bought a number of sourcebooks and modules from WotC even though I never bought a DMG in the 3e era. Even though I spent more on OGL books than WotC ones, this was mostly a shift from non-D&D books I had been purchasing in the past so it was useful in keeping me more in the D&D ecosystem and running D&D games and buying the occasional WotC product.
> 
> Same for Paizo when WotC shifted to 4e with no free SRD and Paizo Pathfinder started up with a free SRD. I used the free Pathfinder SRD and switched to Pathfinder and started buying Paizo and other OGL pathfinder stuff.



In this sense having some version of the core material be free is a good marketing tactic, as it drives engagement and future purchases.  Certainly if the free rules are on the same site (dnd beyond) as your product.  But again, the problem from wotc's side is "what will drive recurrent spending," not "how can we make sure people can play the game without buying anything."


----------



## SkidAce

overgeeked said:


> And we’re repeatedly ignoring the fact that old books don’t disappear when the new ones come out. There’s nothing stopping people from continuing to play their old games except the fear of missing the latest new thing. WotC literally banks on people’s fear of missing the latest new thing.



Its not *just *the fear of missing things...its also the fear of being left behind, not being or belonging to a group, or being a part of a culture.

Its bittersweet when things change, if you go forward with the new style you get to stay with the majority and enjoy that aspect, but may miss or be nostalgic about facets of the old.

If the changes are too  much for you, you slowly lose relevance and a sense of belonging, and eventually all you have left* is nostalgia.



*obviously this is a broad stroke description, your group may stick with each other and play for years.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, gamers in general can do what they want, but since I'm not planning buy or play the new edition, if my own players buy those books there won't be much value in them for a game I run.
> 
> For the record, I prefer Diablo 2 over 3 regardless.  Don't know much about 4.




That is not surprising.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Malmuria said:


> In this sense having some version of the core material be free is a good marketing tactic, as it drives engagement and future purchases.  Certainly if the free rules are on the same site (dnd beyond) as your product.  But again, the problem from wotc's side is "what will drive recurrent spending," not "how can we make sure people can play the game without buying anything."




Answer is easy: produce products that people want to buy. There is literally nothing else they can do.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> That is not surprising.



If it makes you feel any better, I preferred 2 over 1 as well.  And 4 might be great; I don't know, because I haven't kept up on it.


----------



## JEB

overgeeked said:


> On the off chance this wasn’t already posted, the Alexandrian is doing a series on the OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open Gaming License: A Brief History
> 
> 
> What the heck is an Open Gaming License?And why should you care?The Open Gaming License, or OGL, is what lets people sell D&D-compatible adventures and supplements without getting Hasbro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thealexandrian.net



Note that while the articles appear to be broadly accurate, they do have a few errors: most notably, they claim that the 5E SRD excludes stuff that wasn't also in the 3E SRDs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> If it makes you feel any better, I preferred 2 over 1 as well.  And 4 might be great; I don't know, because I haven't kept up on it.




I think 1 and 2 were both great games for their time.
D3 had big problems in the beginning, but evolved to be a great game.


Edit: no. It does not make me feel better or worse. It just did not surprise me based on your preferences you have shown in other threads.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think 1 and 2 were both great games for their time.
> D3 had big problems in the beginning, but evolved to be a great game.
> 
> 
> Edit: no. It does not make me feel better or worse. It just did not surprise me based on your preferences you have shown in other threads.



I literally bought my PC with the express purpose being able to play Diablo 3; I was that excited about it.  When it actually came out I was quite disappointed, in large part because of the online requirement, but also because I felt the story was pretty lacking.  I didn't stick with it long enough for it to get better.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> I literally bought my PC with the express purpose being able to play Diablo 3; I was that excited about it.  When it actually came out I was quite disappointed, in large part because of the online requirement, but also because I felt the story was pretty lacking.  I didn't stick with it long enough for it to get better.




I understand that sentiment. I think you missed something. Too bad you can't go back there, because (in my opinion) the best time of d3 is over. I don't like the current patch too much (although way mkre than the vanilla game). 

This is really a difference between a PC game with online requirement. You can't keep the patch you liked and always have to upgrade.
Still I got so many hours out of d3, that I am not bitter.


----------



## pogre

There is going to have to be a massive incentive to use this OGL over the previous one. Not giving a legal opinion here, even though IAL, the previous OGL cannot be revoked or changed and is safe. The language in their release about the intent of "the" OGL was amusing. Sorry folks that cat is completely out of the bag!  The language is clear, and more importantly, the past practice is clearer. That's why there has to be something to really make publishers want to use the new one.


----------



## Marandahir

mamba said:


> and got a license from WotC despite this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solasta: Crown of the Magister
> 
> 
> Great news everyone!We've now officially received the license to use the System Reference Document 5.1 from Wizards of the Coast, further anchoring our will to make the most faithful video game adaptation with the Tabletop Ruleset to craft the game you are hoping for! For those who may not be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.solasta-game.com



See, but I'm 90% sure they had to work out their own independent licensing agreement behind the scenes to make that happen, and will be paying royalties of their own sort soon…


----------



## Hussar

overgeeked said:


> On the off chance this wasn’t already posted, the Alexandrian is doing a series on the OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open Gaming License: A Brief History
> 
> 
> What the heck is an Open Gaming License?And why should you care?The Open Gaming License, or OGL, is what lets people sell D&D-compatible adventures and supplements without getting Hasbro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thealexandrian.net



Prediction before I read the article.  The Alexandrian is going to hate all things WotC and everything they do is bad.  

_goes off to read the article_

Ok, I'll admit, far more even handed than I assumed he would write, given his very open hostility to WotC and all things WotC over the years.  But, then it culminates with this gem:

"And what we know for certain right now is that their intention is for OneD&D to be less open than 5th Edition."

We _know _no such thing.  We might speculate that this might be true.  We might suspect that it might be true.  But, we absolutely do not know that.


----------



## Greg Benage

Hussar said:


> We _know _no such thing. We might speculate that this might be true. We might suspect that it might be true. But, we absolutely do not know that.




You think they’ll change their minds about the disclosure requirements, financial audits and royalties? That seems very unlikely.


----------



## overgeeked

SkidAce said:


> Its not *just *the fear of missing things...its also the fear of *being left behind*, not being or *belonging to a group*, or _*being a part of a culture*_.



...what absolute nonsense.

You're not left behind. There are others who opt to stay with every edition when there's a change over. You still belong to the group who played that edition. You still belong to the group who keeps playing that edition, if you keep playing that edition. Your definition of culture has to be minuscule for you to no longer be a part of the culture. There's the broad nerd and geek culture, the smaller RPG subculture, the smaller tabletop RPG sub-subculture, and the smaller still D&D sub-sub-subculture. Then there's sub-sub-sub-subculture of which edition you play. So even if you still with a non-current edition, you're still part of a lot of cultures and subcultures. You're just not part of the current edition of D&D sub-sub-sub-subculture.


SkidAce said:


> Its *bittersweet when things change*, if you go forward with the new style you *get to stay with the majority* and enjoy that aspect, but may miss or be nostalgic about facets of the old.



Things change regardless of how we feel about them. Change is. It’s not bittersweet.

I don’t view being with the majority as anything to feel proud of in most cases.


SkidAce said:


> If the changes are too  much for you, *you slowly lose relevance* and a *sense of belonging*, and eventually *all you have left* is nostalgia*.



Your relevance is not tied to which edition of a particular brand of elfgame you play. Your sense of belonging shouldn’t be tied to which brand if elfgame you play. No matter how much WotC pushes the nonsense, D&D is not a lifestyle brand. It’s a game.

All you have left is nostalgia? What a bizarre take. Either I play the new shiny or I’m irrelevant? Nonsense. That’s pure fear of missing out.


SkidAce said:


> *obviously this is a broad stroke description, your group may stick with each other and play for years.



It‘s obviously nonsense.


----------



## SkidAce

overgeeked said:


> ...what absolute nonsense.
> 
> You're not left behind. There are others who opt to stay with every edition when there's a change over. You still belong to the group who played that edition. You still belong to the group who keeps playing that edition, if you keep playing that edition. Your definition of culture has to be minuscule for you to no longer be a part of the culture. There's the broad nerd and geek culture, the smaller RPG subculture, the smaller tabletop RPG sub-subculture, and the smaller still D&D sub-sub-subculture. Then there's sub-sub-sub-subculture of which edition you play. So even if you still with a non-current edition, you're still part of a lot of cultures and subcultures. You're just not part of the current edition of D&D sub-sub-sub-subculture.
> 
> Things change regardless of how we feel about them. Change is. It’s not bittersweet.
> 
> I don’t view being with the majority as anything to feel proud of in most cases.
> 
> Your relevance is not tied to which edition of a particular brand of elfgame you play. Your sense of belonging shouldn’t be tied to which brand if elfgame you play. No matter how much WotC pushes the nonsense, D&D is not a lifestyle brand. It’s a game.
> 
> All you have left is nostalgia? What a bizarre take. Either I play the new shiny or I’m irrelevant? Nonsense. That’s pure fear of missing out.
> 
> It‘s obviously nonsense.



I am not speaking specifically about anyone, feelings about this kind of thing run across a broad spectrum.

To term it "obviously nonsense" is very opinionated.   And I comment on some of the very points you replied with.

But hey, other than the "absolute" and "obvious", I understand what you are saying, its just that to some people, its more important then you think.

Game on!


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> But, then it culminates with this gem:
> 
> "And what we know for certain right now is that their intention is for OneD&D to be less open than 5th Edition."
> 
> We _know _no such thing.  We might speculate that this might be true.  We might suspect that it might be true.  But, we absolutely do not know that.



given their OGL 1.1 announcement / statement, I'd say we would be foolish not to expect it


----------



## overgeeked

Sly Flourish talks about this today.


----------



## Mistwell

overgeeked said:


> ...what absolute nonsense.
> 
> You're not left behind. There are others who opt to stay with every edition when there's a change over. You still belong to the group who played that edition. You still belong to the group who keeps playing that edition, if you keep playing that edition. Your definition of culture has to be minuscule for you to no longer be a part of the culture. There's the broad nerd and geek culture, the smaller RPG subculture, the smaller tabletop RPG sub-subculture, and the smaller still D&D sub-sub-subculture. Then there's sub-sub-sub-subculture of which edition you play. So even if you still with a non-current edition, you're still part of a lot of cultures and subcultures. You're just not part of the current edition of D&D sub-sub-sub-subculture.
> 
> Things change regardless of how we feel about them. Change is. It’s not bittersweet.
> 
> I don’t view being with the majority as anything to feel proud of in most cases.
> 
> Your relevance is not tied to which edition of a particular brand of elfgame you play. Your sense of belonging shouldn’t be tied to which brand if elfgame you play. No matter how much WotC pushes the nonsense, D&D is not a lifestyle brand. It’s a game.
> 
> All you have left is nostalgia? What a bizarre take. Either I play the new shiny or I’m irrelevant? Nonsense. That’s pure fear of missing out.
> 
> It‘s obviously nonsense.



Being a little aggressive there in judging people's feelings about community, are you not?


----------



## Hussar

Greg Benage said:


> You think they’ll change their minds about the disclosure requirements, financial audits and royalties? That seems very unlikely.



But, that doesn't make the license any less open.  

Unless we see an SRD that is significantly different than what we see right now, there is nothing in the announcement that makes it any less open than it is right now.  Again, since we haven't seen what the new SRD looks like, it's possible that it will be less open.  But, that's still speculative.

For the overwhelming majority of content creators for D&D, this new OGL will make zero difference.  And even for those that it will impact - basically those who are making a living on 3rd party content (those making more than 50 grand a year), the disclosure requirements are not going to change anything.  Why would having to tell WotC, "Hey, yes, my 3rd party product makes 65 grand a year."  have any impact?

And, frankly, what financial audits?


----------



## Greg Benage

Hussar said:


> But, that doesn't make the license any less open.




Yes, requiring disclosures and charging larger licensees royalties does indeed make the license less open, regardless of how much content they make available under its terms.

Not a big deal — I understand what you were trying to say. The sarcasm directed at Justin was just a bit misplaced since what he said was correct.


----------



## Hussar

Greg Benage said:


> Yes, requiring disclosures and charging larger licensees royalties does indeed make the license less open, regardless of how much content they make available under its terms.
> 
> Not a big deal — I understand what you were trying to say. The sarcasm directed at Justin was just a bit misplaced since what he said was correct.



I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open?  And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing.  It does cost you something, sure.  But, how does it make it less open.

And my criticism of Justin Alexander is well founded.  He's been unrelentingly negative about all things WotC for over a decade.   Seeing him state, in no uncertain terms that we KNOW that WotC is going to make the new license less open is what I'm criticising.  We know no such thing.  We might suspect that it's true.  But, again, it's hardly surprising to see Justin Alexander making up his mind long before seeing the actual license.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open?  And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing.  It does cost you something, sure.  But, how does it make it less open.




Calling "having to jump through more hoops" being less open seems reasonable to me. But even discarding that...

Haven't they also said the new one won't apply to non-book-like things, so not to video games or continuously updated searchable websites, say?

The current one seems to have been explicitly designed to allow for those based on the FAQ they put out way back when, right?


----------



## Umbran

Cadence said:


> Haven't they also said the new one won't apply to non-book-like things, so not to video games or continuously updated searchable websites, say?




The statement quoted in the OP says, _"To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it."_

While I'd agree that this means video games (and, in general, automation of the rules) is out, I think searchable websites are probably still okay.  I don't think a search widget will qualify as "dynamic content".

Basically, a PDF is searchable.  HTML files are similarly static electronic files, and Google will make those searchable even if I don't have a search tool embedded in my page.  So, I don't expect that's what's at issue.

Full on video games, software based character builders, or click-to-roll character sheets are probably more the target there.  And, the point isn't that you cannot build them - just that the OGL is not the license you'll need.


----------



## Hussar

I posted this in another thread, but, I'll include it here too.

What about something like an AI powered adventure generator?  Random dungeon generators have been around forever, but, this is a bit a of a step up.  Say you have a Chat AI twinned with an Art AI (Look, I'm an English teacher, forgive me if I have the terms wrong) and tied to the OGL and the SRD.  

We've seen right now that Chat AI's can generate fairly complex, interesting, and above all, functional adventure frameworks.  Marry that to actually seeding in the stat blocks, plus an art generator for various parts and now, you've got a functional adventure generator that will create professional level modules ready to use at the table with a couple of clicks.

Is that a valid use of the OGL?  I'd say no.  That's pretty above and beyond what WotC intended with the OGL.  Selling a program, for, say, a hundred bucks, that creates fully functional VTT adventures based on a few prompts (or tabletop versions as well) that look good, work and are fun isn't that far off technologically.  

But, I can't say I blame WotC for wanting to wall off it's game from someone doing something like that.


----------



## Squeatus

Umbran said:


> The statement quoted in the OP says, _"To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it."_
> 
> Full on video games, software based character builders, or click-to-roll character sheets are probably more the target there.  And, the point isn't that you cannot build them - just that the OGL is not the license you'll need.




I'd go so far to argue that character builders and even VTT's don't fall under "dynamic content definitely not covered by the OGL" either.

Character builders and VTT's would be using static rulesets (the ogl content) and dice rollers/calculators to facilitate play.  WotC/Hasbro certainly can't say that they believe note-taking, and math randomizers, or the storage of the state of your story (game) is somehow in violation of their content license.

The rules could be edited for accuracy but there's nothing "dynamic" about them, even in a VTT or Character Builder.  It's simply a tool you use to play the game, using rules distributed very much in a static, electronic format.

It'd be like saying Microsoft One Note, if used for your campaign tracking, somehow assisted you in violating the new license.


----------



## Nylanfs

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open?  And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing.  It does cost you something, sure.  But, how does it make it less open.




The same as placing a barrier to do something that was previously unimpeded, or even placing a "perceived" barrier. Yes, the vast majority of publishers won't have issues with the possibility of paying royalties, because they will never come close. But it is still a "theoretical" barrier and a chilling of the previous percieved "openness".


----------



## Nylanfs

Umbran said:


> The statement quoted in the OP says, _"To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it."_
> 
> Full on video games, software based character builders, or click-to-roll character sheets are probably more the target there.  And, the point isn't that you cannot build them - just that the OGL is not the license you'll need.




I'll also note that they are wildly misstating, and in my opinion attempting to retcon, the OGL. NOTHING in the OGL v1.0 or v1.0a attempted to exclude the items they are saying it didn't cover. The d20 STL did, and this needs to be made clear every time this is brought up so it doesn't fall by the wayside and become accepted as "common knowledge".


----------



## Umbran

Squeatus said:


> Character builders and VTT's would be using static rulesets (the ogl content) and dice rollers/calculators to facilitate play.




No, you get in trouble with the calculations.  That is stepping beyond the static text file, and gets into _processing the rules_.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open?  And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing.  It does cost you something, sure.  But, how does it make it less open.



It's because the word 'open' here is used in the context of 'open source' -- which is defined as something made freely available for modification and redistribution. The suggestion here is that it will be available, but not freely, and thus not 'open' in that context.


----------



## Nylanfs

Umbran said:


> No, you get in trouble with the calculations.  That is stepping beyond the static text file, and gets into _processing the rules_.



That was the STL, the OGL doesn't get into any type of processing.


----------



## Art Waring

Hussar said:


> For the overwhelming majority of content creators for D&D, *this new OGL will make zero difference*. And even for those that it will impact - basically those who are making a living on 3rd party content (those making more than 50 grand a year), the disclosure requirements are not going to change anything. Why would having to tell WotC, "Hey, yes, my 3rd party product makes 65 grand a year." have any impact?



See point #3 of the official Wotc statement: Point #3: Requires a creator badge on all 1.1 OGL products. This will have a HUGE impact on content creators, just like the d20 STL did.

Previous creator badges , like the d20 trademark included with the D20 STL are controlled by Wotc, they can revoke the trademark at any time. That will absolutely affect content creators.

If they can pull the creator badge at any time, tell me, _what incentive do I have to use the new license when the old 1.0a allows me to keep my content published indefinitely_?


----------



## Umbran

Nylanfs said:


> That was the STL, the OGL doesn't get into any type of processing.




I was clearly referring back to the OP, and thus the upcoming OGL v1.1


----------



## Nylanfs

Umbran said:


> I was clearly referring back to the OP, and thus the upcoming OGL v1.1



Yes, I don't want ANYONE to get the confused as to what the original license said, or has been used as. It's the whole "accept their arguement premise and it becomes fact" issue.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MNblockhead said:


> I mean, I get not wanting to shell out another 150 dollars when your current books are still playable. All for saving money. What I don't get is why some in the hobby get so hot and bothered by reprints and new editions. I mean, just don't buy them.



1) no matter what they say or others say no company wants to put something out you wont buy.
2) staying current with edition makes finding groups and talking to people easier.

Just here, on enworld I have seen people twist arguments based on "You didn't say it was 5e" when everyone else agrees that is what we were talking about.  You know what I don't see (and remember we tend to be older then the player base) a lot of people talking about the older editions. 

Right now I am 'settling' for 5eD&D, and so is most if not all of my friends. We all have editions or games we would rather play, but those editions/games are not all the same. So to keep our friend group going we are all playing our 3rd or 4th favorite TTRPG instead of playing with a fraction of that size group of friends there first or second choice. 
If this 5.5/6/1D&D is just slight modifications to 5e, we have to decide. Do we all spend $50-$150 on new books to play the updated 5e, or do we just not keep up with modern gameing?


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> 1) no matter what they say or others say no company wants to put something out you wont buy.
> 2) staying current with edition makes finding groups and talking to people easier.
> 
> Just here, on enworld I have seen people twist arguments based on "You didn't say it was 5e" when everyone else agrees that is what we were talking about.  You know what I don't see (and remember we tend to be older then the player base) a lot of people talking about the older editions.
> 
> Right now I am 'settling' for 5eD&D, and so is most if not all of my friends. We all have editions or games we would rather play, but those editions/games are not all the same. So to keep our friend group going we are all playing our 3rd or 4th favorite TTRPG instead of playing with a fraction of that size group of friends there first or second choice.
> If this 5.5/6/1D&D is just slight modifications to 5e, we have to decide. Do we all spend $50-$150 on new books to play the updated 5e, or do we just not keep up with modern gameing?



This.  I've chosen not to keep up, but it's a hard choice after 35 years.


----------



## Dausuul

Hussar said:


> But, that doesn't make the license any less open.



The very definition of an open license is that you can use the licensed material without restrictions or charges. Adding restrictions and charges is the way you make a license less open. That is what Wizards is doing.

You may argue that the restrictions are reasonable and the charges modest. You may even be right. But it is very definitely a less open license than the 1.0 OGL.


----------



## Reynard

Art Waring said:


> If they can pull the creator badge at any time, tell me, _what incentive do I have to use the new license when the old 1.0a allows me to keep my content published indefinitely_?



I think it is important to note that none of this is going to have any impact on any content released under OLG 1.0 or 1.0a.

The incentive is for creating new material using the (assumed) 1D&D SRD. WotC either believes it can close access to that SRD content under the exising OGL. Or they aren't going to release it under the existing OGL and "OGL 1.1" is not in fact a version of the OGL that exisats today. I would assume they believe one or both of these things because their lawyers told them these were the case.

Given the Microsoft connection here: are there any parallels in open source software we can look at the guess what their plan is and how they think it will work in their favor? Has any formerly open code been closed when acquired by a company?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> The incentive is for creating new material using the (assumed) 1D&D SRD. WotC either believes it can close access to that SRD content under the exising OGL. Or they aren't going to release it under the existing OGL and "OGL 1.1" is not in fact a version of the OGL that exisats today. I would assume they believe one or both of these things because their lawyers told them these were the case.



I still think they are banking on fear of trying to use D&D1 compatible with things that are under a D&D5e SRD.


----------



## Malmuria

Currently 3pp say they are compatible with "5e" to avoid trademark issues.  It would be funny if people started publishing 3rd party content using OGL 1.0 but with a badge saying it is "compatible with 6e."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Malmuria said:


> Currently 3pp say they are compatible with "5e" to avoid trademark issues.  It would be funny if people started publishing 3rd party content using OGL 1.0 but with a badge saying it is "compatible with 6e."



I mean it is easier then saying "the version that came out after 5e"


----------



## Deset Gled

Umbran said:


> No, you get in trouble with the calculations.  That is stepping beyond the static text file, and gets into _processing the rules_.




I can imagine a future where the VTT market works similar to the way the retro video game market runs now.  People write emulators for old systems, which are legal to make and sell.  But the user has to supply the ROMS for the games.  For D&D, 3rd party VTTs could operate as a base software package, but the user has to supply a file (or link) to the OGL content for it to be imported into the the VTT.  As long as the OGL content is supplied by the user and not the VTT company, they're clear to do whatever they want.


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> Currently 3pp say they are compatible with "5e" to avoid trademark issues.  It would be funny if people started publishing 3rd party content using OGL 1.0 but with a badge saying it is "compatible with 6e."



"For use with that ONE version of the world's most popular fantasy RPG."


----------



## kenada

Reynard said:


> Given the Microsoft connection here: are there any parallels in open source software we can look at the guess what their plan is and how they think it will work in their favor? Has any formerly open code been closed when acquired by a company?



Microsoft has actually been releasing quite a bit of stuff as open source lately. You usually see what WotC is trying to do happen with VC-backed startups changing from a permissive open source license to protect their business model. Elastisearch is a prominent, recent example.


----------



## kenada

I should add that Microsoft is a large company. The console division is separate from the parts that are doing open source. It seems to me these proposed changes are trying to move D&D to an app store or console model where all content is licensed and distributed for the benefit of the platform holder.


----------



## MoonSong

Morrus said:


> It’s not. I don’t know if I’m saying it wrong, but, again, the OGL does not prohibit software. Or ice sculptures. Or musicals. Or anything. It doesn’t prohibit any formats. You can read it for yourself. It’s quite short.



They lost the chance once Paizo started doing videogames.


----------



## Greg Benage

kenada said:


> I should add that Microsoft is a large company. The console division is separate from the parts that are doing open source. It seems to me these proposed changes are trying to move D&D to an app store or console model where all content is licensed and distributed for the benefit of the platform holder.




If Wizards comes up with something that’s as good a value as Game Pass, that’d be a big win.


----------



## Hussar

Thanks for the clarification folks.  And, as an aside, that is actually an honest thank you and not meant as passive aggressive.  It does actually quite help.

Another question, again, from the gallery of the stupid - aren't there are number of Creative Commons licenses that give varying degrees of freedom for reproducing material?  Is a CC license a very different thing from an Open license?  

I guess my question is, if Creative Commons has a number of different licenses and there doesn't seem to be huge problems with that, is the new OGL much different?


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> Another question, again, from the gallery of the stupid - aren't there are number of Creative Commons licenses that give varying degrees of freedom for reproducing material?  Is a CC license a very different thing from an Open license?



The CC licenses are all open in that there are no requirements to enter into them (apart from agreeing to the conditions), but they differ in how permissive they are


Hussar said:


> I guess my question is, if Creative Commons has a number of different licenses and there doesn't seem to be huge problems with that, is the new OGL much different?



Yes, as it presumably (it is not released yet..) does some things that none of them do, making the OGL 1.1 a closed license (registration with WotC, reporting requirements, fee)

If they had said 'going forward the SRD may only be used for static documents in print or PDFs, and as VTT content, but not as anything else, including (but not limited to) NFTs, software other than VTTs while the other conditions stay the same' you could argue that this is similar to the differences between one CC license and another, but the items pointed out above make it something else.
The fact that they are even carving out VTT content to me indicates they will handle this very restrictively and want (to force) everyone on their upcoming VTT


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> "For use with that ONE version of the world's most popular fantasy RPG."



“Compatible with the latest edition of the world’s oldest RPG.”


----------



## Xethreau

WotC's just sad that everyone else makes better D&D video games / digital tools than they do


----------



## Deset Gled

Xethreau said:


> WotC's just sad that everyone else makes better D&D video games / digital tools than they do




WotC wouldn't care in the slightest who made the best digital games or tools as long as they got their cut of it.


----------



## Xethreau

Deset Gled said:


> WotC wouldn't care in the slightest who made the best digital games or tools as long as they got their cut of it.



I wouldn't care about 3PP content if WoTC were remotely capable of delivering the quality and quantity of content the community desires. 

My critique isn't them being greedy corporate subscription foisters (although that is obviously demonstrably true). My critique is them being clueless, out of touch, ivory tower, Seattle nepotist, corporatist brand jockeys. 

If they want to make money, fine -- but how about sell products??


----------



## vecna00

Xethreau said:


> I wouldn't care about 3PP content if WoTC were remotely capable of delivering the quality and quantity of content the community desires.
> 
> My critique isn't them being greedy corporate subscription foisters (although that is obviously demonstrably true). My critique is them being clueless, out of touch, ivory tower, Seattle nepotist, corporatist brand jockeys.
> 
> If they want to make money, fine -- but how about sell products??



I mean, they are selling products.


----------



## overgeeked

vecna00 said:


> I mean, they are selling products.



Glares at the Spelljammer slipcase in the profit motive will make companies put out substandard products just to make more money.


----------



## vecna00

overgeeked said:


> Glares at the Spelljammer slipcase in the profit motive will make companies put out substandard products just to make more money.



You can glare as much as you want, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Micah Sweet

vecna00 said:


> You can glare as much as you want, if it makes you feel better.



It actually does, thanks.


----------



## Umbran

Xethreau said:


> My critique is them being clueless, out of touch, ivory tower, Seattle nepotist, corporatist brand jockeys.




*Mod Note:*
So, your critique is... a bunch of insults of people's character.

Rule #1 here is literally, "keep it civil."  If what you've got is tossing around insults, please take those to some venue that likes that kind of thing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> 1) no matter what they say or others say no company wants to put something out you wont buy.
> 2) staying current with edition makes finding groups and talking to people easier.
> 
> Just here, on enworld I have seen people twist arguments based on "You didn't say it was 5e" when everyone else agrees that is what we were talking about.  You know what I don't see (and remember we tend to be older then the player base) a lot of people talking about the older editions.
> 
> Right now I am 'settling' for 5eD&D, and so is most if not all of my friends. We all have editions or games we would rather play, but those editions/games are not all the same. So to keep our friend group going we are all playing our 3rd or 4th favorite TTRPG instead of playing with a fraction of that size group of friends there first or second choice.
> If this 5.5/6/1D&D is just slight modifications to 5e, we have to decide. Do we all spend $50-$150 on new books to play the updated 5e, or do we just not keep up with modern gameing?




Yes, now it is your turn to decide. Don't deny the new generation their up to date books instead of using the worn out books of their elder brothers and sisters.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

vecna00 said:


> I mean, they are selling products.




But not to the one person that matters.
The only person who knowa what everyone actually wants.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> Don't deny the new generation their up to date books instead of using the worn out books of their elder brothers and sisters.



as someone who is pushing for 6e to get a full overhaul to be up to date with current Zeitgeists I think I have made my choice...


----------



## MNblockhead

GMforPowergamers said:


> 1) no matter what they say or others say no company wants to put something out you wont buy.
> 2) staying current with edition makes finding groups and talking to people easier.
> 
> Just here, on enworld I have seen people twist arguments based on "You didn't say it was 5e" when everyone else agrees that is what we were talking about.  You know what I don't see (and remember we tend to be older then the player base) a lot of people talking about the older editions.
> 
> Right now I am 'settling' for 5eD&D, and so is most if not all of my friends. We all have editions or games we would rather play, but those editions/games are not all the same. So to keep our friend group going we are all playing our 3rd or 4th favorite TTRPG instead of playing with a fraction of that size group of friends there first or second choice.
> If this 5.5/6/1D&D is just slight modifications to 5e, we have to decide. Do we all spend $50-$150 on new books to play the updated 5e, or do we just not keep up with modern gameing?




Yeah, I get that. I mean, it won't influence my decisions to buy the the new books or not. So far, I like what I see, and probably will. But if I'm not happy with what they do with the game, I won't. If I don't, then yes, that is going to have have an impact on my participation in these forums. But I'm finding that this far into the 2014 5e rules, very little of the discussions I read or engage in are about RAW. It is actually kind of nice to just be talking about story, play styles, etc. Also, when I first joined EN World when 5e came out I read very little about non-DnD games. I read news and conversations about non-DnD games much more now, because there is less to read or say which hasn't already been rehashed multiple times over the years.

When the 1DnD rules come out, I expect we'll have several years with a sea of discussions on the new rules, drowning out most other topics. It might be nice to stick with 2014 DnD just to keep my time spent on forums in check.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MNblockhead said:


> When the 1DnD rules come out, I expect we'll have several years with a sea of discussions on the new rules, drowning out most other topics. It might be nice to stick with 2014 DnD just to keep my time spent on forums in check.



I mean that is a plus I guess... since I am supposed to be working on a spread sheet for work right now.


----------



## MNblockhead

Micah Sweet said:


> This.  I've chosen not to keep up, but it's a hard choice after 35 years.



A friend of mine has kids around the same age.  When I moved back to the area and wanted to try playing D&D again, I bought the new 5e books.

My friend, wanted to run some TTRPG games for his kids. The difference, he kept a lot of his old gaming books. So he just dusted off his old Warhammer Fantasy books.  

That's the nice thing about books.  Assuming they don't fall apart from play or misuse, they are going to work as well as the day you bought them until long after you are dead.

If I would have kept my old books, I probably would have done the same. That may have still led me to 5e, but I started with 5e because in college I traded boxes of books and modules with some friends in the SCA for a few crates of home-vinted wine and mead.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> as someone who is pushing for 6e to get a full overhaul to be up to date with current Zeitgeists I think I have made my choice...




I think the 1D&D upgrade fits the Zeitgeist perfectly. But YMMV.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think the 1D&D upgrade fits the Zeitgeist perfectly. But YMMV.



I think a simpler system with more RP and less combat would do that. Something more like what I suggested up thread (4e as teh base but with some of the streamlined 5e upgrades but with 2e hp... all healing being HD based, and social and exploration systems more baked in like an updated skill challenge mixed with the journey systems... also a 'keeping contacts' sub system like the one in Strixhaven... but you need to meld all of that in while removing combat options and abilities to keep it as simple as possible)


----------



## Greg Benage

In fairness to @Hussar after I so ardently defended Justin, he came to work with this today:

"...it’s become clear that Hasbro is, once again, planning to abandon the OGL."









						Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?
					

In the Brief History of the Open Gaming License, we discussed how the Open Gaming License (OGL) works and how it has impacted the RPG industry and hobby since its introduction in 2000. If you’re u




					thealexandrian.net
				




I am betrayed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think a simpler system with more RP and less combat would do that. Something more like what I suggested up thread (4e as teh base but with some of the streamlined 5e upgrades but with 2e hp... all healing being HD based, and social and exploration systems more baked in like an updated skill challenge mixed with the journey systems... also a 'keeping contacts' sub system like the one in Strixhaven... but you need to meld all of that in while removing combat options and abilities to keep it as simple as possible)




I don't think 4e as a base is a good idea. 5e has a lot of influences of 4e. I would not mind taking some more (healing surges cough cough, attacks vs defenses 5e saving throws just to end effects).


----------



## SkidAce

Xethreau said:


> I wouldn't care about 3PP content if WoTC were remotely capable of delivering the quality and quantity of content the community desires.
> 
> My critique isn't them being greedy corporate subscription foisters (although that is obviously demonstrably true). My critique is them being clueless, out of touch, ivory tower, Seattle nepotist, corporatist brand jockeys.
> 
> If they want to make money, fine -- but how about sell products??



You should have been around when they were the nouveau hip Seattle trend setters that brought the game back.


----------



## SkidAce

Didnt see moderation...apologies.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't think 4e as a base is a good idea. 5e has a lot of influences of 4e. I would not mind taking some more (healing surges cough cough, attacks vs defenses 5e saving throws just to end effects).



all of what you said, and more standardize class lay out (not exactly like 4e I actually think taking the warlock and the artificer from 5e and using them as the base for all the classes would work best TBH) but the most important is clear precise language. X does Y. little (but not no)room for DM judgement calls being needed at most tables most times (looking at you stealth), the idea of roles EXPANDED... give each class a base "you are good at this" combat role and a "you can with some options work at this okish" combat role but then do the same with the other 2 pillars (social and exploration)

But MOST important is the monsters design... the type (soldier,skirmisher, lurker) and the sub    level (minion elleite solo) mixed with a more stream lines "Hey a  party of 4 1st level have a normal challenge with 4 1st level  regular or sub out 4  minions for 1  or 1 eleite for 2 or 1so for 5"  combine with advice like "Hey if your PCs have higher then average stats, treat  them as 1 level higher, if half or more of the parrty has a higher number of magic items count them as 1 level higher"


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think a simpler system with more RP and less combat would do that.




That makes some hefty assumptions about the zeitgeist.  I'd think that anyone who wanted to encompass the zeitgeist would need to do a lot of work to determine what it actually is.

There's also different zeitgeists at any given time, determined by the population you're talking about. The zeitgeist of _designers_ is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of _players_ is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of GMs, and so on.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> That makes some hefty assumptions about the zeitgeist.



yup like everyone here I can only make assumptions based on the information I have. We each have our own personal experence.

Mine is 3 local gaming stores (well 1 comic shop and 2 rpg stores) that 2 have closed in last few years, some cons (mostly in north east coast of US but I have been to gencon and origins) my tic tok reed (my understanding is somehow the AI knows what I like so that is a bit of an echo there) and my friends and family... I can add in a small amount of theory crafting/number crunching on here...

so again pretty much the same as you or the next guy posting on enworld. 


Umbran said:


> I'd think that anyone who wanted to encompass the zeitgeist would need to do a lot of work to determine what it actually is.



only if you wanted to have a peer reviewed article in some phsyc/soc piratical to talk in layman terms here on the web I would think we could each take our own personal experience


Umbran said:


> There's also different zeitgeists at any given time, determined by the population you're talking about. The zeitgeist of _designers_ is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of _players_ is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of GMs, and so on.



okay, I welcome you to give YOUR insight from YOUR experence... I wont ask you to site sources or do research since this is just a message board with us expressing out our thoughts form our own experiences.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> In fairness to @Hussar after I so ardently defended Justin, he came to work with this today:
> 
> "...it’s become clear that Hasbro is, once again, planning to abandon the OGL."



He is not wrong though, from all I see / hear they are abandoning the OGL in all but name (because taking that last step worked so great last time and they hope not enough people will notice if they keep the acronym)

We will know more when 1.1 drops, but from where things stand today, it will be a lot closer to the GSL than OGL 1.0


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> He is not wrong though, from all I see / hear they are abandoning the OGL in all but name (because taking that last step worked so great last time and they hope not enough people will notice if they keep the acronym)



that is a touchy subject... is a gaming license that has you report income after X money and pay a royalty after Y money really OPEN?


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> He is not wrong though, from all I see / hear they are abandoning the OGL in all but name (because taking that last step worked so great last time and they hope not enough people will notice if they keep the acronym)



Well, I don't think it's clear at all that they're abandoning it. All they've actually said is that they are _not_ abandoning it, but they are changing it ("Pray I don't alter it any further"). Maybe they're lying. I wouldn't be shocked if they're lying. I also wouldn't be shocked if we get something a lot like the existing versions of the OGL, with the addition of the new restrictions they've already announced. I wouldn't suggest that what they've announced thus far constitutes "abandoning" the OGL.

ETA: I mean, they're clearly abandoning versions 1.0/1.0a, so if that's all we're saying, then I agree. It's clear because they explicitly said so.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> Well, I don't think it's clear at all that they're abandoning it. All they've actually said is that they are _not_ abandoning it, but they are changing it ("Pray I don't alter it any further"). Maybe they're lying. I wouldn't be shocked if they're lying. I also wouldn't be shocked if we get something a lot like the existing versions of the OGL, with the addition of the new restrictions they've already announced. I wouldn't suggest that what they've announced thus far constitutes "abandoning" the OGL.



The restrictions they already announced make it not an open license and a lot closer to the GSL... Essentially saying 'we keep the acronym while changing the terms to the GSL' is not _not_ abandoning the OGL.

As to how truthful they were in that statement, I'd say not at all, given that they are misrepresenting the OGL 1.0a terms in it.


----------



## Remathilis

Greg Benage said:


> In fairness to @Hussar after I so ardently defended Justin, he came to work with this today:
> 
> "...it’s become clear that Hasbro is, once again, planning to abandon the OGL."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?
> 
> 
> In the Brief History of the Open Gaming License, we discussed how the Open Gaming License (OGL) works and how it has impacted the RPG industry and hobby since its introduction in 2000. If you’re u
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thealexandrian.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am betrayed.



I find the OpenD&D hashtag was a great place to clear my Twitter follows list


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> The restrictions they already announced make it not an open license and a lot closer to the GSL... Essentially saying 'we keep the acronym while changing the terms to the GSL' is not _not_ abandoning the OGL.




Yes, if that's what they do, if they simply change the name of the GSL, I agree that would be tantamount to "abandoning the OGL." I just don't think it's clear that's what they're going to do.



mamba said:


> As to how truthful were they in that statement ? I'd say not at all, given that they are misrepresenting the OGL 1.0a terms in it.




When was the FAQ released relative to OGL 1.0? I would not assume any correspondence between what they said was "intended" in the FAQ and what they "intended" when the license was drafted. I suspect like everyone else, a lot of people at Wizards learned a lot about the OGL after it was released into the wild.


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> yup like everyone here I can only make assumptions based on the information I have. We each have our own personal experence.




I know we talked before and live in adjacent parts of North America.  But I have to say everything I have seen backs up what you have.  Now that may be VERY different in other states or countries but I agree with what you are seeing.  


Also the AI algorithm for social media is taking the info in your phone/computer and what you look at on there and what you “like” to inform itself of what you will stay to watch/read and what you will “like” and gives you more of that.  So yes all social media is an echo chamber.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> only if you wanted to have a peer reviewed article in some phsyc/soc piratical




Surveying on a large scale is a tool for getting at the zeitgeist.  While you can use that to write peer-reviewed papers, you can also use that to inform design decisions.



GMforPowergamers said:


> to talk in layman terms here on the web I would think we could each take our own personal experience




Except, by definition, personal experience isn't the zeitgeist.  Personal experience is anecdote, local effects, while the zeitgeist covers an entire culture (with a nod to what "culture" we are talking about).

You can handle the zeitgeist of your three gaming stores, perhaps, but that really doesn't scale.  Your stores don't speak to the tendencies of the larger audience, are not reliably representative of gaming as a whole.

By my own statements, my own personal experience has little to do with zeitgeists.

We could, however, talk about the current _designer's_ zeitgeist - looking at the design of games put out recently. That's something that's more accessible, what with it being published and advertised at us.  However, that kind of gives one vote per game, no matter how small that game's player following, so we have to be careful how we think about it.


----------



## Umbran

mamba said:


> We will know more when 1.1 drops, but from where things stand today, it will be a lot closer to the GSL than OGL 1.0




Not like we have an agreed-upon measure of "distance from a license", but... 

For about 20 producers of content, there'll be a significant difference.  For fan content, and small producers, not really.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> Yes, if that's what they do, if they simply change the name of the GSL, I agree that would be tantamount to "abandoning the OGL." I just don't think it's clear that's what they're going to do.



that is moot, we will know in a month or less, so let’s just wait for that


Greg Benage said:


> When was the FAQ released relative to OGL 1.0?



2004 I believe, at least that is when it was last updated. The fact that they pulled it right after this announcement also is no coincidence and should tell you something…


Greg Benage said:


> I would not assume any correspondence between what they said was "intended" in the FAQ and what they "intended" when the license was drafted. I suspect like everyone else, a lot of people at Wizards learned a lot about the OGL after it was released into the wild.



I am not talking about the intention part, but about this

“*First,* we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

Will this affect the D&D content and services players use today? It shouldn’t.”

The OGL was already clear on what it covered, and you are changing what that is with 1.1. This is not you clarifying things you always intended but left unclear. Since this is a change to what is covered today saying it shouldn’t affect what players use is disingenuous at best.

If this were the only change and they did not carve out VTTs, I would not mind. At that point it might fall under ‘what we intended’, but registering, reporting income and possibly paying a fee all are outside of that and my main gripe.


----------



## mamba

Umbran said:


> Not like we have an agreed-upon measure of "distance from a license", but...



pretty sure we can agree in many cases however 


Umbran said:


> For about 20 producers of content, there'll be a significant difference.  For fan content, and small producers, not really.



it requires fees from 20, registration and reporting income from a lot more than that

Also, tell that to the small producers, I see them thinking about leaving the OGL already, much like the GSL never was adopted.
Whether they ultimately will, will depend on the exact terms, but we are pretty close to that point now.


----------



## SteveC

This is shaping up as a really interesting development. The thing is, at this point we have some more information, but we don't know about the incentives WotC is going to put in play to get designers both big and small to adopt to the new license.

The thing I find really interesting in sort of a "following the vibes of the community" way is how negative it's being received as. Enworld is older gamers, but it also one of the most consistently positive places to be for D&D content and WotC. I have seen a lot of people who I typically see being super positive about WotC's moves be neutral at best. I haven't really seen anyone talk about how this is a really good thing: it's been neutral and "we have to wait and see" at best. Frankly, I don't think this is being handled in the best way, and it seems to be coming from people who aren't in tune with the community. I also wonder if the people behind the decision are really 100% up to speed on the OGL: do they understand that if 1D&D is entirely backwards compatible with 5E, there is no need for anyone to actually even use the new license? I would think they'd have to be, but ... I'm certainly not seeing a reason now.

I have a ton of speculation but at this point, it's all just speculation, right? I wonder if anyone at WotC is looking at the speculation right now because the press release really doesn't seem to make things more positive for them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> Not like we have an agreed-upon measure of "distance from a license", but...
> 
> For about 20 producers of content, there'll be a significant difference.  For fan content, and small producers, not really.



Those 20 collectively form a large, very visible portion of all 3PP though.  That really needs to be considered.


----------



## mamba

SteveC said:


> I also wonder if the people behind the decision are really 100% up to speed on the OGL: do they understand that if 1D&D is entirely backwards compatible with 5E, there is no need for anyone to actually even use the new license? I would think they'd have to be, but ... I'm certainly not seeing a reason now.



we have no 1.1 yet, so WotC can still come to their collective senses, but given where things stand now, I expect the OGL 1.1 to be a non-starter just like the GSL.

Whether people just stick with 1.0 or drop the OGL altogether, who knows. I certainly see zero incentive to use 1.1. As you wrote, there is not really any reason to, unlike back with the jump from 3.5 to 4e


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> Surveying on a large scale is a tool for getting at the zeitgeist.  While you can use that to write peer-reviewed papers, you can also use that to inform design decisions.



okay but I do not have the time or money to perform such, nor do I expect anyone else here to.


Umbran said:


> Except, by definition, personal experience isn't the zeitgeist.  Personal experience is anecdote, local effects, while the zeitgeist covers an entire culture (with a nod to what "culture" we are talking about).



now that is a twist... the opiniont (personal experience ancedote, local ect) is what the Zeitgeist is.
My opinion of the current defining spirit or mood of D&D (that is what Zeitgeist means) is informed as much as anyone elses (you or others) on this board. We can disagree on the opinion of the current defining spirt or mood of D&D of course, but calling out that the opinion is in fact an opinion seems to be going no where.


Umbran said:


> You can handle the zeitgeist of your three gaming stores, perhaps, but that really doesn't scale.



then you can share YOUR stories too... that is how discussions are normally... not "You can't PROVE your opinion so don't state it" it is much more natural to state our opinions if we disagree we can share any facts figures or personal experences that shape them, and even try to convince each other. However we may just BOTH be wrong or one be right... there isn't really a way to prove it in this limited D&D message board.


Umbran said:


> Your stores don't speak to the tendencies of the larger audience, are not reliably representative of gaming as a whole.



again this isn't much of an argument. My store don't. Your stores don't, other peoples stores don't... BUT they are in fact the information we have.


Umbran said:


> By my own statements, my own personal experience has little to do with zeitgeists.



sure it does... you have YOUR opinion of the defining spirit or mood of D&D and it is informed by your personal experiences.


Umbran said:


> We could, however, talk about the current _designer's_ zeitgeist - looking at the design of games put out recently.



yeah that too could be an interesting discussion. As long as we don't need to spell out that we are all talking about our own readings and opinions on the subject.  Unless we are the designer or have interviewed the designer that is (but at most that is 1 or 2 of us on the board).

edit: full definition in case anyone thinks I miss represented it
_noun_


the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.
"the story captured the zeitgeist of the late 1960s"








						Seasonal Holidays 2022
					

Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.



					www.google.com
				



q=zeitgeist&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1023US1023&oq=Zeitgeist&aqs=chrome.0.0i355i433i512j46i433i512j0i433i512j0i512l3j46i199i465i512j0i512l2j46i175i199i512.1509j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> we have no 1.1 yet, so WotC can still come to their collective senses, but given where things stand now, I expect the OGL 1.1 to be a non-starter just like the GSL.
> 
> Whether people just stick with 1.0 or drop the OGL altogether, who knows. I certainly see zero incentive to use 1.1. As you wrote, there is not really any reason to, unlike back with the jump from 3.5 to 4e



I think folks are far more likely to not use 1.1 than they are to drop the OGL.  Too many designers (like EN Publishing!) use the OGL as it stands to give it up.


----------



## Incenjucar

SteveC said:


> This is shaping up as a really interesting development. The thing is, at this point we have some more information, but we don't know about the incentives WotC is going to put in play to get designers both big and small to adopt to the new license.
> 
> The thing I find really interesting in sort of a "following the vibes of the community" way is how negative it's being received as. Enworld is older gamers, but it also one of the most consistently positive places to be for D&D content and WotC. I have seen a lot of people who I typically see being super positive about WotC's moves be neutral at best. I haven't really seen anyone talk about how this is a really good thing: it's been neutral and "we have to wait and see" at best. Frankly, I don't think this is being handled in the best way, and it seems to be coming from people who aren't in tune with the community. I also wonder if the people behind the decision are really 100% up to speed on the OGL: do they understand that if 1D&D is entirely backwards compatible with 5E, there is no need for anyone to actually even use the new license? I would think they'd have to be, but ... I'm certainly not seeing a reason now.
> 
> I have a ton of speculation but at this point, it's all just speculation, right? I wonder if anyone at WotC is looking at the speculation right now because the press release really doesn't seem to make things more positive for them.



I think at this point, aside from concerns about them trying to undo things, it's mostly just a raw math reaction. They have implied new costs - both monetary and informational - without a clear value in exchange for those costs. We're all still wondering what designers get in exchange for, at minimum, giving them additional market data, should they choose to adopt this. There could be a really juicy carrot, but we can only guess at it.


----------



## mamba

Micah Sweet said:


> I think folks are far more likely to not use 1.1 than they are to drop the OGL.  Too many designers (like EN Publishing!) use the OGL as it stands to give it up.



If you have a line like LevelUp I do not see you change anything, agreed. I meant this more for parties that create for D&D than that split off their own RPG from it. That ship has sailed.

I wonder if that means they release for OneD&D under 1.1, OneD&D under 1.0, OneD&D with no OGL (out of uncertainty of the status of 1.0) or stick with 5e and 1.0. Given the small differences between One D&D and 5e, the first option seems the least likely to me.

If we end up with the last option, we are back to the transition to 4e, except that it is not as clear a break since the two versions are much closer to each other. Then the real break / decision will come with the version after 1DD


----------



## Nylanfs

mamba said:


> that is moot, we will know in a month or less, so let’s just wait for that



Have you met the Internet, rampant unfounded speculation is what we do, lol.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> Those 20 collectively form a large, very visible portion of all 3PP though.  That really needs to be considered.




I consider that any license that doesn't require getting the IP holder's explicit agreement through direct negotiation on a case-by-case basis is already giving them far more consideration than they'd get just about anywhere else, so they are already ahead of the curve.


----------



## mamba

Umbran said:


> I consider that any license that doesn't require getting the IP holder's explicit agreement through direct negotiation on a case-by-case basis is already giving them far more consideration than they'd get just about anywhere else, so they are already ahead of the curve.



they are, but right now some rights you granted before are being taken away again, that usually is never received well


----------



## Mistwell




----------



## Mistwell

mamba said:


> we have no 1.1 yet, so WotC can still come to their collective senses, but given where things stand now, I expect the OGL 1.1 to be a non-starter just like the GSL.
> 
> Whether people just stick with 1.0 or drop the OGL altogether, who knows. I certainly see zero incentive to use 1.1. As you wrote, there is not really any reason to, unlike back with the jump from 3.5 to 4e



The reason to is, I am guessing, the ability to have your material included with DnDBeyond and usable on their upcoming VTT. Which, WOTC is betting, will become the dominate method to play the game after a few years.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


>



I mean thats 99% of us


----------



## mamba

Mistwell said:


>



tell me you don’t understand the topic without telling me you do not understand the topic


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> Those 20 collectively form a large, very visible portion of all 3PP though.  That really needs to be considered.



Those 20 are being contacted directly.


----------



## mamba

Mistwell said:


> The reason to is, I am guessing, the ability to have your material included with DnDBeyond and usable on their upcoming VTT. Which, WOTC is betting, will become the dominate method to play the game after a few years.



it might be, we will have to see. Makes some sense given that so far all they gave us was reasons not to use it (I’d even say it would be the only rational approach by WotC, as they *need* an incentive).

Then they will have to exclude their VTT from the ‘OGL is not intended for VTT use’ retraction however


----------



## Remathilis

mamba said:


> tell me you don’t understand the topic without telling me you do not understand the topic



I'm sorry, how much did you make on 5e related 3pp last year?


----------



## Alzrius

Remathilis said:


> I'm sorry, how much did you make on 5e related 3pp last year?



See? WotC institutes a revenue reporting requirement, and now everyone acts like they're entitled to know how much everyone else makes.


----------



## Cadence

Umbran said:


> For about 20 producers of content, there'll be a significant difference.  For fan content, and small producers, not really.




If WotC aims for the more restrictive way of doing it, will it be painful for the small producers to have to check if the sources they want to use are 1.0a or 1.1 and not mix and match them?


----------



## Prime_Evil

Something that has seen little discussion yet. What does the OGL update mean to non-D&D / d20 games published under the license? There are a  _lot_ of them. Everything from the Cepheus Engine to FATE has the OGL attached. Then there's the area of D&D retroclones / spin-offs. These don't use the fifth-edition SRD. What about stuff like Mutants and Masterminds? It started as a D20 game published under the OGL, but became its own thing. 

Publishers can continue to use the existing version of the OGL, but does this update add legal risk? Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid. They already claim legal advice indicates this. So they created of a seperate licence for the Basic Roleplaying System. Many commentators dismissed  this claim as an attempt to create fear and uncertainty. Chaosium have  a vested interest in discouraging the spread of OGL d100 games. There are already things out there like Legend, Delta Green, and Cthulhu Reborn. 

Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?


----------



## Greg Benage

Prime_Evil said:


> Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid.



Could you clarify this? Do they mean, for example, if I create a new game and license its use under the OGL, that's somehow "invalid"? Or does it mean that, if I want to use BRP, I have to use their license?


----------



## Morrus

Prime_Evil said:


> Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid. They already claim legal advice indicates this. So they created of a seperate licence for the Basic Roleplaying System.



That skipped me by. I'd be interested in seeing it -- do you have a link?


----------



## Voadam

Cadence said:


> If WotC aims for the more restrictive way of doing it, will it be painful for the small producers to have to check if the sources they want to use are 1.0a or 1.1 and not mix and match them?



Depends on how safe they feel about Section 9 of the 1.0 OGL and whether 1.1 is a version of the OGL and the OGL status of stuff under 1.1.

It could be as simple as mixing 1.0 and 1.0a OGL stuff. If for instance however the 1.1 SRD is not actually OGC at all that would mean it would probably be off limits under 1.0.


----------



## J.Quondam

Cadence said:


> If WotC aims for the more restrictive way of doing it, will it be painful for the small producers to have to check if the sources they want to use are 1.0a or 1.1 and not mix and match them?



This. I'd think that if those Top 20 shift to v1.1, presumably that would force small publishers using their material from those Top 20 to also shift along with them, or else abandon using their material going forward. Right? So the impact potentially goes far beyond those Top 20, at least at first blush.


----------



## J.Quondam

Prime_Evil said:


> Something that has seen little discussion yet. What does the OGL update mean to non-D&D / d20 games published under the license? There are a  _lot_ of them. Everything from the Cepheus Engine to FATE has the OGL attached. Then there's the area of D&D retroclones / spin-offs. These don't use the fifth-edition SRD. What about stuff like Mutants and Masterminds? It started as a D20 game published under the OGL, but became its own thing.
> 
> Publishers can continue to use the existing version of the OGL, but does this update add legal risk? Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid. They already claim legal advice indicates this. So they created of a seperate licence for the Basic Roleplaying System. Many commentators dismissed  this claim as an attempt to create fear and uncertainty. Chaosium have  a vested interest in discouraging the spread of OGL d100 games. There are already things out there like Legend, Delta Green, and Cthulhu Reborn.
> 
> Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?



The cynical part of me wonders: In a world with two disparate versions of "the" OGL floating around, perhaps the confusion is the point.


----------



## Mistwell

mamba said:


> tell me you don’t understand the topic without telling me you do not understand the topic



Tell me you don't understand a joke without telling me you do not understand a joke.

And I understand the topic just fine. Thanks for the insult over a joke though.


----------



## Mistwell

mamba said:


> it might be, we will have to see. Makes some sense given that so far all they gave us was reasons not to use it (I’d even say it would be the only rational approach by WotC, as they *need* an incentive).
> 
> Then they will have to exclude their VTT from the ‘OGL is not intended for VTT use’ retraction however



I suspect it still won't be alone. However I suspect accepting 1.1 will be one requirement to get the VTT license. My guess is the VTT license will include more things than this license.


----------



## mamba

Remathilis said:


> I'm sorry, how much did you make on 5e related 3pp last year?



doubling down on the misunderstanding I see


----------



## mamba

Prime_Evil said:


> Something that has seen little discussion yet. What does the OGL update mean to non-D&D / d20 games published under the license? There are a  _lot_ of them. Everything from the Cepheus Engine to FATE has the OGL attached. Then there's the area of D&D retroclones / spin-offs. These don't use the fifth-edition SRD. What about stuff like Mutants and Masterminds? It started as a D20 game published under the OGL, but became its own thing.



it means nothing to them. They started with 1.0a and are under no obligation to switch to 1.1, in fact they would be foolish to do so. This assumes they move forward from wherever they are instead of trying to incorporate One D&D SRD material into their games.


Prime_Evil said:


> Publishers can continue to use the existing version of the OGL, but does this update add legal risk? Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid.



If so, it has always been, that would not be due to 1.1. I am not seeing anything in the license that restricts it to 'D&D-adjacent', whatever that even means



Prime_Evil said:


> They already claim legal advice indicates this. So they created of a seperate licence for the Basic Roleplaying System. Many commentators dismissed  this claim as an attempt to create fear and uncertainty. Chaosium have  a vested interest in discouraging the spread of OGL d100 games. There are already things out there like Legend, Delta Green, and Cthulhu Reborn.
> 
> Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?



The OGL is a license, no more. I could use it for some RPG I created completely from scratch if I wanted to / liked the terms. I could use a Creative Commons license, I could create my own license that I like better than any of the existing ones, I could not license it at all.

I see no case where the use becomes risky, I'd say the use for my own hypothetical game is becoming less alluring because while I might be ok with licensing it under 1.0a, I definitely see no reason why WotC should get fees from a third RPG someone based on mine that became hugely successful, just because that guy switched to 1.1 from my 1.0a license.
I mean, ultimately it is his fault and his money, but still


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> Those 20 are being contacted directly.



My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied.  It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.


----------



## Cadence

mamba said:


> I see no case where the use becomes risky, I'd say the use for my own hypothetical game is becoming less alluring because while I might be ok with licensing it under 1.0a, I definitely see no reason why WotC should get fees from a third RPG someone based on mine that became hugely successful, just because that guy switched to 1.1 from my 1.0a license.
> I mean, ultimately it is his fault and his money, but still




Can someone else put your 1.0a stuff into a more restrictive 1.1 based on how 1.0a is written?


----------



## mamba

Cadence said:


> Can someone else put your 1.0a stuff into a more restrictive 1.1 based on how 1.0a is written?



No, mine would still be under 1.0a, but he could add to it and release his contribution under 1.1, thereby having to register with TSR and possibly pay a fee to them. It even works both ways under section 9 "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

Will be interesting to see what WotC does once someone takes 1.1 open game content and uses it with a 1.0a license. The expectation is that the next SRD won't be OGC to prevent this, or they rework section 9 in OGL 1.1


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied.  It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.



I don’t know what that means.


----------



## Prime_Evil

I'll see if I can dig out the reference. It came from the Basic Roleplaying forums about two years ago. It was part of the statements made by Rick Meints and MoB upon the release of the BRP System Reference Document and the BRP-OGL. Someone asked them to explain why they didn't go with the OGL for the BRP System Reference Document. From my understanding, they had legal advice that because "wizards or designated Agents" had the power to update the licence at any time, the contractual relationship created would always be between WoTC and the end user. This advice also noted the text of the OGL is text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc with All Rights Reserved. This rendered the use of the OGL by other companies problematic. Indeed, Chaosium representatives argued that because the legal relationship was always between WoTC and the end licensee, it was not possible to release derivative works under the OGL not created using WoTC IP. Some folks argued that the reason for the separate BRP-OGL was the addition of extra terms around Prohibited Content (to prevent licensees from making games in direct competition with Chaosium products).


----------



## Greg Benage

Cadence said:


> Can someone else put your 1.0a stuff into a more restrictive 1.1 based on how 1.0a is written?



We don't know, maybe, we haven't seen 1.1 at all, but how would it matter? If you released Open Game Content under 1.0/a, what difference does it make to you if your Open Game Content can also be used according to the terms of 1.1? You still released it under 1.0/a, so some fourth party could still come along and use your OGC under 1.0/a even if a third party used it under 1.1. Like, your OGC wouldn't become "more restricted" just because another party used it under 1.1.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Greg Benage said:


> We don't know, maybe, we haven't seen 1.1 at all, but how would it matter? If you released Open Game Content under 1.0/a, what difference does it make to you if your Open Game Content can also be used according to the terms of 1.1? You still released it under 1.0/a, so some fourth party could still come along and use your OGC under 1.0/a even if a third party used it under 1.1. Like, your OGC wouldn't become "more restricted" just because another party used it under 1.1.



I suspect access to the OneD&D SRD may require agreement to a simple clickwrap agreement stating that you agree to use version 1.1 of the OGL. This will be problematic if it requires you to migrate existing material released under the OGL to the latest version of the license as a condition of access. But this isn't clear yet - we haven't seen the new version of the license.


----------



## Cadence

Greg Benage said:


> We don't know, maybe, we haven't seen 1.1 at all, but how would it matter? If you released Open Game Content under 1.0/a, what difference does it make to you if your Open Game Content can also be used according to the terms of 1.1? You still released it under 1.0/a, so some fourth party could still come along and use your OGC under 1.0/a even if a third party used it under 1.1. Like, your OGC wouldn't become "more restricted" just because another party used it under 1.1.




If someone makes 1.0a stuff using my 1.0a stuff, I can borrow that new stuff back for my future 1.0a work.  That feels like a major part of putting something in 1.0a.


----------



## Greg Benage

Prime_Evil said:


> I suspect access to the OneD&D SRD may require agreement to a simple clickwrap agreement stating that you agree to use version 1.1 of the OGL. This will be problematic if it requires you to migrate existing material released under the OGL to the latest version of the license as a condition of access. But this isn't clear yet - we haven't seen the new version of the license.



Okay, but even then, @Cadence didn't accept the 1.1 agreement, the other party that used their OGC did, so what does @Cadence care if the other party accepted 1.1 or not? Maybe the other party ends up in violation of the terms of 1.1 by agreeing to "migrate" OGC that they took from @Cadence when they don't have the authority to "migrate" it, but I'm still not seeing how that matters to @Cadence.


----------



## Greg Benage

Cadence said:


> If someone makes 1.0a stuff using my 1.0a stuff, I can borrow that new stuff back for my future 1.0a work. That feels like a major part of putting something in 1.0a.



Now I'm _really _confused! Should that first "1.0a" be a "1.1" instead?


----------



## Cadence

Greg Benage said:


> Now I'm _really _confused! Should that first "1.0a" be a "1.1" instead?



I should have added a second paragraph.  "If they can make 1.1 stuff using my 1.0a stuff, and 1.1 is written that I can't use those new game rule derivatives of my own work in new 1.0a things, then that feels bad to me."


----------



## Greg Benage

Cadence said:


> I should have added a second paragraph. "If they can make 1.1 stuff using my 1.0a stuff, and 1.1 is written that I can't use those new game rule derivatives of my own work in new 1.0a things, then that feels bad to me."



Okay, yeah, and again, we don't know. My guess is that you'll be able to use any OGC from anything licensed under 1.1 (to keep Section 9 happy), but you won't be able to use any new category of content limited to 1.1 (call it "One System Rules" or something). But it's just a guess.


----------



## mamba

Prime_Evil said:


> I'll see if I can dig out the reference. It came from the Basic Roleplaying forums about two years ago



The closest thing I found was a reference to it "MOB has just stated in a thread at RPG.NET that Chaosium have no problem with the Legend OGL and wouldn't challenge it. They are not sure that the OGL is valid outside of D20, though, and are unsure if it would stand a legal challenge.". That was posted on 3/29/2020









						Announcing the Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document and Open Game License
					

Reilly :grin:




					www.rpgpub.com
				




Maybe that helps you


----------



## Baron Opal II

Wait, are people using the OGL for non-d20 games? How would that work and what would be the point?


----------



## Greg Benage

I for one had no idea there was all this activity (and recrimination) around d100 games and SRDs in the last couple years. Wow!


----------



## Staffan

Baron Opal II said:


> Wait, are people using the OGL for non-d20 games? How would that work and what would be the point?



The point would be the same as for Wizards: you let other people make supplemental material for your game, thereby increasing your game's profile. I suspect that in many cases, it is also fueled by generosity – "It's not like we're going to make tons of money on this anyway."


----------



## Prime_Evil

Greg Benage said:


> I for one had no idea there was all this activity (and recrimination) around d100 games and SRDs in the last couple years. Wow!



There's a long and complex history here going right back to the days when Avalon Hill produced a licensed version of Runequest in the 1980s. Chaosium lost ownership of the Runequest trademark for more than a decade as a consequence. Avalon Hill ended up as part of Hasbro. Peter Adkison of Wizards allowed the trademark to lapse so Greg Stafford could reclaim it because he was a huge fan of Glorantha.

The recent complexities come down to two factors. The first is licensing deal for Mongoose editions of Runequest and the SRD it spawned. A large number of games draw upon this material. The second is the murky copyright status of H.P. Lovecraft's work. This has led to the emergence of non-Chaosium d100 retroclones of Call of Cthulhu.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Baron Opal II said:


> Wait, are people using the OGL for non-d20 games? How would that work and what would be the point?



There are a heap of them. The original concept of the Open Gaming Foundation sponsored by WoTC back around 2000 - 2003 was to encorage widespread adoption of the OGL. An early example is the Action System from Gold Rush Games. Another is Stefan O'Sullivan's FUDGE system. This spawned the popular FATE system from Evil Hat - which was also released under the OGL. Far Future Enterprises licensed a d20 version of Traveller that released most of the rule system under the OGL. When Mongoose Publishing picked up the Traveller license, they released a system reference document under the OGL. When they closed the license with the release of the second edition, fans forked the system to produce the Cepheus Engine. Issaries licensed Runequest to Mongoose Publishing around 2006-2007. They released a system reference document for that version under the OGL. When relations between Issaries and Mongoose soured, Greg Stafford pulled the license. Mongoose responded by releasing a version of the game under the Legend brand. This was released as 100% OGC under the terms of the OGL. A large number of games draw upon this, from Delta Green to OpenQuest. So it's not just D&D publishers who have skin in this game....


----------



## Greg Benage

Prime_Evil said:


> When relations between Issaries and Mongoose soured, Greg Stafford pulled the license. Mongoose responded by releasing a version of the game under the Legend brand. This was released as 100% OGC under the terms of the OGL.



What was the legal basis for _Legend_? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create _Legend_? Really curious how this went down!


----------



## Staffan

Greg Benage said:


> What was the legal basis for _Legend_? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create _Legend_? Really curious how this went down!



There are lots and lots of games on the market which are basically BRP clones, and Legend is just one more on the pile. Here in Sweden in particular, the leading RPG publisher in the 80s and early 90s based pretty much everything they made that wasn't a direct translation on some kind of mutated version of BRP.

I don't think it's an exact clone of MRQ2 – there are some differences in how magic works, for example. And section 15 of its copy of the OGL at least doesn't refer to anything else: just the OGL itself and the Legend core book.


----------



## Greg Benage

Staffan said:


> I don't think it's an exact clone of MRQ2 – there are some differences in how magic works, for example. And section 15 of its copy of the OGL at least doesn't refer to anything else: just the OGL itself and the Legend core book.



Their own product marketing says this:



> Using the core rules from RuneQuest II, Legend is a new fantasy roleplaying game that serves as the basis for a multitude of settings and worlds. 100% compatible with all previous RuneQuest II books, including Elric of Melnibone, Deus Vult and Wraith Recon, Legend repackages the rules into a new digest-sized format.




!!!

I'm still reading the thread that was linked earlier. Rick Meints' comments are really interesting:



> I assume you mean that Greg knew about and approved of Mongoose's decisions to do an SRD and OGL for RuneQuest. That's not what Greg told us at the time. He repeatedly said he didn't know about it, didn't approve of it, and it was one of the reasons he ended the license.




and...



> I'm not speculating on Greg's opinion, I'm just restating what he told me about not approving the release of an OGL and an SRD, and not being aware of it before it was released. I wasn't the only one he said that to. *As for official records, I have read the actual contract from May of 2005. It didn't allow for any licensing or sub-licensing to anybody else.* As you say, Greg chose not to fight it, at least not legally, for reasons we will now probably never know. As for rescinding the license, I was one of advisors that worked with Greg on that in 2011.




Bold is mine. This is super spicy! And a little sad. 

ETA: I should add that while @Mongoose_Matt doesn't make an appearance in the thread, I can gather second-hand that they have a different account of these events.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Greg Benage said:


> What was the legal basis for _Legend_? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create _Legend_? Really curious how this went down!



 This is where it gets complicated. Greg Stafford regained control of the Runequest trademark, but he didn't regain ownership of the Runequest III rule system from the IP of Avalon Hill. So the Mongoose edition of RQ was a re-write of the system from the ground up. The first edition of Mongoose Runequest wasn't very good, but they followed it up with a second edition which was excellent. It also influenced 5e in places(e.g. the Insight skill). When the licensing agreement terminated, Issaries took away the trademark and the rights to use the Glorantha setting. But the IP embodied in the game system remained the property of Mongoose. They choose to release this under the OGL with a generous trademark usage license. Meanwhile, the authors of the second edition of the Mongoose Runequest system (Lawrence Whitaker and Pete Nash) secured the rights to the Runequest trademark. They used this to create the sixth edition of Runequest, which was based on their work at Mongoose. When Issaries entered an agreement with Moon Design / Chaosium (around 2017 or 2018?), Design Mechanism lost the rights to the Runequest trademark. So they rebranded their version of the game system as Mythras. This game is very similar to Legend, but is more polished in places. It also reworks some concepts Lawrence Whitaker was working on when he did the Elric update at Mongoose, namely the Passions system.


----------



## mamba

The closest other thing I found says no such thing, but at least it is on the right forum and for those following the first link, this adds some more details, basically the same discussion on a second form though 

"So why is this different from the WotC OGL? Well largely because we have a different business model than WotC. Our settings are what are valuable to us - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into the setting - like the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. We’ve removed those mechanics that we think are uniquely tied to a given setting (or with a specific edition of a game) but let you do whatever you want with the rest. Without paying us royalties."






						Announcing the Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document and Open Game License
					






					basicroleplaying.org
				




As to this thread, it's funny to see how much flack they got for not being as permissive as the OGL. Given that there was no way to license anything before, this is interesting to me. So WotC might be in for a ride now that they actually want to remove stuff rather than not hand out as much as someone else.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Staffan said:


> There are lots and lots of games on the market which are basically BRP clones, and Legend is just one more on the pile. Here in Sweden in particular, the leading RPG publisher in the 80s and early 90s based pretty much everything they made that wasn't a direct translation on some kind of mutated version of BRP.
> 
> I don't think it's an exact clone of MRQ2 – there are some differences in how magic works, for example. And section 15 of its copy of the OGL at least doesn't refer to anything else: just the OGL itself and the Legend core book.



People forget that in the early 1980s, Runequest was a serious rival of D&D in Europe and Australia / New Zealand. Games Workshop produced very attractive hardcover editions of the game before Warhammer took off. And many early issues of White Dwarf contained Runequest content!


----------



## Greg Benage

Prime_Evil said:


> This is where it gets complicated. Greg Stafford regained control of the Runequest trademark, but he didn't regain ownership of the Runequest III rule system from the IP of Avalon Hill. So the Mongoose edition of RQ was a re-write of the system from the ground up.



So they just cloned it (the "yolo" option), but Stafford couldn't really have objected because he didn't own that IP -- Hasbro did (does). Is that right? Or did Stafford eventually get the IP back, but only after Legend had been created? So confusing!


----------



## Prime_Evil

mamba said:


> As to this thread, it's funny to see how much flack they got for not being as permissive as the OGL. Given that there was no way to license anything before, this is interesting to me. So WotC might be in for a ride now that they actually want to remove stuff rather than not hand out as much as someone else.



I think what is interesting is the move away from the position adopted by WoTC in the days when they sponsored the Open Gaming Foundation. Ryan Dancey was encouraging other companies to adopt the Open Game License to create a shared pool of "open" IP. But with OneD&D, Wizards seems to be repositioning the licence as something applicable to the D&D ecosystem only. The revenue reporting and royalty requirements don't make much sense for non-D20 games (like Cepheus Engine or Legend / OpenQuest / Delta Green). So the implications for independent publishers using the OGL may be interesting (especially if people try to mix stuff produced under different versions of the license).


----------



## Prime_Evil

Greg Benage said:


> So they just cloned it (the "yolo" option), but Stafford couldn't really have objected because he didn't own that IP -- Hasbro did (does). Is that right? Or did Stafford eventually get the IP back, but only after Legend had been created? So confusing!



Greg had clear ownership of the trademark. And he also retained all rights to the Glorantha setting. But the first edition of Mongoose Runequest was effectively a "retroclone" of classic RQ. However, this was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the leadership team at WoTC at the time. People like Peter Adkison and Lisa Stevens (of Paizo fame) were huge fans of Runequest and wanted to see it back in print. Indeed, Lisa Stevens was a player in a campaign of RQ run by Mark Rein-Hagen (of Vampire: the Masquerade fame). So...it's complicated. When the business relationship with Mongoose broke down, Greg could take back the trademark and the rights to the Glorantha setting. But Mongoose retained ownership of their version of the rule system. That's why both Runequest 6 / Mythras and Chaosium's excellent Runequest: Adventures in Glorantha don't use any text from the Mongoose versions. Indeed, the Chaosium version hearkens back to the glory days of Runequest II.


----------



## Greg Benage

Prime_Evil said:


> Greg had clear ownership of the trademark. And he also retained all rights to the Glorantha setting. But the first edition of Mongoose Runequest was effectively a "retroclone" of classic RQ. However, this was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the leadership team at WoTC at the time. People like Peter Adkison and Lisa Stevens (of Paizo fame) were huge fans of Runequest and wanted to see it back in print.



Sounds like more of a "clone" than a "retroclone," since it wasn't based on any open content. It seems odd that it had the "tacit approval" of Adkison and Stevens, since they were both gone by 2001. How would their approval have been relevant to something published 2007+?


----------



## Prime_Evil

> I'm not speculating on Greg's opinion, I'm just restating what he told me about not approving the release of an OGL and an SRD, and not being aware of it before it was released. I wasn't the only one he said that to. *As for official records, I have read the actual contract from May of 2005. It didn't allow for any licensing or sub-licensing to anybody else.* As you say, Greg chose not to fight it, at least not legally, for reasons we will now probably never know. As for rescinding the license, I was one of advisors that worked with Greg on that in 2011.



This is open to interpretation. The Glorantha setting was explicitly declared as product identity in all Mongoose books. This meets the requirements of Section 7 of the OGL as Mongoose held an independent Agreement with the owner of the IP embodied in the Product Identity. Under the terms of the OGL, the "owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity". So in that sense, there was never any confusion. Mongoose owned their re-interpretation of the game system, but Issaries always retained ownership of their IP. The objection raised by Chaosium relates to section five of the OGL. Namely, the "Representation of Authority to Contribute". This states "If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." But it can be argued Mongoose did not release Greg's Intellectual Property as Open Game Content, thereby complying with the terms of the OGL. Both parties came to a semi-amicable agreement when the license terminated (I think around 2010). So Issaries went in one direction and Mongoose went in another. There is no doubt that the OGL release of Legend is on much firmer legal ground though.


----------



## Greg Benage

Prime_Evil said:


> This is open to interpretation. The Glorantha setting was explicitly declared as product identity in all Mongoose books. This meets the requirements of Section 7 of the OGL as Mongoose held an independent Agreement with the owner of the IP embodied in the Product Identity.



I mean, it meets the requirement of the OGL. But if the license from Stafford's company didn't grant rights to license or sublicense the property, satisfying any requirements in the OGL isn't relevant, as far as I can see.

That said, from what you say, it sounds like Stafford didn't own the rights (whatever they may be, if it's ever tested) to the game system at the time, anyway. It's easy to imagine how this might have gone:

Stafford: I can license you the RQ trademark and the Glorantha IP, but not the RQ game system. I don't own those rights.
Mongoose: We can work with that.
Stafford: Okay.

And then Mongoose just cloned RQ (and later RQII) without the benefit of any open content.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Greg Benage said:


> Sounds like more of a "clone" than a "retroclone," since it wasn't based on any open content. It seems odd that it had the "tacit approval" of Adkison and Stevens, since they were both gone by 2001. How would their approval have been relevant to something published 2007+?



I believe private discussions around the fate of Runequest trademark occurred around 2000. I can't remember the exact date of the trademark expiry, but it should be a matter of public record. I seem to recall Greg finally secured the rights to the trademark in 2003. Issaries didn't enter a licensing agreement to develop a new edition for a few more years. I think that occurred sometime around 2004 - 2005. 

Peter Peter Maranci's History of Runequest may help to explain the complex history here. But it hasn't been updated since 2014.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Greg Benage said:


> I mean, it meets the requirement of the OGL. But if the license from Stafford's company didn't grant rights to license or sublicense the property, satisfying any requirements in the OGL isn't relevant, as far as I can see.



That's the heart of the argument. My suspicion is that both parties were acting in good faith, but neither fully appreciated the position of the other. And it became a bone of contention as the relationship degenerated for other reasons. But after the "divorce", both parties landed on a compromise they could live with even if neither was 100% happy with the outcome. The direct involvement of Chaosium was a bit later and there have been some changes of leadership since that time.


----------



## mamba

Prime_Evil said:


> I think what is interesting is the move away from the position adopted by WoTC in the days when they sponsored the Open Gaming Foundation. Ryan Dancey was encouraging other companies to adopt the Open Game License to create a shared pool of "open" IP.



they had their motives for creating it that way, basically they wanted to create PHB, DMG and MMs and leave the rest to others.

This way WotC could focus on the cash cows and leave the much less profitable to money-losing adventures and settings to others.

They also wanted to grow the hobby, which had been shrinking for a while, because they figured if it does and we are the 800lb gorilla in it, we are bound to benefit from that.


Prime_Evil said:


> But with OneD&D, Wizards seems to be repositioning the licence as something applicable to the D&D ecosystem only. The revenue reporting and royalty requirements don't make much sense for non-D20 games (like Cepheus Engine or Legend / OpenQuest / Delta Green). So the implications for independent publishers using the OGL may be interesting (especially if people try to mix stuff produced under different versions of the license).



if you want a fee if something makes X amount of money, you need to know how much anyone makes. I doubt WotC would complain about getting some free money from a non-d20 game 

I don’t see those publishers switching to 1.1 though, there is no incentive.


----------



## Hussar

Greg Benage said:


> In fairness to @Hussar after I so ardently defended Justin, he came to work with this today:
> 
> "...it’s become clear that Hasbro is, once again, planning to abandon the OGL."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?
> 
> 
> In the Brief History of the Open Gaming License, we discussed how the Open Gaming License (OGL) works and how it has impacted the RPG industry and hobby since its introduction in 2000. If you’re u
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thealexandrian.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am betrayed.



Nice to see that leopards don't really change their spots.  There are just some folks out there that would kick up a fuss over how the twenty dollar bills weren't folded correctly if WotC included a twenty in the inside cover of every PHB.

And, having watched the unbelievably level of over reaction when 4e rolled out - yes, yes, I know, WotC did themselves absolutely no favors at the time either - I'd really rather not see that happen again.  Every time the collective fandom gets a bee in its bonnet about something, WotC just moves further and further away from actually directly interacting with fans.  I can't blame them.  Like I said, it doesn't matter if WotC said that rain was wet, people would loudly proclaim that WotC is only trying to screw over gamers.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Hussar said:


> And, having watched the unbelievably level of over reaction when 4e rolled out - yes, yes, I know, WotC did themselves absolutely no favors at the time either - I'd really rather not see that happen again.  Every time the collective fandom gets a bee in its bonnet about something, WotC just moves further and further away from actually directly interacting with fans.  I can't blame them.  Like I said, it doesn't matter if WotC said that rain was wet, people would loudly proclaim that WotC is only trying to screw over gamers.



I don't think WoTC are trying to "screw over gamers". I do think they are making business decisions based upon their own perceived best interest. The health of the broader RPG industry isn't their problem, except insofar as it impacts on their brands.


----------



## Hussar

Prime_Evil said:


> I don't think WoTC are trying to "screw over gamers". I do think they are making business decisions based upon their own perceived best interest. The health of the broader RPG industry isn't their problem, except insofar as it impacts on their brands.



My comment wasn't really directed at anyone in particular.  But, as we saw in the last page or so with some Mod Red Ink being splashed across, it's not exactly a rare perspective.  

The point is, people are spinning themselves into knots based on speculation.  This is not the time (yet) to get out the pitchforks and torches.  There's nothing wrong with waiting a couple of weeks and seeing what is actually being put forward as the new OGL and THEN, fair enough, light up the torches.

But, it does seem that there are a number of people who have already made up their minds about what WotC is going to do and they have basically created this big old nasty monster out of smoke and fog.  Mostly to drive clicks for their Youtube channels if I'm being particularly cynical.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied.  It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.



It’s not 20 _random_ creators if that’s what you mean. I haven’t seen anybody suggest that.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Hussar said:


> The point is, people are spinning themselves into knots based on speculation.  This is not the time (yet) to get out the pitchforks and torches.  There's nothing wrong with waiting a couple of weeks and seeing what is actually being put forward as the new OGL and THEN, fair enough, light up the torches.
> 
> But, it does seem that there are a number of people who have already made up their minds about what WotC is going to do and they have basically created this big old nasty monster out of smoke and fog.  Mostly to drive clicks for their Youtube channels if I'm being particularly cynical.



It is far too early to see the fine print yet. WoTC probably hasn't figured out all the details themselves. But nature abhors a vacuum and people are speculating based upon what has been announced. YouTube is an outrage machine at the best of times. And fan rage is a great way to drive engagement.


----------



## Prime_Evil

The proposed OGL changes do introduce some dangers for WoTC. We are in a good position right now. WoTC is the official publisher of D&D. They enjoy widespread community support. Sales are strong with a blockbuster movie on the horizon. There is a Fan Content Policy for folks who want to produce free D&D content. There is also an avenue for people to produce third-party products via the DMs Guild. And there is the Open Game License for people who want to do more experimental stuff. The material available as Open Game Content under the OGL is limited. If people want to draw upon the broader corpus of D&D rules and lore, they must agree to the more restrictive terms of the DMs Guild. This includes payment of royalties to WoTC. 

WoTC wants to increase the monetization of the brand. If the D&D movie is successful, they know the market will be flooded with crappy knock-off garbage . Hasbro has past experience in this area. I bet there are serious lawyers worried offshore manufacturers will use the OGL as a shield to create stuff to cash in on a wave of popularity. So WoTC want to tighten up the licensing arrangement to increase revenue and limit damage to their brand. This is understandable. 

But they are walking a very fine line. They don't want to alienate existing fans. They don't want to shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs. And they don't want to create resistance and friction. They need as many people as possible to adopt the upcoming revision. So they will tread carefully. They've already seen what can happen if they mishandle the transition.


----------



## Hussar

Prime_Evil said:


> I bet there are serious lawyers worried offshore manufacturers will use the OGL as a shield to create stuff to cash in on a wave of popularity



Honestly, this thought occurred to me as well.  They're not terribly worried about the current 3rd party producers, I doubt.  Even the guys that are pulling the million dollar Kickstarters are not really competitors but, more massive hype machines for D&D.  

But, now that D&D is hitting that mainstream popularity (or, at least far more mainstream than it ever has been in the past) there probably is some concern that we might see a flood of Iphone Apps and whatnot from people trying to cash in on D&D's currently popularity.  Which, IMO, was never what the OGL was meant for.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> But, now that D&D is hitting that mainstream popularity (or, at least far more mainstream than it ever has been in the past) there probably is some concern that we might see a flood of Iphone Apps and whatnot from people trying to cash in on D&D's currently popularity.  Which, IMO, was never what the OGL was meant for.



then drop the registration, reporting and fee part and leave in the limitations that restrict it to static data in print documents and PDFs (and allow VTT content).

If you do that then I for one have no objections, and I assume many others that are concerned now would too. That does sound fair and in the original spirit.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Prime_Evil said:


> I bet there are serious lawyers worried offshore manufacturers will use the OGL as a shield to create stuff to cash in on a wave of popularity. So WoTC want to tighten up the licensing arrangement to increase revenue and limit damage to their brand. This is understandable.



I'm curious as to what material you think "offshore manufacturers" will make that they would have used the OGL to do, and that OGL 1.1 prevents. What is it you think will happen, more specifically?

I mean, will people attempt to cash in on the brand? Sure. Will the OGL in any form have absolutely anything to do with that? I don't see how.

Already in the OGL all the key IP stuff is excluded. Ryan Dancey saw that coming 20+ years ago.


Hussar said:


> But, now that D&D is hitting that mainstream popularity (or, at least far more mainstream than it ever has been in the past) there probably is some concern that we might see a flood of Iphone Apps and whatnot from people trying to cash in on D&D's currently popularity. Which, IMO, was never what the OGL was meant for.



How would that even work, though, can you explain?

What apps would be created that don't already exist? How would they market themselves without being immediately C&D'd and unceremoniously dumped from Apple Store? In order to cash in, you'd pretty much have to violate trademarks like "Dungeons and Dragons", because it's not like fantasy/RPG apps and games aren't incredibly common. No version of the OGL would shield you there.


----------



## Nylanfs

Prime_Evil said:


> I'll see if I can dig out the reference. It came from the Basic Roleplaying forums about two years ago. It was part of the statements made by Rick Meints and MoB upon the release of the BRP System Reference Document and the BRP-OGL. Someone asked them to explain why they didn't go with the OGL for the BRP System Reference Document. From my understanding, they had legal advice that because "wizards or designated Agents" had the power to update the licence at any time, the contractual relationship created would always be between WoTC and the end user. This advice also noted the text of the OGL is text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc with All Rights Reserved. This rendered the use of the OGL by other companies problematic. Indeed, Chaosium representatives argued that because the legal relationship was always between WoTC and the end licensee, it was not possible to release derivative works under the OGL not created using WoTC IP. Some folks argued that the reason for the separate BRP-OGL was the addition of extra terms around Prohibited Content (to prevent licensees from making games in direct competition with Chaosium products).



That logic made me do a Sanity check.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> It’s not 20 _random_ creators if that’s what you mean. I haven’t seen anybody suggest that.



That's not what I mean.  I was just saying that the fact that there are far, far more than 20 3PPs out there says nothing about the relevance of the 20 in question, who collectively are the most visible and comprise the most-used content.


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> That's not what I mean.  I was just saying that the fact that there are far, far more than 20 3PPs out there says nothing about the relevance of the 20 in question, who collectively are the most visible and comprise the most-used content.



I'm sorry, I have no idea what this conversation is even about or how I managed to get myself into it let alone able to understand what this means. Never mind.


----------



## SkidAce

Micah Sweet said:


> That's not what I mean.  I was just saying that the fact that there are far, far more than 20 3PPs out there says nothing about the relevance of the 20 in question, who collectively are the most visible and comprise the most-used content.



Their relevance is that they are the most visible and have the most-used content?

I admit to not understanding your statement.


----------



## tomBitonti

What are folks thoughts on what is encompassed by “static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs).

“*First,* we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

The problem, to me, is the use of ”static”, and the vast jump from static files to a video game.  That gap seems too vast to be adequately addressed by the proposed license.

Is a cross-linked but static set of HTML allowed?  What about a static style sheet into which static monster data was placed?

I do think that these are dynamic and are disallowed: A character form — which allows dynamic selection of 1E abilities; An encounter builder — which allows dynamic selection of 1E opponents; A virtual table — which allows dynamic placement of 1E assets.

Also, how much “dynamic” processing by a client is allowed? Simple resizing and scaling are technically “dynamic” adjustments to static content.  However, I doubt that kind of client processing is disallowed.  Similarly, an animated emoticon would not be disallowed.

But .. what about the processing of javascript (or other embedded scripts)?  How much of that is allowed?

TomB


----------



## Micah Sweet

SkidAce said:


> Their relevance is that they are the most visible and have the most-used content?
> 
> I admit to not understanding your statement.



I think I'm confused about where the conversation is.  Nevermind.


----------



## Nylanfs

They are attempting to retcon what the OGL was "intended" for, and attempting to create confusion between what the OGL is, and what the d20 STL was. With software it's kinda dicey because you have to know what license all of the libraries you are using is under (several are incompatible with the OGL), OR you have to write everything yourself so you have guaranteed ownership of the software to say that it can be OGC or not. Or you have to do it similar to how PCGen does it and the engine uses one license LGPL, Apache, etc., and the data is all human readable and released under the OGL only.


----------



## MockingBird

Interesting article, might be of interest to some.









						Intellectual Property and  Tabletop Games
					

By Christopher B. Seaman, Thuan Tran



					ilr.law.uiowa.edu


----------



## Mistwell

Micah Sweet said:


> My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied.  It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.



It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"

No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace. 

It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist." This has been a topic argued going back to 1e AD&D, the importance of supporting fans sharing their homebrew work with other fans, even if it's for a few bucks to support their time, versus professionals who create RPGs for a full time living.


----------



## Mistwell

This entire argument is very reminiscent of the Setting Contest that was held here on EnWorld that resulted Keith Baker's Eberron. A loud minority of people were running around saying they refused to participate in the contest because "WOTC would gain the rights to my setting!"

95%+ of these people had little to no professional experience in being published. And of course WOTC didn't "steal settings" that were submitted.


----------



## darjr

Mistwell said:


> It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"
> 
> No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.
> 
> It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist." This has been a topic argued going back to 1e AD&D, the importance of supporting fans sharing their homebrew work with other fans, even if it's for a few bucks to support their time, versus professionals who create RPGs for a full time living.



I do wonder how many make over $50 thousand.

Of those what kind of business are they? Single proprietor with zero full time employees? I imagine the vast majority of them are.

Is reporting a burden too far for many of them? Is having to inform WotC about their items for sale going to be a burden? Will they have to wait on WotC before they can out up things for sale? It’s already got to be tough to be in that space.

Would this mean folks like M.T. Black? I’d hate to lose many of them.

@Mistwell thia isn’t so much a comment on your post but that your post prompted my thoughts.


----------



## Sacrosanct

darjr said:


> I do wonder how many make over $50 thousand.
> 
> Of those what kind of business are they? Single proprietor with zero full time employees? I imagine the vast majority of them are.



It depends on if it's gross or net.  Gross?  I made more than $50,000 last year.  Net?  Not even close.  And I am a single sole proprietorship with zero employees. 




darjr said:


> Is reporting a burden too far for many of them? Is having to inform WotC about their items for sale going to be a burden? Will they have to wait in WotC before they can out up things for sale? It’s already got to be tough to be in that space.
> 
> Would this mean folks like M.T. Black? I’d hate to lose many of them.
> 
> @Mistwell thia isn’t so much a comment on your post but that your post prompted my thoughts.



It really depends on what the trade off is gonna be.  I don't know the benefits yet to know if it's too much a risk/privacy concern to report. If it is?  Then I stick with the old OGL.


----------



## Mistwell

darjr said:


> I do wonder how many make over $50 thousand.
> 
> Of those what kind of business are they? Single proprietor with zero full time employees? I imagine the vast majority of them are.
> 
> Is reporting a burden too far for many of them? Is having to inform WotC about their items for sale going to be a burden? Will they have to wait on WotC before they can out up things for sale? It’s already got to be tough to be in that space.
> 
> Would this mean folks like M.T. Black? I’d hate to lose many of them.
> 
> @Mistwell thia isn’t so much a comment on your post but that your post prompted my thoughts.



I mean, if you're making more than $50K a year on something, I assume you're already creating a line-item of some sort for your federal taxes. It would be the same line item, right?


----------



## Greg Benage

darjr said:


> Is reporting a burden too far for many of them?



Maybe it depends on the particulars of the "web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible." What could go wrong?


----------



## darjr

What about the “tell us what you’re selling” bit?

We don’t know if it requires a thumbs up from WotC, would that be a no-go? How could this work and be acceptable?


----------



## Mistwell

darjr said:


> What about the “tell us what you’re selling” bit?
> 
> We don’t know if it requires a thumbs up from WotC, would that be a no-go? How could this work and be acceptable?



Why would an income reporting requirement come with an approval requirement for content? If they do that, then I'd say it's worth complaining about. But it seems like random speculation to imply from what they've written that it's a content gatekeeping requirement.

My guess, from what they said, is they just want to know what types of things are selling well as part of their analytics. If you're selling sub-classes and new spells, or adventures, or initiative trackers, etc.. they want to know that so they know what the marketplace is buying.


----------



## Greg Benage

darjr said:


> What about the “tell us what you’re selling” bit?
> 
> We don’t know if it requires a thumbs up from WotC, would that be a no-go? How could this work and be acceptable?



I don't think there's any possible universe in which WotC could manage an approval process for everything that's published under the OGL. Even in the GSL, they reserved a "right of review" but they didn't require prior approval, assuming the product otherwise conformed to the terms of the license.

It's possible the web portal might enable a creator to self-report something that flags a product for further review. For example, maybe if you tick the "New Game" box in the Content Category field, you go into the review queue. If so, the license will presumably include a provision for accurate self-reporting.

One thing is clear: Unless Wizards botches the web portal functionality, they're going to get a lot of data about product sales.

ETA: Posted at the same time as @Mistwell - great minds!


----------



## Sacrosanct

Mistwell said:


> My guess, from what they said, is they just want to know what types of things are selling well as part of their analytics. If you're selling sub-classes and new spells, or adventures, or initiative trackers, etc.. they want to know that so they know what the marketplace is buying.



IMO, this is it right here.  Market analysis purposes.


----------



## Prime_Evil

Sacrosanct said:


> IMO, this is it right here.  Market analysis purposes.



And that is perfectly reasonable.

The sky is not falling, but there are some genuine concerns about aspects of the proposed license change. The OGL is a legally binding contract between the licensor and the licensee. The details matter.

 Lawyers don't care about fuzzy "intentions". They care about the exact wording of the contract itself. We haven't seen the document yet and nobody outside of Wizards knows what it will look like. Heck, I bet WotC haven't finalised the details internally yet. The new version of the OGL may exist only in draft form right now.

However, WotC have made a public statement about their intentions. This isn't the same as releasing the actual contract, but it gives us some idea what to expect.

 Some things are clear. WotC want to change the nature of the OGL from a general "open source" gaming licence to one tied explicitly to the D&D ecosystem. I can't imagine any publisher will adopt the new revision for their own game system. They will either stick with the old version or move to a different licence (Creative Commons?). Some may away from the open gaming paradigm entirely. This may accelerate the trend towards "walled gardens". We are seeing a proliferation of exclusive community content agreements via Drivethrurpg. This may not be healthy for the industry in the long run as it locks everyone into a single distributor.

The concerns about dynamic web content are real. Reading the announcement carefully,  it looks like WotC are happy for people to build free character generators and encounter builders under the Fan Content Policy. But they don't want commercial products in these categories. This is probably because they perceive such products as being in direct competition with their own digital platform. I suspect they definitely want to limit the ability of people to  play OneDnD via VTTs who don't have a licensing agreement with them. Understandable, but not great from a consumer perspective.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mistwell said:


> It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"
> 
> No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.
> 
> It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist." This has been a topic argued going back to 1e AD&D, the importance of supporting fans sharing their homebrew work with other fans, even if it's for a few bucks to support their time, versus professionals who create RPGs for a full time living.



The main reason I care about those 20 is that they make most of the stuff I and my friends buy and like, and I don't want WotC to pressure them into making stuff for a game I like less instead.


----------



## mamba

tomBitonti said:


> What are folks thoughts on what is encompassed by “static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs).
> 
> “*First,* we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.
> 
> The problem, to me, is the use of ”static”, and the vast jump from static files to a video game.  That gap seems too vast to be adequately addressed by the proposed license.
> 
> Is a cross-linked but static set of HTML allowed?  What about a static style sheet into which static monster data was placed?



what my opinion is will not matter if WotC disagrees with it, but to me anything that is unchanging to the same degree a PDF is, is fine. I see no difference between a PDF and a static HTML page in that regard.

If the page is dynamic and the content of it is taken from a database that might already be different however.


tomBitonti said:


> I do think that these are dynamic and are disallowed: A character form — which allows dynamic selection of 1E abilities; An encounter builder — which allows dynamic selection of 1E opponents; A virtual table — which allows dynamic placement of 1E assets.



I doubt they are allowed, mostly because they exclude VTTs and you are working your way up towards that. As you said, dynamic


tomBitonti said:


> Also, how much “dynamic” processing by a client is allowed? Simple resizing and scaling are technically “dynamic” adjustments to static content.  However, I doubt that kind of client processing is disallowed.  Similarly, an animated emoticon would not be disallowed.



you have no control over scaling on the client side with a PDF either, so scaling is fine


tomBitonti said:


> But .. what about the processing of javascript (or other embedded scripts)?  How much of that is allowed?



my expectation is that exactly zero of that is allowed, that goes back to me saying it has to be a static page

Ultimately you will have to check with WotC though (maybe their new FAQ goes into that), it does not really matter what any of us here think


----------



## mamba

Mistwell said:


> It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"



I am defending my interests (not as a publisher but as a consumer). The less restrictive the license is, the better


Mistwell said:


> No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.



I do not really see that relevance, other than to be surprised WotC wants to go after that little money at the risk of alienating a not insignificant part of their customers.

You want to grow D&D to a billion $ business and worry about what here? Chances are the fees make up less than a percent of that. Your next movie flopping will cause more damage than this will make in the next years…


Mistwell said:


> It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist."



matter of perspective I guess, the problem is you come from a more open license and now want to restrict rights people have become used to (and I call them rights because the OGL granted them)

This will not just affect the 20 largest ones, there will be others who think twice now


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> I do not really see that relevance, other than to be surprised WotC wants to go after that little money at the risk of alienating a not insignificant part of their customers.



We don't know the rate, or whether it will be progressive, but it would seem to offer Hasbro some protection for certain kinds of scenarios. For example, just making numbers up here: Do you think Paizo would have chosen to build a business on the OGL if they'd been required to pay a royalty graduated up to 10% on any revenues the company earned, knowing they not only wouldn't be able to use the D&D brand but would have to compete with it?


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> We don't know the rate, or whether it will be progressive, but it would seem to offer Hasbro some protection for certain kinds of scenarios. For example, just making numbers up here: Do you think Paizo would have chosen to build a business on the OGL if they'd been required to pay a royalty graduated up to 10% on any revenues the company earned, knowing they not only wouldn't be able to use the D&D brand but would have to compete with it?



they get 20% from DMsG for more than they offer here, so let’s just say 10% for the sake of the argument. Not that we know how much the top 20 make either 

So basically you see this as a deterrence more than a way to make money directly. My issue with that is that anyone is still free to branch off 5e under OGL 1.0. I totally see this as a deterrence to adopting 1.1, but not to a second Paizo using the current SRD.


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> Not that we know how much the top 20 make either



Kickstarter gives you a big clue. Take that and double it.

That's revenue of course, not profit.


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> So basically you see this as a deterrence more than a way to make money directly. My issue with that is that anyone is still free to branch off 5e under OGL 1.0. I totally see this as a deterrence to adopting 1.1, but not to a second Paizo using the current SRD.



I guess I'd just say, it probably isn't about "so little money," which was your comment that I was responding to. I don't know how much revenue the top 20 are generating, and I'm not going to go crawl through Kickstarters to try to figure it out, but I don't think Wizards is doing it for a little money. 

If _I _were doing it, _I _wouldn't want someone doing with 1.1 what Paizo did with 1.0/a. I wouldn't want it because everybody's got a boss, but also, it strikes me as a really bad outcome for the business. So this seems like the kind of thing I might do if I didn't want someone taking 1.1 and building a multi-million dollar business on it. As for someone doing a Paizo with 5e under 1.0/a, that seems like a risk. Might even be Paizo again!   I don't think they can put that horse back in the shed, but maybe they think they can at least make it less likely that the next horse gets out.

Note that I have no idea what anyone at Wizards or Hasbro actually thinks about this. Maybe none of the executives have a problem with Paizo or Pathfinder for reasons that aren't apparent to me, or maybe it's a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things that I don't get to see from my seat on the sidelines. My "analysis" could be entirely ignorant.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> I guess I'd just say, it probably isn't about "so little money," which was your comment that I was responding to. I don't know how much revenue the top 20 are generating, and I'm not going to go crawl through Kickstarters to try to figure it out, but I don't think Wizards is doing it for a little money.



relative to the 1 billion target, this is peanuts.

Let’s do some much too simple math. Each of the top 20 makes $2M per year, 25% of which is profit, with WotC getting 10% of that. That amounts to 1M or 0.1% of their goal.

Don’t think we are off by a lot here, double it if you want to, still amounts to nothing. The risk vs reward is much too skewed towards risk imo


Greg Benage said:


> If _I _were doing it, _I _wouldn't want someone doing with 1.1 what Paizo did with 1.0/a. I wouldn't want it because everybody's got a boss, but also, it strikes me as a really bad outcome for the business.



WotC has their best years right now, so how bad is the outcome really… incidentally (or not) their worst years were when they tried this last time. How well D&D does will depend on WotC’s actions and products much more than anything else - and right now they try hard to become unpopular (again)


Greg Benage said:


> So this seems like the kind of thing I might do if I didn't want someone taking 1.1 and building a multi-million dollar business on it. As for someone doing a Paizo with 5e under 1.0/a, that seems like a risk.



Why? 1.0 is much safer than 1.1 might turn out to be, Paizo already proved that there is no risk, and it costs you less as well


----------



## darjr

@Morrus I've heard from quite a few people taking the plunge and buying A5E. Have sales bumped recently?


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> Why? 1.0 is much safer than 1.1 might turn out to be, and it costs you less as well



No, I mean it's a risk for Wizards/Hasbro that someone will uses 1.0/a to clone 5e.


----------



## darjr

It would be Ironic if after all the video production and software and hiring crew to deal with this they get so few takers it ends up costing them money.


----------



## Hussar

As far as some sort of review process goes, how long does it take to put something up on Dms Guild? Is there a delay when you put something up for sale there?

If there isn’t, then it is pretty safe to assume that there won’t be going forward.


----------



## darjr

Hussar said:


> As far as some sort of review process goes, how long does it take to put something up on Dms Guild? Is there a delay when you put something up for sale there?
> 
> If there isn’t, then it is pretty safe to assume that there won’t be going forward.



There used to be a terrible wait for convention created content. Sometimes there still is an existing wait on the remaining convention content that isn't Dungeon Craft stuff. In fact the DC program was created so they could back off of CCCs.

The time it takes to get simple AL guidance out is kind of a running joke now. For instance the Dragonlance stuff is only now in "beta" form. It's not even on the main web site yet.

One of the recent AL documents ended up being just a few notes in a blog entry. I think it still isn't linked from the main site either.

This is their public play program. It directly makes them money.

AL Content on the DMSGuild has traditionally been among the best selling content.


----------



## overgeeked

mamba said:


> WotC has their best years right now, so how bad is the outcome really… incidentally (or not) their worst years were when they tried this last time.



Which is why this stinks of pure petty greed. They’re doing better than they’ve ever done and that’s still not enough. But they’re going to piss off a lot of fans to go for the comparative peanuts 3PP are making.


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> relative to the 1 billion target, this is peanuts.
> 
> Let’s do some much too simple math. Each of the top 20 makes $2M per year, 25% of which is profit, with WotC getting 10% of that. That amounts to 1M or 0.1% of their goal.



I should have responded to this at the same time, but I screwed it up. I don't think the royalty will be based on "profit." I don't care how well you run your business.

When the OGL was originally drafted, I doubt anyone anticipated Kickstarter--let alone $2MM campaigns. So if I'm wearing the suit, I want some protection for what you're not anticipating _this time_. What other opportunities is our IP going to create on the way to $1 billion that you're trying to license away for free again? You don't know, so let's do it my way this time.

Then we could get into even more speculative territory. Like, is the OGL and SRD (as they have existed up to now) viewed as an encumbrance on the brand? Follow the above line of thought and imagine that our suit has indeed turned D&D into a $1 billion brand, and now Hasbro wants to sell it. Does it matter to its value that there's a free license out there to OneD&D and other businesses are making millions of dollars off it? Probably, though I couldn't even guess at how much (and neither can anyone currently at Hasbro). What if you could eliminate (or at least mediate) that encumbrance and turn it into a passive revenue stream with a simple royalty structure?


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> No, I mean it's a risk for Wizards/Hasbro that someone will uses 1.0/a to clone 5e.



there is nothing they can do about that, the 5e SRD is already available under OGL 1.0a


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> there is nothing they can do about, that the 5e SRD is already available under OGL 1.0a



I agree, which is why I said, "I don't think they can put that horse back in the shed, but maybe they think they can at least make it less likely that the next horse gets out."


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> I should have responded to this at the same time, but I screwed it up. I don't think the royalty will be based on "profit." I don't care how well you run your business.



if I am not turning a profit yet because I am investing, and you want some money already, that hurts me even more, more incentive to stay with 1.0a


Greg Benage said:


> When the OGL was originally drafted, I doubt anyone anticipated Kickstarter--let alone $2MM campaigns.



Probably not, so? D&D is not exactly suffering because of that, one could argue (and the creators of the license did) that they benefit from it



Greg Benage said:


> So if I'm wearing the suit, I want some protection for what you're not anticipating _this time_.



that only works if you can withdraw the 1.0 version, and you cannot.

At best it works 10 - 20 years down the line when the then current version is sufficiently different from 5e, assuming you cannot forward-clone like others retrocloned…


Greg Benage said:


> What other opportunities is our IP going to create on the way to $1 billion that you're trying to license away for free again? You don't know, so let's do it my way this time.



As I said in an earlier post, I get restricting it to print and pdf. I want VTTs in there as well though, but carve out NFTs, games and all else. I am fine with that, drop registration, reporting and fees and I stop complaining 


Greg Benage said:


> Then we could get into even more speculative territory. Like, is the OGL and SRD (as they have existed up to now) viewed as an encumbrance on the brand?



I doubt it, you either are a $1B brand in the market environment you find yourself in or you are not.

One could also argue that D&D benefits from it because there is so much more diverse material drawing players in than WotC could ever hope to produce.
It might also generate a certain level of goodwill that WotC currently enjoys and might throw away, just like they did with 4e, and see how that went for them (granted that was not just a matter of dropping the OGL, but who is to say that this will be the only misstep now…)


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> I agree, which is why I said, "I don't think they can put that horse back in the shed, but maybe they think they can at least make it less likely that the next horse gets out."



they have no second horse… OneD&D is the same horse after a bath, I doubt you need the new SRD in 95% of cases or more, which means you can stick with the current one and 1.0 without any issues.

They really need to offer a carrot for anyone to even look at 1.1, and so far they have not offered any


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> One could also argue that D&D benefits from it because there is so much more diverse material drawing players in than WotC could ever hope to produce.



I'm just going to focus on this, because the whole post reads similarly. I agree that one could argue this. I think the available evidence suggests Wizards/Hasbro doesn't find the argument particularly persuasive. If we're trying to make sense of why they're doing this when (we think) it's "so little money," it doesn't really get us very far if we just keep repeating, "They shouldn't do this!"

To be clear, _I_ don't want them to make the license more restrictive. There's nothing in it for me if they make the license more restrictive. If I'm honest, of course, the only reason I care about how much money 3PP's can make is that I want there to be lots of 3PP content, but as far as that goes, the more money they make the better.

You said you were surprised about the royalty announcement, I speculated on some possible business reasons for it. I'm not arguing with you about what I want to happen.


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> they have no second horse… OneD&D is the same horse after a bath, I doubt you need the new SRD in 95% of cases or more, which means you can stick with the current one and 1.0 without any issues.



This seems highly speculative, and (I think) very unlikely to be correct, but if you're right, they have dumb lawyers. There's no reason for any of this if other companies can ignore 1.1 and still get 95% of the OneD&D content. That being the case, and given Section 9, it's much more interesting to me to consider how they could structure the license and the SRD to square that circle. If they're simply so dumb that they haven't noticed the circle, well, then I'll eat a bug for overestimating them.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> I'm just going to focus on this, because the whole post reads similarly. I agree that one could argue this. I think the available evidence suggests Wizards/Hasbro doesn't find the argument particularly persuasive.



that, or they think they can have their cake and eat it too



Greg Benage said:


> If we're trying to make sense of why they're doing this when (we think) it's "so little money," it doesn't really get us very far if we just keep repeating, "They shouldn't do this!"



well, the 'shouldn't' is unrelated to the 'why'. As to why, the obvious answer is that it makes them some money (and maybe I am off about how much that is, but compared to the 1B goal it will always be negligeble) and they apparently think that this direct money is more than the indirect damage this might inflict on WotC. I am much more pessimistic about that.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> This seems highly speculative, and (I think) very unlikely to be correct, but if you're right, they have dumb lawyers. There's no reason for any of this if other companies can ignore 1.1 and still get 95% of the OneD&D content. That being the case, and given Section 9, it's much more interesting to me to consider how they could structure the license and the SRD to square that circle. If they're simply so dumb that they haven't noticed the circle, well, then I'll eat a bug for overestimating them.



They cannot square that circle beyond limiting the 1.0a OGC to what is already licensed under it.

To me there are two cases 1) you want to create your own RPG, 2) you want to create something for 5e / OneD&D (adventure, race, (sub)class, monsters, ...).

In the latter case you basically need nothing from the SRD other than maybe reference some names that are in it (monsters, spells, items, ...). That list will not be all that different in the One D&D SRD, so to me there is almost no case where you would actually need something from the new SRD that is not also in the 5e one.

If you want to create your own RPG the question is how close to D&D you want to stay, i.e. how much you copy over and how much you rewrite / add / remove. Here there might be something in the One D&D SRD that you might be interested in but cannot copy over, because of OGL 1.1.
That leaves you with coming up with a similar mechanic in your own words and go with that. Probably not too much of a problem in most cases either.

The one case where it might be is if you want to create 'Open5.5' as an exact (or as close to identical as legally possible) One D&D clone. That might be a risky approach even under 1.1

So all in all, I see almost no case where using the new SRD is important for a 3PP. All things being equal (i.e. no carrot, and the new SRD is not one), I expect 1.1 to be pretty much dead on arrival.


----------



## Mistwell

overgeeked said:


> Which is why this stinks of pure petty greed. They’re doing better than they’ve ever done and that’s still not enough. But they’re going to piss off a lot of fans to go for the comparative peanuts 3PP are making.



Again with the "greed" accusation while defending the top 1% of RPG publishers. Do you guys even hear yourselves?


----------



## mamba

darjr said:


> @Morrus I've heard from quite a few people taking the plunge and buying A5E. Have sales bumped recently?



There was a bundle deal where you got all books for $25 or so, maybe that is why ?


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> they have no second horse… OneD&D is the same horse after a bath, I doubt you need the new SRD in 95% of cases or more, which means you can stick with the current one and 1.0 without any issues.
> 
> They really need to offer a carrot for anyone to even look at 1.1, and so far they have not offered any



See, this is where I get frustrated.

Yes, they haven't offered any.  It's the Christmas holidays.  Do you really think anyone is making big decisions and working hard right now?  Are you?  I don't know about you, but, I'm on my Christmas holidays.  Have been since the 23rd and will continue to do so until the 2nd.  I'm pretty sure that lots and lots of other people are in the same boat.  

It's been a week since WotC said that there will be changes coming.  That's it.  A week.  Oh, sorry, 9 days.

There is no "so far" here.  What we have is a bunch of really, really self entitled fans who are banging the drum over and over again, pretending that this is 2008 all over again.  

Is it really too much to ask to wait and see what they have to say before preaching doom and gloom?


----------



## darjr

mamba said:


> There was a bundle deal where you got all books for $25 or so, maybe that is why ?



Maybe, but many of the folks I would inform them of the bundle. But yea probably any info is drowned out.


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> They cannot square that circle beyond limiting the 1.0a OGC to what is already licensed under it.



Right, so it's trivially easy to square the circle. They simply don't release any Open Game Content for OneD&D. Now you can try to clone what you want using the OGL 1.0a and previous SRDs, but you could clone the game system anyway, without any license. You would _probably_ win in court.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> Yes, they haven't offered any.  It's the Christmas holidays.  Do you really think anyone is making big decisions and working hard right now?  Are you?



Actually I am, we have a go-live on 12/31 

They found time to tell us about the stick, maybe they should have either said nothing or included the carrot


Hussar said:


> Is it really too much to ask to wait and see what they have to say before preaching doom and gloom?



I am not considering this doom and gloom. I said I think they underestimate the risk of this, told you what I would consider a fair change to the license, and that right now I see no incentive or need to abandon 1.0 and switch to 1.1.  I am not running around shouting 'the world is ending'


----------



## Mistwell

There is the list of RPG Kickstarters over with more than 1000 backers, which means many are over $250K, that I found here. Many are not 5e, but some are, so I imagine we can pull out at least part of the list from there.

​​


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> Right, so it's trivially easy to square the circle. They simply don't release any Open Game Content for OneD&D.



I think we mean different (opposite actually) things by this term. But yes, do not add more OGC with the new SRD, we agree on that.


Greg Benage said:


> Now you can try to clone what you want using the OGL 1.0a and previous SRDs, but you could clone the game system anyway, without any license. You would _probably_ win in court.



Ok, then what exactly is 1.1 accomplishing ? I thought the main reason in your opinion was to prevent something like that


----------



## mamba

Mistwell said:


> There is the list of RPG Kickstarters over with more than 1000 backers, which means many are over $250K, that I found here. Many are not 5e, but some are, so I imagine we can pull out at least part of the list from there.
> 
> ​​



My initial rough math is not that far off. 20 companies, $2M per KS (one each), say 25% profit, say WotC takes 10% of that, that is 1M in fees. Say they make the same amount again in sales afterwards, now we are at $2M. Out of a $1*B* goal that is a rounding error.


----------



## FrogReaver

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is a touchy subject... is a gaming license that has you report income after X money and pay a royalty after Y money really OPEN?



I mean open books = open license is certainly a novel perspective.


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> Ok, then what exactly is 1.1 accomplishing ? I thought the main reason in your opinion was to prevent something like that




I think there will be a lot of publishers who simply use 1.1 and few or none that go the clone route, just as a matter of common sense.

I do expect some publishers to continue supporting 5e, and they obviously wouldn’t have any need for 1.1.

From a fan perspective, my hope is that a tighter OGL will allow them to release a more robust/complete SRD. I feel like they tried to restrict what could be done with 5e (without much success) by releasing a more restrictive SRD—maybe they don’t do that now.

There, a carrot.


----------



## overgeeked

Mistwell said:


> Again with the "greed" accusation while defending the top 1% of RPG publishers. Do you guys even hear yourselves?



Can you hear yourself? Do you know how tiny the amounts we're talking about are to WotC but how big they would be to those 3PP?


mamba said:


> 20 companies, $2M per KS (one each), say 25% profit, say WotC takes 10% of that, that is 1M in fees.
> Say they make the same amount again in sales afterwards, now we are at $2M. Out of a $1*B* goal that is a rounding error.



This is a literal drop in an ocean. But, the effect that will have on those 20 3PP is hugely detrimental. Many will have to take a long, hard look at their own books and figure out where that money's supposed to come from. If they can't square that circle, they'll likely not come along with the new edition, which means they will get left behind by a huge section of their customers. Unless one of them magically lucks out and becomes 5E's Pathfinder. Most of those "big" 3PP are only "big" because they publish content for the latest edition of D&D. Matt Colville's been asked about resurrecting and/or supporting 4E for years, since he likes it so much. But he's repeatedly said something to the effect of, "It's hard enough to make money supporting the current edition of D&D. Supporting a dead edition? Forget about it." 

This is WotC greed and malice pure and simple. They want free money and are going to intentionally tank several large 3PP to do it. Even if you hate every single one of those 3PP you cannot possibly think that's good for the community.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> I think there will be a lot of publishers who simply use 1.1 and few or none that go the clone route, just as a matter of common sense.




I am not expecting many to go the clone route either, mostly because I do not see many cloning One D&D.

Anyone creating supplements for One D&D can simply stay on the 5e SRD / OGL 1.0, I gave the reasons earlier. Anyone creating a sufficiently different RPG can do the same.



Greg Benage said:


> From a fan perspective, my hope is that a tighter OGL will allow them to release a more robust/complete SRD. I feel like they tried to restrict what could be done with 5e (without much success) by releasing a more restrictive SRD—maybe they don’t do that now.
> 
> There, a carrot.



Would be nice, I kinda doubt it (that would make a new Paizo so much easier, even if WotC then gets a fee they would be better off it that were their customers instead). will take a while until we know.


----------



## Mistwell

overgeeked said:


> Can you hear yourself? Do you know how tiny the amounts we're talking about are to WotC but how big they would be to those 3PP?



No I don't. And you don't either. You have zero knowledge of how much the royalty will be or how it will work. But you're stating this as if you do know, and that it will be huge in impact. To guys like Critical Role, and MCDM.

Instead y'all are calling WOTC over the top corporate greed (while simultaneously claiming it will be a drop in the bucket to them, which adds humor) while defending organizations which rack up millions a year, not even knowing how big or small the impact will be on those companies.

So yeah, I hear myself just fine. Do you?



overgeeked said:


> This is WotC greed and malice pure and simple. They want free money and are going to intentionally tank several large 3PP to do it. Even if you hate every single one of those 3PP you cannot possibly think that's good for the community.



Oh it's actual people at WOTC being malicious now? Calling them greedy wasn't good enough, now they are malicious for charging money to the top 1% users of their intellectual property license?

You might not see how over the top you've gone, but I bet others will.


----------



## Mistwell

mamba said:


> My initial rough math is not that far off. 20 companies, $2M per KS (one each), say 25% profit, say WotC takes 10% of that, that is 1M in fees. Say they make the same amount again in sales afterwards, now we are at $2M. Out of a $1*B* goal that is a rounding error.



It's a per-year license. Definitely not 20 companies are there with $2M KS in every year. And we have no idea what their profit margins are, or what the royalty will be.

But as for your premise that this is not about money, I think there might be some truth to that. I think it's about preventing another Paizo, while not holding back the extreme overwhelming majority of creators. I suspect it will be a progressive tiered royalty system but we shall see. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's a small royalty on every dollar from $750K to $1M, then a larger one on $1M to $2M, then a larger one from $2M to $3M, and so on.

And I again say this is about having your 3pp material available through DnDBeyond and the VTT. I think that is the primary incentive to use 1.1.


----------



## overgeeked

Mistwell said:


> No I don't. And you don't either. You have zero knowledge of how much the royalty will be or how it will work. But you're stating this as if you do know, and that it will be huge in impact. To guys like Critical Role, and MCDM.
> 
> Instead y'all are calling WOTC over the top corporate greed (while simultaneously claiming it will be a drop in the bucket to them, which adds humor) while defending organizations which rack up millions a year, not even knowing how big or small the impact will be on those companies.
> 
> So yeah, I hear myself just fine. Do you?
> 
> Oh it's actual people at WOTC being malicious now? Calling them greedy wasn't good enough, now they are malicious for charging money to the top 1% users of their intellectual property license?
> 
> You might not see how over the top you've gone, but I bet others will.



When you get handed a David vs Goliath situation you don't root for Goliath. You root for David.


----------



## Greg Benage

I agree that there is some logical tension between the “corporate greed” and “rounding error” lines of attack.

It could still be malice, though.


----------



## Mistwell

overgeeked said:


> When you get handed a David vs Goliath situation you don't root for Goliath. You root for David.



YOU are David here. Actual small publishers are Davids. Matt Collville and the Critical Role crew are not. They're just slightly shorter Goliaths. Matt and the CR Crew all likely make more money than the top executives at the D&D division of WOTC. You're not defending David.

And I say that assuming it's going to be a progressive royalty which hits the very top much harder than the smaller ones who are above $750K but below $2M a year in revenue. We shall see if that's what happens. But calling this malicious by WOTC is over the top.


----------



## mamba

Mistwell said:


> It's a per-year license.



My math was per year as well



Mistwell said:


> Definitely not 20 companies are there with $2M KS in every year. And we have no idea what their profit margins are, or what the royalty will be.



So I overestimated the money WotC can expect then 

The profit margin is a guess, so is the % WotC takes, but since they take 20% from DMsG and offer up more there, it felt like a good guess. I feel good about my profit margin as well. If you want to go extreme, double to $4M, still a drop in the bucket for WotC.



Mistwell said:


> But as for your premise that this is not about money, I think there might be some truth to that. I think it's about preventing another Paizo, while not holding back the extreme overwhelming majority of creators.



I don't think it even is about preventing a second Paizo, because quite frankly it won't. The next Paizo can branch off the 5e SRD under OGL 1.0 just fine. Heck they can even do it off 1.1 if they are ok with some fee.

I really think WotC would be so much better off restricting it to 'only print, PDF and VTT' part and leave the rest alone. That prevents the unforseen future development (at least to the degree that it is not out of the bag with the 5e SRD already) while still allowing TTRPG products of any kind.



Mistwell said:


> And I again say this is about having your 3pp material available through DnDBeyond and the VTT. I think that is the primary incentive to use 1.1.



it would be the primary incentive, because the license terms clearly are not


----------



## darjr

This bit here makes me think there will be a thumbs up or down process from WotC.


> Include a Creator Product badge on your work




WotC, at a minimum, won't want that badge on bigoted or hateful content. I even think it makes sense that they'd have such a review.
That review will either be before any such product is made, or after the 3pp has printed books (or sold PDFs out to the wild).

Also I would think WotC would have a longer list of what THEY think is inappropriate. On their terms, not ours.

Will WotC care if they demand you pulp printed books? Would they want them to get out to the wild before they had a chance to stop them?

Maybe, given how the dmsguild runs, but the question of pulping printed books is almost not a concern on the dmsguild. For small 3pp publishers printing outside of on-demand, it very well might be.

If you are a small publisher what would you prefer? Pre review or post?


----------



## mamba

darjr said:


> This bit here makes me think there will be a thumbs up or down process from WotC.



I think this is more intended as marketing for the 3PP, 'we are compatible with One D&D'.

A review process will be tough to swallow, might take long and you already did a lot of the work, potentially for nothing.


----------



## darjr

mamba said:


> I think this is more intended as marketing for the 3PP, 'we are compatible with One D&D'.
> 
> A review process will be tough to swallow, might take long and you already did a lot of the work, potentially for nothing.



yea.


----------



## FrogReaver

mamba said:


> Why? 1.0 is much safer than 1.1 might turn out to be, Paizo already proved that there is no risk, and it costs you less as well



On the bright side I'd love to see what Paizo can do with 5e OGC when One drops.  I really hope they are working on Pathfinder 5e


----------



## mamba

FrogReaver said:


> On the bright side I'd love to see what Paizo can do with 5e OGC when One drops.  I really hope they are working on Pathfinder 5e



The same thing they could have done the last years, so I am not expecting much there. I wonder if they benefit from this however, much like they did with 4e / the GSL.


----------



## Smackpixi

This is my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong somewhere on facts, much speculation I’m sure you disagree with also included.


The new OGL 1.1 will more restrictive/specific/profitable for WoTC.  It will be less good for the creator.
Any SRD released under OGL 1.1 can be used under OGL 1.0.

So obviously, no one would use OGL 1.1.  So, world today, creators ignore OGL 1.1.  But there will likely be some carrots and sticks outside of the OGL to motivate it’s use.


Access to WotC controlled spaces.  DNDBeyond, new VTT, etc.
Access to spaces that need non-OGL agreements with WoTC once the current agreements expire.  “The top VTT platforms already have custom agreements with Wizards.”  If they do, theoretically WoTC could use those agreements to lock out non-OGL 1.1 content from being used with the official content.

So now, we get to the question of why is WoTC trying to monetize the 20 creators who make over 750k a year on D&D OGL content.  It’s not going to be a lot of money as the world today exists.  So, I don’t think that’s what they care about.  

Anything produced and sold inside one of their platforms they can just hit with the Apple App Store style 30% cut so what do they care about this OGL part?  With the VTT they can just only allow stuff sold on the platform and take the 30% standard Cut.  Pretty sure that’s the plan there.

With DNDBeyond I doubt that would fly, it’s more designed as a hub of reasources, plenty of official stuff to buy or subscribe to.  Here I think the play is to allow 3PPs using OGL 1.1 to create stuff inside the site and allow sales outside the site to bring in a token to allow access.  

Anyway, leading up to my point, the monetization aspect I don’t think is about making money, the money won’t be significant unless there’s another Pathfinder style fork.  They are guarding against some 3PP (think what Critical Role has done on You Tube, or, Pathfinder happening again) scoring big and pied papering away players.  With stuff on OGL 1.1 they can make bank if there’s ever a Facebook for MySpace style transition of their game.  Expect OGL 1.1 revenue sharing in excess of say $20MM to be like 50%.

the ability to import all the fun 3rd party stuff you’ve bought elsewhere or got free or whatever.  I think in that situation, they will allow


----------



## Greg Benage

Smackpixi said:


> The new OGL 1.1 will more restrictive/specific/profitable for WoTC. It will be less good for the creator.
> Any SRD released under OGL 1.1 can be used under OGL 1.0.




The second bullet is incorrect. Any Open Game Content can be used under OGL 1.0, but there’s nothing stopping Wizards from releasing a OneD&D SRD with no OGC in it.


----------



## overgeeked

Smackpixi said:


> They are guarding against some 3PP (think what Critical Role has done on You Tube, or, Pathfinder happening again) scoring big and pied papering away players



Critical Role has a lot of fans who are loyal to CR but not necessarily WotC. If anyone could fork the fanbase, it’s Mercer and Co. Depending on the specifics of 1.1, I kinda hope they do. Though their publishing ventures so far have been…not great. Their first book cut corners to save money on paper and caused more than a few problems for fans. Considering Matt and Liam are friends with Matt Colville, it’s kinda surprising they didn’t have him publish their book.


----------



## Hussar

FrogReaver said:


> I mean open books = open license is certainly a novel perspective.



How is reporting if you made more than 50 grand in the last year an "open book"?  They're not asking to see your actual spreadsheets.  They're asking to see your (presumably) sales figure.  Y'know, that stuff that is available to any shareholder in a publicly traded company?  That stuff that is reported pretty routinely for many, many businesses?  

And, note, presumably, that number would be confidential.  So, they know that Hussar sold Book X for Y dollars last year.  Whoopdeedoo?  Is this actually a secret or something?

Hell, I could see it as a badge of pride.  "I HAVE to report my sales to WotC".


----------



## Smackpixi

Greg Benage said:


> The second bullet is incorrect. Any Open Game Content can be used under OGL 1.0, but there’s nothing stopping Wizards from releasing a OneD&D SRD with no OGC in it.



So, they could release a SRD for One D&D that only contains new stuff, not previously under a SRD and say it’s not OGC.  And say in say in OGL 1.1 that it allows SRD stuff not OGC?  Ok, I get that.  But what would that be?  Since game mechanics not protected, it would only be the names of new abilities or feats, and not those abilities themselves.  Seems pretty pointless.  And not a reason to do all this….see later in my post.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> How is reporting if you made more than 50 grand in the last year an "open book"?  They're not asking to see your actual spreadsheets.  They're asking to see your (presumably) sales figure.  Y'know, that stuff that is available to any shareholder in a publicly traded company?



which most 3PP aren’t


Hussar said:


> That stuff that is reported pretty routinely for many, many businesses?



not to a different business in your field


Hussar said:


> And, note, presumably, that number would be confidential.  So, they know that Hussar sold Book X for Y dollars last year.  Whoopdeedoo?  Is this actually a secret or something?



yes, it obviously is. I mean no one is forcing you to keep it one, but by default it is


Hussar said:


> Hell, I could see it as a badge of pride.  "I HAVE to report my sales to WotC".



not sure what there is to be proud of, but feel free


----------



## Greg Benage

Smackpixi said:


> So, they could release a SRD for One D&D that only contains new stuff, not previously under a SRD and say it’s not OGC. And say in say in OGL 1.1 that it allows SRD stuff not OGC? Ok, I get that. But what would that be? Since game mechanics not protected, it would only be the names of new abilities or feats, and not those abilities themselves. Seems pretty pointless. And not a reason to do all this….see later in my post.




If game mechanics aren’t copyrightable, one might argue the OGL as it has existed for 20 years “seems pretty pointless.” The point has always been the “safe harbor”: Whether or not a particular court in a particular case would find copyright infringement, stick to the terms of this agreement and we won’t hassle you.

Keep reading—there are some great posts from the resident attorneys here that go into a lot of the legal details.


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> which most 3PP aren’t
> 
> not to a different business in your field
> 
> yes, it obviously is. I mean no one is forcing you to keep it one, but by default it is
> 
> not sure what there is to be proud of, but feel free



My posts are certainly not long enough that fisking is required. 

My point is, reporting how many sales you had last year is hardly the same as opening your books.  It's a fairly public number anyway.  If someone wants to do the legwork, they could likely make a pretty educated guess.  It's not like they're asking for trade secrets or anything like that.  "If you made more than 50 grand in sales last year, please let us know."  And, we have no idea what the question might actually be.  It could be as simple as, "Did you make more than 50k in sales last year?  Y/N"  Followed by "Did you have sales of more than 750 k? Y/N"

Again, they are not asking you to report your entire business.  They are asking "Did you have sales of more than 50k", full stop.  That's ALL we know for now.   I'm sorry, but, is that really that much of an ask?  They didn't say that they want  a full break down of your income.  They aren't asking to see your tax files.  They are asking you to self report if you made more than 50 grand in a year.

Now, if it goes further than that, then fair enough.  But, right now, all they are asking (a VERY small number of creators) is for you to self-report if you made more than 50 grand on OGL stuff in the last year. 

And, yeah, "My D&D product was so popular that I have to report it to WotC" isn't exactly bad press for a 3pp.  You see it right now on DM's Guild - a Platinum or Gold seller badge prominently displayed on various products.  Knowing that someone is selling that much does increase interest.


----------



## Hussar

Greg Benage said:


> If game mechanics aren’t copyrightable, one might argue the OGL as it has existed for 20 years “seems pretty pointless.” The point has always been the “safe harbor”: Whether or not a particular court in a particular case would find copyright infringement, stick to the terms of this agreement and we won’t hassle you.
> 
> Keep reading—there are some great posts from the resident attorneys here that go into a lot of the legal details.



I think that's the point that gets lost in the scrum here. 

The OGL is a formal "gentlemen's agreement" to not pee in the pool as it were.  There is no doubt that some of the things covered by the OGL would never stand up in court anyway.  We all know that.  WotC knows that.  That ground has been well trod and covered by people a heck of a lot smarter than me over the past twenty years or so.  

But, the OGL is there as a sort of playground.  WotC is saying, "Look, yeah, I know there is stuff here that you could fight and you would probably win.  There's stuff here that you could fight and probably lose.  Instead of nailing all this down in concrete terms, here is an agreement where you agree to not fight me on this stuff and I won't look too hard at whatever you are doing."

Let's be honest here, there are OGC books out there that aren't necessarily 100% kosher.  Again, we all know that.  The Hypertext SRD (3.5) included text from the Unearthed Arcana that wasn't OGC.  It's not hard to find.  But, WotC has been pretty relaxed about things by and large.  So long as no one is piddling in the pool, everyone is happy.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> My posts are certainly not long enough that fisking is required.



not sure why this is an important issue for you, I will continue to answer as I see fit. Also, this one is


Hussar said:


> My point is, reporting how many sales you had last year is hardly the same as opening your books.  It's a fairly public number anyway.  If someone wants to do the legwork, they could likely make a pretty educated guess.



yeah right, try it with a few people and let me know how that goes. Let’s start with Mike Shae, MT Black and Professor DungeonMaster 


Hussar said:


> It could be as simple as, "Did you make more than 50k in sales last year?  Y/N"  Followed by "Did you have sales of more than 750 k? Y/N"



don’t be ridiculous, not even you believe that (I hope…)


Hussar said:


> Again, they are not asking you to report your entire business.  They are asking "Did you have sales of more than 50k", full stop.  That's ALL we know for now.   I'm sorry, but, is that really that much of an ask?



it’s a lot to ask, given that just yesterday they did not care


Hussar said:


> Now, if it goes further than that, then fair enough.  But, right now, all they are asking (a VERY small number of creators) is for you to self-report if you made more than 50 grand on OGL stuff in the last year.



they are asking _every_ creator, it is a small number that will raise their hand and say that they are 


Hussar said:


> And, yeah, "My D&D product was so popular that I have to report it to WotC" isn't exactly bad press for a 3pp.  You see it right now on DM's Guild - a Platinum or Gold seller badge prominently displayed on various products.  Knowing that someone is selling that much does increase interest.



sales numbers maybe do (no idea, the concept that McDonalds sells more meals than the Steakhouse next to it never meant much to me, the books I read are not based on sales either…I am more interested in topic and review ratings), but ‘I have to report to WotC’ is not really reflecting sales numbers very well (you either have to or you don’t, no tiers), and not in a public spot where people would see it.


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> don’t be ridiculous, not even you believe that (I hope…)
> .




What more do you know that they are going to ask?

Specifically please. What evidence do you have that they are asking more?


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> What more do you know that they are going to ask?
> 
> Specifically please. What evidence do you have that they are asking more?



evidence, zero, let’s just say I would be really surprised if this were just two checkboxes, and to me you are overly generous given that you have zero evidence as well


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> evidence, zero, let’s just say I would be really surprised if this were just two checkboxes, and to me you are overly generous given that you have zero evidence as well




No the difference is, I’ve repeatedly stated that we need to wait and see. 

There’s no point buying into the negative narrative beforehand. Far too many folks gleefully rubbing their hands at the downfall of DnD.


----------



## Remathilis

darjr said:


> This bit here makes me think there will be a thumbs up or down process from WotC.
> 
> 
> WotC, at a minimum, won't want that badge on bigoted or hateful content. I even think it makes sense that they'd have such a review.
> That review will either be before any such product is made, or after the 3pp has printed books (or sold PDFs out to the wild).
> 
> Also I would think WotC would have a longer list of what THEY think is inappropriate. On their terms, not ours.
> 
> Will WotC care if they demand you pulp printed books? Would they want them to get out to the wild before they had a chance to stop them?
> 
> Maybe, given how the dmsguild runs, but the question of pulping printed books is almost not a concern on the dmsguild. For small 3pp publishers printing outside of on-demand, it very well might be.
> 
> If you are a small publisher what would you prefer? Pre review or post?



I imagine it will be as robust as DMsGuild and not an inch more.


----------



## Nylanfs

Hussar said:


> Let's be honest here, there are OGC books out there that aren't necessarily 100% kosher.  Again, we all know that.  The Hypertext SRD (3.5) included text from the Unearthed Arcana that wasn't OGC.  It's not hard to find.  But, WotC has been pretty relaxed about things by and large.  So long as no one is piddling in the pool, everyone is happy.




I haven't paid that close attention to the Hypertext SRD, but aren't they using the Unearthed Arcana that is strictly released as OGC?


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> No the difference is, I’ve repeatedly stated that we need to wait and see.



I have said that a few times too in this thread, yet here we are discussing details. Sorry, if you want to wait, then wait and do not speculate about the level of detail you need to provide to WotC. I doubt that will even be clarified in the license.

I generally kept it to things they already said, you went even further 


Hussar said:


> There’s no point buying into the negative narrative beforehand. Far too many folks gleefully rubbing their hands at the downfall of DnD.



there also is no point defending them by making claims without evidence like all you need to report is > 50k and > 750k.

I am not buying into anything. I am stating what I think of what they said so far and what changes I find acceptable vs which ones went too far, and what I currently observe as the community response (and by that I do not mean this thread but how 3PPs are reacting). I also am aware that so far none of this is final and have said so several times, don’t expect me to write a long disclaimer in every post though 

Finally, I don’t think waiting with the warnings until after the Titanic hit the iceberg (the license is released) is a sound approach if you do not like what you are hearing. I will adjust my opinion as new details emerge, that does not mean I need to ignore what was announced until it became cold hard facts.
That is kinda like ignoring the robber saying ‘give me your money or I shoot you’ because he hasn’t shot you yet… intentions matter


----------



## darjr

Remathilis said:


> I imagine it will be as robust as DMsGuild and not an inch more.



Whatever it is it’s complicated enough they plan on having video tutorials and walk throughs.


----------



## mamba

darjr said:


> Whatever it is it’s complicated enough they plan on having video tutorials and walk throughs.



or they think the ones falling for 1.1 are not the smart ones and need all the help they can get 

I would not read much into it, apart from they want to make it as easy as possible to switch to 1.1


----------



## FrogReaver

mamba said:


> The same thing they could have done the last years, so I am not expecting much there. I wonder if they benefit from this however, much like they did with 4e / the GSL.



Seems there’s quite a few people that play 5e that  maybe aren’t that interested in moving to ONE. 

Paizo May could capture their business.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Hussar said:


> And, note, presumably, that number would be confidential.  So, they know that Hussar sold Book X for Y dollars last year.  Whoopdeedoo?  Is this actually a secret or something?



Yes, many companies spend more then most small RPG companies make just to keep such info secret, and/or to find that info about competitors. 

I work with a company that is a VERY different field but that spends more on trying to get access to proprietary sales data of other companies then it does on it's Customer Service team.

In the past I worked with 3 different companies that were all really 1 company hiding in a trench coat, and when someone got fired they took proprietary sales info to another company and caused such a panic that the entire company was forced to sign NDAs and we got new updated computers and were not allowed to print anything... The cost of said new systems most likely is more then D&D made last year (can't be 100% sure but it was either at or just below needing a B in there)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Hussar said:


> What more do you know that they are going to ask?
> 
> Specifically please. What evidence do you have that they are asking more?



if they are not asking for proof of sales then what is the point. As someone that does books I will tell you that while I can't tell you exactly what they will or will not ask for a Y/N is a joke at best...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> No the difference is, I’ve repeatedly stated that we need to wait and see.
> 
> There’s no point buying into the negative narrative beforehand. Far too many folks gleefully rubbing their hands at the downfall of DnD.



WotC is not D&D, and making more money than anyone else and owning the IP does not make them better than other companies that often produce (IMO) better content.  From a consumer standpoint, i see them trying to leverage their success to influence other creators.  I don't want WotC pressing any harder on the industry than they already are, because I'm concerned it will affect the release of content going forward in a way I see as a negative.


----------



## overgeeked

FrogReaver said:


> Seems there’s quite a few people that play 5e that  maybe aren’t that interested in moving to ONE.
> 
> Paizo May could capture their business.



Only if they produce a clone that’s as light as 5E. That was the trick with Pathfinder, it started out as almost identical to 3.5. If they bulk up 5E with more crunch immediately, they’ll lose more people than gain. I’d hope someone would do a good lighter version.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC is not D&D, and making more money than anyone else and owning the IP does not make them better than other companies that often produce (IMO) better content.  From a consumer standpoint, i see them trying to leverage their success to influence other creators.  I don't want WotC pressing any harder on the industry than they already are, because I'm concerned it will affect the release of content going forward in a way I see as a negative.



If I’m being honest, at this point I think the best thing for the industry would be for WotC to go bye bye. The fans will fragment. Some will leave the hobby. Those who stay will keep playing what they like and start homebrewing more to fill the gaps, find clones to play, or switch to other games entirely. WotC is sucking all the air out of the industry. The rest of the companies and games deserve to breathe, too.


----------



## DEFCON 1

overgeeked said:


> If I’m being honest, at this point I think the best thing for the industry would be for WotC to go bye bye. The fans will fragment. Some will leave the hobby. Those who stay will keep playing what they like and start homebrewing more to fill the gaps, find clones to play, or switch to other games entirely. WotC is sucking all the air out of the industry. The rest of the companies and games deserve to breathe, too.



I think you are mistaken with this take.

How many people do you really think are playing D&D because they love playing roleplaying games... and how many are playing D&D because they love "D&D"?  Or they love Critical Role, who plays D&D?  Or they played video games based on or adapted from D&D?

The current overwhelming success of D&D right now IS NOT based on the roleplaying game-fan pool swelling up... it's on the D&D 5E-fan pool swelling up.  And if you were to remove WotC (and thus contemporary D&D from the equation)... a large number of the current fans would go away too.  They won't "switch" to another system, or even an older style of D&D... they'll just stop playing altogether.  They are WAY WAY too many other options for people's time for them to keep playing other versions of other games that they don't really care about because they aren't a part of the D&D 5E community.

Yes, we folks on EN World would find other games to play (and most of us probably already play other games already too).  But we are a select few.  We are nowhere near the majority.  So to think that our attitudes towards the situation would match most other people is not a justifiable belief in my opinion.  After all... if all these new D&D fans wanted to just play RPGs in general (and not 5E specifically)... where have they been all these years?  They've have 40 years to get into roleplay gaming (any roleplay gaming) and never did.  Seems to me most of those that have now found their way here through 5E don't actually care about the hobby on the whole, they only care about 5E in particular.  You remove WotC and thus 5E from the equation... the hobby is not getting better as a result.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I think it is interesting hiw many people on youtube think that 5e is bad and wotc is an evil corporation.

I can only think of this masterpiece...



			https://www.southpark.de/en/episodes/13y790/south-park-gnomes-season-2-ep-17


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> Paizo May could capture their business.



I know this has been mentioned a couple times, but I strongly disagree. Paizo is too busy with their own ruleset that caters to a slightly different playstyle. It wouldn't behoove them to abandon PF2 (or even split their attention between two systems) when their existing fanbase wouldn't really be interested in it (and existing 5e players wouldn't be interested in PF2).

No, if another company that's more invested in 5e did it, it would make more sense. Wait... EN Publishing already did that.


----------



## Azzy

overgeeked said:


> If I’m being honest, at this point I think the best thing for the industry would be for WotC to go bye bye. The fans will fragment. Some will leave the hobby. Those who stay will keep playing what they like and start homebrewing more to fill the gaps, find clones to play, or switch to other games entirely. WotC is sucking all the air out of the industry. The rest of the companies and games deserve to breathe, too.



This is some of the most hyperbolic rhetoric that I've read on these forums. It's silly at best.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> I think you are mistaken with this take.
> 
> How many people do you really think are playing D&D because they love playing roleplaying games... and how many are playing D&D because they love "D&D"?  Or they love Critical Role, who plays D&D?  Or they played video games based on or adapted from D&D?
> 
> The current overwhelming success of D&D right now IS NOT based on the roleplaying game-fan pool swelling up... it's on the D&D 5E-fan pool swelling up.  And if you were to remove WotC (and thus contemporary D&D from the equation)... a large number of the current fans would go away too.  They won't "switch" to another system, or even an older style of D&D... they'll just stop playing altogether.  They are WAY WAY too many other options for people's time for them to keep playing other versions of other games that they don't really care about because they aren't a part of the D&D 5E community.
> 
> Yes, we folks on EN World would find other games to play (and most of us probably already play other games already too).  But we are a select few.  We are nowhere near the majority.  So to think that our attitudes towards the situation would match most other people is not a justifiable belief in my opinion.  After all... if all these new D&D fans wanted to just play RPGs in general (and not 5E specifically)... where have they been all these years?  They've have 40 years to get into roleplay gaming (any roleplay gaming) and never did.  Seems to me most of those that have now found their way here through 5E don't actually care about the hobby on the whole, they only care about 5E in particular.  You remove WotC and thus 5E from the equation... the hobby is not getting better as a result.



To be fair, if you remove WotC now, all the 5e stuff will still be there.  No one's proposing going back in time and convincing Richard Atkinson not to buy TSR.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> To be fair, if you remove WotC now, all the 5e stuff will still be there.  No one's proposing going back in time and convincing Richard Atkinson not to buy TSR.



Wait. That second sentence is absolutely not true. There are legions!

But I think I get you meant not in this thread.


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> I generally kept it to things they already said, you went even further



No, you absolutely have not.  You have taken it much further.  You've banged the drum that they will require more than simply a statement of sales, for example.  Yet, all we know is that they will require such statement.  Others have repeatedly talked about how the new SRD won't be OGC.  Hell, a couple of posts above, we see pretty much word for word someone rubbing their hands in glee over the idea of WotC failing and D&D fading back into obscurity.  Wait and see seems to be in very short supply.

I mean, you end your post with this:



> That is kinda like ignoring the robber saying ‘give me your money or I shoot you’ because he hasn’t shot you yet… intentions matter




You're now equating WotC with a criminal and possible murderer.  Iceberg hitting the Titanic.  Tad hyperbolic no?  Considering we don't know anything yet.  But, sure, you're not going any further than just reading what they actually said.


----------



## Greg Benage

Micah Sweet said:


> Richard Atkinson




This is solid gold.


----------



## Incenjucar

WotC helps keep the game in the spotlight, in book stores, in video games, and keeps the old books available on DriveThrough. At a bare minimum, they're doing a lot of work to keep the space viable at a cultural level. Even if you don't buy any WotC products, you very likely benefit from them being there.


----------



## Hussar

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yes, many companies spend more then most small RPG companies make just to keep such info secret, and/or to find that info about competitors.
> 
> I work with a company that is a VERY different field but that spends more on trying to get access to proprietary sales data of other companies then it does on it's Customer Service team.
> 
> In the past I worked with 3 different companies that were all really 1 company hiding in a trench coat, and when someone got fired they took proprietary sales info to another company and caused such a panic that the entire company was forced to sign NDAs and we got new updated computers and were not allowed to print anything... The cost of said new systems most likely is more then D&D made last year (can't be 100% sure but it was either at or just below needing a B in there)



Again, you're talking about them requiring proof of sales, receipts, complete breakdowns of sales and whatnot.  Which, sure, is confidential information.  But, that's a heck of a lot more than sales.  Companies routinely report their sales for the year.  Hell, we KNOW, almost to the dollar, what WotC's D&D sales were last year.  We know because it's been reported.  

So, no, they're not going to be asking for entire breakdowns and whatnot.  Again, this is going to be far more a formality than anything else.  It's going to be voluntary reporting of gross sales.  Whoopdeedoo.  If they wanted receipts and everything else, there wouldn't be a more than SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR gap between those who have to report (50K+) and those who have to start paying royalties.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Greg Benage said:


> This is solid gold.



I honestly don't remember the guy's name.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> No, you absolutely have not.  You have taken it much further.  You've banged the drum that they will require more than simply a statement of sales, for example.  Yet, all we know is that they will require such statement.  Others have repeatedly talked about how the new SRD won't be OGC.  Wait and see seems to be in very short supply.



The first one is an obvious conclusion, and if I recall correctly I only brought that up once you claimed it would be no more than two checkmarks. As I said, you started going beyond the statement. For the second one notice the emphasis on *others*


Hussar said:


> You're now equating WotC with a criminal and possible murderer.  Iceberg hitting the Titanic.  Tad hyperbolic no?  Considering we don't know anything yet.  But, sure, you're not going any further than just reading what they actually said.



I assumed you know how analogies work, if your takeaway is that the analogy is that WotC might be a murderer, then you got it all wrong... I even clarified that it was about the fact that intentions matter and cannot / should not be ignored. Your claim is flat out ridiculous.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> Again, you're talking about them requiring proof of sales, receipts, complete breakdowns of sales and whatnot.  Which, sure, is confidential information.  But, that's a heck of a lot more than sales.  Companies routinely report their sales for the year.  Hell, we KNOW, almost to the dollar, what WotC's D&D sales were last year.  We know because it's been reported.



Public companies do, most 3PPs are not that. Hasbro is, and yet they do not really break down the WotC numbers between MtG and D&D... so yeah, tell me to the closest 100 $ how much D&D made in 2021 and 2022...


----------



## Greg Benage

Micah Sweet said:


> I honestly don't remember the guy's name.




No one ever does, that’s why it’s so funny. He’s the Rodney Dangerfield of hobby game celebrities.

(Peter Adkison - I think you also merged him with Richard Garfield.)


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> Public companies do, most 3PPs are not that. Hasbro is, and yet they do not really break down the WotC numbers between MtG and D&D... so yeah, tell me to the closest 100 $ how much D&D made in 2021 and 2022...



I don't need to though.  I just need to tell you within 650 000 dollars how much they made.

2021, WotC is reported to make 816 million dollars according to my very quick Google search.  Granted, they don't break it down between Magic and D&D and other brands, but, I know how much they made.  Are you seriously suggesting that WotC will require more detail than this?  "How much money in sales did your OGL products make in the past year?" is going to be the extent of the question.  Since they don't care until you hit that 700k mark, why would they need any more detail than that?  Hell, like I said, the simple Y/N question is potentially all they will ask.

We know that they will ask something.  We don't know what specifically.  Which brings me right back around to the hyperbolic comparisons of the titanic hitting an iceberg and a potential murderer invading your home.  Yes, I am quite aware what anaolgy means and I know that you are picking very specific ones to connote a very specific meaning to cast WotC as the villain despite having zero information or reason.

At the moment, all we know is that they will require some form of income reporting.  We have no idea what form that will take.  You are presuming that it will be invasive and objectionable.  I am presuming nothing and am perfectly willing to wait a couple of weeks while they prepare what the actual terms will be.  Considering this won't actually apply until, what, more than a year in the future, there's LOTS of time to ready your torches and pitchforks without working yourself up on completely fabricated hypotheticals.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> I don't need to though.  I just need to tell you within 650 000 dollars how much they made.



you were the one claiming you can, sounds like you cannot after all... but fine, how much was it and where did you find it?


Hussar said:


> Hell, we KNOW, almost to the dollar, what WotC's D&D sales were last year.  We know because it's been reported.


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> you were the one claiming you can, sounds like you cannot after all... but fine, how much was it and where did you find it? Also, why 650k?



I did state that it was a very quick Google search.  650k is where the royalties start.  Well, 650 after the first 50k which requires no reporting.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> I did state that it was a very quick Google search.



then you should have no trouble finding it, I'll wait

EDIT: Here's the thing, if you knew how Hasbro reports (or actually read what I wrote earlier), you'd know that the WotC numbers are not broken down between MtG and D&D. So I don't think you can even get to the closest 1M. So I expect to wait a long time...


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> then you should have no trouble finding it, I'll wait
> 
> EDIT: Here's the thing, if you knew how Hasbro reports (or actually read what I wrote earlier), you'd know that the WotC numbers are not broken down between MtG and D&D. So I don't think you can even get to the closest 1M. So I expect to wait a long time...



Speaking of reading what's being written - I did specifically mention that it wasn't broken apart between product lines.  But, again, you have no reason to think that they will require more than simply total sales.  What more do you think they are going to ask?


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> Speaking of reading what's being written - I did specifically mention that it wasn't broken apart between product lines.  But, again, you have no reason to think that they will require more than simply total sales.  What more do you think they are going to ask?



I did miss that you edited your post since I read it, so yes, I did indeed miss that. So I guess you were wrong when you wrote



Hussar said:


> Hell, we KNOW, almost to the dollar, what WotC's D&D sales were last year.  We know because it's been reported.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> At the moment, all we know is that they will require some form of income reporting.  We have no idea what form that will take.  You are presuming that it will be invasive and objectionable.  I am presuming nothing and am perfectly willing to wait a couple of weeks while they prepare what the actual terms will be.  Considering this won't actually apply until, what, more than a year in the future, there's LOTS of time to ready your torches and pitchforks without working yourself up on completely fabricated hypotheticals.



going back to the edited part of your post... yes we have no idea what the terms will be, what you seem to miss is that I completely reject *any* requirement to register or report income, let alone require a fee at any level.

The actual terms do not matter to me, drop this and I am fine (well, also leave VTTs covered, not just print and PDF), leave it in and I am not. I have written that a few times already.

Basically I want the license to remain open, and am even willing to sacrifice some (many actually) cases it formerly could be used for.


----------



## Hussar

Requiring sales reporting =/= closed license.  But, yeah, if your position is that "I completely reject *any* requirement to register or report income", then, ok, fair enough.  That's on you.  To me, it's a pretty minor requirement that will take all of 30 seconds for most people.  I'm not really seeing the issue to be honest.

VTT's I think are going to have a problem.  AFAIK, most VTT's don't include an OGL with their product, nor is there one to be found.  Additionally, their SRD modules are not people readable, if they even have it broken out that way.  And I think that people who are scraping from D&D Beyond and then selling modules are going to find that getting shut down very soon as well.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> Requiring sales reporting =/= closed license.



I never said that this is what closes it, but the fees definitely do imo (not that I am fine with the reporting part either) 

I could even argue just having to let them know what you want to publish already makes it not open, but for simplicity let’s go with the fee

I do expect the actual license to have other parts that close it as well however. As I wrote I am expecting a GSL 2.0 more than a OGL 1.1, regardless of the name marketing considered more palatable. We will find out soon enough


Hussar said:


> But, yeah, if your position is that "I completely reject *any* requirement to register or report income", then, ok, fair enough.  That's on you.



yep, that is ‘on me’. Different people have different lines in the sand. Some do not care about any of this.



Hussar said:


> VTT's I think are going to have a problem.  AFAIK, most VTT's don't include an OGL with their product, nor is there one to be found.  Additionally, their SRD modules are not people readable, if they even have it broken out that way.



agreed, I do not care about it being human readable, they can drop that from the requirements too  The VTT will display it human readable, I do not care whether it stores it that way. Have a function to extract the screen as it is shown to a text file / pdf (not as a screenshot, as proper text) and I am good

To me the focus is on the document / data being static and the ‘product’ being related to roleplaying. I do not see the info in the VTT data having to change more often than the data in the PDF, so I lump it in with the static side.

20 years ago no one thought of VTTs, back then print and pdf would have been ok, in the spirit of the OGL I would include VTTs as well - not that WotC cares one bit about that spirit these days


Hussar said:


> And I think that people who are scraping from D&D Beyond and then selling modules are going to find that getting shut down very soon as well.



that was never covered anyway, you do not need to change the OGL for that


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> agreed, I do not care about it being human readable, they can drop that from the requirements too  The VTT will display it human readable, I do not care whether it stores it that way



So, you're fine with changing the OGL, so long as they change it in ways that you like?

After all, as it stands, the OGL does not allow you do make a VTT using the SRD in such a way that you cannot read it.  That's 100% not kosher by the OGL.  And there are very, very good reasons for that.  The OGL was never intended to allow you to make a D&D videogame, after all.  The whole PCGen saga shows that.

I think we're about to see a lot more very clear language about what is acceptable under the OGL than we saw in the past.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> So, you're fine with changing the OGL, so long as they change it in ways that you like?



yes, is that a surprise? I was even fine with some changes I did not like just a few posts up…

I am fine with all changes that make it more permissive / adapt to technological changes in a permissive way - which my change would be. I see no good reason to require it to be stored in human readable format rather than allowing it to be stored in any format but require the ability to extract that data to a human readable file. If you can think of one let me know and I might change my mind about this.


Hussar said:


> After all, as it stands, the OGL does not allow you do make a VTT using the SRD in such a way that you cannot read it.  That's 100% not kosher by the OGL.  And there are very, very good reasons for that.  The OGL was never intended to allow you to make a D&D videogame, after all.  The whole PCGen saga shows that.



and the WotC FAQ shows the opposite, otherwise they would not need to spell out conditions for it (use in software)

Not familiar with the PCGen saga…


Hussar said:


> I think we're about to see a lot more very clear language about what is acceptable under the OGL than we saw in the past.



euphemism for restrictive I take it, the OGL was pretty clear already


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> So, you're fine with changing the OGL, so long as they change it in ways that you like?
> 
> After all, as it stands, the OGL does not allow you do make a VTT using the SRD in such a way that you cannot read it.  That's 100% not kosher by the OGL.  And there are very, very good reasons for that.  The OGL was never intended to allow you to make a D&D videogame, after all.  The whole PCGen saga shows that.
> 
> I think we're about to see a lot more very clear language about what is acceptable under the OGL than we saw in the past.




Doesn't #42 in the FAQ say video games (and anything else) are ok in 1.0a?  They just have to be able to see, somehow, what open code.was used, right?



Morrus said:


> There’s a lot of misinformation here and elsewhere about the current Open Gaming License (things like “it prohibits software” - it does not; and plenty of other things).
> 
> Anybody can read the OGL. Much of the misinformation shows that some people haven’t actually looked at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Open Game License v0.1 Simplified
> 
> 
> 
> That aside, here’s a copy of WotC’s own FAQ about the OGL. Note a couple of things WotC themselves specifically say (not that the FAQ is the license — its terms are all self contained).
> 
> 1. The community can ignore updates to the listened and use older versions (see #7 below).
> 2. Software is not prohibited. (Neither are ice sculptures or musicals — the OGL does not and never has prohibited any format).
> 
> These were WotC’s interpretations of their own license at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?*
> 
> Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> —-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *12. Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?*
> 
> No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> —-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *42. I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?*
> 
> Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.
> 
> 
> 
> ——
> 
> *1. What is the Open Game License?*
> 
> The Open Game License (OGL) is a royalty free copyright license developed by Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> *2. Where can I read the text of the OGL?*
> 
> You can download the full text of the current version of the OGL here or here (12k RTF).
> 
> [[note those are old links now broken]]
> 
> *3. What are the penalties for violating the terms of the License?*
> 
> You are potentially liable to three groups of people, for various types of lawsuits.
> 
> First, you could be sued by anyone listed in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE section related to any Open Game Content you copied, modified or distributed. Second, you could be sued by anyone who receives Open Game Content from you and relies on you to ensure that your work conforms to the terms of the License who subsequently discovers problems with the Open Game Content they received from you. Third, you could be sued by someone with a copyright or trademark interest in the work you've distributed, even if you did so while relying on a previous publisher's representation that they had followed the terms of the License.
> 
> You could be sued for a copyright infringement, you could be sued for misuse of a trademark, you could be sued for breach of contract, and you could be sued for any number of torts related to those three actions.
> 
> If you have concerns about the scope of your liability under the Open Game License, you should consult with your legal counsel.
> 
> *4. Why does Wizards of the Coast hold the copyright to the license?*
> 
> Wizards of the Coast wrote the License and wants to control the right to make changes to the License in the future.
> 
> *5. Does Wizards of the Coast's copyright to the License mean that anything I publish using the License is owned by Wizards of the Coast?*
> 
> No. The copyright on the License pertains to the terms of the License itself, not to materials distributed using the License.
> 
> *6. How can I distribute the License if Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright to the License?*
> 
> Wizards of the Coast has granted a free and unrestricted right to distribute exact copies of the License.
> 
> *7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?*
> 
> Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
> 
> *8. The license is confusing and full of legal terms I don't understand. Is there a "plain English" version?*
> 
> No, there is not. The License has been drafted with specific legal language to withstand any reasonable court challenge. An effort to simplify the text might introduce errors or omissions that would distort the License and could mislead potential users. You should consult your legal counsel if you have any questions about how to use the OGL.
> 
> *9. What is "Open Game Content"?*
> 
> Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.
> 
> *10. What does "clearly identified" mean?*
> 
> It means that the publisher has a burden to use some system to identify Open Game Content to any recipient of that content. Systems which have been used by some publishers include placing Open Game Content in shaded boxes, using a different font, italicizing or bolding the Open Game Content, and segregating all the Open Game Content into specifically designated chapters or appendixes. Some publishers have released documents that are identified as being comprised completely of Open Game Content.
> 
> "Clearly identified" means that the system should pass the "reasonable person" test; meaning that a reasonable person should be able to determine what portions of a given work are Open Game Content, and which portions are not. If you can't figure out what parts of a given work are Open Game Content, provided you exert a reasonable effort to read and apply the instructions for identification provided by the publisher, then the material isn't Clearly Identified.
> 
> This also applies to software. A reasonable person should be able to look at a piece of software and find and understand the Open Content. WeÍll make a slight allowance that they may have to take a little more time to understand some things, but they should be able to see and understand all Open Content. See the Software FAQ for more details.
> 
> *11. What is "an enhancement over the prior art"?*
> 
> This term means that Open Game Content cannot be something that is in the public domain. The idea of a person using a sword and a shield, for example, is "prior art" - nobody can try to claim that such an idea is Open Game Content. Calling that person "Conan", and providing a detailed description of his physical features, history, manner of speaking, personality, equipment, and actions is an enhancement over the prior art. If something that is prior art appears in material that is clearly identified as Open Game Content, it isn't going to be treated as Open Game Content by the License. If you have questions about whether something identified as Open Game Content should be considered prior art, you should consult your legal counsel.
> 
> _Note:_ You could take original material that you own and have previously published, and license it with the OGL as Open Game Content, because you still own the copyright to that material and it is not considered to be prior art. Just because something has been published in the past doesn't mean that it is automatically considered to be prior art.
> 
> *12. Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?*
> 
> No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc.
> 
> Wizards, however, rarely releases Open Content that is not just mechanics.
> 
> *13. What is Product Identity?*
> 
> Product Identity is material, otherwise clearly identified as Open Game Content, that is excluded from the License terms that apply to Open Game Content. Product Identity usually includes trademarks and other Intellectual Property (characters, settings, etc.)
> 
> *14. How do I identify Product Identity?*
> 
> Product Identity must be "clearly identified" just like Open Game Content.
> 
> *15. If something is clearly identified as both Open Game Content and Product Identity in the same work, what is it?*
> 
> Product Identity.
> 
> *16. Can a work be derived from both Open Game Content and Product Identity?*
> 
> Yes, but since the Open Game License only gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute Open Game Content, unless you had a separate license from whomever owned the Product Identity, you cannot legally copy or distribute a work that contained such material without a separate agreement from the owners of the Product Identity.
> 
> *17. If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product Identity?*
> 
> No. Once content has been distributed as Open Game Content, it cannot become Product Identity, even if you are the original creator of the content.
> 
> *18. If I identify something as Product Identity, then in the future I distribute that material as Open Game Content, does the material become Open Game Content?*
> 
> Yes. By doing so, you will be relinquishing your claim that the material should be considered Product Identity.
> 
> *19. Say I wanted to publish some material that was formatted as in this example: "Character Name (Stat Block)." How do I keep the Product Identity separate from the Open Game Content?*
> 
> You could clearly identify the Character Name as Product Identity elsewhere in the work. Assuming that the stat block was derived from other Open Game Content, the stat block must be clearly identified as Open Game Content (it will be Open Game Content even if you don't clearly identify it, but you have the burden to identify such content when you distribute the work).
> 
> *20. In the example above, could I designate all the text as Open Game Content?*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *21. But that would mean that anyone else could use Character Name in his or her own material without my permission?*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?*
> 
> Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.
> 
> *23. What if I distribute material that is Open Game Content, but I don't affix a notice saying that the Open Game Content can only be Used in compliance with the OGL?*
> 
> You will have breached the terms of the License.
> 
> *24. Why can't any terms be added or subtracted from the License?*
> 
> This clause ensures that each person that you distribute Open Game Content to will get exactly the same rights that you received when you got the Open Game Content yourself. Note that this clause means you can't restrict others from adapting your Open Game Content, or limit who can distribute Open Game Content, or add any other restrictive term. Likewise, you can't alter the terms of the license to remove sections that you might find objectionable, like the Product Identity definition.
> 
> *25. Does this mean that someone could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, and then put it in a product and sell that product to someone else?*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *26. To be clear: Does this mean that Wizards of the Coast could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, put it into a Dungeons & Dragons product and make money off it?*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *27. And they wouldn't have to ask my permission or pay me a royalty?*
> 
> No, they would not.
> 
> *28. Isn't that pretty unfair?*
> 
> If you don't like the terms of the Open Game License, don't publish Open Game Content. Since the terms of the License are public knowledge, and they apply to everyone equally, including commercial publishers like Wizards of the Coast, your decision to use the Open Game License means that you consent to abide by its terms freely and without coercion. That's about as fair as anything ever gets.
> 
> *29. Does Wizards of the Coast get the copyright to my Open Game Content?*
> 
> No, they do not. When you distribute Open Game Content, you must assert a valid copyright either on your own behalf, or on the behalf of whoever does own the valid copyright on the material. You do so by adding your copyright information to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE section of the License when you distribute the License with your Open Game Content.
> 
> Wizards of the Coast has to follow the terms of the Open Game License just like anyone else. That means that if they want to use Open Game Content that isn't something they own outright or have a separate agreement with the copyright holder, they'll have to include a copy of the OGL in the work where they've used Open Game Content, they'll have to clearly identify what content is Open Game Content, and they'll have to preserve the COPYRIGHT NOTICE section of the OGL you used when you distributed your work originally. You will retain full copyright to your Open Game Content, regardless of who re-distributes it.
> 
> *30. What does "Acceptance" mean?*
> 
> It means that by Using Open Game Content, you agree to be bound by the terms of the Open Game License. In order for a contract to be valid and enforceable, there must be an Offer (in this case, the terms of the License), Acceptance (in this case, your agreement to be bound by the terms of the License), and Consideration (in this case, the right to Use Open Game Content).
> 
> *31. What if I clearly identify something as Open Game Content but I don't own the copyright to that material or have the permission of the copyright owner to do so?*
> 
> You will have breached Section 5, since you don't have Authority to Contribute. As a result, the material you clearly identified as Open Game Content does not become Open Game Content. The legal consequences of doing so could be quite dire. You should consult with your legal counsel to be sure that you have the Authority to Contribute anything you intend to distribute as Open Game Content.
> 
> *32. What is the COPYRIGHT NOTICE?*
> 
> The COPYRIGHT NOTICE is a specific part of the License itself, as opposed to a general copyright notice that might appear elsewhere in a given work. The License requires that you combine all the COPYRIGHT NOTICE sections of each Open Game License you are extracting or deriving Open Game Content from, and include the consolidated notice with the copy of the Open Game License you will be distributing.
> 
> This mechanism is the way that proper credit is retained for each person who contributed some work to the Open Gaming community. No matter how small the contribution, each and every COPYRIGHT NOTICE propagates forward.
> 
> *33. Why can't I indicate compatibility with a Trademark or a Registered Trademark?*
> 
> The Open Game License expands the control a Trademark owner has over your ability to use that Trademark beyond the restrictions normally allowed by trademark law. The explicit reason this clause is included in the Open Game License is to stop people from saying that their Open Game Content is compatible with *Dungeons & Dragons*, or any other Wizards of the Coast game, without getting permission from Wizards of the Coast first. Of course, the clause is generic, so you can't indicate compatibility with any other company's trademarks either unless you get their permission first.
> 
> *34. Doesn't this conflict with the definition of an Open Game?*
> 
> No, it does not. You are not restricted from freely copying, modifying or distributing the Open Game Content itself. Your freedom to Use the Open Game Content is not restricted, except to the extent that you cannot indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with someone else's Trademark or Registered Trademark.
> 
> The rationale behind this clause is related to the value of the material covered by the Open Game License. Companies (and individuals) spend a lot of time and effort to create and establish Trademarks that others recognize in the marketplace. By restricting your right to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with other people's Trademarks, the License recognizes that the value of those Trademarks is separate from the value of the Open Game Content itself. If you want to tap into the value represented by a given Trademark, you will need to negotiate a separate agreement with the Trademark holder for that privilege.
> 
> *35. My understanding of Trademark law is that it is legal for me to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark so long as I don't dilute the mark, confuse consumers about the ownership of the mark, or attempt to claim ownership of the mark. How can the OGL stop me from using a Trademark in a way that is otherwise completely legal?*
> 
> The terms of the Open Game License supercede the terms of general Trademark law. By agreeing to accept the Open Game License, gaining the benefit of the consideration of being able to use Open Game Content under the terms of the OGL, you limit certain other rights that you might otherwise have.
> 
> *36. What happens if I go ahead and indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark I don't have permission to use?*
> 
> You will be in breach of the Open Game License. You might also find yourself being sued by the owner of the trademark in question, under regular trademark law. If you have any question about your ability to use a Trademark owned by someone else, you should consult your legal counsel.
> 
> *37. I want to make a product that claims compatibility with someone else's Trademark, and uses Open Game Content. I'm going to put the Open Game Content in a separate booklet in a box, and only use the Trademark on the packaging on the box. Can I get away with this?*
> 
> No. The terms of the Open Game License extend to the whole work. If you have questions about the technical legal definition of a "work", consult your legal counsel.
> 
> *38. Do I really have to include a copy of the whole license when I distribute Open Game Content?*
> 
> Yes, you do.
> 
> *39. Can I include one copy of the license in a work with many separate portions that are Open Game Content?*
> 
> Yes, so long as the copy of the License you include contains a complete and full list of all the COPYRIGHT NOTICE sections from all the source material.
> 
> *40. What if I'm writing an email message or using a very small amount of Open Game Content?*
> 
> Technically, you are still required to include a copy of the License text. In the real world however, you are unlikely to be sued by someone over the use of Open Game Content in an email message or other trivial use if you fail to do so.
> 
> *41. I want to create a website that contains many different pages with Open Game Content. Do I have to include a copy of the License on every page?*
> 
> It will be sufficient to include a link on every page containing Open Game Content to one centralized copy of the License.
> 
> *42. I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?*
> 
> Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.
> 
> One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.
> 
> Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasnÍt studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used.




Doesn't PCGen use the OGL?



kenada said:


> History doesn’t support it either. I remember when PCGen had to relicense its datafiles under the OGL at the request of WotC. There was even a thread about it here. If the OGL were never meant for use with software, the PCGen developers would have had to remove the files completely.


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> Doesn't #42 in the FAQ say video games (and anything else) are ok in 1.0a? They just have to be able to see, somehow, what open code.was used, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't PCGen use the OGL?




Exactly. You need to make any ogl readable by a reasonable person. 

Fantasy Grounds, for example, couldn’t use the ogl since it’s .mod files are not person readable. 

I’m pretty sure that the files used by most vtt’s are not person readable. Which makes them non compliant with the ogl.


----------



## mamba

Hussar said:


> Exactly. You need to make any ogl readable by a reasonable person.
> 
> Fantasy Grounds, for example, couldn’t use the ogl since it’s .mod files are not person readable.
> 
> I’m pretty sure that the files used by most vtt’s are not person readable. Which makes them non compliant with the ogl.



not what you argued when you said it cannot be used for video games, you said it cannot, not you need to do X in order to do so



Hussar said:


> The OGL was never intended to allow you to make a D&D videogame, after all.  The whole PCGen saga shows that.



if this just means ‘a videogame has to contain the OGC in human readable form according to the OGL’ no one would have disagreed


----------



## mamba

duplicate


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Exactly. You need to make any ogl readable by a reasonable person.
> 
> Fantasy Grounds, for example, couldn’t use the ogl since it’s .mod files are not person readable.
> 
> I’m pretty sure that the files used by most vtt’s are not person readable. Which makes them non compliant with the ogl.



"One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs."

Couldn't they just include a button/hyperlink/whatever that opened a copy of whatever OGL content was being used by/contained in the program?  

Could they make the actual engine that used the OGL pieces product identity?


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> "One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs."
> 
> Couldn't they just include a button/hyperlink/whatever that opened a copy of whatever OGL content was being used by/contained in the program?
> 
> Could they make the actual engine that used the OGL pieces product identity?




You are asking the wrong person. I am nowhere near qualified to answer that question. 

But in my completely uninformed opinion, I don’t think so. That’s why vtts like Fantasy Grounds have separate licenses. 

I have no idea how other programs do it. I imagine that this very much might be a question that gets asked and looked at in the near future. 

After all, most vtts don’t come bundled with srd material. That’s generally added separately. I know that years ago when I used Maptool, the 4e framework I used was very, very likely not ogl compliant. 

But WotC has long looked the other way when it came to stuff like that. 

But with a WotC vtt on the horizon, I have strong suspicions that this is about to change.


----------



## Hussar

mamba said:


> not what you argued when you said it cannot be used for video games, you said it cannot, not you need to do X in order to do so
> 
> 
> if this is just means ‘a videogame has to contain the OGC in human readable form according to the OGL’ no one would have disagreed




Sorry. I assumed you were familiar with PCgen since it’s been talked about by @Nylamphs in this or another thread. Guess I should have been clearer.


----------



## glass

Sorry for the wall of quotes, but the thread exploded since last time I looked in. Reminds me of rules debates in the early 2000s.



Enevhar Aldarion said:


> That is nice and all, but this is starting to feel like the jump from 3.0 to 3.5.



For me, it is feeling a lot like they are trying to combine the worst features of the 3.0 => 3.5 transition and the 3.5 => 4e transition.



J.Quondam said:


> Well, at least wait to see what the actual license is before making a rash decision.



Absolutely not. The time to kick up a fuss is _now_, while there is still time to change WotC's plans.



Alzrius said:


> If the new stuff is released under an iteration of the Open Game License (which is what WotC's press release is making it sound like, calling it OGL v1.1 and all), then the Section 9 from the existing versions of the OGL will apply. If they make a new license, though, then the OGL wouldn't apply.



If that were true, there is absolutely zero point in releasing OGL 1.1. That alone is reason to suspect that there is a way around that (or at least WotC's lawyer's believe that they have found such a way - and if they say so who is going to be able to afford to argue with them).



vecna00 said:


> The sky doesn't seem to be falling.



_Gives the middle a hug - it is feeling excluded_ Of course the sky is not falling, we are talking elfgames not curing cancer. That said, despite the sky staying where it is, there is plenty of scope for this to be a Really Bad Thing.



Olaf the Stout said:


> I’m assuming there’s some sort of benefit to using the new OGL?



None announced yet. Presumably they have something in mind, but I fail to see how anything could be worth it.



Remathilis said:


> Are you a publisher of third party content that makes over 50k in sales annually?



It affects a lot more than that. It affects the thinking of anyone who might make 50k at any point in the future, up to and including anyone who has not made a damn thing yet.



Morrus said:


> Football. All you need is one ball.



...and a non-trivial amount of space (much more than a gaming table takes up).



Hussar said:


> "And what we know for certain right now is that their intention is for OneD&D to be less open than 5th Edition."
> 
> We _know _no such thing. We might speculate that this might be true.



We absolutely know exactly that because WotC just publicly announced said intention.



Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open?



Definitionally and utterly.



HammerMan said:


> Also the AI algorithm for social media is taking the info in your phone/computer and what you look at on there and what you “like” to inform itself of what you will stay to watch/read and what you will “like” and gives you more of that. So yes all social media is an echo chamber.



It's not quite that. Algorithmic social media show you things they think you will have a strong reaction to - that includes things they think you will really like, but also things they think you will really hate.



Prime_Evil said:


> Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?



AFAICT it makes no difference to anyone using OGL 1.0A. Obviously it would make using OGL 1.1 for such products really weird, if not _technically_ impossible.



Greg Benage said:


> No, I mean it's a risk for Wizards/Hasbro that someone will uses 1.0/a to clone 5e.



Somebody kinda already did. And WotC's current actions make a more direct clone all the more likely IMNSHO.



Hussar said:


> And, we have no idea what the question might actually be. It could be as simple as, "Did you make more than 50k in sales last year? Y/N" Followed by "Did you have sales of more than 750 k? Y/N"



We know that that it is going to be a lot more than that, because the announcement includes telling them what you are going to sell, not just what you sold.



Hussar said:


> There’s no point buying into the negative narrative beforehand.



"Beforehand" of what? We are not "before" the announcement. And "before" the license itself is, again, exactly when to kick up a fuss.



Hussar said:


> Requiring sales reporting =/= closed license.



Once again, that is exactly what it equals. And not just in my opinion, the Open Gaming Foundation agrees with my definition. But what do they know?


----------



## Nylanfs

glass said:


> Once again, that is exactly what it equals. And not just in my opinion, the Open Gaming Foundation agrees with my definition. But what do they know?



There's a group I haven't heard of in a LONG time.


----------



## DEFCON 1

There's another big thing I think we need to remember as we discuss all of this and whether OGL 1.1 is "necessary" is that from our limited vision thus far of the playtest packets... the "change" of the game from 5E to the 2024 edit will not be the same massive overhaul of mechanics and presentation that was 3.5 to 4E.  Rather, from all indications it will be closer to the change of 3E to 3.5.

What does that mean?  Well, first it means that we and WotC don't need to worry about a "new Pathfinder" cropping up... because the 2024 game won't be substantially different enough for there to be a gap for a "new Pathfinder" to find a place between the two 5E rulesets and blow up like Paizo's did.  In fact we actually already have a potential "new Pathfinder" game already released... _Level Up_... that took 5E and really built and re-built upon the foundation of 2014 5E just like Pathfinder built and re-built upon the 3.5 foundation.  But we have not seen that game achieve the same level of ubiquity and social cache that PF did, and I personally would doubt at this point it will grow even bigger by the time 2024 is released to really be seen as the "new Pathfinder"... nor do I think someone could release a "new 2014 5E" using the OGL 1.0a and make it distinguishable enough from both Level Up and the 2024 book to become a "new Pathfinder" either.  I could be wrong about that of course... but I personally do not see the potential changes of 2024 being so great that another book that attempts to "fix and expand" the 2014 one being all that different than what 2024 will give us.

So with that being said... that from our limited vision of what the 2024 changes might look like it will probably be setting itself up to only as much as the 3.5 change or perhaps the "3.75" change that Pathfinder was... the game itself will still operate on the true mathematical foundation of 5E.  Which means indeed that anything that was designed for 5E previously will probably still work pretty well with the 2024 changes.  And that also means that anything that is made now _or_ later could most likely still use the 1.0a OGL and 5E SRD and work absolutely okay with whatever 2024 looks like.  Even something like a "monster book"... just how much of a change in monster design, mechanics, presentation, and terminology are we going to see that would make 2024 require someone to use the 1.1 OGL to make their book actually work with the game?  Personally, I don't think we will see much at all-- not if WotC really sticks to the idea that their old 5E books will be compatible too.  The mathematical underpinnings of the 2024 book remaining the same more or less to the 2014 book in order to assure compatibility means that people will still be able to make their stuff using the 5E SRD and have it fit the "new paradigm" of the 2024 book with little to no issue.  After all... if WotC wants their older books to still work with the 2024 book... anyone who creates a new book that works like WotC's old ones do can be assured of compatibility too.

As a result... it again all comes down to what a publisher can gain from using the OGL 1.1 for anything new they create that they wouldn't be able to get by just using 1.0a?  It is a question that I have no doubt the folks at WotC have already looked into and argued about substantially, and have had communication from the D&D team specifically.  They all know what happened with the GSL.  They know that they did not have anything in place that would make publishers _want_ to follow it for 4E other than the "cache" of working with the newest edition of D&D.  But as WotC discovered... cache doesn't pay the bills.  So there was no real financial gain for publishers to use the GSL, especially when they had to give up so many of their rights to do so.  I have to imagine at least one person over at WotC has made this argument, and thus everyone over there knows that for 1.1 to actually be used, WotC would need to make it _financially advantageous_ to the 3PPs to do so.  If those 3PPs are going to give up so many of their rights to use it... WotC 1.1 better make it really worth their while.

And how do they do that?  I think there's only one real way-- turn D&D Beyond into their own "DMs Guild".  A "DM's Guild" book sale repository that WotC owns and controls themselves.  One that has the most important thing that publishers _and players_ might want... full compatibility and use within the *3D VTT* that WotC is trying to put together.  WotC I think is banking on their 3D VTT that runs off of Beyond is going to truly be the "next big thing"... and if it does and it gets used and incorporated by a substantial part of the D&D Community... then yes, they will be able to dictate terms to any companies that may want in on that action.  "You want your book of alternate rules to be able to be used within our 3D VTT?  Then you have to build those rules under the 1.1 license.  And you'll be able to sell your book to consumers through D&D Beyond as well."

THAT I believe is the only "perk" that would warrant Third Party Publishers to actually create product under 1.1-- to have their materially fully integrated into D&D Beyond and their 3D VTT.  Because those 3PPs will get more exposure of their products to consumers if Beyond and the VTT blow up like WotC thinks/hopes it will.  And maybe that additional exposure and sales will be worth the potential "poison pills" WotC ends up putting into their 1.1 OGL.

But really... like everyone else I am just spitballing here.  Just making the best guesstimations of what most likely could be reasons for things to be playing out as they have been.  Hell, for all I know there really are schmucks at WotC corporate and Hasbro corporate that did not learn from the GSL fiasco and who really think they can just create a new GSL-like thing in 1.1 and that publishers will still use it.  Hopefully the feet on the ground at WotC will be able to disabuse them of that notion fairly quickly, because if they don't-- then WotC really will deserve the tomatoes thrown at them.


----------



## Greg Benage

glass said:


> Somebody kinda already did. And WotC's current actions make a more direct clone all the more likely IMNSHO.




Yeah, I’ve seen this comment a few times and I don’t think it holds up at all. Lots of people might prefer Level Up to 5e or to 1D&D, but I don’t think anyone chooses Level Up because they’re happy with 5e and don’t want to make the move to 1D&D. From what we’ve seen, Level Up is a bigger change from 5e than 1D&D is (perhaps to its credit IMO).

@Morrus might be the publisher in the best position to do a 5.25 “simple” cleanup and rebalancing of 5e, though. I’d back a Kickstarter.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Greg Benage said:


> Yeah, I’ve seen this comment a few times and I don’t think it holds up at all. Lots of people might prefer Level Up to 5e or to 1D&D, but I don’t think anyone chooses Level Up because they’re happy with 5e and don’t want to make the move to 1D&D. From what we’ve seen, Level Up is a bigger change from 5e than 1D&D is (perhaps to its credit IMO).
> 
> @Morrus might be the publisher in the best position to do a 5.25 “simple” cleanup and rebalancing of 5e, though. I’d back a Kickstarter.



True.  I like Level Up because it does 5e's job for me better (way, way better) than WotC.  If WotC disappeared tomorrow I honestly at this point wouldn't miss them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

*Mod Note:*

People, can we tone down the hyperbole and (mild) personal attacks?  I came in here for one report, but I’m seeing _several_ posters veering into moddable posting behaviors.


----------



## Zardnaar

DEFCON 1 said:


> There's another big thing I think we need to remember as we discuss all of this and whether OGL 1.1 is "necessary" is that from our limited vision thus far of the playtest packets... the "change" of the game from 5E to the 2024 edit will not be the same massive overhaul of mechanics and presentation that was 3.5 to 4E.  Rather, from all indications it will be closer to the change of 3E to 3.5.
> 
> What does that mean?  Well, first it means that we and WotC don't need to worry about a "new Pathfinder" cropping up... because the 2024 game won't be substantially different enough for there to be a gap for a "new Pathfinder" to find a place between the two 5E rulesets and blow up like Paizo's did.  In fact we actually already have a potential "new Pathfinder" game already released... _Level Up_... that took 5E and really built and re-built upon the foundation of 2014 5E just like Pathfinder built and re-built upon the 3.5 foundation.  But we have not seen that game achieve the same level of ubiquity and social cache that PF did, and I personally would doubt at this point it will grow even bigger by the time 2024 is released to really be seen as the "new Pathfinder"... nor do I think someone could release a "new 2014 5E" using the OGL 1.0a and make it distinguishable enough from both Level Up and the 2024 book to become a "new Pathfinder" either.  I could be wrong about that of course... but I personally do not see the potential changes of 2024 being so great that another book that attempts to "fix and expand" the 2014 one being all that different than what 2024 will give us.
> 
> So with that being said... that from our limited vision of what the 2024 changes might look like it will probably be setting itself up to only as much as the 3.5 change or perhaps the "3.75" change that Pathfinder was... the game itself will still operate on the true mathematical foundation of 5E.  Which means indeed that anything that was designed for 5E previously will probably still work pretty well with the 2024 changes.  And that also means that anything that is made now _or_ later could most likely still use the 1.0a OGL and 5E SRD and work absolutely okay with whatever 2024 looks like.  Even something like a "monster book"... just how much of a change in monster design, mechanics, presentation, and terminology are we going to see that would make 2024 require someone to use the 1.1 OGL to make their book actually work with the game?  Personally, I don't think we will see much at all-- not if WotC really sticks to the idea that their old 5E books will be compatible too.  The mathematical underpinnings of the 2024 book remaining the same more or less to the 2014 book in order to assure compatibility means that people will still be able to make their stuff using the 5E SRD and have it fit the "new paradigm" of the 2024 book with little to no issue.  After all... if WotC wants their older books to still work with the 2024 book... anyone who creates a new book that works like WotC's old ones do can be assured of compatibility too.
> 
> As a result... it again all comes down to what a publisher can gain from using the OGL 1.1 for anything new they create that they wouldn't be able to get by just using 1.0a?  It is a question that I have no doubt the folks at WotC have already looked into and argued about substantially, and have had communication from the D&D team specifically.  They all know what happened with the GSL.  They know that they did not have anything in place that would make publishers _want_ to follow it for 4E other than the "cache" of working with the newest edition of D&D.  But as WotC discovered... cache doesn't pay the bills.  So there was no real financial gain for publishers to use the GSL, especially when they had to give up so many of their rights to do so.  I have to imagine at least one person over at WotC has made this argument, and thus everyone over there knows that for 1.1 to actually be used, WotC would need to make it _financially advantageous_ to the 3PPs to do so.  If those 3PPs are going to give up so many of their rights to use it... WotC 1.1 better make it really worth their while.
> 
> And how do they do that?  I think there's only one real way-- turn D&D Beyond into their own "DMs Guild".  A "DM's Guild" book sale repository that WotC owns and controls themselves.  One that has the most important thing that publishers _and players_ might want... full compatibility and use within the *3D VTT* that WotC is trying to put together.  WotC I think is banking on their 3D VTT that runs off of Beyond is going to truly be the "next big thing"... and if it does and it gets used and incorporated by a substantial part of the D&D Community... then yes, they will be able to dictate terms to any companies that may want in on that action.  "You want your book of alternate rules to be able to be used within our 3D VTT?  Then you have to build those rules under the 1.1 license.  And you'll be able to sell your book to consumers through D&D Beyond as well."
> 
> THAT I believe is the only "perk" that would warrant Third Party Publishers to actually create product under 1.1-- to have their materially fully integrated into D&D Beyond and their 3D VTT.  Because those 3PPs will get more exposure of their products to consumers if Beyond and the VTT blow up like WotC thinks/hopes it will.  And maybe that additional exposure and sales will be worth the potential "poison pills" WotC ends up putting into their 1.1 OGL.
> 
> But really... like everyone else I am just spitballing here.  Just making the best guesstimations of what most likely could be reasons for things to be playing out as they have been.  Hell, for all I know there really are schmucks at WotC corporate and Hasbro corporate that did not learn from the GSL fiasco and who really think they can just create a new GSL-like thing in 1.1 and that publishers will still use it.  Hopefully the feet on the ground at WotC will be able to disabuse them of that notion fairly quickly, because if they don't-- then WotC really will deserve the tomatoes thrown at them.




 The other perk us also OneD&D not being OGL but OGL 1.1. there's no poison pill it seems as it's not stopping you using OGL. 

 Theoretically they avoid the pitfalls of Pathfinder. 

1. 5E is a lot bigger than 3.5 I assume they want make it bigger. 

2. OGL 1.1 isn't the GSL 2.0. 

3. 1D&D is evolutionary not revolutionary. Less blowback than 4E theoretically. More mature social media now though. 

4. There's no publisher with the prestige of Paizo in 2007 and the mailing lists of Dragon and Dungeon subscribers. From memory 2/3 switched to Paizo. 

 I'm indifferent to 1D&D's fate. Smash hit or bomb its a big meh either way.

 The carrot could be "want access to 1D&D bend the knee". If you don't feel free to use the OGL. It's also the stick.


----------



## vecna00

glass said:


> _Gives the middle a hug - it is feeling excluded_ Of course the sky is not falling, we are talking elfgames not curing cancer. That said, despite the sky staying where it is, there is plenty of scope for this to be a Really Bad Thing.



And there is more of a chance for it to be fine, as I said in the other part of my post that was left out of the quote.

If thinking everything will be fine is the middle is the "middle," then call it what makes you happy I suppose. I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.


----------



## mamba

vecna00 said:


> I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.



what would be something bad actually happening?


----------



## Morrus

vecna00 said:


> And there is more of a chance for it to be fine, as I said in the other part of my post that was left out of the quote.
> 
> If thinking everything will be fine is the middle is the "middle," then call it what makes you happy I suppose. I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.



I guess that depends on what you define as a bad thing and how invested in third party content you are.


----------



## vecna00

Morrus said:


> I guess that depends on what you define as a bad thing and how invested in third party content you are.





mamba said:


> what would be something bad actually happening?



Realistically, I don't see anything that bad happening.  Worst case scenario that I can imagine is there will be creators who will not move to the next iteration. They probably won't lose a significant amount of money because their stuff can still be converted to One D&D. Or in some cases, no conversions will be needed because they're just selling a setting book with nothing that needs converting.

Hyperbolically, Wizards could just sue anyone who doesn't move to the next iteration. I don't see that happening, we're not that dystopian.

Mind you, I'm only slightly invested in third-party content. I don't know where I sit on the spectrum for that. I've backed some Kickstarters, but I end up not using 95% of it. The exception being Everyday Heroes, because my old Modern group is on board for going back to that game and using the new ruleset.


----------



## mamba

vecna00 said:


> Realistically, I don't see anything that bad happening.



that wasn't my question  What would be bad enough in your opinion for you to be convinced otherwise and see this as a "Really Bad Thing" ?


----------



## vecna00

mamba said:


> that wasn't my question  What would be bad enough in your opinion for you to be convinced otherwise and see this as a "Really Bad Thing" ?



Did...did you read the rest of the post?


----------



## mamba

vecna00 said:


> Did...did you read the rest of the post?



yes, I did not see you spell it out, unless it is the suing everyone part that you doubt will happen. I dismissed it because you said hyperbolically. Is the answer 'nothing' because you do not care about 3PP anyway ? Maybe it's me, but I see no clear answer to my question (otherwise I would not have followed up  )


----------



## vecna00

mamba said:


> yes, I did not see you spell it out, unless it is the suing everyone part that you doubt will happen. I dismissed it because you said hyperbolically. Is the answer 'nothing' because you do not care about 3PP anyway ? Maybe it's me, but I see no clear answer to my question (otherwise I would not have followed up  )





vecna00 said:


> Hyperbolically, Wizards could just sue anyone who doesn't move to the next iteration. I don't see that happening, we're not that dystopian.


----------



## mamba

vecna00 said:


> Hyperbolically, Wizards could just sue anyone who doesn't move to the next iteration. I don't see that happening, we're not that dystopian.



At this point I am not really ruling this out, or rather I think they can accomplish this with merely threatening it.
They’ll be nice about it and sound non-threatening, but it will have the same chilling effect, something like ‘It is in WotC’s best interest to ensure that the content we release under OGL 1.1 remains under 1.1 and does not make it into 1.0a products. We will therefore monitor new releases under 1.0a closely and take action where we feel is appropriate. WotC strongly recommends 3PPs switch to the new OGL 1.1 to avoid potential legal actions.’

I also find it likely that 1.1 will have a poison pill again, i.e. you have to switch over if you want to use it and they will have to come up with some incentive for anyone to use it (or maybe the carrot turns out to just be a bigger stick)


----------



## Art Waring

vecna00 said:


> And there is more of a chance for it to be fine, as I said in the other part of my post that was left out of the quote.
> 
> If thinking everything will be fine is the middle is the "middle," then call it what makes you happy I suppose. I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.



I have already said my piece on the new ogl, but I just wanted to remind folks that while the final draft has not been released, there is still time for them to make changes right now before it is released.

I think that right now, rather than later after the release is likely the best time to voice your concerns, because they may be more likely to listen now than later. Once the final draft is released, it will likely be much harder to effect any change.

Furthermore, while I don't think the sky is falling, I also don't think this is 100% benign either. For better or worse, this will likely have an affect on the entire industry. What affect that is, is yet to be determined.

If we don't at least voice our concerns now, what chance do we have of changing anything?


----------



## Umbran

overgeeked said:


> ...what absolute nonsense.




*Mod note:*
So you are aware, this tone is not generally persuasive, and tends to increase conflict.  

Maybe choose your tone to be more constructive?  Give it a thought.


----------



## Dausuul

Zardnaar said:


> 2. OGL 1.1 isn't the GSL 2.0.



If the recent leak proves accurate (and I grant that there are some reasons to be skeptical), the GSL 2.0 is exactly what it is.


----------



## Zardnaar

Dausuul said:


> If the recent leak proves accurate (and I grant that there are some reasons to be skeptical), the GSL 2.0 is exactly what it is.




 Yup if they're accurate or somewhat accurate.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

This is the time I am starting to get worried. Not because of the exact terms, but the general ill will this might incide. That all might be objectively unproblematic. But subjectively it would be and with a very bad timing.


----------



## Voadam

Dausuul said:


> If the recent leak proves accurate (and I grant that there are some reasons to be skeptical), the GSL 2.0 is exactly what it is.



A difference would be that the GSL was a non OGL license trying (in its first incarnation) to poison pill use of the OGL. The eventual revised GSL license that was actually used by some was just a separate explicitly revocable non-OGL license that did not interact with the OGL.

 The 1.1 as leaked is apparently trying to monkeywrench use of the 1.0 OGL through the OGL using an OGL revision and "de-authorization."


----------



## darjr

As far as the PR on this? It looks like it’s breaking out and out of wotcs control now. Yesterday my gaming group had no idea what I was talking about , even the couple few that follow this stuff.

Today? It’s breaking out in Facebook in groups that normally quash this kind of stuff.


----------



## wingsandsword

So, the OGL 1.1 now supposedly "deauthorizes" all prior versions of the OGL, supposedly meaning nobody can use the old version.

Needless to say, I'm seeing a meltdown elsewhere on social media about this.

So, the question comes, can a new version of the OGL really rescind authorization for an older version of the license?


----------



## Art Waring

darjr said:


> As far as the PR on this? It looks like it’s breaking out and out of wotcs control now. Yesterday my gaming group had no idea what I was talking about , even the couple few that follow this stuff.
> 
> Today? It’s breaking out in Facebook in groups that normally quash this kind of stuff.



the 5e reddit channel is cutting or blocking any posts talking about the new 1.1 OGL, and blocking posts linking videos talking about the subject, possibly at the request of wotc.

Ironically, there are several conversations about it on the PF2e reddit, and no moderation at all...


----------



## wingsandsword

Art Waring said:


> the 5e reddit channel is cutting or blocking any posts talking about the new 1.1 OGL, and blocking posts linking videos talking about the subject, possibly at the request of wotc.



The D&D subreddit r/DnD is absolutely blowing up about the topic at this moment.

I'm bowing out because too many amateur lawyers are trying to be instant experts at IP law about the OGL right now.


----------



## Zardnaar

wingsandsword said:


> The D&D subreddit r/DnD is absolutely blowing up about the topic at this moment.
> 
> I'm bowing out because too many amateur lawyers are trying to be instant experts at IP law about the OGL right now.




 Way I look at it is the OGL can go bye bye if WotC can convince a court to let it go bye bye. 

 Until that case is won or lost I wouldn't use absolutes.


----------



## darjr

Art Waring said:


> the 5e reddit channel is cutting or blocking any posts talking about the new 1.1 OGL, and blocking posts linking videos talking about the subject, possibly at the request of wotc.
> 
> Ironically, there are several conversations about it on the PF2e reddit, and no moderation at all...



Ironically dndleaks in Reddit is not a fan.


----------



## Scribe




----------



## Ruin Explorer

Art Waring said:


> the 5e reddit channel is cutting or blocking any posts talking about the new 1.1 OGL, and blocking posts linking videos talking about the subject, possibly at the request of wotc.



You mean /r/dndnext?

That's the main 5E reddit. If so this no longer seems to be the case.

I'm looking at it right now and the top 10 (!!!) non-pinned threads relate directly to OGL 1.1

Earlier they kept modding OGL 1.1 threads and saying they should be on the 1D&D reddit, but it seems like they caught a clue that the deauthorization stuff would slap 5E in the face as well.


----------



## Art Waring

Ruin Explorer said:


> You mean /r/dndnext?
> 
> That's the main 5E reddit. If so this no longer seems to be the case.
> 
> I'm looking at it right now and the top 10 (!!!) non-pinned threads relate directly to OGL 1.1
> 
> Earlier they kept modding OGL 1.1 threads and saying they should be on the 1D&D reddit, but it seems like they caught a clue that the deauthorization stuff would slap 5E in the face as well.



Yeah that was yesterday, things are moving so fast that yesterday is looking like last month already.

Hopefully people realize now what's at stake.


----------



## Greg Benage

The problem with both Reddit and the #OpenDnD posts on Twitter is that reading them is akin to a frontal lobotomy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> The problem with both Reddit and the #OpenDnD posts on Twitter is that reading them is akin to a frontal lobotomy.



I have already blocked people for sounding like comicsgate or worse with that hashtag...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> The problem with both Reddit and the #OpenDnD posts on Twitter is that reading them is akin to a frontal lobotomy.



Reddit isn't too bad on this sort of thing. It's when you're trying to discuss more straightforward D&D issues that it tends to get into "god have you even played D&D?" sort of territory. Like people telling you they're expert DMs who run multiple games a week, and yet somehow they don't even know really basic 5E rules (but their understanding does sound suspiciously like 3E lol).

I don't know what's with the #OpenDnD hashtag but yeah right now there is definitely a strong association between that and posts which actively cause brain damage and not even in a fun way. I'm very glad I only read Twitter, never post.


----------



## phloogie

A couple of things:  People keep saying that if there is enough backlash Hasbro will relent.  But what does that get you?   The issue is - unless this leak is 100% false - that they THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.   So if they make a PR move and back off, then a hundred small companies will leap in, make a bunch of great content, and whenever they want to Hasbro can take it all, or change the rules again.  The fact that they even consider this okay should make everyone immediately seek other games.   The other interesting thing for me is that even if we somehow accept that by the CONTRACT language they can de-authorize the OGL1.0 and 1.0a, they have spent 20 years, through official reps like Dancey, telling people this would NEVER happen, and many individuals and businesses in good faith took these statements and made investments.  All provisions of the OGL aside, it sure sounds like consumer fraud - a company making false statements to impact decisions by others.


----------



## South by Southwest

wingsandsword said:


> The D&D subreddit r/DnD is absolutely blowing up about the topic at this moment.
> 
> I'm bowing out because too many amateur lawyers are trying to be instant experts at IP law about the OGL right now.



My sister is a top-level corporate IP lawyer with the income to prove it, and the very first thing I learned from her one Thanksgiving was that this stuff is insanely complicated, uncertain, and hard to predict.

My inference: If someone is holding forth on this issue with confident predictions about how an actual judge would actually rule, they're probably not an actual IP lawyer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

South by Southwest said:


> My inference: If someone is holding forth on this issue with confident predictions about how an actual judge would actually rule, they're probably not an actual IP lawyer.



I don't think anyone has, though. In fact pretty much all the lawyers have said it's hard to call.


----------



## South by Southwest

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think anyone has, though. In fact pretty much all the lawyers have said it's hard to call.



Oh, no--I didn't mean on here; I meant on the referenced Subreddit.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

South by Southwest said:


> Oh, no--I didn't mean on here; I meant on the referenced Subreddit.



OH yeah wow that's a very different story lol.


----------



## Alzrius

phloogie said:


> The fact that they even consider this okay should make everyone immediately seek other games.



Seeking other games is kind of what I'm trying to avoid, though. I want a robust field of OGL publishers who will keep supporting the non-D&D OGL game(s) that I already enjoy. 

I agree that WotC thinking this is a good idea has bad implications that, even if they turn around and announce tomorrow that they're dropping all of this OGL v1.1 nonsense, will still make them look incredibly bad. But at this point that still seems like the best possible option, even if you can't fully un-crinkle a crumpled piece of paper.


----------



## rcade

As someone who was on the OGF-L mailing list when Ryan Dancey announced the original release of the Open Gaming License and System Reference Document in 2000, I can't believe Hasbro thinks it has the power to remove the right to publish a quarter century of works released under OGL 1.0.

Thousands of works were created under OGL 1.0 by people and companies who relied on it being valid forever. Many of those works inspired derivative works of their own. This interpretation was actively encouraged by Dancey and WOTC for decades.

The idea that Wizards could do a Thanos finger snap and deauthorize the entire corpus of OGL 1.0-licensed work is obscene.


----------



## Micah Sweet

phloogie said:


> A couple of things:  People keep saying that if there is enough backlash Hasbro will relent.  But what does that get you?   The issue is - unless this leak is 100% false - that they THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.   So if they make a PR move and back off, then a hundred small companies will leap in, make a bunch of great content, and whenever they want to Hasbro can take it all, or change the rules again.  The fact that they even consider this okay should make everyone immediately seek other games.   The other interesting thing for me is that even if we somehow accept that by the CONTRACT language they can de-authorize the OGL1.0 and 1.0a, they have spent 20 years, through official reps like Dancey, telling people this would NEVER happen, and many individuals and businesses in good faith took these statements and made investments.  All provisions of the OGL aside, it sure sounds like consumer fraud - a company making false statements to impact decisions by others.



Yeah.  Regardless of how this turns out, if the leak isn't 100% fake (which seems very unlikely), WotC has lost all credibility with me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah.  Regardless of how this turns out, if the leak isn't 100% fake (which seems very unlikely), WotC has lost all credibility with me.



I bet they ddidn't have much to begin with... but between this and the GSL back in 4e I bet it destroys the 3pp moral even IF it is taken back


----------



## South by Southwest

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah.  Regardless of how this turns out, if the leak isn't 100% fake (which seems very unlikely), WotC has lost all credibility with me.



That's where I suspect the real damage to the brand might occur. I mean, I'm not in any of the rooms relevant to these decisions, so my suspicion really is nothing better than a hunch/suspicion, but the P.R. issue is the one where I see the heavy internet noise since this leaked. My further suspicion is the really serious closed-door conversations right now are about this, not about the legalities.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Basically everyone who was building in their ecosystem and feeding the impression that the 5e system was the only game in town is now sent scrambling to forge their D&D killer even if in the short term they might take the deal. And it's not like 5e was exactly a Halo in the first place. Excellent planning!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> the impression that the 5e system was the only game in town



if ANY good comes of this, it may be more variety in games again... you know IF this doesn't sink everyone's favorite creators or force them into other fields


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah.  Regardless of how this turns out, if the leak isn't 100% fake (which seems very unlikely), WotC has lost all credibility with me.



That does not sound that much of a threat...
although yes, I am really awaiting how the final draft looks like... the leak does not look great... far away from great.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> if ANY good comes of this, it may be more variety in games again... you know IF this doesn't sink everyone's favorite creators or force them into other fields



My favorite 3PP creators appear to be in the crosshairs, so its not good for them or for me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> My favorite 3PP creators appear to be in the crosshairs, so its not good for them or for me.



I was very pleased to note none of the recent Sin Nomine stuff is OGL, including the "Without Number" books. I was sweating a bit over Cities Without Number until then!


----------



## Nikosandros

South by Southwest said:


> That's where I suspect the real damage to the brand might occur. I mean, I'm not in any of the rooms relevant to these decisions, so my suspicion really is nothing better than a hunch/suspicion, but the P.R. issue is the one where I see the heavy internet noise since this leaked. My further suspicion is the really serious closed-door conversations right now are about this, not about the legalities.



I wonder if the people who took the decisions behind OGL 1.1 were so oblivious as not to expect the reactions from the community.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Nikosandros said:


> I wonder if the people who took the decisions behind OGL 1.1 were so oblivious as not to expect the reactions from the community.



At this point, it seems entirely likely to me that they just don't care.


----------



## Nikosandros

Micah Sweet said:


> At this point, it seems entirely likely to me that they just don't care.



That's quite possible, unfortunately.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> At this point, it seems entirely likely to me that they just don't care.



I suspect the anticipated success of the upcoming D&D movie is making the corporate decisions shortsightedly greedy and callous.


----------



## Yaarel

In a way, Hasbro is doing an other example of exploiting artists: here, the creativity of D&D players everywhere who are the artists who made D&D appealing and popular.


----------



## overgeeked

Nikosandros said:


> I wonder if the people who took the decisions behind OGL 1.1 were so oblivious as not to expect the reactions from the community.



I think it's more that they knew the reaction would be resoundingly negative which is why they went to the top 3PP creators and at least tried to strike deals with them under an NDA before the news broke. If they have the lion's share of the big 3PP on side, the general fan reaction would be irrelevant. The main game and some subset of 3PP are already going to be 1.1...so a few screaming fans will make some noise but ultimately follow the the brand and the big 3PP into 1.1. Or they splinter and form another tiny minority who play older games. Doesn't really matter. It happens every edition.

ETA: This is me trying to express what I think the higher ups were thinking, not my thoughts on it.


----------



## Nikosandros

overgeeked said:


> I think it's more that they knew the reaction would be resoundingly negative which is why they went to the top 3PP creators and at least tried to strike deals with them under an NDA before the news broke. If they have the lion's share of the big 3PP on side, the general fan reaction would be irrelevant. The main game and some subset of 3PP are already going to be 1.1...so a few screaming fans will make some noise but ultimately follow the the brand and the big 3PP into 1.1. Or they splinter and form another tiny minority who play older games. Doesn't really matter. It happens every edition.
> 
> ETA: This is me trying to express what I think the higher ups were thinking, not my thoughts on it.



Yes, it will be interesting to see how the major 3P players will move in the coming months.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> My favorite 3PP creators appear to be in the crosshairs, so its not good for them or for me.



again my biggest concern is for people paying bills not people playing the game... but if you read what I wrote IF ANY GOOD... not "Damn this is good"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> In a way, Hasbro is doing an other example of exploiting artists: here, the creativity of D&D players everywhere who are the artists who made D&D appealing and popular.



I mean not any more then TSR did. Or Piazo does, or any other game maker.

The gaming community grew 1e and 2e IN SPITE of them sueing anyone that looked at an ampersand. 3e grew but not by a ton as they opened the game. 4e and the begining of 5e didn't see the spike... but right around the time CR was getting famus, Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things brought D&D back to everyones mind and a big NERD expeosion in pop culture happened we also go hit by a series of social lock downs...

D&D benefited from alot of those things. Who knows what caught the lightning in the bottle.


----------



## MockingBird

Even IGN is getting in on the backlash


----------



## overgeeked

MockingBird said:


> Even IGN is getting in on the backlash











						Wizards of the Coast OGL Change Draws Ire From Creators and Fans Alike: 'It's Not Right' - IGN
					

The tabletop industry looks to be undergoing a seismic shift based on leaked documents showing that Wizards of the Coast intends to implement a more restricted Open Gaming License (OGL) agreement, drawing the ire of fans and creators alike.




					www.ign.com


----------



## MockingBird

overgeeked said:


> Wizards of the Coast OGL Change Draws Ire From Creators and Fans Alike: 'It's Not Right' - IGN
> 
> 
> The tabletop industry looks to be undergoing a seismic shift based on leaked documents showing that Wizards of the Coast intends to implement a more restricted Open Gaming License (OGL) agreement, drawing the ire of fans and creators alike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ign.com



Thank you! I couldn't post the link at the moment.


----------

