# Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1.



Morrus, the link you've posted goes to the Youtube video. The link to the OGL v1.1 is as follows:



			http://ogl.battlezoo.com/


----------



## Stalker0

Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?

As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.


----------



## Nikosandros

Stalker0 said:


> Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?
> 
> As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.



This is the document that WotC sent to 3Ps (except those that got a "custom" version") with attached contract. It is rumored that Wizards might revise it after the negative reaction.


----------



## JThursby

Stalker0 said:


> Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?



This is from a version that was attached to a contract sent to an unknown vendor demanding compliance and a signature.  That is the claim at least.  A lot of the language is flippant and unprofessional, but apparently that is not unheard of from WotC.


----------



## Princessmaker

Stalker0 said:


> Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?
> 
> As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.



Page 3 reads: 


> Who can I contact if I don’t understand something or need help? If you have any questions about what you read in the
> OGL: Non-Commercial or OGL: Commercial, please reach out to us at *[TBD] *before using or signing either part of the
> license.



Also many comments in between which makes it clear it's something like a draft with comments for non-legalese people understand it a bit better.


----------



## Art Waring

Stalker0 said:


> Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?
> 
> As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.



See Griffon's Saddlebag's response.

Its not a draft, it had an attached contract to be signed by the 13th.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

This is so bad. Crass hyper-capitalism.


----------



## kenada

I don’t think the commentary necessarily indicates it’s a draft. It appears to be an intended part that has no legal weight, and the license actually says as much. It also only refers to the 5.1 SRD but does not mention the 3e or 3.5e SRDs. I am interested in hearing Paizo’s response to see how that affects them. I’d guess it may mean the end of 5e AP conversions, but Pathfinder could be okay.


----------



## Wulfhelm

I'm not an expert, especially not in US law, but there are many parts that sound really unprofessional to me:
_
XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will
happen:
A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense._

"Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?


----------



## Stalker0

JThursby said:


> This is from a version that was attached to a contract sent to an unknown vendor demanding compliance and a signature.  That is the claim at least.  A lot of the language is flippant and unprofessional, but apparently that is not unheard of from WotC.



So assuming that's true, why wouldn't they have released the more general license yet I wonder.


----------



## Cadence

Wulfhelm said:


> I'm not an expert, especially not in US law, but there are many parts that sound really unprofessional to me:
> 
> _XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will
> happen:
> A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
> B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense._
> 
> "Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?




"_B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You.* If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense.*"_

Holy cow....


----------



## darjr

He plugged Level Up!!!!


----------



## darjr

He called it 5e's Pathfinder.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Stalker0 said:


> So assuming that's true, why wouldn't they have released the more general license yet I wonder.



This is all clarified by the document itself.

I wish more of you would have at least read the first few paragraphs:



			
				OGL 1.1 said:
			
		

> The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section.




So the "unprofessional comments" are in fact clearly delineated comments which represent WotC's presentation of what they're saying the legalese means. (Edit: Some of their presentations contain a lot of spin, particularly when they claim the meaning of "Open Gaming Content" is "The 5.1 SRD" which to me goes beyond spin and into "an obvious lie").

And there's no confusion over whether this is a draft - this is being represented as a final document, just click through to sign the actual final one.

As to "why haven't people released that then?!", well, that's probably a lot more secure and the links were probably customized for each individual who was mailed the document. Which would make it instantly possible to trace the leaker (I think they will be found eventually but I think it's unlikely WotC will take action unless they're WotC staff).

Why do I say that? I work at a law firm and I used to manage a product we used which could do EXACTLY what I'm saying. It's a fairly common product too and I'm no I'm not going to doxx myself by naming it lol.


----------



## Knightfall

Completely draconian.


----------



## Knightfall

This is going to be very bad news for PCGen.


----------



## Stalker0

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is all clarified by the document itself.



Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.


----------



## Cadence

Stalker0 said:


> Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.




It feels like each individual license sent out like this in advance would have it's own links with a bunch of unique numbers attached, so that the identity of the leaker (and NDA violator) would be obvious?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Stalker0 said:


> Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.



To repeat my post:


Ruin Explorer said:


> As to "why haven't people released that then?!", well, that's probably a lot more secure and the links were probably customized for each individual who was mailed the document. Which would make it instantly possible to trace the leaker (I think they will be found eventually but I think it's unlikely WotC will take action unless they're WotC staff).



So we can't actually be as sure as you think.

Now, Griffon's Saddlebag says that his understanding is basically no-one has signed up. If so this document will almost certainly change rather than just being released.


----------



## Nikosandros

Stalker0 said:


> Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.



That has been explained by @Ruin Explorer. They have excised the links so as to make the leak less traceable.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> It feels like each individual license sent out like this in advance would have it's own links with a bunch of unique numbers attached, so that the identity of the leaker (and NDA violator) would be obvious?



That's how my law firm would have done it. Hell, I've literally sent stuff out like that before (albeit on behalf of a lawyer who was having some issues).


----------



## Cadence

A fine ending though (to both non-commercial and commercial):

"I. Review by Counsel. You agree that You have reviewed this agreement carefully and have had ample opportunity to obtain advice as to the meaning of the terms and agreements contained herein from such advisors, including attorneys, as You deemed appropriate or necessary."


----------



## Stalker0

Nikosandros said:


> That has been explained by @Ruin Explorer. They have excised the links so as to make the leak less traceable.



sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.

If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?


----------



## Nikosandros

Stalker0 said:


> sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.
> 
> If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?



We don't know why they haven't made a general release which was supposed to happen on the 4th. The rumor is that they might be changing it due to the reactions.


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

As a long time gamer and a long time consumer of gaming products large and small, it's really a simple situation:

Embrace the suck and play by whatever guidelines and get whatever benefits come from it, or move onto a new system of your own design and work on building up a community.  Does it suck? I'm sure, but we're decades past gaming being a niche industry at Gygax's table.  Why is anyone surprised Hasbro is trying to get more money from WotC?  They're doing the same with MtG.   Why are people surprised that a corporation Corporations?

Businesses adapt, and I think if 3PP decide this OGL is egregious, I'm sure some other publisher would be able and happy to publish your home system if you can't get in with, say, Pathfinder.

OR is your issue that you won't have a built-in audience for 'the World's Largest Roleplaying Game'?  Let's just be honest about it because there are plenty of designers out there who put out new work and have for decades with their own system, etc.


----------



## darjr

Stalker0 said:


> sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.
> 
> If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?



Possibly this is the nice one sent to vendors they wanted to entice? As some have guessed that some 3pp would get?

Note the HEAVY sarcasm.


----------



## DMZ2112

I have the luxury and privilege to not have an opinion about the industry impact of OGL 1.1 until Wizards has played their hand, but as a professional technical writer, I couldn't help myself but to say there's something really funny about the combination of capitalization to indicate legal keywords and the following statement:



> Your brother doing Your chores for a week, whatever.




I'm glad to see that most of the colloquial writing we'd seen thus far seems to be from familiar-language "Comments" sections, although really, they go so far beyond familiar language that I'm expecting the author to offer me a joint between paragraphs.  Ugh.  Strong, STRONG "hello fellow keeds" vibes.  

I hope someone out there has the self-awareness to be deeply embarrassed about this.  Whoever you are, the world is a dumber place thanks to you.



> Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo.




...Hold me.  It's so cold, and it's getting hard to see.  What's that... light?  Gary?  ...Gary, is that you?



> To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,”




Clearly not!  Ha!


----------



## Princessmaker

Cadence said:


> It feels like each individual license sent out like this in advance would have it's own links with a bunch of unique numbers attached, so that the identity of the leaker (and NDA violator) would be obvious?



Or possibly the comments, which have zero legal value, could be slightly different from each other. It's an old tactics to see who leaks it.





						Canary trap - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Cadence

Sure


Princessmaker said:


> Or possibly the comments, which have zero legal value, could be slightly different from each other. It's an old tactics to see who leaks it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canary trap - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org




Sure, but, as we've seen on here, there is always some doubt about leaked documents.  A link to a web-page on wizards . com seems like it would be a lot harder to deny or disbelieve, and so might be worthy of some obvious protection so that it wouldn't be shared?


----------



## CleverNickName

Nord Games has posted a comment about the OGL 1.1 on all of their Kickstarter projects; I saw it because I backed their "Ultimate Guide to Foraging, Harvesting, & Natural Discovery" back in the day.  The way it's written, I get the impression it was posted on all of their Kickstarters.  Here's the message:

Greetings Adventurers...​​We have entered the realm of the unknown. For 23 years OGL 1.0 has enabled everyone who abides by the rules in it to publish content for D&D. It was updated after 5th Edition was published and Nord Games has been using it since 2016 to play in Wizards of the Coast's (WotC's) sandbox, publishing many books and card decks to enhance your gaming experience. ​​Last week a copy of OGL 1.1 was leaked. The new version of the OGL which WotC intends to force 3rd party publishers onto. It contains A LOT of really bad stuff so I'll break it down:​​1. The new license attempts to invalidate all other licenses. This would mean all of our books and PDFs designed for 5E would be unsellable and we will not be able to publish 5E content moving forward, unless of course we sign the new OGL 1.1 license...​​2. The new license puts a 25% fee on all of our revenue after we've sold more than $750,000 in a calendar year. This might not seem like a big deal, but it actually is. Nord Games currently sells a lot more than this every year and giving 25% of it to WotC would have a major impact on how many products we are able to publish and how many people we employ such as staff, contractors, artists, writers, etc. This could literally kill thousands of jobs across the industry.​​3. The new license states that all of our content using the OGL 1.0 and 1.1 becomes the property of WotC. Additionally, they do not have to pay us for the use of that content. They can also terminate our license at any time for any reason, even if we do not violate the terms of the new license. So for example they could take our Treacherous Traps book, re-publish it word for word as their own, AND demand that we destroy all of our physical copies in our warehouse AND demand we not sell it in PDF format ANYWHERE.​​There are many other issues with the OGL 1.1 but these are the main 3 to focus on for Nord Games. The OGL 1.0 was never designed to be unauthorized, only revised and updated as time went on. This has been WotC's stance in the past on their website and in various statements over the years. Even the person who wrote the original version of the OGL has come out declaring it was not meant to expire or be nullified by any subsequent licenses. ​​This whole thing is an obvious attempt to squash the competition AND steal all of our IP in one motion. Pathfinder and many other game systems use the OGL 1.0 as the basis for their game system. Let that sink in for a moment and you start to understand just how insane this situation is.​​We plan to continue honoring our part of using the OGL 1.0 and delivering to our fans high quality supplements for your 5E games. If WotC wants to sue us over it we're ready to challenge them in court, as are dozens of other publishers we have spoken with. The hope is that WotC and their parent company Hasbro (who appears to be the instigator of this entire debacle) back off and leave the OGL 1.0 out of the contract for OGL 1.1.  We really don't care if they want to close things up for One D&D which is what OGL 1.1 is meant to go with. We hope it's a good system and many people will enjoy playing it, but it's allegedly backward compatible which means our 5E products would work with it anyway.​​What can you do? Well #OpenDnD has been trending all over social media, so that can't hurt to continue to share. You can also go to WotC's website and let them know how you feel through the contact form, or even the One D&D playtest survey...​​Thank you all for your continued support. We couldn't do this without you and the OGL 1.0, so we are doing what we can to keep our fans happy and keep D&D truly open.​​Stay tuned for more updates about our progress on The Ultimate Guide to Foraging, Harvesting & Natural Discovery as the PDFs are made available and we begin production of the physical products!​​-Chris​


----------



## aco175

To be honest, I'm not 100% against all of it.  I would expect to pay royalties to use one's IP.  One can argue over the amount and tiers and penalties of lawsuits and such, but it is still their baby at the end of the day.


----------



## ersatzphil

> Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo.
Click to expand...


Speaking as someone currently re-reading the Icewind Dale novels - his name is freaking Bruenor _Battlehammer_. My _God_.


----------



## Mistwell

I can see companies splitting into two or three companies with "partner" companies that "work with them" to support their products which, each in themselves make less than $750K in revenue but which made more than that when they were combined entities.

I once was tangent to a company, and I will out some details now because 1) they were never my client I just knew someone who worked there, and 2) they're long gone now. This company, which was in the fandom field so may have been used by people here back in the early 2000s or so,  literally had HUNDREDS of "sub-companies" which were each being utilized as their own company with their own LLC and accounting books and such, all being run by the same "group" of people. Each had it's own website, their own liability protection, so that if one got in trouble it could in theory go bankrupt without impacting the others. Each reported it's own licensing sales without impact to the others. And they had in-house attorneys that worked to make sure this was all done technically legally. How they shared accounting and HR people and legal people and such without dirtying the waters (or crossing the streams, choose your analogy) I do not know, though I'd venture to guess they made yet another company for those people and just use them as paid consultants for the other "companies". I just know this was the entire concept of that "company" and it worked for years.

And now that I think about it all these years later, they did a LOT of license-intensive products. Maybe there were license agreements they worked with which had these kinds of thresholds in them, and that was the reason this "company" did that in the first place? I don't know.


----------



## Greg Benage

Mistwell said:


> I can see companies splitting into two or three companies with "partner" companies that "work with them" to support their products which, each in themselves make less than $750K in revenue but which made more than that when they were combined entities.



Careful - they got a clause for that. 



> J. You will not attempt to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, such as by creating separate entities to try to evade payment of royalties.


----------



## Mistwell

Greg Benage said:


> Careful - they got a clause for that.




Ah they DID think of it. 

Of course, it's easier to say that in the agreement than prove it, when you get down to the intricate details. But at least they thought of it.

Though may be able to split your company right now, before signing this new agreement. I'll have to think about the ramifications of that.


----------



## Greg Benage

Mistwell said:


> Of course, it's easier to say that in the agreement than prove it, when you get down to the intricate details. But at least they thought of it.



Even if they can't prove it and collect some cash from you, they can terminate you and every other publisher they may think is related to you at any time.


----------



## Haplo781

Stalker0 said:


> sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.
> 
> If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?



Because other vendors would be able to start figuring out how to work with the new license.


----------



## Mistwell

Greg Benage said:


> Even if they can't prove it and collect some cash from you, they can terminate you and every other publisher they may think is related to you at any time.




True. I wonder if the document is such that anyone can sign on to it at any time, and gain 30 days notice before it can be terminated? 

I mean when it comes down to it, I want to read this actual document and not the non-legal summary document.


----------



## Stalker0

Haplo781 said:


> Because other vendors would be able to start figuring out how to work with the new license.



which.....is the goal. I mean the whole point of this is for WOTC to get people off of 1.0 and on to 1.1. So yes, you absolutely want other vendors to start figuring out how to work with the liscene.

So again, why haven't they released it so people can start doing that?


----------



## Reynard

Since it appears this is the FAQ and not the actual license, isit possible that the actual license won't have such nasty language and WotC is using this document to lay the groundwork for arguments or as an intimidation tool because they know they can't actually alter the OGL to this degree and it still be the OGL? Are they trying to pull a fast one?


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> Since it appears this is the FAQ and not the actual license, isit possible that the actual license won't have such nasty language and WotC is using this document to lay the groundwork for arguments or as an intimidation tool because they know they can't actually alter the OGL to this degree and it still be the OGL? Are they trying to pull a fast one?




It says it's the FAQ and then the license with Q&A comments inserted.


----------



## Haplo781

Stalker0 said:


> which.....is the goal. I mean the whole point of this is for WOTC to get people off of 1.0 and on to 1.1. So yes, you absolutely want other vendors to start figuring out how to work with the liscene.
> 
> So again, why haven't they released it so people can start doing that?



The goal is to _pressure_ people into accepting the new license.

Giving them time to review before signing is counterproductive to that.


----------



## Reynard

Cadence said:


> It says it's the FAQ and then the license with Q&A comments inserted.



Wouldn't that obfuscate the actual license? I am not in a position to read the copy that leaked right now, so that question might answer itself with a glance.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> Wouldn't that obfuscate the actual license? I am not in a position to read the copy that leaked right now, so that question might answer itself with a glance.



I think it will.  

The folks who got it supposedly also got a link to the a version with just the legal part.  It is my guess that those links have identifiable things that would make folks not want to share them (and maybe the documents they go to have something that makes sharing not happy too).


----------



## Vincent55

this is like the clingy girl or boyfriend who at first you loved and then you just can't stand and just want to leave and avoid the rest of your life. Sorry WotC it's you not me it's you, I think we should see other people, hay pathfinder what's up how are you doing


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> Wouldn't that obfuscate the actual license? I am not in a position to read the copy that leaked right now, so that question might answer itself with a glance.



They're quite well-separated. They're intended, in theory, to elucidate rather than obscure, but they elucidate WotC's "take" on the legalese, not the actual fact of the legalese, and there's at least one place where the comments are just misleading and nothing else.


----------



## mamba

DMZ2112 said:


> Clearly not!  Ha!



‘we are working very hard on figuring this out though’… Jeez, what a license


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> They're quite well-separated. They're intended, in theory, to elucidate rather than obscure, but they elucidate WotC's "take" on the legalese, not the actual fact of the legalese, and there's at least one place where the comments are just misleading and nothing else.



Gaslight gatekeep githboss


----------



## overgeeked

"Blades II: Electric Boogaloo."

Are we absolutely 100% certain this isn't an elaborate troll? Because...wow.


----------



## mamba

aco175 said:


> To be honest, I'm not 100% against all of it.  I would expect to pay royalties to use one's IP.  One can argue over the amount and tiers and penalties of lawsuits and such, but it is still their baby at the end of the day.



well, it was until they declared what part of it is available now under a perpetual and irrevocable OGL.

No one would say they are not in their rights to go back to a GSL 2.0, but killing the OGL was not a right they had, nor have today, this is simply strong-arming / bullying everyone into submission


----------



## Sir Brennen

Can we blame TSR3 for this somehow?

Seriously, did that whole debacle make Hasbro sit up and think "we need to put more protections on our D&D IP, make it more like our other games/licenses?"


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> "Blades II: Electric Boogaloo."
> 
> Are we absolutely 100% certain this isn't an elaborate troll? Because...wow.



We are 99.999% certain because WotC would have commented if this was a troll.

The only way it isn't troll is if WotC is currently experiencing a "Nakatomi Plaza"-type situation, and thus Hans Gruber has cut off all their communications. We must hope brave John McClane is able to defeat him before the evil hacker unlocks WotC's vaults and frees the 640 million in unmarked Magic the Gathering rares.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Sir Brennen said:


> Can we blame TSR3 for this somehow?
> 
> Seriously, did that whole debacle make Hasbro sit up and think "we need to put more protections on our D&D IP, make it more like our other games/licenses?"



No. Because all the worst provisions have nothing to do with "protecting" the IP, and are 100% to do with controlling and shutting down competition, and destroying the concept of Open Gaming in commercial products entirely (and that latter is not an overstatement, they really are trying to take it out).


----------



## Sir Brennen

mamba said:


> well, it was until they declared what part of it is available now under a perpetual and irrevocable OGL.



The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.

At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Ruin Explorer said:


> No. Because all the worst provisions have nothing to do with "protecting" the IP, and are 100% to do with controlling and shutting down competition, and destroying the concept of Open Gaming in commercial products entirely (and that latter is not an overstatement, they really are trying to take it out).



I think in many corporate minds "protecting" is synonymous with "controlling and shutting down competition"...


----------



## wingsandsword

aco175 said:


> To be honest, I'm not 100% against all of it.  I would expect to pay royalties to use one's IP.  One can argue over the amount and tiers and penalties of lawsuits and such, but it is still their baby at the end of the day.



For the 6th Edition they're calling "OneD&D" yes, I could expect new rules.  After 4e, we were lucky they made 5e an OGL-released game (more or less).

To come along after 23 years and suddenly want royalties for using their IP in support of the games they've already released under the OGL (3e, 3.5e, d20 Modern, 5e) on only about a week's notice is a rather huge deal though, and something people shouldn't expect.


----------



## Langy

Sir Brennen said:


> The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.
> 
> At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.




Other lawyers in those same threads strongly disagree with that take and seem to have the evidence to back it up, such as the GPL 2.0 lawsuit that has similar language (lacking the term 'irrevocable') but in court was deemed to be irrevocable anyways.


----------



## Amrûnril

Art Waring said:


> See Griffon's Saddlebag's response.
> 
> Its not a draft, it had an attached contract to be signed by the 13th.




My understanding is that the attached contracts (which we haven't seen) are individual licensing agreements. The proposed OGL 1.1 is essentially a threat describing the terms WotC will attempt to force on those who don't sign individual agreements. It doesn't need to be in its fully polished, legalistic form to fulfil that purpose.


----------



## mamba

Sir Brennen said:


> The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.



it does not need to include it, it says perpetual, it was common practice that this also meant irrevocable, there are even court rulings that agree


Sir Brennen said:


> At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.



yeah, who cares, there are as many that tell you the opposite. I prefer to go with what the authors said they intended.


----------



## Andrew Anderson

ersatzphil said:


> Speaking as someone currently re-reading the Icewind Dale novels - his name is freaking Bruenor _Battlehammer_. My _God_.



I'm pretty sure "Bruenor Battlehammer" is now what they call non authorized content, as it is not in the new SRD. It's not available for use.


----------



## whimsychris123

overgeeked said:


> "Blades II: Electric Boogaloo."
> 
> Are we absolutely 100% certain this isn't an elaborate troll? Because...wow.



I think it's their way of saying, "We might be soulless corporate jerks, but we're relatable soulless corporate jerks. Haha. _wink, wink_ lol."


----------



## ersatzphil

Ruin Explorer said:


> The only way it isn't troll is if WotC is currently experiencing a "Nakatomi Plaza"-type situation, and thus Hans Gruber has cut off all their communications. We must hope brave John McClane is able to defeat him before the evil hacker unlocks WotC's vaults and frees the 640 million in unmarked Magic the Gathering rares.


----------



## overgeeked

Langy said:


> Other lawyers in those same threads strongly disagree with that take and seem to have the evidence to back it up, such as the GPL 2.0 lawsuit that has similar language (lacking the term 'irrevocable') but in court was deemed to be irrevocable anyways.



Right. Which is why all the lawyers' and IANALs' opinions don't mean squat. Either this goes to court and is settled by a judge or WotC can just act as if they're right and attack anyone for not going along.


----------



## Princessmaker

Andrew Anderson said:


> I'm pretty sure "Bruenor Battlehammer" is now what they call non authorized content, as it is not in the new SRD. It's not available for use.



Smart, if they got the name right in the license it would give ppl a way to use it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Amrûnril said:


> My understanding is that the attached contracts (which we haven't seen) are individual licensing agreements. The proposed OGL 1.1 is essentially a threat describing the terms WotC will attempt to force on those who don't sign individual agreements. It doesn't need to be in its fully polished, legalistic form to fulfil that purpose.



Dude, read the document.

I'll link you the relevant bit:

"The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."

Please don't speculate on what something might say when you can just look at the thing.


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

It also seems to be that this is exactly in the company's history, going back to the early 80s at least - to swing a big stick at people using their system, in much the same way even Back In The Day, I found it weird the NPCs in the City-state of the Invincible Overlord had hits-to-kill instead of hit points, or some various other skirt-arounds


----------



## Ghost2020

Is this missing sections?  Trying to find the IX.B.2 for qualifying revenue, am i missing it?


----------



## Greg Benage

Ghost2020 said:


> Is this missing sections? Trying to find the IX.B.2 for qualifying revenue, am i missing it?



Looks like a fork up. Section IX is Warranties and Disclaimers.


----------



## Charlaquin

Sir Brennen said:


> The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.
> 
> At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.



And according to other lawyers, it clearly isn’t revocable despite not containing that specific word. The fact of the matter is, whether or not WotC can revoke it will have to be decided in a courtroom. That’s how law works.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I continue to be doubtful on the veracity of the leak. I can't imagine anyone vetting something like this going out in any official capacity:

"We’re giving You a license, not agreeing to take on potential liability when We do so. To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,” but Our lawyers say We need to include that last clause under Washington law, so in it goes."

There's also a ton of vagueness that I can't see ending up in a legal document. Case in point, the use of the word "something" in this section:

"A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is substantially similar to a Licensed Work."


----------



## Haplo781

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I continue to be doubtful on the veracity of the leak. I can't imagine anyone vetting something like this going out in any official capacity:
> 
> "We’re giving You a license, not agreeing to take on potential liability when We do so. To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,” but Our lawyers say We need to include that last clause under Washington law, so in it goes."
> 
> There's also a ton of vagueness that I can't see ending up in a legal document. Case in point, the use of the word "something" in this section:
> 
> "A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is substantially similar to a Licensed Work."



Those are comments on the license, not the license itself


----------



## Ghost2020

Greg Benage said:


> Looks like a fork up. Section IX is Warranties and Disclaimers.



Which makes me wonder if this is a draft or something?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Sir Brennen said:


> Can we blame TSR3 for this somehow?
> 
> Seriously, did that whole debacle make Hasbro sit up and think "we need to put more protections on our D&D IP, make it more like our other games/licenses?"



I'm sure this would have largely happened without LaNasa, but I'm also sure his actions led to some of the bad things in it.  He forced Hasbro to protect their IP.  He's the reason why we have warnings on urinal cakes that say "Do Not Eat" and why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Ghost2020 said:


> Which makes me wonder if this is a draft or something?



Oh my god.

PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT. You don't need to speculate. This is like the 10th time I've said this.

Here's what shows that:

"The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."

It ain't a draft.


----------



## Smackpixi

Looks like they’re worried Asmodee is going to do a Level Up style fully compatible fork of 5e replete with functional VTT and so forth.  Or someone similar with those kind of resources and distribution.

And, when they make a new Druid Subclass they don’t want to have to care about the 4000 other subclasses people have published.

Everything else is probably negotiable.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I have a hard time believing that that sort of language would be employed in this sort of professional document in any capacity. Wizards of the Coast is a giant corporation and including "well, our lawyers told us to put this in here" seems so monstrously out of place with that. There's no chance that a communications department didn't go over that, along with legal. Even in the comments, including language that undercuts or introduces vagueness seems very unlikely, even in the guise of a conversational tone. I will remain a skeptic until Wizards proves the reality of the matter, or a source I trust confirms it.



Haplo781 said:


> Those are comments on the license, not the license itself


----------



## Ghost2020

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oh my god.
> 
> PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT. You don't need to speculate. This is like the 10th time I've said this.
> 
> Here's what shows that:
> 
> "The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."
> 
> It ain't a draft.



My 'is this a draft' is because:    

Is this missing sections? Trying to find the IX.B.2 for qualifying revenue, am i missing it?


----------



## Haplo781

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I have a hard time believing that that sort of language would be employed in this sort of professional document in any capacity. Wizards of the Coast is a giant corporation and including "well, our lawyers told us to put this in here" seems so monstrously out of place with that. There's no chance that a communications department didn't go over that, along with legal. Even in the comments, including language that undercuts or introduces vagueness seems very unlikely, even in the guise of a conversational tone. I will remain a skeptic until Wizards proves the reality of the matter, or a source I trust confirms it.



The 1.0 threatens to feed you to Demogorgon if you misbehave


----------



## darjr

There are going to be a lot of “what’s going on?” (Looking at you Reddit) and “I can’t believe this?” and “some rando YouTuber” a lot a lot.

Especially as the news spreads.

Some folks are genuinely finding out much later than the rest of us.


----------



## Retreater

If it were a draft, they wouldn't have just contacted the head of Kickstarter and made an arrangement based on a theoretical "what-if" - right?


----------



## Ghost2020

Anyone have a document with Links that work?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

None of what I just read seems all that unreasonable to me. And yet, "everyone" seems to be furious. What am I missing?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Ghost2020 said:


> My 'is this a draft' is because:
> 
> Is this missing sections? Trying to find the IX.B.2 for qualifying revenue, am i missing it?



It's more likely there are typos in the document as a result of how it was put together.

Again if you read the section I quoted, it's not referring to a flat document.

But this _is_ a flat document. That means it was put together by taking stuff from the non-flat version of the document. Now if you did that in Word or LibreOffice or the like, they might try to "help you out" with the numbering. Or they might just be typos in the original! It's not unheard-of, especially if WotC did this in-house rather than using an external law firm (who have resources in-house lawyers rarely have for preventing that kind of error).

It's EVEN possible stuff like that is an intentional error designed to show who copied this, but I think that's unlikely.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Ghost2020 said:


> Anyone have a document with Links that work?



If they do, let us know. The trouble is the links almost certainly are personalized to a specific individual.


----------



## Haplo781

FitzTheRuke said:


> None of what I just read seems all that unreasonable to me. And yet, "everyone" seems to be furious. What am I missing?



Start with these


----------



## Greg K

Vincent55 said:


> I think we should see other people, hay pathfinder what's up how are you doing



Or Savage Worlds,  Fantasy Age (the new version is coming out within next couple of months), Honor + Intrigue,  Barbarian of Lemuria (or Legends of Steel), BASH! Fantasy, Tinyd6, EZd6, ... or one of several other games.


----------



## Ghost2020

Yes, agreed. 
Someone did some OCR or Copy\Paste to notepad, then to PDF or something to remove metadata most likely, just to be safe.


----------



## Charlaquin

The tone is definitely bizarre, even for “plain language” commentary. Seems like they’re trying to intimidate the reader into taking action, and to sound casual and relatable at the same time. The result is just weird and off-putting.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> The tone is definitely bizarre, even for “plain language” commentary. Seems like they’re trying to intimidate the reader into taking action, and to sound casual and relatable at the same time. The result is just weird and off-putting.



They outright lie about what the license actually says multiple times


----------



## dagger

Greg K said:


> Or Savage Worlds,  Fantasy Age (the new version is coming out within next couple of months), Barbarian of Lemuria/ Legendsof Steel, BASH! Fantasy, Tinyd6, EZd6, ... or one of several other games.



New version of Rolemaster is out, and more core books to drop this year, that's what I am running. Also playing in a Savage Worlds Pathfinder game, its pretty dope.


----------



## Greg K

Bayushi_seikuro said:


> It also seems to be that this is exactly in the company's history, going back to the early 80s at least - to swing a big stick at people using their system, in much the same way even Back In The Day, I found it weird the NPCs in the City-state of the Invincible Overlord had hits-to-kill instead of hit points, or some various other skirt-arounds



Mayfair's Roleaids and Bard Games's Compleat Books had something similar if I recall correctly


----------



## Greg K

dagger said:


> New version of Rolemaster is out, and more core books to drop this year, that's what I am running. Also playing in a Savage Worlds Pathfinder game, its pretty dope.



I used to play RM.  I am big on Savage Worlds, but I also like several of the games that I listed (Fanatsy Age, Barbarians of Lemuria, BASH! Fantasy, Tinyd6)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FitzTheRuke said:


> None of what I just read seems all that unreasonable to me. And yet, "everyone" seems to be furious. What am I missing?



I mean, the key points are, that the conventional reading of this is:

A) The previous OGL 1.0a is "de-authorized". You can never again make a product using the OGL 1.0a.

This obviously goes DIRECTLY against 20 years of how WotC has said the OGL 1.0a worked, including 5E. Ryan Dancey has been very clear that the deauthorization was never an intended possibility. It's also not clear if it actually works, legally.

So that would cause a huge problem for pretty much all 3PPs.

B) Open Gaming Content no longer exists in 1.0a.

You can never share anything again. The entire point of the OGL was OGC. But they delete that concept, and you automatically share everything only with WotC.

C) The only SRD allowed to exist is the 5.1 SRD. No other SRDs are allowed, nor is anything based on them allowed. So even if Paizo signed this, PF1 has to never have another book published for it - not by Paizo, not by anyone.

D) With 30 day notice, they change any of the terms of this licence, to whatever they like (!!! yes for real).

E) They want 20-25% of REVENUE above $750k. Most 3PPs have a profit margin less than 25%. This means a 3PP could actively losing money on sales above $750k per year. That's about 20 companies according to WotC's estimates, but it actually seems like it might be a bit higher. And it's a great for ensuring none of those companies can ever grow. WotC do smarmily say if you repeatedly bang into the $750k bar, they may decide to give you a better licence.

F) A bunch of other stuff, including what @Haplo781 posted.

The one chink of light here is that, despite WotC's comments implying this isn't opt-in, it may be that in reality, it does operate on an opt-in basis. WotC went to great lengths to obscure that, though, if so, and have had since Thursday to say something about it.

Even if it's opt-in, it's GSL 2.0, because it has a poison pill - if you make 5E content, you can never make any other OGL content.



Charlaquin said:


> The tone is definitely bizarre, even for “plain language” commentary. Seems like they’re trying to intimidate the reader into taking action, and to sound casual and relatable at the same time. The result is just weird and off-putting.



Like I said days ago, they're going for "How do you do, fellow kids!" but they're far too corporate and menacing to pull it off.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Haplo781 said:


> Start with these




I've seen that kind of stuff in legal documents before. Isn't some of that stuff in the original OGL? 

AFAIK that kind of stuff only matters when things between the Licensee and the Licenser break down entirely (usually with much fault on both sides) and doesn't really hold up compared to whatever the individual legal issue is.

Or in other words, aren't all of the bits you've posted unlikely to ever matter for nearly everyone using the license?

IANAL, though, perhaps obviously.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Stalker0 said:


> Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?
> 
> As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.




 Its confirmed by Kickstarter, so it's very real, but there is still a chance for WotC to back out of this disaster, not unscathed, but before they completely destroy One D&D & 5e, it's still not fully released.

 Smart move is to replace Cynthia Williams with Ray Winninger as WotC President, and tell everyone OGL is dead and add irrevokable to the OGL 1.0.


----------



## Amrûnril

Ruin Explorer said:


> Dude, read the document.
> 
> I'll link you the relevant bit:
> 
> "The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."
> 
> Please don't speculate on what something might say when you can just look at the thing.




I'm not speculating about what the document itself says, just the context and intent with which it was presented to recipients.

My understanding is that the large 3rd party publishers sent the 1.1 document under NDA were also sent custom licensing agreements. I don't know if this has been definitively confirmed, but it's certainly consistent with the procedures suggested in part V of the commercial license. If the intent was for those publishers to sign custom agreements, and the OGL document was provided merely as "context" (i.e. a threat towards those refusing to sign), then the OGL document (including both the commentary and the legal language) wouldn't need to be in the final form intended for public release.




FitzTheRuke said:


> None of what I just read seems all that unreasonable to me. And yet, "everyone" seems to be furious. What am I missing?



Even if the agreement were reasonable starting from scratch (as @Haplo781 notes, it isn't), it wouldn't be reasonable for WotC to impose it on content that it's spent the last 20 years promising will be freely and perpetually available.


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> Smart move is to replace Cynthia Williams with Ray Winninger as WotC President,



Well that’s not going to happen, since Winninger left the company.


Henadic Theologian said:


> and tell everyone OGL is dead and add irrevokable to the OGL 1.0.



That would certainly be the thing that would appease 3rd party publishers and the fans who are upset about this. I’m not convinced WotC is going to perceive it as the smartest move though.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, the key points are, that the conventional reading of this is:
> 
> A) The previous OGL 1.0a is "de-authorized". You can never again make a product using the OGL 1.0a.
> 
> This obviously goes DIRECTLY against 20 years of how WotC has said the OGL 1.0a worked, including 5E. Ryan Dancey has been very clear that the deauthorization was never an intended possibility. It's also not clear if it actually works, legally.
> 
> So that would cause a huge problem for pretty much all 3PPs.




Yeah, THAT part I understand people getting upset about, though I guess I also understand why Hasbro would want to find a way to stop direct competitors from using their own game to compete with them.



Ruin Explorer said:


> B) Open Gaming Content no longer exists in 1.0a.
> 
> You can never share anything again. The entire point of the OGL was OGC. But they delete that concept, and you automatically share everything only with WotC.




I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "sharing". Isn't that allowed by the non-commercial bit?



Ruin Explorer said:


> C) The only SRD allowed to exist is the 5.1 SRD. No other SRDs are allowed, nor is anything based on them allowed. So even if Paizo signed this, PF1 has to never have another book published for it - not by Paizo, not by anyone.




Do they still publish PF1 material? If so, that would suck for them, yes. But again, didn't Paizo essentially use D&D's ruleset to build D&D's biggest competition? Is that really "fair" to D&D? Is it unreasonable for D&D's owners to have a problem with that?



Ruin Explorer said:


> D) With 30 day notice, they change any of the terms of this licence, to whatever they like (!!! yes for real).




That's terrible, I admit it. That kind of stuff usually polices itself doesn't it? (IE if they ever actually do it, they'd have a riot).



Ruin Explorer said:


> E) They want 20-25% of REVENUE above $750k. Most 3PPs have a profit margin less than 25%. This means a 3PP could actively losing money on sales above $750k per year. That's about 20 companies according to WotC's estimates, but it actually seems like it might be a bit higher. And it's a great for ensuring none of those companies can ever grow. WotC do smarmily say if you repeatedly bang into the $750k bar, they may decide to give you a better licence.




REVENUE? Yeah, that would be where your only profits lie. I'm on board with this one. that would kill most of the bigger publishers, AFAICT. Which sounds like they're purposefully trying to keep their bigger publishers small. (You'd be much better off making $745K than 1M in that case, which seems strange). It seems to me to be a way of keeping publishers from becoming actual competitors.

Don't get me wrong, I always feel like there should be more carrot and less stick. I liked the original OGL because it seemed generous. (While in a lot of ways, it caused the industry to move toward more publishers propping up D&D when they could otherwise be creating competition for it - I think this was the OGL's original intent). It was only the rise of Paizo (who made better 3e product than WotC did) and then Pathfinder (that outsold 4e for awhile) that showed that the OGL could have the "loophole" of allowing a company to OUT PERFORM D&D using its own rules!


----------



## Sacrosanct

The lesson here is never let a Williams be in charge of D&D.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Amrûnril said:


> Even if the agreement were reasonable starting from scratch (as @Haplo781 notes, it isn't), it wouldn't be reasonable for WotC to impose it on content that it's spent the last 20 years promising will be freely and perpetually available.




I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Charlaquin said:


> Well that’s not going to happen, since Winninger left the company.
> 
> That would certainly be the thing that would appease 3rd party publishers and the fans who are upset about this. I’m not convinced WotC is going to perceive it as the smartest move though.




 Yeah I'm pretty sure OGL 1.1 was why, but you kill OGL 1.1 and offer him a promotion to WotC President I suspect he'll come back.


----------



## Charlaquin

“Why the tiers? For one thing, it’s Dungeons and Dragons (and even Our lawyers play); it’s possible We’re not actually sure how to design something without some form of leveling up.”


----------



## JDragon

FitzTheRuke said:


> I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".



For a number of reasons...
People and companies have put a lot of time & money into making products that use OGL 1.0(a) based on the fact they were told it wouldn't get changed on them and if it did they could still use the current license. 

It will likely drastically reduce the amount of content that is available for the game as very few people will have any in writing stuff that essentially then can be used by WotC for free.


----------



## OB1

FitzTheRuke said:


> REVENUE? Yeah, that would be where your only profits lie. I'm on board with this one. that would kill most of the bigger publishers, AFAICT. Which sounds like they're purposefully trying to keep their bigger publishers small. (You'd be much better off making $745K than 1M in that case, which seems strange). It seems to me to be a way of keeping publishers from becoming actual competitors.



To be clear, on $745k in revenue, you pay $0 royalty, but on $1M you pay $50k (with kickstarter) or $62,500 (any other distribution).  Which is high, but if you are expecting to reach that level of revenue, you can also go to WotC for a custom agreement.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> Do they still publish PF1 material? If so, that would suck for them, yes. But again, didn't Paizo essentially use D&D's ruleset to build D&D's biggest competition?



Ironically, they only did that in the first place because WotC tried to get rid of the OGL. Had 4e been published under the OGL, Paizo would have been happy to just keep making 3rd party content for it. It was the GSL and its “poison pill” that made Paizo go “well, guess we’ll just keep making 3.5e then.”


FitzTheRuke said:


> Is that really "fair" to D&D? Is it unreasonable for D&D's owners to have a problem with that?



What’s unreasonable is D&D’s owners spending decades benefiting from having everyone and their mother making content for D&D on their own dime, all the while promising they’d be able to keep doing so forever, only to pull the rug out from under them and say “now start paying us or shut down.” Forgive me if I’m more concerned about what’s fair to the small independent publishers than what’s fair to the billion dollar corporation.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

JDragon said:


> For a number of reasons...
> People and companies have put a lot of time & money into making products that use OGL 1.0(a) based on the fact they were told it wouldn't get changed on them and if it did they could still use the current license.
> 
> It will likely drastically reduce the amount of content that is available for the game as very few people will have any in writing stuff that essentially then can be used by WotC for free.




I completely understand why someone who makes their living as a 3PP would be upset (angry even, if that's how they roll). And those of us who feel like we're "friends" with publishers like Morrus (even if only because we hang out here) can reasonably "defend" our friends.

But what I've seen goes quite a bit beyond all that. People who have never bought a 3PP are OUTRAGED. At least, that's how it appears.

I'm sure that most D&D fans haven't even heard about it yet.


----------



## Ghost2020

There's a movement trying to gain some traction on facebook ....  "Cool Name RPG"

Making a new 5e replacement with a creative commons license, that will be safe from lawsuits, an open license forever, and free.
I can't imagine they can SRD it anymore, but a new independent system to give content creators a place to build and grow.

I think this would be cool if it actually happened.


----------



## TerraDave

It is confusing. As presented, even the technical/legal parts come across as strangely glib. Especially as it is putting most 3PP companies out of business (at least if they use it). And what SRD is covered? Just "5.1"?

Yet only a corporation could have produced this. And as noted upthread, WotC would have denounced it days ago if it was not real.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> Ironically, they only did that in the first place because WotC tried to get rid of the OGL. Had 4e been published under the OGL, Paizo would have been happy to just keep making 3rd party content for it. It was the GSL and its “poison pill” that made Paizo go “well, guess we’ll just keep making 3.5e then.”
> 
> What’s unreasonable is D&D’s owners spending decades benefiting from having everyone and their mother making content for D&D on their own dime, all the while promising they’d be able to keep doing so forever, only to pull the rug out from under them and say “now start paying us or shut down.” Forgive me if I’m more concerned about what’s fair to the small independent publishers than what’s fair to the billion dollar corporation.




Yeah, I'm on board with that last bit. (And that's how I remember the creation of Pathfinder as well).


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".



There is an enormous portion of the RPG industry that relies on the OGL 1.0 to exist. This new license would put an absolutely massive number of small publishers out of business, and have an equally large chilling effect on the industry as a whole. If you enjoy games other than D&D, this change is bad for you. If you enjoy the wealth of 3rd party content currently available for D&D, this change is bad for you. Heck, if you buy into the idea that market competition breeds innovation, this change is bad for you. This change only benefits WotC, at the cost of everyone else who publishes or plays RPGs.


----------



## Staffan

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "sharing". Isn't that allowed by the non-commercial bit?



The non-commercial OGL 1.1 is a separate thing from the commercial OGL 1.1. The commercial OGL only allows you to use your own stuff and stuff from the SRD. There's no provision for using stuff from a third party – not even with their explicit permission, because they do not have the ability to sub-license it to others.

And this was one of the main good things about OGL 1.0 and the ecosystem build around that. If I made a monster book, you could use a monster from that book in your adventure. If you designed a cool character class, I could incorporate that into my setting. The OGL 1.1 does not allow that sort of cross-pollination.



FitzTheRuke said:


> That's terrible, I admit it. That kind of stuff usually polices itself doesn't it? (IE if they ever actually do it, they'd have a riot).



They are getting a riot now. We'll see if they care.

And given the outright lies presented in the leaked document ("OGL [...] wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming." – it was specifically called out in the FAQ that you would be able to publish things in a plethora of mediums; and "over time the old OGL incorporated some confusing and even contradictory provisions." – no provisions were added to the OGL over the last 22 years), I do not trust Wizards to not pull off shenanigans with the license. They have shown themselves utterly untrustworthy.



FitzTheRuke said:


> REVENUE? Yeah, that would be where your only profits lie. I'm on board with this one. that would kill most of the bigger publishers, AFAICT. Which sounds like they're purposefully trying to keep their bigger publishers small. (You'd be much better off making $745K than 1M in that case, which seems strange). It seems to me to be a way of keeping publishers from becoming actual competitors.



Note that it's 25% on revenue over $750k, so if you have a revenue of $1M you'd pay $50k and still have $950k, so that's more money. Of course, that assumes that getting those $250k didn't *cost* you anything, which is probably a bad assumption.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> What’s unreasonable is D&D’s owners spending decades benefiting from having everyone and their mother making content for D&D on their own dime, all the while promising they’d be able to keep doing so forever, only to pull the rug out from under them and say “now start paying us or shut down.” Forgive me if I’m more concerned about what’s fair to the small independent publishers than what’s fair to the billion dollar corporation.




A lot of people are also doing it to contribute to the hobby, while just barely making pocket change. So you just have a huge base of fans who have invested their own money to dabble in publishing as a hobby who now have a huge legal headache to navigate. It also just runs counter to the promise and spirit of the OGL. If they had never put the OGL out and entire communities, a whole culture of gaming and industry hadn’t emerged around it, it would be one thing. But from about 2000 until last week, everyone involved had every reason to believe the OGL couldn’t be taken away and planned abs spent around that expectation


----------



## Nikosandros

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely understand why someone who makes their living as a 3PP would be upset (angry even, if that's how they roll). And those of us who feel like we're "friends" with publishers like Morrus (even if only because we hang out here) can reasonably "defend" our friends.
> 
> But what I've seen goes quite a bit beyond all that. People who have never bought a 3PP are OUTRAGED. At least, that's how it appears.



I strongly dislike 1.1 as a license for D&D going forward, but I'm disgusted by it, in its voluntary obfuscation and the fact that it implies that all previous OGL stipulations are no longer valid, despite what WotC har repeatedly stated in the last 20 years. If their theory is upheld (or no one is able to dispute it) this means ruin for Pathfinder, most of the OSR, Level Up, etc. Yes, I find this infuriating.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Don't get me wrong, everyone. I think it's a bad idea to get rid of OGL1. I'm just trying to understand why everyone (other than 3PP publishers) is seemingly flipping out about it. 

Perhaps it is best if we overreact now, if it makes a difference to the plan going forward.


----------



## Staffan

Charlaquin said:


> Ironically, they only did that in the first place because WotC tried to get rid of the OGL. Had 4e been published under the OGL, Paizo would have been happy to just keep making 3rd party content for it. It was the GSL and its “poison pill” that made Paizo go “well, guess we’ll just keep making 3.5e then.”



They would not have been. The way Paizo people have described it, the process went something like this.

Hmm, Wizards sure are dragging their feet on revealing both the licensing agreement for the new edition and allowing that look into the rules they promised 3PPs. We should probably look into backup plans.
Hey, they're having an open playtest of 4e at the D&D Experience in February. Let's send Jason Bulmahn over to check it out.
Bulmahn, upon return: "Nope nope nope." That's not what we want to write for. We need to do something else, and right time to start working on it would be six months ago.
Hey Jason, didn't you have a variant 3.5e rules set you were working on? Can we take that and expand to a full game?
Now, it's possible that if the GSL hadn't been so toxic, and if Pathfinder hadn't been such a success, the folks at Paizo might have changed their minds eventually. But the original decision to create the Pathfinder RPG (as opposed to the Pathfinder Adventure Paths) was not based on the GSL, but on the distaste Paizo folks had for 4e.


----------



## Tazawa

There's a few interesting things that jumped out at me after my first read of the document. Forgive me if someone else has pointed out these issues--it's hard to keep up.

If the intention of the document is to force creators to use the OGL 1.1 license to support OneD&D, they've left a few holes.
- The OGL 1.1 only applies to "Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1". As near as I can tell, there is no mention of Dungeons & Dragons in the SRD v. 5.1 beyond the identification of the term as Product Identity in the preamble.​- Only OGL 1.0(a) "is no longer an authorized license agreement."​
The implications of this are interesting.
- It does not cover the use of the 3.0, 3.5, or D20 Modern SRDs, or even SRD v. 5.0 which was released shortly before version 5.1. All were released under OGL 1.0a.​- It does not say that OGL 1.0 (Open Game License v0.1 Simplified) "is no longer an authorized license agreement."​
Both OGL 1.0 and 1.0a have the provision that open game content distributed under one version of the license can be copied, modified and distributed under an authorized version of the license. I am not aware that anyone has attempted to de-authorize OGL 1.0.

Does this mean that people can support OneD&D with with open game content derived from previous SRD content under the OGL 1.0 license? It certainly looks like it.

However, I expect that if this oversight is obvious to me, other people will have thought of it too. WotC may have additional documents prepared to attempt to de-authorize OGL 1.0 and withdraw the release of earlier SRDs under OGL 1.0a.

The other thing is that OGL 1.1 does not address non-WotC (3rd-party) open game content distributed under OGL 1.0a. There is a lot of it out there--far more than WotC every released in their SRDs. A lot of that content is very similar to the content in SRD v. 5.1. The creators of that content retain their copyrights to that content with the only condition that it can be distributed under an authorized version of the OGL.
- Can a creator include 3rd-party OGL open game content in their content ("Your Content" in the parlance of OGL 1.1)? It's clearly not "Licensed Content", because WotC does not own the copyright.​- If such 3rd-party content is included, what does it's status become? The creator has the right to distribute it under an authorized version of the OGL (1.1 in this case), but does not have the ability to give WotC any additional rights to that content.​
Of course if a creator can not include any 3rd-party open game content released under OGL 1.0 or 1.0a, this ends any virility of open game content. You can no longer build off of improvement made by others.

It also puts creators in a very difficult spot. As I mentioned before, there is a very large amount of open game content out there--how can you know that "Your Content" does not infringe someone else's copyrighted open game content? You no longer have a safe harbour related to the very complex issue of "how copyrightable is game content". And Wizards doesn't have your back--the indemnification clauses put all the burden on you.

Overall, the license is a bit of a mess and opens up more questions than it answers. Thoughts?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> There is an enormous portion of the RPG industry that relies on the OGL 1.0 to exist. This new license would put an absolutely massive number of small publishers out of business, and have an equally large chilling effect on the industry as a whole. If you enjoy games other than D&D, this change is bad for you. If you enjoy the wealth of 3rd party content currently available for D&D, this change is bad for you. Heck, if you buy into the idea that market competition breeds innovation, this change is bad for you. This change only benefits WotC, at the cost of everyone else who publishes or plays RPGs.




That's an interesting take. I have heard it argued many times in the past that the OGL caused a lot of RPG publishers to create "safe" D&D material when they otherwise could have innovated the Next Big RPG. (Whether that's true or not). Your take implies the opposite. I'm not sure which I agree with. Probably both have happened. (I can see where a publisher can cut their designer teeth creating D&D 3PP to finance their personal projects that may one day result in better/different games on the market).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Charlaquin said:


> Ironically, they only did that in the first place because WotC tried to get rid of the OGL. Had 4e been published under the OGL, Paizo would have been happy to just keep making 3rd party content for it. It was the GSL and its “poison pill” that made Paizo go “well, guess we’ll just keep making 3.5e then.”



If Hasbro pushes ahead with this, I wonder if we will get a repeat of Pathfinder? Another company coming along making 'Totally not DnD' but with anything WotC can claim scrubbed out (and not using the OGL).

Preferably designed to snatch up 5e players which Pathfinder 2e still struggles with somewhat.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I'll note that it's another day beyond the 4th whe it was supposed to be released and yet it still isn't and radio silence continues.


----------



## TerraDave

It looks like something done by in-house council at the corporate/wotc level with little input from the d&d team, and limited understanding of the wider marketplace.


----------



## Haplo781

Henadic Theologian said:


> I'll note that it's another day beyond the 4th whe it was supposed to be released and yet it still isn't and radio silence continues.



Likely they're in full spin/damage control mode


----------



## Charlaquin

Staffan said:


> They would not have been. The way Paizo people have described it, the process went something like this.
> 
> Hmm, Wizards sure are dragging their feet on revealing both the licensing agreement for the new edition and allowing that look into the rules they promised 3PPs. We should probably look into backup plans.
> Hey, they're having an open playtest of 4e at the D&D Experience in February. Let's send Jason Bulmahn over to check it out.
> Bulmahn, upon return: "Nope nope nope." That's not what we want to write for. We need to do something else, and right time to start working on it would be six months ago.
> Hey Jason, didn't you have a variant 3.5e rules set you were working on? Can we take that and expand to a full game?
> Now, it's possible that if the GSL hadn't been so toxic, and if Pathfinder hadn't been such a success, the folks at Paizo might have changed their minds eventually. But the original decision to create the Pathfinder RPG (as opposed to the Pathfinder Adventure Paths) was not based on the GSL, but on the distaste Paizo folks had for 4e.



I hadn’t heard that. Good to know!


----------



## Greg K

FitzTheRuke said:


> Do they still publish PF1 material? If so, that would suck for them, yes. But again, didn't Paizo essentially use D&D's ruleset to build D&D's biggest competition? Is that really "fair" to D&D? Is it unreasonable for D&D's owners to have a problem with that?



Yes, it is fair. Maybe you were not around back when the OGL first came out. One of the intentions, as stated by Dancey (the VP at the time) was to keep 3e alive if owners changed it or took it off the market. The other was to create new games that kept people in the orbit of 3e. When people asked about republishing the SRD, they were told yes.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Ironically, they only did that in the first place because WotC tried to get rid of the OGL. Had 4e been published under the OGL, Paizo would have been happy to just keep making 3rd party content for it. It was the GSL and its “poison pill” that made Paizo go “well, guess we’ll just keep making 3.5e then.”



That's not true, according to Lisa Stevens. The 4E system was not something they wanted to use.


----------



## Xethreau

I have compiled a fact-sheet on the OGL 1.1 in case anybody would like to read 3 pages instead of 15.









						OGL 1.1 Fact Sheet
					

General The text leaked by Battle Zoo is a human-readable version of the actual license. The content of the document itself isn't legal text, but it is presumably all backed by real legal text. (p.1) OGL 1.1 divided between commercial and noncommercial. These facts have been previously reported ...




					docs.google.com


----------



## dave2008

FitzTheRuke said:


> I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".



I don't think being able to cancel the license any time, stop you from selling your creations, and allowing them to sell your creations when you cannot is ever a good deal.


----------



## darjr

FitzTheRuke said:


> I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".





The folks abandoning the OGL and Monte Cook games looking to revise their license and one of the artchitects of 5e putting all his 5e stuff on sale to be pulled from the market by FRIDAY. To Russ accelerating the PDF schedule to yesterday for his book not due till March.

Did you not see any of this? That's just kinda the tip of the iceburg too.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> That's not true, according to Lisa Stevens. The 4E system was not something they wanted to use.



Which is funny because PF2 is basically a union of 4e and PF1.


----------



## Reynard

Frozen_Heart said:


> If Hasbro pushes ahead with this, I wonder if we will get a repeat of Pathfinder? Another company coming along making 'Totally not DnD' but with anything WotC can claim scrubbed out (and not using the OGL).
> 
> Preferably designed to snatch up 5e players which Pathfinder 2e still struggles with somewhat.



The conditions arent the same. 5E isn't being replaced by something controversial. If WotC's surveys are to be believed, the majority of engaged players like the changes. I have no doubt someone (or many someones) are going to try and create "the next Pathfinder" but it's not going to stick because for the vast majority of D&D players, there is no reason to leave. The percentage of ones upset about the OGL debacle is probably in the single digits. In our echo chambers like this one, it feels bigger, but remember there are MILLIONS of D&D players.


----------



## Reynard

dave2008 said:


> Which is funny because PF2 is basically a union of 4e and PF1.



People say that sometimes, but I don't know 4E well enough to know if it is an accurate assessment.


----------



## Torquemada

_EDIT: Disregard this table please, nothing to see here but my own lack of understanding... move along...

* Bad table was deleted, because it was bad *_


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> If Hasbro pushes ahead with this, I wonder if we will get a repeat of Pathfinder? Another company coming along making 'Totally not DnD' but with anything WotC can claim scrubbed out (and not using the OGL).



I expect that‘a exactly what will happen if it ends up being ruled that WotC can’t revoke the OGL 1.0, but they still decide to move forward with the OGL 1.1 anyway, just saying you can’t keep using 1.0 if you sign 1.1. On the other hand, if they are able to revoke 1.0, I don’t think anyone’s going to be able to make a 5.0 clone that captures the feel closely enough to pull off a Pathfinder. Not that folks won’t try, but without the OGL they’ll all have to stray too far from 5e’s mechanical basis to fill the same niche for a large enough portion of the fan base. We’re more likely to see lots of new fantasy heartbreakers with no clear frontrunner to take 5e’s place.


Frozen_Heart said:


> Preferably designed to snatch up 5e players which Pathfinder 2e still struggles with somewhat.



Pretty sure PF2 is published under OGL 1.0, so if that goes away, maybe PF3 will become the go-to refuge for WotC boycotters.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Wulfhelm said:


> I'm not an expert, especially not in US law, but there are many parts that sound really unprofessional to me:
> 
> _XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will
> happen:
> A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
> B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense._
> 
> "Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?



Honestly just the use of "You" as opposed to "the licensee" or some such, is weird for an American contract-adjacent document.

I would posit that, since it involves active participation by many very small-time creators, they anticipated that many people would have to read and comprehend the document without the help of legal counsel and so they dispensed with those legal formalisms that they did not deem actually necessary to making the document do what they wanted. Unlike most other legalese thrown in front of laypeople (like, say, an end-user license agreement on software) they don't want the licensees to just skip over it and be bound by it; there are parts they need licensees to actually understand and actively comply with.

The toxic terms of the document and problematic goals of the endeavor aside, the style decisions, in principle at least, actually show an unusual level of self-awareness, practicality, and flexibility on the part of their lawyers. Whether in execution it works is an open question, but getting a lawyer to make _any_ effort to make a legal document comprehensible to non-lawyers is a win.


----------



## Haplo781

Torquemada said:


> People should play more BRP... $50K is not 25% of $1M.
> 
> 
> Your RevenueWizards' 25% cutYou're left with...$745,000$0$745,000$750,000$187,500$562,500$800,000$200,000$600,000$900,000$225,000$675,000$1,000,000$250,000$750,000



They take 25% of revenue _above 750k_. So if you make $750,001, their cut is 25¢.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> I expect that‘a exactly what will happen if it ends up being ruled that WotC can’t revoke the OGL 1.0, but they still decide to move forward with the OGL 1.1 anyway, just saying you can’t keep using 1.0 if you sign 1.1. On the other hand, if they are able to revoke 1.0, I don’t think anyone’s going to be able to make a 5.0 clone that captures the feel closely enough to pull off a Pathfinder. Not that folks won’t try, but without the OGL they’ll all have to stray too far from 5e’s mechanical basis to fill the same niche for a large enough portion of the fan base. We’re more likely to see lots of new fantasy heartbreakers with no clear frontrunner to take 5e’s place.
> 
> Pretty sure PF2 is published under OGL 1.0, so if that goes away, maybe PF3 will become the go-to refuge for WotC boycotters.



The top dog will be "whatever Critical Role switches to" which might just be their own system.


----------



## Greg Benage

Torquemada said:


> People should play more BRP... $50K is not 25% of $1M.



Qualifying Revenue, to which the royalty applies, is only the amount _over _$750,000.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> People say that sometimes, but I don't know 4E well enough to know if it is an accurate assessment.



Not really. PF2 definitely did take some good ideas from 4e, but “a cross between PF and 4e” is overstating the case I think.


----------



## Reynard

Torquemada said:


> People should play more BRP... $50K is not 25% of $1M.
> 
> 
> Your RevenueWizards' 25% cutYou're left with...$745,000$0$745,000$750,000$187,500$562,500$800,000$200,000$600,000$900,000$225,000$675,000$1,000,000$250,000$750,000



This is the same mistake people make when complaining about taxes.


----------



## Staffan

dave2008 said:


> Which is funny because PF2 is basically a union of 4e and PF1.



Kinda sorta.

Thing is, 3.5e has a bunch of issues. Some of them, generally the lesser ones, were fixed by PF1, but they doubled down on others, so by and large PF1 has the same issues 3.5e has.

4e was meant to fix the issues of 3.5e. It makes sense that PF2, which was meant to fix the issues of PF1, which in turn were largely the same ones as 3.5e, will in some cases fix them in similar ways – or at least provide solutions to the same problems, like PF2's focus spells serving the same role as 4e's encounter powers.


----------



## mangamuscle

Henadic Theologian said:


> ... but there is still a chance for WotC to back out of this disaster



I can bet you that is not the case, quite the oṕposite any rewriting they might be doing at the moment is merely to amplify the "shock & awe" intimitadition factor, in their minds this is a already _fait accompli_ and their are already planning later stages of their plan of world domination of the tabletop.


----------



## Retreater

dave2008 said:


> Which is funny because PF2 is basically a union of 4e and PF1.



So is 13th Age, maybe more so than PF2 is - at least in my opinion.


----------



## Reynard

Henadic Theologian said:


> Its confirmed by Kickstarter, so it's very real, but there is still a chance for WotC to back out of this disaster, not unscathed, but before they completely destroy One D&D & 5e, it's still not fully released.



1) Even if they did, it couldn't be trusted. They have shown us this is their ultimate goal. 2) This isn't going to hurt 1D&D. I would be surprised if the outrage was big enough to hurt the sales on Keys or the box office on the movie.


----------



## Torquemada

Haplo781 said:


> They take 25% of revenue _above 750k_. So if you make $750,001, their cut is 25¢.



I stand corrected, thanks.

Still, people should play more BRP.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Torquemada said:


> _EDIT: Disregard this table please, nothing to see here but my lack of understanding... move along..._
> 
> People should play more BRP... $50K is not 25% of $1M.
> 
> 
> Your RevenueWizards' 25% cutYou're left with...$745,000$0$745,000$750,000$187,500$562,500$800,000$200,000$600,000$900,000$225,000$675,000$1,000,000$250,000$750,000



Yikes.  You don’t understand the new Proposed OGL at all.


----------



## jerryrice4949

darjr said:


> The folks abandoning the OGL and Monte Cook games looking to revise their license and one of the artchitects of 5e putting all his 5e stuff on sale to be pulled from the market by FRIDAY. To Russ accelerating the PDF schedule to yesterday for his book not due till March.
> 
> Did you not see any of this? That's just kinda the tip of the iceburg too.



Fair point but I find some of their responses a little reactionary.  If it was me I am not making any decisions until the dust settles and things are final.


----------



## Staffan

Charlaquin said:


> The tone is definitely bizarre, even for “plain language” commentary. Seems like they’re trying to intimidate the reader into taking action, and to sound casual and relatable at the same time. The result is just weird and off-putting.


----------



## darjr

Staffan said:


>



Yea Matt's been on fire with the subtweets.

He. Is. Not. A. Fan.


----------



## darjr




----------



## MoonSong

Torquemada said:


> Still, people should play more BRP.



But can't, Openquest is OGL 1.0...


----------



## mangamuscle

Reynard said:


> The percentage of ones upset about the OGL debacle is probably in the single digits. In our echo chambers like this one, it feels bigger, but remember there are MILLIONS of D&D players.



You are not seeing the bigger picture. They are trying to ensalve (as opposed to merely "upset") the creators in the community, who will therefore not write anything to support any product with a wotc label for the rest of their lives. If Microsoft made the same to all windows programmers all over the world, would you really think windows will be fine since "programmers represent less than 1% of the total userbase"?


----------



## Haplo781

mangamuscle said:


> I can bet you that is not the case, quite the oṕposite any rewriting they might be doing at the moment is merely to amplify the "shock & awe" intimitadition factor, in their minds this is a already _fait accompli_ and their are already planning later stages of their plan of world domination of the tabletop.



It's not a fair accompli if nobody signs on. And word on the street is nobody has signed on.


----------



## Andrew Anderson

I have a question for the technical and legal experts gathering here. 
As I'm understanding it, OGL 1.1 limits its license-holders only to creating "static text" documents...and I think I specifically saw them mention .pdf files.
Is this meant to exclude web pages with some kind of device responsive design? Or material stored in a collaborative application, say, Google Docs?

Also, one final bit of snark.
Is anyone else unimpressed that the recreators of the *hadozee* propose to sit in judgement over other peoples content and punish them for bigotry? 
Or am I just getting grumpy in my old age...


----------



## Haplo781

Retreater said:


> So is 13th Age, maybe more so than PF2 is - at least in my opinion.



13A is at least in the middle of playtesting a new edition, so they're much better situated to pivot.


----------



## jerryrice4949

mangamuscle said:


> You are not seeing the bigger picture. They are trying to ensalve (as opposed to merely "upset") the creators in the community, who will therefore not write anything to support any product with a wotc label for the rest of their lives. If Microsoft made the same to all windows programmers all over the world, would you really think windows will be fine since "programmers represent less than 1% of the total userbase"?



Respectfully disagree.  If WoTC backtracked, apologized and rolled out new leadership and One D&D is more popular than even 5E I think a lot of 3PP, even ones who have sworn to never support WoTC, would come back.


----------



## Greg K

Reynard said:


> 2) This isn't going to hurt 1D&D. I would be surprised if the outrage was big enough to hurt the sales on Keys or the box office on the movie.



Maybe, maybe not.  One petition has over 15K signatures in just a couple of days- a day or two ago there was only a thousad.  Another petition on change.org has even more (and there are several pages of smaller petitions).  So this may just be getting started.
Several gamer friends on FB are also just learning about what is going as are many of their gamer friends I don't know.  I posted a link to two petitions and asked my friends to share it with others. Tonight, I will be posting another FB link to  one petition asking my non-gamer friends to sign an online petition


----------



## Retreater

Andrew Anderson said:


> I have a question for the technical and legal experts gathering here.
> As I'm understanding it, OGL 1.1 limits its license-holders only to creating "static text" documents...and I think I specifically saw them mention .pdf files.
> Is this meant to exclude web pages with some kind of device responsive design? Or material stored in a collaborative application, say, Google Docs?
> 
> Also, one final bit of snark.
> Is anyone else unimpressed that the recreators of the *hadozee* propose to sit in judgement over other peoples content and punish them for bigotry?
> Or am I just getting grumpy in my old age...



From what I've heard from more knowledgeable people than me - sites like encounter builders, character builders, etc. - would not be allowed.


----------



## GreyLord

Heh...why does this remind me of Williams....

At this rate, the Williams name is not going to be remembered with great favor among some circles.


----------



## ersatzphil

Haplo781 said:


> Likely they're in full spin/damage control mode


----------



## humble minion

Reynard said:


> The percentage of ones upset about the OGL debacle is probably in the single digits. In our echo chambers like this one, it feels bigger, but remember there are MILLIONS of D&D players.



It'll be interesting to see.  My gut feel is that stuff like the dreaded youtube algorithm might help us a little here.

Ten years in the past, this would have been a storm in a teacup.  If you weren't actively on ENWorld or similar, you'd probably have never heard about any of this (unless post facto you saw stuff disappearing from the shelves of your FLGS and asked the guy behind the counter why).

Now, we have the algorithms.  Even a casual D&D player has probably at some point watched an episode or two of Critical Role, or checked out WotCs Dragonlance trailer, or whatever.  The algorithm remembers, and once you've done that, it'll feed you related videos forever.  Right now, pretty much every bit of D&D content going up on youtube (and probably tictok etc too, but I'm not on there so i don't know!) is all about this OGL stuff, and that's going to affect recommendations.  It's going to bring the issue to the attention of a whole lot of more casual players who probably have never heard of ENworld or even the OGL at all.  Whether or not they actually watch the videos or care is another matter, but it'll be harder for people to be completely oblivious to it.

And as I've said before, Critical Role have enormous power here, should they choose to use it.  They have nearly 2 million subscribers on Youtube alone, and then there's Twitch etc.  I wouldn't expect them to criticise WotC publicly over this while OGL 1.1 still hasn't been officially released, but if they did eventually speak out, they'd bring the issue to the attention of a vast number of people, and that'd be a PR nuke that even WotC would find hard to withstand.


----------



## mangamuscle

jerryrice4949 said:


> Respectfully disagree.  If *WoTC backtracked*, apologized and rolled out new leadership and One D&D is more popular than even 5E I think a lot of 3PP, even ones who have sworn to never support WoTC, would come back.



In my personal opinion, at this point in time that is less likely than vladimir putin stepping down from his position and letting himself be charged with crimes of war.
Now, hit them back hard and long enough and they might just do that, but our posting in social media wont make them even flinch, they will just go "if they don't have 1.0 let them eat 1.1"


----------



## JDragon

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely understand why someone who makes their living as a 3PP would be upset (angry even, if that's how they roll). And those of us who feel like we're "friends" with publishers like Morrus (even if only because we hang out here) can reasonably "defend" our friends.
> 
> But what I've seen goes quite a bit beyond all that. People who have never bought a 3PP are OUTRAGED. At least, that's how it appears.
> 
> I'm sure that most D&D fans haven't even heard about it yet.



I think it ties back to the fact that more people care about the actions that are taken by companies where they spend their money now than they were in the past.  Which is in a big part the rise of the internet and social media, people know a whole lot more about the companies they are getting stuff from.

I don't disagree that a good number do not know yet, but when the companies they have been getting stuff from or using their VTT's start shutting there doors it will become very well known very quickly.


----------



## jerryrice4949

ersatzphil said:


> View attachment 271862



Interesting but I wonder if the lockdown is while they work on adjustments or while they just wait this out.  Makes it sound like this is a surprise which I just cannot imagine it is to anyone who knows anything.


----------



## jerryrice4949

mangamuscle said:


> In my personal opinion, at this point in time that is less likely than vladimir putin stepping down from his position and letting himself be charged with crimes of war.
> Now, hit them back hard and long enough and they might just do that, but our posting in social media wont make them even flinch, they will just go "if they don't have 1.0 let them eat 1.1"



Yeah probably true.  Just saying a lot of people say never but when money and opportunity are involved things change.


----------



## EthanSental

I’m kind of torn on the subject, with my main backing being the Level up products and a few other kickstarters, i can see it from the 3pps view but also from WoTC as fan supported content grew from pass this creator stuff around and the dmsguild creator thing a few years back to people and other companies making a living off it, which I don’t think was the intent but WoTC has allowed 3pp to grow along with the fan base for the last 20 years….hard to change that mental ship now.   I hope we can find a common ground and continue to grow the hobby as we move forward.


----------



## jerryrice4949

They are really killing their movie.  All the comments under their Facebook post with the movie trailer are anti-WoTC and pro open D&D.  Gross incompetence to try this a couple months prior for the movie.


----------



## Malmuria

FitzTheRuke said:


> But again, didn't Paizo essentially use D&D's ruleset to build D&D's biggest competition? Is that really "fair" to D&D? Is it unreasonable for D&D's owners to have a problem with that?




Depends what you mean by "dnd's ruleset."  What part of the mechanics are their IP?  If one creates a game with six stats, hp, hit die, and saving throws, is that infringing on wotc's IP?  From what I can tell, there is a good case to be made that that is not the case.  People used the OGL to maximally protect themselves _and_ to allow other creators to make things for their system.  Pathfinder2e uses the OGL, for example, not because the game is so similar to 5e, but because it wanted to offer third party creators a license to make pathfinder 2e compatible products.  Now, wotc is claiming that anyone selling products using ogl 1.0 must either convert to 1.1 or stop publishing.  They may or may not be legally correct, but they have a lot of money to pay for lawyers and a drawn-out legal battle.  So I think people are upset with them because they are using their money and power to bully small games companies out of the market entirely.









						The Legal Fight Over Happy Birthday and What It May Tell Us About D&D’s Rumored OGL 1.1
					

Remember when chain restaurants celebrated birthdays by sending a parade of servers to your table performing a clapping birthday chant only heard in chain restaurants. The staff never sang “Happy B…



					dmdavid.com


----------



## ersatzphil

jerryrice4949 said:


> They are really killing their movie.  All the comments under their Facebook post with the movie trailer are anti-WoTC and pro open D&D.  Gross incompetence to try this a couple months prior for the movie.



That's what I'm marveling at. I mean, I suppose Elon Musk has made "destroying huge amounts of shareholder value" hip, but still.


----------



## jerryrice4949

ersatzphil said:


> That's what I'm marveling at. I mean, I suppose Elon Musk has made "destroying huge amounts of shareholder value" hip, but still.



Yeah at a time when they want to promote the heck out of the movie they are radio silent  and every post they make about the movie on Facebook and Twitter is all negative comments.


----------



## Retreater

So explain this to me in the only terms I can understand...
How many Death Save failures is Wizards at right now?


----------



## ersatzphil

jerryrice4949 said:


> Yeah at a time when they want to promote the heck out of the movie they are radio silent  and every post they make about the movie on Facebook and Twitter is all negative comments.



I wonder what’s going to happen between them and Paramount, if Paramount thinks that WotC scuttled the movies’ box office for them.


----------



## JDragon

Retreater said:


> So explain this to me in the only terms I can understand...
> How many Death Save failures is Wizards at right now?



Honestly as much as it hurts to say it, right now none.  Until WotC comes out and says yes, the OGL 1.1 everyone has been picking apart for the last X days is valid and we are standing behind it.  Once that happens and 3PP stuff starts disappearing and sites get shut down, then we will see the real impact.


----------



## jerryrice4949

ersatzphil said:


> View attachment 271862



I bet.  Right now I am sure they are looking to fire and pin this on a mid level leader.


----------



## Haplo781

jerryrice4949 said:


> I bet.  Right now I am sure they are looking to fire and pin this on a mid level leader.



Or the board demands Cynthia "D&D is under monetized" Williams step down


----------



## DaveMage

If this new OGL gets released, you know what would be _really_ cool?  All the current WotC creatives quitting en masse in protest.   

(It won't happen, but it would be cool.   )


----------



## humble minion

jerryrice4949 said:


> I bet.  Right now I am sure they are looking to fire and pin this on a mid level leader.



They'll be looking to scapegoat whoever leaked the document I reckon.

After all, senior management never fails, they can only be failed by others.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> People say that sometimes, but I don't know 4E well enough to know if it is an accurate assessment.



I know 4e very well and got PF2e when it first came out, but I've never actually played.


----------



## Charlaquin

jerryrice4949 said:


> Interesting but I wonder if the lockdown is while they work on adjustments or while they just wait this out.  Makes it sound like this is a surprise which I just cannot imagine it is to anyone who knows anything.



I’d definitely believe the WotC/Hazbro corporate folks are out of touch enough to have been surprised by the reaction.


----------



## Charlaquin

jerryrice4949 said:


> They are really killing their movie.  All the comments under their Facebook post with the movie trailer are anti-WoTC and pro open D&D.  Gross incompetence to try this a couple months prior for the movie.



Unless their goal is to use the movie as a barometer for how serious people actually are about boycotting them.


----------



## dave2008

Staffan said:


> 4e was meant to fix the issues of 3.5e. It makes sense that PF2, which was meant to fix the issues of PF1, which in turn were largely the same ones as 3.5e, will in some cases fix them in similar ways – or at least provide solutions to the same problems, like PF2's focus spells serving the same role as 4e's encounter powers.



Yes, but it goes beyond that of course. IMO, I wish it was more like 4e in some ways. If I switch to PF2, which I might, I will work on homebrewing to make it more like 4e and our 5e homebrew. Might get my ideal game out of it!


----------



## JDragon

Charlaquin said:


> Unless their goal is to use the movie as a barometer for how serious people actually are about boycotting them.



I think the release of the movie is to far out and being that they want to monetize D&D more, torpedoing a motion picture is a horrible way to "test the waters".  IMHO


----------



## JDragon

dave2008 said:


> Yes, but it goes beyond that of course. IMO, I wish it was more like 4e in some ways. If I switch to PF2, which I might, I will work on homebrewing to make it more like 4e and our 5e homebrew. Might get my ideal game out of it!



Hope you have all the books, if the OGL 1.1 goes live PF 2E will be gone as well.  I would hope Paizo would close its doors before getting in bed with WotC on the OGL 1.1.


----------



## jerryrice4949

JDragon said:


> I think the release of the movie is to far out and being that they want to monetize D&D more, torpedoing a motion picture is a horrible way to "test the waters".  IMHO



Yeah they need it to be a huge success for the whole strategy to monetize D&D to work. But they movie is less than 10 weeks away.  That is not far out at all and usually when marketing ramps up.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> Unless their goal is to use the movie as a barometer for how serious people actually are about boycotting them.



It's months away. They can't just not answer on what's going on for even a month lol. The longer they stay silent the more damage they take because the vast bulk of the attitudes are negative and the uncertainty is just increasing.


----------



## Dausuul

Cadence said:


> "_B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You.* If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense.*"_
> 
> Holy cow....



This deal is getting worse all the time...


----------



## JDragon

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's months away. They can't just not answer on what's going on for even a month lol. The longer they stay silent the more damage they take because the vast bulk of the attitudes are negative and the uncertainty is just increasing.



Release date currently is 3/31/23 so over 2 months.  

I agree the longer they stay quite the worse it gets.


----------



## dave2008

JDragon said:


> Hope you have all the books, if the OGL 1.1 goes live PF 2E will be gone as well.  I would hope Paizo would close its doors before getting in bed with WotC on the OGL 1.1.



I am 98% sure Paizo would just release PF2 without the OGL. It doesn't need it.  They only did it so other people could release content for it and to support the OGL / OGC concept.

But I do have the books I need.


----------



## Riley

Reynard said:


> I would be surprised if the outrage was big enough to hurt the sales on Keys or the box office on the movie.




n=1, but I cancelled my preorder of Keys.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Unless their goal is to use the movie as a barometer for how serious people actually are about boycotting them.



Paramount would love that I'm sure


----------



## TheAlkaizer

I was talking about this whole situation with colleagues this morning. Some of them not really RPG fans so I had to explain some details. It helped me structure my thoughts.

If Wizard of the Coast had come out and said "We've got a new OGL, if you want to make content for our upcoming edition revamp, you have to use this new OGL and here are come terrible terms with 25% royalty and other restrictive clauses" I don't think I would have minded. I'd think it's greedy, I probably would have just moved to another game and thought they were idiots. But I don't think they would have been wrong to do it. They want to funnel users to their digital services, they want to seize control of the industry that built around their products. I don't agree, but I understand.

The part that infuriates me is the unauthorization of the previous versions of the OGL and the impact it has on the industry. The TTRPG industry is such a gem of creativity, passion and just general good vibes. I think 5E is too big and professionals that want to be successful and make money out of working in the industry _have_ to latch to 5E. Creatively speaking, it would be a good thing for most of the industry to unlatch from 5E. But I don't want the price to pay to be seeing the OSR scene being crippled, Pathfinder 2E and Starfinder being stopped and have games that have nothing at all to do with D&D to face issues just because they used the license to allow others to redistribute their own product.

I'm a casual MTG player and I've been playing D&D for a little less than twenty years. I'm a forever GM, I've got an absurd amount of products and I'm one of many individuals that are the catalyst for their industry even growing. They're terrible at bringing in new players, GMs are the ones doing it.

It this comes to pass and do the damages that I think it will, I will never support Wizard of the Coast again. I've already stopped playing 5E for about a year because I felt the need to explore other games and refresh myself creatively. This would just be the shove I need.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

Also, I saw a post earlier on Twitter that reminded me that Free League announced _Lord of the Rings 5E_ mere months ago and also released a version of _Symbaroum_ called _Ruins of Symbaroum_ for 5E. I wonder how they feel about these moves now... and how having a product with a strong IP like _LOTR_ interacts with a license like OGL 1.1


----------



## Henry

dave2008 said:


> I am 98% sure Paizo would just release PF2 without the OGL. It doesn't need it.  They only did it so other people could release content for it and to support the OGL / OGC concept.
> 
> But I do have the books I need.



I am really not sure that’s true, and in fact if Paizo tries to ditch the OGL and republish, I’m reasonably sure WotC WOULD sue, and tie them in court long enough to kill them, because that would be the most precedent-setting case of any case WotC would care to wager.

Paizo’s best bet, in my non-lawyer opinion, would be to attempt to join or initiate a class-action with other publishers over the revocation of OGL 1.0a, because the lawsuit over “what is a game mechanic vs. what is art” is a MUCH larger endeavor than “can this license which everybody used to agree was irrevocable be revoked?”


----------



## JDragon

dave2008 said:


> I am 98% sure Paizo would just release PF2 without the OGL. It doesn't need it.  They only did it so other people could release content for it and to support the OGL / OGC concept.
> 
> But I do have the books I need.



Glad to hear you have what you need.  

Based on my knowledge of 3.0/3.5/PF1/PF2 I'm fairly certain PF2 as it is currently written can not stand without OGL 1.0(a) and a game written without it would be very different.  Now I am not a 3PP, just a gamer that's been around a while so I will acknowledge I could be wrong about this.  For the sake of Paizo I hope I am wrong, but based on a few things I have seen I don't think I am.  

Perhaps someone that actually puts out 3PP products could confirm?


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I continue to be doubtful on the veracity of the leak. I can't imagine anyone vetting something like this going out in any official capacity:
> 
> "We’re giving You a license, not agreeing to take on potential liability when We do so. To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,” but Our lawyers say We need to include that last clause under Washington law, so in it goes."
> 
> There's also a ton of vagueness that I can't see ending up in a legal document. Case in point, the use of the word "something" in this section:
> 
> "A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is substantially similar to a Licensed Work."



Although, it makes one wonder if this isn't a case of tracking down leaks.  It's why mapmakers would put fake towns on maps - because then they knew someone just stole their map.  You can track down the leak 'easily' if a different word is misspelled on different pages -like if publisher A's copy has a word wrong on page 5, and publisher B's copy has it wrong on 13 etc


----------



## EthanSental

TheAlkaizer said:


> Also, I saw a post earlier on Twitter that reminded me that Free League announced _Lord of the Rings 5E_ mere months ago and also released a version of _Symbaroum_ called _Ruins of Symbaroum_ for 5E. I wonder how they feel about these moves now... and how having a product with a strong IP like _LOTR_ interacts with a license like OGL 1.1



I did notice i received an email from Free League of an update to the 2 preorder PDFs for the final form going to print this morning on the 5e lord of the rings and shire adventure.   Odd timing or them trying to get the books/PDFs out to people before this OGL issues catches them in the last stages of creating product?


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely understand why someone who makes their living as a 3PP would be upset (angry even, if that's how they roll). And those of us who feel like we're "friends" with publishers like Morrus (even if only because we hang out here) can reasonably "defend" our friends.
> 
> But what I've seen goes quite a bit beyond all that. People who have never bought a 3PP are OUTRAGED. At least, that's how it appears.
> 
> I'm sure that most D&D fans haven't even heard about it yet.



I think this comment really hits close to how I feel.  Parasocial relationships are a VERY real thing.  It would absolutely be interesting to see, with these comments around, the breakdown of people who've bought 3PP, how many people's PDFs come from DM Guild/Drivethru versus the Trove, etc.  

I can't keep up with the outrage machine, but I keep getting sucked back in.  What was the outrage before? Non-thieving kenders? And what was before that? I'm trying to remember what came between that and the outrage over Tasha's... its mind-eating.


----------



## mangamuscle

Henry said:


> I’m reasonably sure WotC WOULD sue, and tie them in court long enough to kill them, because that would be the most precedent-setting case of any case WotC would care to wager.



It is relevant to comment that is precisely what happened when Gygax published Dangerous Journey's, he did a gamesystem that had nothing to do with (a)d&d yet TSR still sue them.


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

humble minion said:


> It'll be interesting to see.  My gut feel is that stuff like the dreaded youtube algorithm might help us a little here.
> 
> Ten years in the past, this would have been a storm in a teacup.  If you weren't actively on ENWorld or similar, you'd probably have never heard about any of this (unless post facto you saw stuff disappearing from the shelves of your FLGS and asked the guy behind the counter why).
> 
> Now, we have the algorithms.  Even a casual D&D player has probably at some point watched an episode or two of Critical Role, or checked out WotCs Dragonlance trailer, or whatever.  The algorithm remembers, and once you've done that, it'll feed you related videos forever.  Right now, pretty much every bit of D&D content going up on youtube (and probably tictok etc too, but I'm not on there so i don't know!) is all about this OGL stuff, and that's going to affect recommendations.  It's going to bring the issue to the attention of a whole lot of more casual players who probably have never heard of ENworld or even the OGL at all.  Whether or not they actually watch the videos or care is another matter, but it'll be harder for people to be completely oblivious to it.
> 
> And as I've said before, Critical Role have enormous power here, should they choose to use it.  They have nearly 2 million subscribers on Youtube alone, and then there's Twitch etc.  I wouldn't expect them to criticise WotC publicly over this while OGL 1.1 still hasn't been officially released, but if they did eventually speak out, they'd bring the issue to the attention of a vast number of people, and that'd be a PR nuke that even WotC would find hard to withstand.



I think this is a good time to point out that while the vast majority of Critical Role is D&D, they're not shy about playing other systems and settings, like Honey Heist or the absolutely amazing Undeadwood (in case you needed undead in your Deadwood series)


----------



## JDragon

Bayushi_seikuro said:


> I think this comment really hits close to how I feel.  Parasocial relationships are a VERY real thing.  It would absolutely be interesting to see, with these comments around, the breakdown of people who've bought 3PP, how many people's PDFs come from DM Guild/Drivethru versus the Trove, etc.
> 
> I can't keep up with the outrage machine, but I keep getting sucked back in.  What was the outrage before? Non-thieving kenders? And what was before that? I'm trying to remember what came between that and the outrage over Tasha's... its mind-eating.



I get not being able to / wanting to keep up with the latest outrage, I know I don't.
The thing is this is different, this is not some small rule or lore change, this will change the entire TTPRG industry and at least in the short term it will be for the worse. 
I have been around RPG's since before WotC ever existed and while I don't use 3PP products very often I do have some on my game shelf and 100% believe the OGL was a boon for the RPG industry.
It has given talented people opportunities they would otherwise not likely had.  It's forced the games and supplements to get better, trust me much of the early 3PP stuff for 3.0 was scary bad.  
It has also given us things like Roll20, HeroLab and on and on.  I mean I've lost count of the number of times WotC has tried to do digital support and failed horribly at it.


----------



## Henry

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely understand why someone who makes their living as a 3PP would be upset (angry even, if that's how they roll). And those of us who feel like we're "friends" with publishers like Morrus (even if only because we hang out here) can reasonably "defend" our friends.
> 
> But what I've seen goes quite a bit beyond all that. People who have never bought a 3PP are OUTRAGED. At least, that's how it appears.
> 
> I'm sure that most D&D fans haven't even heard about it yet.



For me, it’s more than just my relationships with 3rd party publishers as a result of years at ENWorld and at conventions; it’s the fact that I am a fan of open licenses, and the spurs to innovation and creativity that they bring. I’ve seen it first hand, played the results of these labors, in real life I use the product of open licenses every day. This attempt to kill an open license that’s been benefiting the community for twenty+ years, WotC included, and pervert its original intent into a one-way siphon frankly PISSES ME OFF as a customer.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Greg K said:


> Yes, it is fair. Maybe you were not around back when the OGL first came out. One of the intentions, as stated by Dancey (the VP at the time) was to keep 3e alive if owners changed it or took it off the market. The other was to create new games that kept people in the orbit of 3e. When people asked about republishing the SRD, they were told yes.



Haw! No, I was definitely around when the OGL first came out. You're mistaking me asking some questions for me stating my opinion. Easy enough to do. I had yet to make up my mind on the subject (hence the questions), but I'm coming around.



dave2008 said:


> I don't think being able to cancel the license any time, stop you from selling your creations, and allowing them to sell your creations when you cannot is ever a good deal.




Yeah, that sounds terrible.



darjr said:


> The folks abandoning the OGL and Monte Cook games looking to revise their license and one of the artchitects of 5e putting all his 5e stuff on sale to be pulled from the market by FRIDAY. To Russ accelerating the PDF schedule to yesterday for his book not due till March.
> 
> Did you not see any of this?




No, I had not. I'm seeing some of it now. Which reminds me! I gotta go get myself the Level Up Dungeon Delver's Guide...



Reynard said:


> People say that sometimes, but I don't know 4E well enough to know if it is an accurate assessment.



PF2 definitely has some 4e*isms*, but clearly not the parts that the Paizo designers objected to.


----------



## sigfried

Wulfhelm said:


> "Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?



For context, there is a movement in the legal world in the US to try and make contract language easier for laymen to understand. Exactly how far that gets taken depends on the lawyer and their view.

Ideally, contracts should be both easy to understand and specific so that judges and juries can adjudicate them fairly and clearly.

I'd say this one goes a little too far in the common language direction. I was writing a couple of contracts for myself last year and did a lot of reading on this subject from articles written by lawyers. By and large, I support the idea that contracts should be as easy for a layman to read as possible, so long as it doesn't result in imprecise meaning.

I agree that "Legal trouble" is too vague, but it is easy for a common reader to understand if you are sued or prosecuted or threatened with suit or prosecution.  

There are no hard rules about how you can or can't write a contract, just what is considered good or poor practice.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

jerryrice4949 said:


> Fair point but I find some of their responses a little reactionary.  If it was me I am not making any decisions until the dust settles and things are final.




That's generally my philosophy. Though I think that there's some fear from 3PP that they won't be _allowed_ to sell their product once the hammer comes down. I think that's unlikely, but I understand why it might seem like a good time to cash out.


----------



## sigfried

Knightfall said:


> This is going to be very bad news for PCGen.



Maybe.  This license only covers printed or static electronic documents, according to the license.  Whether PCGen is a static electronic document or not... kind of up in the air.


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> I am 98% sure Paizo would just release PF2 without the OGL. It doesn't need it.



Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.


----------



## Beefermatic

Henry said:


> For me, it’s more than just my relationships with 3rd party publishers as a result of years at ENWorld and at conventions; it’s the fact that I am a fan of open licenses, and the spurs to innovation and creativity that they bring. I’ve seen it first hand, played the results of these labors, in real life I use the product of open licenses every day. This attempt to kill an open license that’s been benefiting the community for twenty+ years, WotC included, and pervert its original intent into a one-way siphon frankly PISSES ME OFF as a customer.



I couldn't agree more. This hurts not just ttrpgs as a whole but stifles creativity and hurts WotC as well. It's greedy, stupid, and puts a bad taste in the collective mouths of dnd gamers everywhere. 

Now, people won't think of WotC as someone on their side but instead as a corporate overlord threatening to squash their community for the almighty dollar, what do you know. 

It's just sad. Sad and really really pathetic. Hopefully they reneg on their idiotic and  moneygrubbing stance.


----------



## Charlaquin

TheAlkaizer said:


> I was talking about this whole situation with colleagues this morning. Some of them not really RPG fans so I had to explain some details. It helped me structure my thoughts.
> 
> If Wizard of the Coast had come out and said "We've got a new OGL, if you want to make content for our upcoming edition revamp, you have to use this new OGL and here are come terrible terms with 25% royalty and other restrictive clauses" I don't think I would have minded. I'd think it's greedy, I probably would have just moved to another game and thought they were idiots. But I don't think they would have been wrong to do it. They want to funnel users to their digital services, they want to seize control of the industry that built around their products. I don't agree, but I understand.



Exactly. That would basically have been the same thing as the GSL. Which was certainly met with its share of critique, but at the end of the day folks who didn’t like it were able to stick with the OGL (and indeed they did). This new license would likewise have maybe been on the greedy side, but it wouldn’t be that big of a deal if the OGL (1.0) was still available for folks who preferred it. It’s the revocation of the OGL 1.0 that’s the real problem here.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.




I wonder how much Villains and Vigilantes (or some other system with vaguely similar stats - or spells or whatever - that has been around for decades) would go for if someone wanted to bolster their IP stable.


----------



## Mistwell

sigfried said:


> For context, there is a movement in the legal world in the US to try and make contract language easier for laymen to understand. Exactly how far that gets taken depends on the lawyer and their view.
> 
> Ideally, contracts should be both easy to understand and specific so that judges and juries can adjudicate them fairly and clearly.
> 
> I'd say this one goes a little too far in the common language direction. I was writing a couple of contracts for myself last year and did a lot of reading on this subject from articles written by lawyers. By and large, I support the idea that contracts should be as easy for a layman to read as possible, so long as it doesn't result in imprecise meaning.
> 
> I agree that "Legal trouble" is too vague, but it is easy for a common reader to understand if you are sued or prosecuted or threatened with suit or prosecution.
> 
> There are no hard rules about how you can or can't write a contract, just what is considered good or poor practice.



This is not the actual license.

I think a lot of people are confused by this. 

We're seeing a sort of commentary help document WOTC sent along with links to the actual license text.

This, from a legal perspective, is a bad idea for WOTC. No idea what lawyer approved doing this but they're taking massive risk by doing that.

Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.




I think they could fairly "easily" release PF3 and file off all D&D serial numbers, though. (The quotes are because it would cost them quite a bit of time and money to do it, but I think they could remain successful while doing it).


----------



## Cadence

Mistwell said:


> This is not the actual license.
> 
> I think a lot of people are confused by this.
> 
> We're seeing a sort of commentary help document WOTC sent along with links to the actual license text.
> 
> This, from a legal perspective, is a bad idea for WOTC. No idea what lawyer approved doing this but they're taking massive risk by doing that.
> 
> Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.




I thought it described itself as "FAQ + License supplemented with interspersed Commentary (see links for just License)"  ?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Mistwell said:


> This is not the actual license.
> 
> I think a lot of people are confused by this.
> 
> We're seeing a sort of commentary help document WOTC sent along with links to the actual license text.
> 
> This, from a legal perspective, is a bad idea for WOTC. No idea what lawyer approved doing this but they're taking massive risk by doing that.
> 
> Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.




Theoretically, it could also have been edited to make WotC look bad, if someone were inclined to do so. This is one of the reasons why I try to withhold actual judgement, myself, for now. I don't mind speculating, though. I just won't let my emotions get involved... yet.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.



More importantly, they already published it with the OGL. I feel like a WotC lawyer would present the fact that they felt they needed to as "proof" that it was, in fact, derivative of WotC's copyrighted material.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think they could fairly "easily" release PF3 and file off all D&D serial numbers, though. (The quotes are because it would cost them quite a bit of time and money to do it, but I think they could remain successful while doing it).



Yeah, I agree. The presentation of PF2 is far enough removed from that of D&D 3e/3.5 that it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to revise in a way that would put them in the clear if it came to that. Hopefully it won’t.


----------



## Maxperson

Art Waring said:


> See Griffon's Saddlebag's response.
> 
> Its not a draft, it had an attached contract to be signed by the 13th.



That doesn't mean that it is necessarily a finished contract  They could have been like, "Here's something very close to what we will be releasing as the final OGL 1.1.  Attached is a contract with better terms than you will get from the OGL.  Sign it by..."


----------



## JEB

Reynard said:


> More importantly, they already published it with the OGL. I feel like a WotC lawyer would present the fact that they felt they needed to as "proof" that it was, in fact, derivative of WotC's copyrighted material.



It would be an interesting opening volley if Paizo was ready to go to court over OGL 1.0, though. Force Wizards to sue them first.


----------



## Thanlis

TheAlkaizer said:


> Also, I saw a post earlier on Twitter that reminded me that Free League announced _Lord of the Rings 5E_ mere months ago and also released a version of _Symbaroum_ called _Ruins of Symbaroum_ for 5E. I wonder how they feel about these moves now... and how having a product with a strong IP like _LOTR_ interacts with a license like OGL 1.1



You’d probably want to negotiate a standalone license with WotC in cases like that.


----------



## GreyLord

FitzTheRuke said:


> Don't get me wrong, everyone. I think it's a bad idea to get rid of OGL1. I'm just trying to understand why everyone (other than 3PP publishers) is seemingly flipping out about it.
> 
> Perhaps it is best if we overreact now, if it makes a difference to the plan going forward.




There are more RPG players than those that play D&D and many play these offshoots.  Many of those who DO play D&D also play these offshoots.




Reynard said:


> The conditions arent the same. 5E isn't being replaced by something controversial. If WotC's surveys are to be believed, the majority of engaged players like the changes. I have no doubt someone (or many someones) are going to try and create "the next Pathfinder" but it's not going to stick because for the vast majority of D&D players, there is no reason to leave. The percentage of ones upset about the OGL debacle is probably in the single digits. In our echo chambers like this one, it feels bigger, but remember there are MILLIONS of D&D players.




Don't worry, the same changes for the OGL 1.1 are supported by the same massive support as the changes for the game!


ersatzphil said:


> View attachment 271862




They can silence their employees, they CANNOT silence their bosses [those in charge of Hasbro].  They cannot silence the stockholders (who, as some of them find out may not be so happy with the type of PR emerging), and they cannot silence those who are not under their employment (as this board so aptly demonstrates in this and other threads)


Haplo781 said:


> Or the board demands Cynthia "D&D is under monetized" Williams step down



If there HAS to be a scapegoat, that could be a likely candidate.  I wouldn't say they will go that far though.
.


JDragon said:


> Release date currently is 3/31/23 so over 2 months.
> 
> I agree the longer they stay quite the worse it gets.




I would think that the sooner they address it with SOMETHING probably the better.  I didn't know people on movie sites were getting negative on it because of this.  If so, something probable be done before the movie studios get upset.


FitzTheRuke said:


> That's generally my philosophy. Though I think that there's some fear from 3PP that they won't be _allowed_ to sell their product once the hammer comes down. I think that's unlikely, but I understand why it might seem like a good time to cash out.




In theory if they can enforce (I doubt it, but if they could) a 20 year backpay scam where those who used OGL 1.0 had to also pay upon those receipts from 20 years back, you would also be on track to be in debt if you, as a store, ever sold those items as well.

Good thoughts for you to dwell on!

Of course, I don't expect that to EVER be enforceable as contracts and contract law in most nations wouldn't try to enforce something retroactively that was understood very differently, BUT if they could (as it sounds like they want to in what I've been reading here), I'd probably not be sleeping too comfortably if I were a gamestore owner either.


Charlaquin said:


> Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.




I think that's one case they would lose under the idea that you can copyright text, but you cannot copyright mechanics.  They'll even get the programmers, software and hardware designers, and most of the computer industry on their side for this one if they advertise what they are fighting WotC over because this would affect far more than just the company WotC is going after.

I think Hasbro would allow something, but I don't think they would allow them to go quite that far....unless they want to fight it out with Sony (who has utilized something to this effect in the past using very similar ability score values equations to the D&D ones already with some of their companies), Square (Same with ability scores), and a few other major companies out there.

At least on this one particular item.


Mistwell said:


> This is not the actual license.
> 
> I think a lot of people are confused by this.
> 
> We're seeing a sort of commentary help document WOTC sent along with links to the actual license text.
> 
> This, from a legal perspective, is a bad idea for WOTC. No idea what lawyer approved doing this but they're taking massive risk by doing that.
> 
> Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.




True.  The PR is bad from what I'm seeing.

I imagine the actual license was thought (at least by some, who knows, there may be some who are rather malicious out there) to only enforce upon the new SRD and the 1.1 OGL.  In effect if they sign on with the 1.1 OGL it rules out the 1.0 OGL for them, but they will be able to use the new SRD for all the new items coming out.

At least I IMAGINE that's what it was thought to have said (no idea what it actually says  now or what they sent out to everyone, so it may actually say what the FAQ is saying it says...which probably needs a rewording or something along those lines before the PR goes ballistically bad).


----------



## darjr

Come on. Draft? This? Even if it’s a draft it’s horrible. And doesn’t give me any desire to see the final.

In fact I’d say “No. Thanks. Bye”


----------



## Greg K

darjr said:


> The folks abandoning the OGL and Monte Cook games looking to revise their license and one of the artchitects of 5e putting all his 5e stuff on sale to be pulled from the market by FRIDAY. To Russ accelerating the PDF schedule to yesterday for his book not due till March.
> 
> Did you not see any of this? That's just kinda the tip of the iceburg too.



I know several YouTubers are moving away from discussing 5e.  Arcane Library is scrubbing their Kickstarter of OGL material, Dungeon Craft will not be talking anymore about 5e or OneD&D (instead, focusing soley upon OSR and Indie games), and Dungeon Coach has announced transitioning from 5e to system agnostic).  Also, Fat Goblin put their 3e and 5e stuff on sale in a F-WOTC (or was it Hasbro) sale (Drivethru made them  change the title).
Can you tell us who is putting their 5e stuff on sale and then pulling it? Want to see if anything for me to buy?


----------



## Charlaquin

GreyLord said:


> I think that's one case they would lose under the idea that you can copyright text, but you cannot copyright mechanics.



Is that game mechanics though? Clearly having a numeric value that determines a modifier to chance of success on certain actions is a game mechanic. But Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and what specific actions each of those values modify? I think a solid argument could be made that’s a specific expression of the mechanic, and therefore under copyright. There’s at least enough there to make a case, which may be enough to keep potential competitors from risking using them. And that’s just one example, meant to illustrate the difficulty of sorting out mechanics from their presentation in an RPG.


----------



## sigfried

Mistwell said:


> This is not the actual license.
> 
> Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.



Eh, it's not totally clear to me. There are sections clearly labeled as being commentary, and others that are numbered and written such that they appear to be a contract and which refer to themselves as a license agreement.

_An example_: V. LEVELING UP UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. *This agreement* covers all commercial uses, whether they’re profitable or not.

_Another:_ c. it contains *the text of this OGL: Non-Commercial* within the body of the work.

If nothing else, it is portraying itself as an agreement (aka contract aka license)  and the fact it specifically notes that certain parts are not part of the agreement strongly implies the other parts are.

You may be correct, and this was just written in a way in which it is super confusing by keeping actual agreement language in an explanation of the agreement... but I think it is likely indeed a mix of the actual language with commentary intermixed in it where indicated.  I suspect the linked agreements are E-Sign or Sign and send copies and this is a document meant to paint it in the best light possible. (and failing miserably at that aim)


----------



## Greg K

FitzTheRuke said:


> Haw! No, I was definitely around when the OGL first came out. You're mistaking me asking some questions for me stating my opinion. Easy enough to do. I had yet to make up my mind on the subject (hence the questions), but I'm coming around.



. Easy to do online.


----------



## sigfried

Charlaquin said:


> Is that game mechanics though? Clearly having a numeric value that determines a modifier to chance of success on certain actions is a game mechanic. But Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and what specific actions each of those values modify? I think a solid argument could be made that’s a specific expression of the mechanic, and therefore under copyright.



Yep, there is not a bright line between what's a "process" and what is a unique expression of a process.  (the body of law tends to use that language more than "rules" from what I understand)  

In court, it would come down to who makes the more compelling case and how the judge or jury could be made to understand the distinction between a process and a work of art expressing the process.  That and arguments over whether Strength, as it is represented in D&D, is a unique creation or just a common term for a commonplace idea.

Also, how close are the circumstances of this case to cases on this matter that have already been decided. 

Bottom line is, the more points of similarity your game has with D&D propper (or in this case the SRD) the tougher it is to show it is not a derivative work under copyright law.


----------



## Charlaquin

sigfried said:


> Yep, there is not a bright line between what's a "process" and what is a unique expression of a process.  (the body of law tends to use that language more than "rules" from what I understand)
> 
> In court, it would come down to who makes the more compelling case and how the judge or jury could be made to understand the distinction between a process and a work of art expressing the process.  That and arguments over whether Strength, as it is represented in D&D, is a unique creation or just a common term for a commonplace idea.
> 
> Also, how close are the circumstances of this case to cases on this matter that have already been decided.
> 
> Bottom line is, the more points of similarity your game has with D&D propper (or in this case the SRD) the tougher it is to show it is not a derivative work under copyright law.



Yep. Which is why “you can’t copyright game mechanics” is not the ironclad defense some people seem to think it is.


----------



## ersatzphil

Greg K said:


> I know several YouTubers are moving away from discussing 5e.  Arcane Library is scrubbing their Kickstarter of OGL material, Dungeon Craft will not be talking anymore about 5e or OneD&D (instead, focusing soley upon OSR and Indie games), and Dungeon Coach has announced transitioning from 5e to system agnostic).



As a fan of both Arcane Library and Dungeon Craft, I have to admit it's bewildering - not on their end, mind you, but - who thought this was a good idea? Having _fewer people _talking about your game?


----------



## JEB

ersatzphil said:


> As a fan of both Arcane Library and Dungeon Craft, I have to admit it's bewildering - not on their end, mind you, but - who thought this was a good idea? Having _fewer people _talking about your game?



I think we have to assume they didn't expect such a widespread negative reaction to OGL 1.1, especially among D&D influencers.


----------



## GreyLord

Charlaquin said:


> Is that game mechanics though? Clearly having a numeric value that determines a modifier to chance of success on certain actions is a game mechanic. But Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and what specific actions each of those values modify? I think a solid argument could be made that’s a specific expression of the mechanic, and therefore under copyright. There’s at least enough there to make a case, which may be enough to keep potential competitors from risking using them. And that’s just one example, meant to illustrate the difficulty of sorting out mechanics from their presentation in an RPG.




Not exactly a copy, but example one from the 80s...see Final Fantasy I.


----------



## bedir than

JEB said:


> I think we have to assume they didn't expect such a widespread negative reaction to OGL 1.1, especially among D&D influencers.



Those influencers are also going to lose. No matter what non-D&D topic in ttrpg they talk about their audience dramatically shrinks.


----------



## ersatzphil

bedir than said:


> Those influencers are also going to lose. No matter what non-D&D topic in ttrpg they talk about their audience dramatically shrinks.



As someone else pointed out, WotC may be perfectly happy with a bigger piece of a smaller pie.


----------



## Rabulias

Ghost2020 said:


> Is this missing sections? Trying to find the IX.B.2 for qualifying revenue, am i missing it?



I think that is a typo. Qualifying Revenue is detailed in section *VII*.B.2 (in the OGL 1.1 Commercial).


----------



## Rabulias

I have not seen this mentioned yet: they are throwing a bone to 3PPs in that:


			
				OGL 1.1 Commercial - Section VII.A said:
			
		

> Delayed Collection: Though this agreement is effective January 13, 2023, no royalties will be due on any income earned before January 1, 2024 – no matter how much that income is. We want to give Our community a lot of lead time to plan for this. For clarity, all other requirements of this agreement are in effect from the time You enter into the agreement.


----------



## mangamuscle

ersatzphil said:


> As someone else pointed out, WotC may be perfectly happy with a bigger piece of a smaller pie.



WotC maybe, but the big hakunas at Hasbro will want explanations and a few shrunken heads as trophies to show the shareholders mob ... eventually.


----------



## bedir than

ersatzphil said:


> As someone else pointed out, WotC may be perfectly happy with a bigger piece of a smaller pie.



No. Because their goal is one billion dollars in five years. S smaller pie doesn't hit that number. The current pie doesn't hit that number


----------



## TheAlkaizer

Rabulias said:


> I have not seen this mentioned yet: they are throwing a bone to 3PPs in that:



Not much of a bone when effective January 2023 they can't print or sell products. Royalties on no sales are pretty low.


----------



## Rabulias

TheAlkaizer said:


> Not much of a bone when effective January 2023 they can't print or sell products. Royalties on no sales are pretty low.



Not sure what you mean. They would have to sell under the 1.1 license, yes, but for a year they would not pay the fee. If they plan to not use 1.1 then the bone is not for them.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

Rabulias said:


> Not sure what you mean. They would have to sell under the 1.1 license, yes, but for a year they would not pay the fee. If they plan to not use 1.1 then the bone is not for them.



The clauses in the 1.1 are incredibly restrictive and undesirable. It's not much of a choice.


----------



## Rabulias

TheAlkaizer said:


> The clauses in the 1.1 are incredibly restrictive and undesirable. It's not much of a choice.



Oh I agree that 1.1 takes things in a bad direction, but I think a number of the 3PPs in the over-$750K club will sign their special deals with WotC anyway.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> The one chink of light here is that, despite WotC's comments implying this isn't opt-in, it may be that in reality, it does operate on an opt-in basis. WotC went to great lengths to obscure that, though, if so, and have had since Thursday to say something about it.



The predatory practice of scare-tactics and time-pressure implies Hasbro-WotC knows the Anti-OGL can only be opt-in.

It wants people to sign all their rights away − and afterward literally be unable to sue Hasbro-WotC for misrepresentation and fraud.


----------



## JEB

bedir than said:


> Those influencers are also going to lose. No matter what non-D&D topic in ttrpg they talk about their audience dramatically shrinks.



Those influencers built their audience on D&D, but whether or not changing topics will lose that audience entirely depends on the charisma and entertainment value of the influencer. Critical Role successfully drew interest to other RPGs through various one-shots, for example, so the appeal there is more than just "they play D&D!"


----------



## Branduil

Charlaquin said:


> Is that game mechanics though? Clearly having a numeric value that determines a modifier to chance of success on certain actions is a game mechanic. But Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and what specific actions each of those values modify? I think a solid argument could be made that’s a specific expression of the mechanic, and therefore under copyright. There’s at least enough there to make a case, which may be enough to keep potential competitors from risking using them. And that’s just one example, meant to illustrate the difficulty of sorting out mechanics from their presentation in an RPG.



The six stats would probably not hold up as copyrighted in court, I think. We have 40+ years of those not just being used in TTRPGS, but numerous video games as well. It would cause absolute chaos and an insane amount of industry-wide damage to say WotC suddenly has a copyright on those stats, and anyone sued for those terms specifically would end up with some massive titans on their side... same thing with the incredibly common "hit points."

Of course, this doesn't preclude other terms possibly being copyrightable, and you never know what a court will decide in America...


----------



## Charlaquin

Branduil said:


> The six stats would probably not hold up as copyrighted in court, I think. We have 40+ years of those not just being used in TTRPGS, but numerous video games as well. It would cause absolute chaos and an insane amount of industry-wide damage to say WotC suddenly has a copyright on those stats, and anyone sued for those terms specifically would end up with some massive titans on their side... same thing with the incredibly common "hit points."
> 
> Of course, this doesn't preclude other terms possibly being copyrightable, and you never know what a court will decide in America...



Again, the six abilities are just an illustrative example of the broader issue with sorting out what’s mechanic and what’s the presentation of a mechanic. It doesn’t matter that this specific example probably wouldn’t hold up as copyrighted, because the point is that any RPG is full of cases like this where the line between the mechanics and their expression is blurry.


----------



## Branduil

Charlaquin said:


> Again, the six abilities are just an illustrative example of the broader issue with sorting out what’s mechanic and what’s the presentation of a mechanic. It doesn’t matter that this specific example probably wouldn’t hold up as copyrighted, because the point is that any RPG is full of cases like this where the line between the mechanics and their expression is blurry.



I agree with your overall point that the more you differentiate yourself from D&D, the safer your probably are.


----------



## Yaarel

TerraDave said:


> It looks like something done by in-house council at the corporate/wotc level with little input from the d&d team, and limited understanding of the wider marketplace.



It is impossible that the 5e designers would say nothing to decision-makers.

Hasbro-WotC did the Anti-OGL with full awareness.

Even now, Hasbro-WotC must have a backup plan waiting in the wings in case there would be a sizable backlash.

Hasbro is a multi-billion dollar corporation. There are a lot of people putting this plan together. They have been thinking about D&D as an Intellectual Property for "branding" and "monetizing" for a while.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

GreyLord said:


> In theory if they can enforce (I doubt it, but if they could) a 20 year backpay scam where those who used OGL 1.0 had to also pay upon those receipts from 20 years back, you would also be on track to be in debt if you, as a store, ever sold those items as well.




Well, that would just be insane. But that's a good illustration to help me to empathise with 3PP. (Not that I have trouble empathizing. My problem is that I empathize with WotC, to a lesser extent. Just long enough for me to withhold my opinion until I see the "real" document).


GreyLord said:


> Good thoughts for you to dwell on!




True enough!



GreyLord said:


> Of course, I don't expect that to EVER be enforceable as contracts and contract law in most nations wouldn't try to enforce something retroactively that was understood very differently, BUT if they could (as it sounds like they want to in what I've been reading here), I'd probably not be sleeping too comfortably if I were a gamestore owner either.




As a game store owner I'm a little worried, to be sure. Mainly, at the moment, I'm worried about people forming their opinions from half-truths only partially understood from things heard second hand from someone who saw some video on YouTube. Seriously. Even before this OGL stuff, I'd heard customers complain about 1D&D based on incorrect assumptions.

Now that this OGL stuff is starting to look like it's really happening (I have to admit, I never thought that WotC would try this again after messing with it failed so badly with 4e), so I wasn't worried about it when it first leaked. I was _sure_ that it was internet BS) I'm definitely concerned about what it will do to the industry.


----------



## Staffan

Charlaquin said:


> Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.



I'm not a lawyer, but absent legal advice to the contrary I would guess that my chances in court would be much better by continuing to use the OGL 1.0a than abandoning the OGL entirely and relying on copyright law and fair use. Using the OGL 1.0a allows me to shield my entire work behind a "perpetual" license (which may or may not be held to include "irrevocable"), which means the case can focus on the question of whether Wizards can revoke/unauthorize the license. That should, ideally, be a rather easy thing for a court to decide. If I drop the OGL, I open up the entire work to a lot of judgments about whether this piece or that, in whole or in aggregate, violate Wizards' copyright.

I mean, you can't copyright the concept of dragons. That would be absurd. But a set of brutish white dragons who live in arctic lands, corrupting black dragons who live in swamps, insidious green dragons who live in forests, cunning blue dragons who live in deserts, and imperious red dragons who live in mountains? I'd feel much less confident defending that in court.


----------



## Yaarel

jerryrice4949 said:


> They are really killing their movie.  All the comments under their Facebook post with the movie trailer are anti-WoTC and pro open D&D.  Gross incompetence to try this a couple months prior for the movie.



I suspect the plan by Hasbro-WotC is.

The popularity of the D&D movie would erase the publics memory of the betrayal that Hasbro-WotC committed.


----------



## Yaarel

Branduil said:


> The six stats would probably not hold up as copyrighted in court, I think.



Each of those Six Abilities by itself − Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma − would not stand as copyrightable.

However the Six altogether as an assemblage feels recognizable enough to be directly from the OGL 1.0a and its SRDs.


----------



## Charlaquin

Branduil said:


> I agree with your overall point that the more you differentiate yourself from D&D, the safer your probably are.



My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.


----------



## Branduil

Charlaquin said:


> My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.



Well, for 20 years we thought the OGL was safe. Anyone designing TTRPGs right now should be doing their research on the best ways to protect themselves, but it's hard to say what the safest path is if WotC plans to activate Lawbarian Rage


----------



## S'mon

jerryrice4949 said:


> Respectfully disagree.  If WoTC backtracked, apologized and rolled out new leadership and One D&D is more popular than even 5E I think a lot of 3PP, even ones who have sworn to never support WoTC, would come back.




Yes I think realistically if Hasbro-WoTC changed the leadership team responsible, did a _mea culpa_ and promised to be good, many people would come back eventually. Thinking of the 4e GSL and 5e rollout in 2012-14. This is a lot worse than the GSL though, the damage will certainly linger for years. Things will never be quite the same again.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Charlaquin said:


> Pretty sure PF2 is published under OGL 1.0, so if that goes away, maybe PF3 will become the go-to refuge for WotC boycotters.



I can't see Paizo being in the place to make PF3. They're more likely to just scrub OGL from PF2 and continue.

PF2 is still pretty new, so just dropping it for PF3 wouldn't create goodwill amongst their community no matter how justified the reason.


----------



## Yaarel

S'mon said:


> Yes I think realistically if Hasbro-WoTC changed the leadership team responsible, did a _mea culpa_ and promised to be good, many people would come back eventually. Thinking of the 4e GSL and 5e rollout in 2012-14. This is a lot worse than the GSL though, the damage will certainly linger for years. Things will never be quite the same again.



Im unsure there is a way for Hasbro-WotC to repair its betrayal of trust.

It is more like one day discovering ones spouse is a psychopath. There is no ignoring this afterward.


----------



## S'mon

Henry said:


> I am really not sure that’s true, and in fact if Paizo tries to ditch the OGL and republish, I’m reasonably sure WotC WOULD sue, and tie them in court long enough to kill them, because that would be the most precedent-setting case of any case WotC would care to wager.
> 
> Paizo’s best bet, in my non-lawyer opinion, would be to attempt to join or initiate a class-action with other publishers over the revocation of OGL 1.0a, because the lawsuit over “what is a game mechanic vs. what is art” is a MUCH larger endeavor than “can this license which everybody used to agree was irrevocable be revoked?”




My more academic lawyerly opinion would be that Paizo should stand on their rights under the OGL 1.0. They don't initiate anything, but they are in contact with every other major player and ready to support each other if attacked, and crowdfund their defence.

There is a very strong case that the OGL 1.0 is non-revocable, except for anyone who agrees the OGL 1.1. Claims that a non-licenced D&D-style game does not infringe copyright are much hazier and legally riskier IMO.


----------



## Zardnaar

Charlaquin said:


> My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.




 Thus I don't think you can copyright strength, dex, con etc. 

 However the expression of them I'm a lot less sure on that. Eg 12-13 is +1 bonus, 14-15 +2 etc. 

 Lawyers are saying that WotC may or may not win but they have a case. Microfeats woukd be another example. 

 No OGL the Expression of those concepts are in the 3.0 phb they invented. 

 Not theoretically you can clone 4E. No one has. 

 OSR games are using XP tables and ability score expression from BECMI. Well they have a claim there as well. 

 And they don't even need to win to deplatform you from things like One bookshelf, Kickstarter, VTTs. So even if you win, can afford it etc essentially you've been demonitized.


----------



## Nikosandros

Yaarel said:


> It is more like one day discovering ones spouse is a psychopath. There is no ignoring this afterward.



Yes, but corporations are not people. If the leadership at WotC should change, the "behavior" of the company might change as well. There remains however the problem with OGL 1.0. Unless it were updated to a (completely hypothetical) 1.0b which spelled clearly that it is irrevocable, I can't see many people trusting it again.


----------



## Zardnaar

S'mon said:


> My more academic lawyerly opinion would be that Paizo should stand on their rights under the OGL 1.0. They don't initiate anything, but they are in contact with every other major player and ready to support each other if attacked, and crowdfund their defence.
> 
> There is a very strong case that the OGL 1.0 is non-revocable, except for anyone who agrees the OGL 1.1. Claims that a non-licenced D&D-style game does not infringe copyright are much hazier and legally riskier IMO.




 My theory is they want you to sign your rights away so even if they're wrong to bad you signed this. 

 And/or some idiot threw out a number and they get 25% of said number. But you get 0% if no one signs up, goes bankrupt or worse yet beats you in court.


----------



## S'mon

Yaarel said:


> Im unsure there is a way for Hasbro-WotC to repair its betrayal of trust.
> 
> It is more like one day discovering ones spouse is a psychopath. There is no ignoring this afterward.




One thing they could do is a revision of OGL 1.0 to remove possible loopholes against revocability, to give a more cast iron protection against future bad actors. "This license can ONLY be revoked for breach" would be a start.


----------



## Yaarel

Battlezoo mentions Pathfinder 2 and the OGL 1.0a.

Paizo _can_ remove the OGL from PF2.

But it requires rewriting and republishing everything.

They prefer to continue using the OGL 1.0a in the manner to which they have become accustomed.


----------



## Zardnaar

Yaarel said:


> Battlezoo mentions Pathfinder 2 and the OGL 1.0a.
> 
> Paizo CAN remove the OGL from PF2.
> 
> But it requires rewriting and republishing everything.
> 
> They prefer to continue using the OGL 1.0a in the manner to which they have become accustomed.




 They might have to do a PF 2.5 or 3E. 

 There's a lot of potential screw ups and they only need to find one (eg ability scores, microfeats, spells even).


----------



## Yaarel

Zardnaar said:


> They might have to do a PF 2.5 or 3E.
> 
> There's a lot of potential screw ups and they only need to find one (eg ability scores, microfeats, spells even).



Heh, I hope Paizo does, because the gaming community needs a safe haven (again).

At the same time, I sympathize with the costs that Paizo would have to undertake.


----------



## Charlaquin

Branduil said:


> Well, for 20 years we thought the OGL was safe. Anyone designing TTRPGs right now should be doing their research on the best ways to protect themselves, but it's hard to say what the safest path is if WotC plans to activate Lawbarian Rage



Well, I can tell you that relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” is _not_ a safe strategy.


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> I can't see Paizo being in the place to make PF3. They're more likely to just scrub OGL from PF2 and continue.
> 
> PF2 is still pretty new, so just dropping it for PF3 wouldn't create goodwill amongst their community no matter how justified the reason.



Scrubbing OGC from PF2 is exactly what I was thinking “PF3” would be, so I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.


----------



## S'mon

Yaarel said:


> It is impossible that the 5e designers would say nothing to decision-makers.
> 
> Hasbro-WotC did the Anti-OGL with full awareness.
> 
> Even now, Hasbro-WotC must have a backup plan waiting in the wings in case there would be a sizable backlash.
> 
> Hasbro is a multi-billion dollar corporation. There are a lot of people putting this plan together. They have been thinking about D&D as an Intellectual Property for "branding" and "monetizing" for a while.




Group think & bunker mentality are real things.

Russia is a big important country. They have a lot of people working on policy and strategy. They would never do something really stupid and self destructive. They must have backup plans waiting in the wings in case of backlash. Really?


----------



## Branduil

Yaarel said:


> Each of those Six Abilities by itself − Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma − would not stand as copyrightable.
> 
> However the Six altogether as an assemblage feels recognizable enough to be directly from the OGL 1.0a and its SRDs.



I feel like the big thing that would make it hard for WotC to claim copyright on these is they're such common words. Even if it's those 6 specifically, I think it's hard to make the argument no one could come up with those attributes without "plagiarizing."

That said, I have somewhat mixed feelings on this, since I personally wouldn't mind at all if games moved away from the big 6. I think especially the "mental stats" are bad at both

Representing modern conceptions of how our brains work and
Emulating extremely common fantasy archetypes
Almost all heroes in high fantasy tend to be "charismatic," and the charismatic warrior hero is especially common (Yes, the Paladin exists, but the archetype I'm talking about is not limited to religious boy scouts). Wisdom being both sensory perception and good judgment is also weird. Intelligence is just the concept of "I.Q.," which is arguably a flawed and biased model of human intelligence and probably not the best way to measure something like "good at magic and knowledge." So I think there would be a lot of benefits of moving away from the D&D categorizations. Dexterity should probably also be broken up into different stats instead of being the god stat.


----------



## S'mon

Staffan said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but absent legal advice to the contrary I would guess that *my chances in court would be much better by continuing to use the OGL 1.0a than abandoning the OGL entirely and relying on copyright law and fair use*. Using the OGL 1.0a allows me to shield my entire work behind a "perpetual" license (which may or may not be held to include "irrevocable"), which means the case can focus on the question of whether Wizards can revoke/unauthorize the license. That should, ideally, be a rather easy thing for a court to decide. If I drop the OGL, I open up the entire work to a lot of judgments about whether this piece or that, in whole or in aggregate, violate Wizards' copyright.




I'm an academic, teaching Contract & Copyright, among other areas. I agree very strongly with this statement. It really really needs to be emphasised! Discarding the OGL 1.0 is like throwing away your shield because the enemy says they are going to target your shield.


----------



## S'mon

Yaarel said:


> Each of those Six Abilities by itself − Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma − would not stand as copyrightable.
> 
> However the Six altogether as an assemblage feels recognizable enough to be directly from the OGL 1.0a and its SRDs.




'Recognisable' is not enough for infringement. Games have been using similar stat arrays since the 1970s. Runequest comes to mind.


----------



## jeffh

Wulfhelm said:


> I'm not an expert, especially not in US law, but there are many parts that sound really unprofessional to me:
> 
> _XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will
> happen:
> A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
> B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense._
> 
> "Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?



On the one hand, my first instinct is to agree with this.

But on the other, the purpose of most "legalese" is to be unambiguous in a way ordinary language often isn't. There's at least some movement - the lawyers here can perhaps speak to whether it's taken hold, all I know is that it exists - to move to ordinary language when the extra precision isn't needed or when using traditional legal language could obscure rather than clarify what is being agreed to. This is a bit on the flippant side even for that, but is it really unclear in a way that's likely to matter legally? If not, why _not _use more colloquial language?

That's what I think intellectually, anyway, even though on a more emotional level something about _this particular _implementation of it turns me off.


----------



## Charlaquin

Nevermind, this post didn’t contribute anything positive to the conversation.


----------



## Yaarel

Branduil said:


> I feel like the big thing that would make it hard for WotC to claim copyright on these is they're such common words. Even if it's those 6 specifically, I think it's hard to make the argument no one could come up with those attributes without "plagiarizing."



Personally, I find the Six Abilities unsatisfactory because, as mechanics, they are powerwise unbalanced and meaningwise muddled. I feel they need a fix. (Increasing to Eight or consolidating to Four solves these issues.)

But the Six are a "Sacred Cow" that inspires zealous conservatism. 

Many feel it cannot be "D&D" without these Six.

It is difficult to persuade a majority of D&D players to fix them.

This recognizability shows how ... trademarky ... these Six Abilities are.

The OGL 1.0a gave these Six to "the wild", beyond the control of corporations. This gift is a Property Identity that is the property of the gaming culture.

Without the OGL 1.0a, these Six would be unavailable.


----------



## Zardnaar

Branduil said:


> I feel like the big thing that would make it hard for WotC to claim copyright on these is they're such common words. Even if it's those 6 specifically, I think it's hard to make the argument no one could come up with those attributes without "plagiarizing."
> 
> That said, I have somewhat mixed feelings on this, since I personally wouldn't mind at all if games moved away from the big 6. I think especially the "mental stats" are bad at both
> 
> Representing modern conceptions of how our brains work and
> Emulating extremely common fantasy archetypes
> Almost all heroes in high fantasy tend to be "charismatic," and the charismatic warrior hero is especially common (Yes, the Paladin exists, but the archetype I'm talking about is not limited to religious boy scouts). Wisdom being both sensory perception and good judgment is also weird. Intelligence is just the concept of "I.Q.," which is arguably a flawed and biased model of human intelligence and probably not the best way to measure something like "good at magic and knowledge." So I think there would be a lot of benefits of moving away from the D&D categorizations. Dexterity should probably also be broken up into different stats instead of being the god stat.




 They can't really claim the words as IP. They may be able to claim the d20 or OSR version of them however. 

 If your product has the stat system from Basic, AD&D or 3E well that could be a problem as you've potentially violated WotC IP.

 That pretty much nukes the clones, Pathfinder (both of them), Level Up etc


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.



Of course I am not sure - I said 98%! If I was sure, it would be 100%! I do want to clarify that I don't mean they would release it without any changes.  For example, regarding ability scores, monsters scores are already expressed as modifiers only in PF2. They could just make the change for PCs too. Then there is no infringement.

Personally I think the first step is to fight for the OGL 1.0(a). I think Paizo has a 90% chance to win that


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Charlaquin said:


> Scrubbing OGC from PF2 is exactly what I was thinking “PF3” would be, so I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.



In which case, it's still not the ideal system for snatching up leaving 5e players. It's much more complex and more intimidating than DnD 5e to get into, even if in reality it's more simple than it first appears.

It's one of the reasons my group won't even consider it, despite me wanting to switch.


----------



## Staffan

Claiming copyright on "Strength" seems like an overreach. But if your book has:


			
				3.5e SRD said:
			
		

> Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry.
> 
> You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
> 
> 
> Melee attack rolls.
> Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
> Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
> Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).



Then you might be in trouble.


----------



## GreyLord

Charlaquin said:


> My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.




It's not based on TTRPGS.  It's based on what has happened with game mechanics and computer programming.

This is why it could be dangerous ground, depending on where you come at it from.

You approach it wrong you will have the ENTIRE computer industry against you. 

It depends on WHAT they try to take down and how. 

Microsoft is their next door neighbor.  Some of those in good positions at Hasbro are from Microsoft.  They aren't going to go after Game mechanics on their own most likley, they'll go after something FAR easier to prove in court and back up as unique and specific via trademark and other venues. 

It will be FAR easier to go after something like Chromatic dragons that are specifically like the D&D dragons (so not just because it is a green or red dragon, that's still too nebulous), or verifiable D&D material than it would be to go after a more nebulous area such as game mechanics.

You think that's not going to happen if they decide to go lawsuit happy?  That's a much easier fruit to nab than something at the very top of a tall tree.  It's also more likely to be something that will happen and be easy to get to in these instances than something that is harder to define and more likely to get friends and neighbors becoming your enemy.


Charlaquin said:


> Well, I can tell you that relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” is _not_ a safe strategy.




I agree, it isn't the safest strategy, but you are thinking more in terms of TTRPGs.

I am not.  I don't think those who are trying to do this are either.  That's where the problem with the wording is coming in.  They are approaching it like they would a Computer software item...and there HAVE been cases in regards to this type of thing in that arena regarding programming and usage of programs. 

It's why you have licenses and other things for certain items, but you also have certain lines of code that everyone uses even though it originated initially with someone.  

It is why I am saying I think this came out wrong.  I don't think they are trying to squash those who made 3e or 3.5 rules and items.  The idea is to do away with 5e arenas and those who would want to use OGL 1.0a to acquire the SRD for any new items going forward.  They do not want to allow this, and possibly not allow further 5e competition (more vague on that one though).  3e and 3.5 aren't big enough at this point anyways (or I think they are not).  

The don't want the excuses some have been using on the forum that because of OGL 1.0a they can use anything from the new SRD that will come out.  They want to hammer that idea away and kill it.  This means that in regards to D&D going forward, OGL1.0a is NOT authorized...at all.  It is not able to use their SRD.  It is not able to use their stuff.  

More likely this is an unfortunate case of wording and misrepresentation (or so I hope). 

Of course, I could be absolutely wrong on this.  The intent I understood previously was what I just typed though.  It may be that I grossly misunderstood the intent. 

I imagine their will be clarifications or something to that effect coming out (once again, I imagine there will be, but I could also be proven wrong).


----------



## dave2008

Frozen_Heart said:


> In which case, it's still not the ideal system for snatching up leaving 5e players. It's much more complex and more intimidating than DnD 5e to get into, even if in reality it's more simple than it first appears.
> 
> It's one of the reasons my group won't even consider it, despite me wanting to switch.



However, if Pazio releases PF3 with a CC license then someone could make a "basic" pathfinder that could be very similar to 5e (in terms of simplicity).

That is pretty much exactly what I will do with my homebrew game if we switch. My players, like yours, don't want the complexity of the base PF2.


----------



## S'mon

GreyLord said:


> The don't want the excuses some have been using on the forum that because of OGL 1.0a they can use anything from the new SRD that will come out.  They want to hammer that idea away and kill it.  This means that in regards to D&D going forward, OGL1.0a is NOT authorized...at all.  It is not able to use their SRD.  It is not able to use their stuff.




They can legally do that by releasing a new game/edition with no SRD.
They seem to want to 'take back' the 5e SRD that was released in 2016 under OGL 1.0a. AFAICS they have no right to do that (unless you agree to OGL 1.1).


----------



## mhd

In this weird situation, I'm still holding out for it to become even weirder and Palladium Fantasy 3E being the solution to it all


----------



## Beefermatic

I just hope WotC pulls their heads out of their asses before it's literally 100% too late to save their fanbase.


----------



## S'mon

Beefermatic said:


> I just hope WotC pulls their heads out of their asses before it's literally 100% too late to save their fanbase.




According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired.  It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC  know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.


----------



## Jadeite

S'mon said:


> According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired.  It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC  know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.



Now I want to see "Der Untergang" memes of this.


> If Steiner's movie gets released, everything will be all right.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I'm honestly impressed WotC didn't say anything and we're now into Tuesday.

There's got to be a lot going on.


S'mon said:


> According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired. It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.



Colour me skeptical.

Companies like WotC, run by dyed-in-the-wool corporate types, rather than "big personalities" (ugh) rarely go into Fuhrer Bunker mode. They go into Panic Mode absolutely, but not the "Don't speak up or get fired" mode, because that's normally a function of some "big personality" (or a small number of those) having an ego crisis. Also, senior people in companies like this? Even if you fire them they find another job in 10 minutes. So it's just not likely in my view.

It also doesn't work because they're in negotiations with 3PPs, as we know for a fact, and those 3PPs will be happily telling exactly how badly this is going down. They've already been threatened with total annihilation lol.


----------



## reelo

S'mon said:


> According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired. It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.



Fitting...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

reelo said:


> Fitting...



I mean, I know everyone always loves to blame a woman if a woman is within a miles of an event, but let's not pretend that Chris Cocks isn't Cynthia Williams' boss, and that Dan Rawson isn't VP of D&D. Pulling her out of the middle of that chain of command is pure sexism, frankly.

If you want to line all three of them up, sure. Otherwise, maybe don't spread really obviously sexist memes? Just a thought.


----------



## S'mon

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I know everyone always loves to blame a woman if a woman is within a miles of an event, but let's not pretend that Chris Cocks isn't Cynthia Williams' boss, and that Dan Rawson isn't VP of D&D. Pulling her out of the middle of that chain of command is pure sexism, frankly.
> 
> If you want to line all three of them up, sure. Otherwise, maybe don't spread really obviously sexist memes? Just a thought.




The reason I suspect Williams over Cocks is that Cocks headed WoTC for a while and never made any noises in this direction at the time. It seems to have only started when Williams came in. Then there was the leaked investor call. I don't think it's sexist to suspect that she is the prime mover on this.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

S'mon said:


> The reason I suspect Williams over Cocks is that Cocks headed WoTC for a while and never made any noises in this direction at the time. It seems to have only started when Williams came in. Then there was the leaked investor call. I don't think it's sexist to suspect that she is the prime mover on this.



The investor call was not leaked. It was public and it had to be to comply with SEC Reg FD (fair disclosure).


----------



## reelo

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I know everyone always loves to blame a woman if a woman is within a miles of an event, but let's not pretend that Chris Cocks isn't Cynthia Williams' boss, and that Dan Rawson isn't VP of D&D. Pulling her out of the middle of that chain of command is pure sexism, frankly.
> 
> If you want to line all three of them up, sure. Otherwise, maybe don't spread really obviously sexist memes? Just a thought.



Hey, it's just convenient because both are called "Willams". If one, or both people had been male, the joke would still work.


----------



## Reynard

Branduil said:


> Well, for 20 years we thought the OGL was safe. Anyone designing TTRPGs right now should be doing their research on the best ways to protect themselves, but it's hard to say what the safest path is if WotC plans to activate Lawbarian Rage



No no no. BARbarian works just fine there. Commit, my dude.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

reelo said:


> Hey, it's just convenient because both are called "Willams". If one, or both people had been male, the joke would still work.



There's nothing about the name in the meme. And the meme probably wouldn't have been made and definitely wouldn't have been the sexist "hold my chardonnay" (because women don't drink beer, amirite? Thingsnerdsbelieve.com) tag. So come off it.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> Heh, I hope Paizo does, because the gaming community needs a safe haven (again).
> 
> At the same time, I sympathize with the costs that Paizo would have to undertake.



I don't think there is any chance PF2 is the game. Not because it isn't good, or because Paizo isn't a strong company, but because it is too complex for the kind of casual players that have pushed 5E to its current heights. A PF3 would have to severely curtail the very elements that differentiate it from D&D, and even then there would be no guarantee of success.


----------



## Reynard

reelo said:


> Fitting...



Remember when Lorraine Williams was canonized as the savior of D&D in the aftermath of Gygax's complete mismanagement on these boards, just a few months ago when Slaying the Dragon was all the rage?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> I don't think there is any chance PF2 is the game. Not because it isn't good, or because Paizo isn't a strong company, but because it is too complex for the kind of casual players that have pushed 5E to its current heights. A PF3 would have to severely curtail the very elements that differentiate it from D&D, and even then there would be no guarantee of success.



I agree.

I mean, let's be fair to PF2. It's not drastically more complex than 5E in the real nitty-gritty of the rules. In fact, I think if we looked at the whole ruleset holistically, PF2 might be slightly more straightforward than 5E, because its systems work in much more predictable ways, and the classes, ultimately, are slightly more similar to each other than 5E classes.

However... that's not what matters.

5E is accessible because there's a very low bar to creating a character and getting started. It's lower even than some RPGs that are drastically more simple, because there are so few real choices at L1. Further, in combat at low levels, you can barely make any choices, and to call what you can do "tactics" seems generous. But again, this makes it very accessible. Whereas in PF2, with the 3-action system, you can make quite complex tactical decisions, but this does come at a demonstrable cost to accessibility (it also brings back some 3E-style "analysis paralysis" - not a huge amount, but significantly more than 5E - 4E is the only tactically complex system I've seen which didn't make that a big issue - I suspect Lancer is also fine but haven't played it).

I suspect with say, level 8 PCs, and players who've been playing at least a year, the complexity is largely interchangeable, but again, that's not when it matters most.


Reynard said:


> Remember when Lorraine Williams was canonized as the savior of D&D in the aftermath of Gygax's complete mismanagement on these boards, just a few months ago when Slaying the Dragon was all the rage?
> 
> Pepperidge Farms remembers.



I mean, canonized might be going a bit far, but reassessed in a less sexist and "Gygax rules!"-informed way? Yeah I remember. It certainly seemed like a more reasonable assessment. She made plenty of mistakes and engaged in some dubious practices (c.f. Buck Rogers), but she certainly wasn't the devilish figure we were lead to believe she was in the '90s and '00s.


----------



## reelo

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's nothing about the name in the meme.




Someone who knows (the history of) the game should know the name(s). No need to spell them out. 
I guess the joke just happens to work on several levels. Is one not allowed to point out facts just because said facts might be percieved as inconvenient purely by coincidence? Lorraine Williams _is_ reviled by a lot of people, and Cynthia Williams _will be_ reviled for this.


----------



## Enrahim2

Reynard said:


> I don't think there is any chance PF2 is the game. Not because it isn't good, or because Paizo isn't a strong company, but because it is too complex for the kind of casual players that have pushed 5E to its current heights. A PF3 would have to severely curtail the very elements that differentiate it from D&D, and even then there would be no guarantee of success.



It actually think not that hard to make a "pf2 basic" that is as accessible as 5ed. My impression is that the most complicating factor of that game is the shere number of uncurrated options available, and the tables for 3 each skill what they can do.

Release a curated starter set with the skill tables just removed (giving some vague guidelines 5ed style instead), and curate a single number digit classes with only 2 feat options per level (selected for being simple rather than powerful), I think you are good to go. I have not checked the current starter set, if they already do something like that there?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

reelo said:


> Is one not allowed to point out facts just because said facts might be percieved as inconvenient purely by coincidence?



Is one not allowed to point obvious sexism?

If nothing else, the "hold my chardonnay" absolutely 100% confirms the sexism of the meme. I've seen plenty of memes featuring two women which stuck to "hold my beer", you have to kick some old-school sexism to change that.


----------



## reelo

Ruin Explorer said:


> Is one not allowed to point obvious sexism?
> 
> If nothing else, the "hold my chardonnay" absolutely 100% confirms the sexism of the meme. I've seen plenty of memes featuring two women which stuck to "hold my beer", you have to kick some old-school sexism to change that.



Would you have complained about the meme at all if it had said beer in the first place?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

reelo said:


> Would you have complained about the meme at all if it had said beer in the first place?



I would have pointed out the fact Williams 2 is being pulled out of the middle of a chain of command whereas Williams 1 was at the top of one, and that if anyone is most responsible for authorizing the OGL 1.1, and paid the most attention to it, it'd be Dan Rawson, VP of D&D, but I wouldn't necessarily have called it sexist. In that case it would just _seemed_ a bit sexist.

(Btw I feel like Dan Rawson is getting off REAL LIGHTLY so far in those whole thing! I guess he's lucky no-one really knows who he is yet! I'm not saying he should be harassed, no-one should ever do that naughty word, but mocked and meme'd? Sure, that's very different.)

But the sad fact is the meme creator actually, stopped, thought about it, and intentionally added obvious sexism (and frankly made himself sound at least older Gen-X and unworldly, not a great combo). That's bad meme-ing, not just because it's sexist, but because it shows he stopped and thought about it, which should never be apparent in a meme.

Kind of makes the whole thing, as the kids today say "a cringe Facebook Boomer meme". Press F to pay respects.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Ruin Explorer said:


> But the sad fact is the meme creator actually, stopped, thought about it, and intentionally added obvious sexism (and frankly made himself sound at least older Gen-X and *unworldly*



Baatezu confirmed.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Reynard said:


> I don't think there is any chance PF2 is the game. Not because it isn't good, or because Paizo isn't a strong company, but because it is too complex for the kind of casual players that have pushed 5E to its current heights. A PF3 would have to severely curtail the very elements that differentiate it from D&D, and even then there would be no guarantee of success.



Yep. Its complexity is just a little bit too much to attract the casual players like DnD 5e has, and honestly, that was probably by design. Pathfinder 2e is perfect for attracting all the people who wanted a more crunchy game than 5e, and have probably migrated from 3.5 and pathfinder 1e.

It looks like a great game, just not what I'm looking for.

Honestly, 5e but with a few more classes is pretty much what I'm looking for.


----------



## Reynard

Enrahim2 said:


> It actually think not that hard to make a "pf2 basic" that is as accessible as 5ed. My impression is that the most complicating factor of that game is the shere number of uncurrated options available, and the tables for 3 each skill what they can do.
> 
> Release a curated starter set with the skill tables just removed (giving some vague guidelines 5ed style instead), and curate a single number digit classes with only 2 feat options per level (selected for being simple rather than powerful), I think you are good to go. I have not checked the current starter set, if they already do something like that there?



And you have sacrificed the cpore elements of Pathfinder 2E that make it what it is. Why would Paizo do that?

They already have a Beginner Box that does that as an intro and it hasn't taken the world by storm the way PF1 did.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> And you have sacrificed the cpore elements of Pathfinder 2E that make it what it is. Why would Paizo do that?
> 
> They already have a Beginner Box that does that as an intro and it hasn't taken the world by storm the way PF1 did.




To have a variant with wider reach too?

To have the base of a more widely usable open license SRD?

(If either of those were valuable to them).


----------



## Enrahim2

Reynard said:


> They already have a Beginner Box that does that as an intro and it hasn't taken the world by storm the way PF1 did.



Good, then they only are mising the audience. It is a bit hard to get someone to play a game, if anotber game already fills that niche for everyone interested. But the hypotetical here was that a lot of causel gamers suddenly started looking around to play something else than D&D. How can you say that the PF2 might not suddenly see very different sales numbers than what it do now?


----------



## Reynard

Cadence said:


> To have a variant with wider reach too?
> 
> To have the base of a more widely usable open license SRD?
> 
> (If either of those were valuable to them).



Paizo is already carrying 2 lines, and diluting one of them is probably not sound business paractice.


----------



## Reynard

Enrahim2 said:


> Good, then they only are mising the audience. It is a bit hard to get someone to play a game, if anotber game already fills that niche for everyone interested. But the hypotetical here was that a lot of causel gamers suddenly started looking around to play something else than D&D. How can you say that the PF2 might not suddenly see very different sales numbers than what it do now?



That's quite the hypothetical. The assertion that this is going to drive away some significant portion of D&D's fanbase is still very much speculation with minimal evidence.


----------



## kenada

Reynard said:


> And you have sacrificed the cpore elements of Pathfinder 2E that make it what it is. Why would Paizo do that?
> 
> They already have a Beginner Box that does that as an intro and it hasn't taken the world by storm the way PF1 did.



Paizo doesn’t have to do it. Someone else can. That’s the point of open gaming.


----------



## Enrahim2

Reynard said:


> That's quite the hypothetical. The assertion that this is going to drive away some significant portion of D&D's fanbase is still very much speculation with minimal evidence.



Someone sugggested it would be nice with a "safehaven". You replied that PF2 couldn't be that haven because it is too complex. I argued the beginner box was not complex. You seemed to dismiss this notion because the beginner box isn't popular. I point out that this do not support your original claim that the problem is that PF2 is too complex, as the reason for the starter set isn't popular is that its target audience is already taken. So it seem like we are ending up with an agreement that agree that the real problem with using PF2 as a safehaven doesn't having anything to do with the merits of the system, but rather D&Ds incredible hold of the largest potential customer base - the causals?


----------



## Reynard

Enrahim2 said:


> Someone sugggested it would be nice with a "safehaven". You replied that PF2 couldn't be that haven because it is too complex. I argued the beginner box was not complex. You seemed to dismiss this notion because the beginner box isn't popular. I point out that this do not support your original claim that the problem is that PF2 is too complex, as the reason for the starter set isn't popular is that its target audience is already taken. So it seem like we are ending up with an agreement that agree that the real problem with using PF2 as a safehaven doesn't having anything to do with the merits of the system, but rather D&Ds incredible hold of the largest potential customer base - the causals?



These things are tied together. The primary suggestion is that Pathfinder is not a game that people fleeing D&D because of ideological reasons will embrace because it is too complex. That is separate from the idea that the exodus won't be that big in the first place. I do think PF2 will benefit from the OGL debacle, because not everyone is afraid of that complexity. I just don't think it will regain it's position as Serious Competition because of it.


----------



## Riley

reelo said:


> Lorraine Williams _is_ reviled by a lot of people, and Cynthia Williams _will be_ reviled for this.



Sexism is a major reason why Lorraine Williams is/has been so reviled.

We don’t yet know who is driving this new campaign, beyond Hasbro/WOTC writ large.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
Somewhere, folks have gotten the idea that using Russia or WWII Germany as reasonable metaphors for this issue.

Please, don't crank up the rhetoric like that.  Please keep perspective, and don't use hyperbolic analogies.  Thank you.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I dunno, I think there's a qualitative difference between that and language that deliberately undercuts the messages and clarity of what they knew would be a controversial document. Also the Wizards of 2023 is a different company from that of 2000.

The other thing I keep coming back to is the source. Battlezoo isn't exactly a Ben Riggs or ENworld. When you have an anonymous source, you're relying on the trust that the institution and/or reporter have established, and until this blew up all over the internet, I'd never even heard of Battlezoo before.



Haplo781 said:


> The 1.0 threatens to feed you to Demogorgon if you misbehave




It's possible, certainly, but I can think of other, more professional ways of doing that.



Bayushi_seikuro said:


> Although, it makes one wonder if this isn't a case of tracking down leaks.  It's why mapmakers would put fake towns on maps - because then they knew someone just stole their map.  You can track down the leak 'easily' if a different word is misspelled on different pages -like if publisher A's copy has a word wrong on page 5, and publisher B's copy has it wrong on 13 etc


----------



## jerryrice4949

I have noticed that WoTC has not made a Facebook post since this fiasco started.


----------



## Riley

jerryrice4949 said:


> I have noticed that WoTC has not made a Facebook post since this fiasco started.



Nor has @Wizards_DnD Twitter, and before that they twittered daily:



			https://mobile.twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/with_replies


----------



## SteveC

jerryrice4949 said:


> I have noticed that WoTC has not made a Facebook post since this fiasco started.



Somewhere there's a person who said "don't worry, this is all fine, or at worst it will soon blow over."


----------



## Riley

Riley said:


> Nor has @Wizards_DnD Twitter, and before that they twittered daily:
> 
> 
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/with_replies



Also silent:



			https://mobile.twitter.com/DnDBeyond
		



			https://mobile.twitter.com/DnDMovie


----------



## Reynard

SteveC said:


> Somewhere there's a person who said "don't worry, this is all fine, or at worst it will soon blow over."



They probably aren't wrong.


----------



## MNblockhead

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's nothing about the name in the meme. And the meme probably wouldn't have been made and definitely wouldn't have been the sexist "hold my chardonnay" (because women don't drink beer, amirite? Thingsnerdsbelieve.com) tag. So come off it.



I think the use of chardonnay was classist not sexist. Likely chosen over "beer" because it was an out-of-touch corporate type. While you have a point that pulling someone out a couple rungs down on the chain of command may not be fair, but you are stretching to make this sexist.


----------



## MNblockhead

Ruin Explorer said:


> Is one not allowed to point obvious sexism?
> 
> If nothing else, the "hold my chardonnay" absolutely 100% confirms the sexism of the meme. I've seen plenty of memes featuring two women which stuck to "hold my beer", you have to kick some old-school sexism to change that.



Sure, you are allowed to, but the sexism here is not obvious.


----------



## Gubber Bittencourt

Folks here are certainly in the right hobby.

With little or no object they have already created a universe and a whole narrative.

A lot of creativity congratulations!!!!


----------



## SteveC

Reynard said:


> They probably aren't wrong.



I think it's too early to tell. What I know is that it has affected my attitude, and people I know. I got a call from a friend in the industry that I haven't spoken to in over 10 years about this and he's worried, as are the people he knows. To me, that says something. My online gaming group uses third party stuff, so they are looking into other games at the moment because they don't think they'll be able to play them.

Both of us have been talking about what made D&D so popular again, and have come to the opinion that it was all of the people who've been evangelizing it, and none of those people work for WotC.

The cynic in me agrees with you, but I don't like that guy, so I'm hoping for a change or better things to come through.


----------



## overgeeked

Zardnaar said:


> However the expression of them I'm a lot less sure on that. Eg 12-13 is +1 bonus, 14-15 +2 etc.



One thing to note is that expression and process are separate things. A chart of numbers is expression but the formula used to create that chart is not expression. So you can use the math, just not the chart. All WotC modifiers are: stat - 10, divide by 2, round down.


----------



## SteveC

I just want to point out that Lorraine Williams dislike comes from what she did to the company, which all but ruined it. Again, as someone who was there, she spent huge money on the Buck Rodgers game/novels and created a huge backlog of D&D books that could be returned by bookstores and were, for a huge loss.

I am not saying there wasn't sexism involved somewhere, but there are perfectly cromulent reasons to dislike her. As to who is responsible for the current decisions? We don't know, but I suspect it will all come out eventually. Perhaps someone will be leaving to pursue other opportunities shortly. Or perhaps they'll just ride it all out.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I know everyone always loves to blame a woman if a woman is within a miles of an event, but let's not pretend that Chris Cocks isn't Cynthia Williams' boss, and that Dan Rawson isn't VP of D&D. Pulling her out of the middle of that chain of command is pure sexism, frankly.
> 
> If you want to line all three of them up, sure. Otherwise, maybe don't spread really obviously sexist memes? Just a thought.



Cynthia Williams is the BU head of WoTC (president, Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming,), I believe a direct report to the CEO and is high enough up that she was with CEO on the UBS webcast when she was directly quoted about monetizing D&D more. I think it is a fair comparison to the previous Williams.

No idea if she drinks at all and I don’t get the Chardonnay reference. But she should be the one calling the shots on OGL 1.1 with the obvious agreement of her CEO.

Dragging in a line VP is a stretch to complain about the meme as well.

It is not sexist to take a shot at a woman in power who is messing up. There is no magic pass based on gender.

Now, I actually think the first Williams got over blamed and Gygax’s mismanagement glossed over, but she did still finish running the company into the ground. That is where the comparison fails - WoTC is booking record profits and D&D is doing really well. Most of which happened when Cocks, the current CEO, was running the business unit.


----------



## darjr

S'mon said:


> According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired.  It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC  know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.





Just to note I’m not confirming this. Something is going on but this bit may be just rumor.

Sharing for completeness and the source.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> Remember when Lorraine Williams was canonized as the savior of D&D in the aftermath of Gygax's complete mismanagement on these boards, just a few months ago when Slaying the Dragon was all the rage?
> 
> Pepperidge Farms remembers.



This is utter malarkey. Stop it.


----------



## billd91

Myrdin Potter said:


> No idea if she drinks at all and I don’t get the Chardonnay reference. But she should be the one calling the shots on OGL 1.1 with the obvious agreement of her CEO.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is not sexist to take a shot at a woman in power who is messing up. There is no magic pass based on gender.



It's not sexist to take a shot at women in power, true. But *how* you do it might be. 
"Hold my beer" moments have been widespread in meme culture. So why replace beer with Chardonnay? Because one's coded masculine, the other feminine (and I won't even get into the social class coding - that's more of an exercise for another day).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Stalker0 said:


> which.....is the goal. I mean the whole point of this is for WOTC to get people off of 1.0 and on to 1.1. So yes, you absolutely want other vendors to start figuring out how to work with the liscene.
> 
> So again, why haven't they released it so people can start doing that?



I'm pretty sure the whole goal is to get everyone making D&D stuff who isn't WotC to stop.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm pretty sure the whole goal is to get everyone making D&D stuff who isn't WotC to stop.



And to be even more specific - it feels like the goal is for people making _digital tools_ for D&D to stop


----------



## Riley

S'mon said:


> According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired.  It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC  know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.





darjr said:


> Just to note I’m not confirming any of this. Something is going on but this bit is just rumor.




I wonder if Wizards will dare post a Dragon Talk this week?
The last one was before Christmas, and they may hope to avoid review bombing right now.
Also, which community member would want to be interviewed?


----------



## SteveC

One thing that I find really interesting is how small the game designing community is. Everyone knows everyone else. I think there are a lot of interesting conversations between the game designer folks happening right now. I wonder how much involvement with enjoying or participating in the product WotC management has. It would not surprise me if that's little to none.


----------



## darjr

Riley said:


> I wonder if Wizards will dare post a Dragon Talk this week?
> The last one was before Christmas, and they may hope to avoid review bombing right now.
> Also, which community member would want to be interviewed?



I hope they do. They do have news to share regardless.

Also Teos, a frequent guest, had a frank discussion about the OGL 1.1 on the Baldman Games OneD&D stream and Baldman Games is a close partner to WotC and runs their D&D weekends, GenCon play rooms, PAX tables, and Winter Fantasy.

He would be an excellent guest.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Also Teos, a frequent guest, had a frank discussion about the OGL 1.1 on the Baldman Games OneD&D stream and Baldman Games is a close partner to WotC and runs their D&D weekends, GenCon play rooms, PAX tables, and Winter Fantasy.



Oh, I bet. What did Teos say? Any link?


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Oh, I bet. What did Teos say? Any link?



I have a time stamped one, just need to find it.

This has generated so many many many notes


----------



## Alzrius

Myrdin Potter said:


> Cynthia Williams is the BU head of WoTC (president, Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming,), I believe a direct report to the CEO and is high enough up that she was with CEO on the UBS webcast when she was directly quoted about monetizing D&D more. I think it is a fair comparison to the previous Williams.



What often gets overlooked in discussing Cynthia Williams is that she spent over a decade at Altria Group as an Associate Finance Director, which at the time was the parent company of Philip Morris, one of the world's largest tobacco companies.

In other words, she was making sure that using tobacco products remained profitable.

That's not something that I can personally countenance, as there's no way she didn't know she was working in an industry that profited off of human suffering and death. To me, that's far and away worse than any charges that can be thrown at any previous executives of TSR/WotC.


----------



## Riley

I'd really like a link to that interview, if it exists on the web.


----------



## Ghost2020

The movie is called: Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves.

HOLY CRAP....it's like they just told us how the OGL thing was going to go! They think the 3rd parties were stealing, and now they're stealing it back....whoah...forshadowing.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

billd91 said:


> It's not sexist to take a shot at women in power, true. But *how* you do it might be.
> "Hold my beer" moments have been widespread in meme culture. So why replace beer with Chardonnay? Because one's coded masculine, the other feminine (and I won't even get into the social class coding - that's more of an exercise for another day).



They should have made it "hold my champagne" instead. The favorite drink of upper class twits of both genders!


----------



## Nikosandros

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> They should have made it "hold my champagne" instead. The favorite drink of upper class twits of both genders!



I love champagne! I might be a twit, but I'm certainly not upper class...


----------



## Zardnaar

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> They should have made it "hold my champagne" instead. The favorite drink of upper class twits of both genders!




 If they said hold my wine I would have taken it as sexist. 

 Chardonnay or champagne comes across as more classist. 

  That's the first meme I've seen about here can't really print the ones about Chris Cocks here who has a very unfortunate last name for mockery purposes. He probably got beaten up at school. 

 Cynthia worked for big tobacco as well. Chris might be a smeghead but don't think he's done anything that scummy.


----------



## Zardnaar

Nikosandros said:


> I love champagne! I might be a twit, but I'm certainly not upper class...




 Proper champagne or the off brand knockoffs?


----------



## Cadence

Zardnaar said:


> Proper champagne or the off brand knockoffs?




It makes me sad that no one seems to be growing and marketing sparkling wine from Champaign, Illinois - where the University of Illinois is.

(One article makes it sound like it, but its in Peru, IL and not using the name).


----------



## Nikosandros

Zardnaar said:


> Proper champagne or the off brand knockoffs?



I was mostly making a joke, but I actually like proper champagne, but I don't drink it often.


----------



## darjr

Teos Abadia talks to Baldman Games about OneD&D. It looks like a regular stream they do. But at one point they talk about the OGL 1.1 and I think this pretty much confirms the rumors too. He pretty much says it's no good. 

Baldman Games runs D&D at PAX, GenCon, Origins for WotC. They also run WinterFantasy. I think they are a WotC partner or if not might as well be.


----------



## Zardnaar

Cadence said:


> It makes me sad that no one seems to be growing and marketing sparkling wine from Champaign, Illinois - where the University of Illinois is.
> 
> (One article makes it sound like it, but its in Peru, IL and not using the name).




 Here real Champagne is stupidly expensive (and not even that nice". And it's French!!!!

 "Champagne_ usually means some off brand sweet and bubbly Aussie knockoff. 

 Apparently we make good wine but I'm not a wine fan outside sweet and bubbly from Aussie something and even then gotta be semi desperate.


----------



## reelo

Ghost2020 said:


> The movie is called: Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves.
> 
> HOLY CRAP....it's like they just told us how the OGL thing was going to go! They think the 3rd parties were stealing, and now they're stealing it back....whoah...forshadowing.




The last D&D tweet goes well with that too.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Zardnaar

reelo said:


> The last D&D tweet goes well with that too.




 War 2.0!!!!


----------



## Beefermatic

S'mon said:


> According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired.  It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC  know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.



Unfortunately good to know. Smfh.


----------



## Beefermatic

Theres a petition being sent to WotC, might as well sign it. #OpenDND


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> I don't think there is any chance PF2 is the game. Not because it isn't good, or because Paizo isn't a strong company, but because it is too complex for the kind of casual players that have pushed 5E to its current heights. A PF3 would have to severely curtail the very elements that differentiate it from D&D, and even then there would be no guarantee of success.



My thinking is, if PF2 offers an equivalent to an OGL, 5e refugees can use the PRD and modify it to taste for a separate system. It doesnt need to be compatible with PF2. (But it might be, except the 5e Proficiency would be a larger number and so on.)


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> My thinking is, if PF2 offers an equivalent to an OGL, 5e refugees can use the PRD and modify it to taste for a separate system. It doesnt need to be compatible with PF2. (But it might be, except the 5e Proficiency would be a larger number and so on.)



1) PF2 is derivative of the 3.5 SRD so it might be difficult to put out a "clean" version that would avoid a C&D.
2) PF2 is extremely tightly designed. It isn't as simple as picking it apart. If you tear out feats, for example, you have completely hobbled character generation.


----------



## Alzrius

Reynard said:


> Remember when Lorraine Williams was canonized as the savior of D&D in the aftermath of Gygax's complete mismanagement on these boards, just a few months ago when Slaying the Dragon was all the rage?
> 
> Pepperidge Farms remembers.



But Baskin-Robbins always finds out.


----------



## ilgatto

Haplo781 said:


> Start with these



 (Attachments)

So this basically says that you must sign up for This if you would want to dream up and sell _*anything*_ relating to D&D and that anything you do dream up for D&D is actually ours because "We D&D, You you" and then you must pay us "some" of the large amounts of money you might make from it, while we are not going to pay you anything if we would publish your stuff unchanged and, also, we can change the "some" into anything we like at any time and then you're going to pay for any legal problems we may decide we might be in for any reason and, also, terminating this agreement isn't gonna change any of the above?

That's... interesting.


----------

