# Monte Cook makes a statement about the OGL and MCG license



## darjr




----------



## darjr

Monte Cook (@montecook@dice.camp)
					

I was there was the original OGL was created. I know first hand how hard those drafting it tried to sincerely make it so that it would last forever and would never screw over anyone that used it. So when we decided to create a Cypher System open license with the same goals, of course we used the...




					chirp.enworld.org


----------



## jgbrowning

Yes. There is no uncertainty regarding the intent of the OGL when it was framed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

It's an interesting issue he raises, and I think a lot of companies are going to be taking a look at really making sure the language in their licences does what they think it does. 

(also I really assumed he had a beard!)


----------



## Vaalingrade

jgbrowning said:


> Yes. There is no uncertainty regarding the intent of the OGL when it was framed.



The real question is how much the clear intent and testimony of the drafters of the document goes in the court of law.

And how much the language of the new license is designed to convince people it won't go that far so they sign their rights away on the new thing out of fear and zero notice.


----------



## mamba

Vaalingrade said:


> And how much the language of the new license is designed to convince people it won't go that far so they sign their rights away on the new thing out of fear and zero notice.



Given the leak we have seen the new license basically reads 'hand over all your rights and pray we do not make the terms worse for you whenever we feel like it', so I do not see much wiggle room to interpret it too optimistically there


----------



## Vaalingrade

mamba said:


> Given the leak we have seen the new license basically reads 'hand over all your rights and pray we do not make the terms worse for you whenever we feel like it', so I do not see much wiggle room to interpret it too optimistically there



Replace 'pray we do not' with 'just accept that we absolutely will' and I'd agree.


----------



## Shiroiken

Vaalingrade said:


> The real question is how much the clear intent and testimony of the drafters of the document goes in the court of law.



Preface that I'm not a lawyer (despite the many weighing in), but I do work in contracts. Intent, if available from the author, does has _some_ influence in contract resolution, which should be beneficial in this case. However, the level of influence is going to be dependent upon the individual judge. More than likely the WotC lawyers are going to try to focus away from the supposed intent, bringing up the fact that the OGL brought about their largest competitor.


----------



## Yaarel

Shiroiken said:


> Preface that I'm not a lawyer (despite the many weighing in), but I do work in contracts. Intent, if available from the author, does has _some_ influence in contract resolution, which should be beneficial in this case. However, the level of influence is going to be dependent upon the individual judge. More than likely the WotC lawyers are going to try to focus away from the supposed intent, bringing up the fact that the OGL brought about their largest competitor.



It was precisely the "poison pill" of the 4e GSL that brought about their largest competitor.

If WotC continued with the OGL 1.0a without interruption, Paizo would have created new content for 4e. For WotC.

And the many D&D players whose needs Paizo met would be WotC customers, purchasing WotC Players Handbook and supplements with Paizo options.


----------



## Yaarel

The flourishing of D&D 5e evidences the business wisdom of the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> The flourishing of D&D 5e evidences the business wisdom of the OGL 1.0a.




One would think so, but short term profits + corporate greed + "growth must happen, always" capitalism, leads people down particularly twisted roads.


----------



## payn

Yaarel said:


> It was precisely the "poison pill" of the 4e GSL that brought about their largest competitor.
> 
> If WotC continued with the OGL 1.0a without interruption, Paizo would have created new content for 4e. For WotC.
> 
> And the many D&D players whose needs Paizo met would be WotC customers, purchasing WotC Players Handbook and supplements with Paizo options.



Im not entirely convinced thats true based on some comments from Paizo folk at the time.


----------



## Morrus

Yaarel said:


> It was precisely the "poison pill" of the 4e GSL that brought about their largest competitor.



It was one factor amongst many. The other factors do not currently exist for anybody, so don’t expect a repeat of history.


----------



## Yaarel

payn said:


> Im not entirely convinced thats true based on some comments from Paizo folk at the time.



At the time, Paizo wanted to create content for both 3e and 4e. The Paizo contributions would have broadened the appeal of 4e to more customers.


----------



## payn

Yaarel said:


> At the time, Paizo wanted to create content for both 3e and 4e. The Paizo contributions would have broadened the appeal of 4e to more customers.



Probably, the WotC stuff was pretty bad.


----------



## Charlaquin

Shiroiken said:


> More than likely the WotC lawyers are going to try to focus away from the supposed intent, bringing up the fact that the OGL brought about their largest competitor.



The irony of course being that it only did so because they changed to a different license for the then-current edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> View attachment 271510



I mean ifhe is worried how 'dodgy' it looks can't he just write a V2 with the word irrevocable added?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Morrus said:


> It was one factor amongst many. The other factors do not currently exist for anybody, so don’t expect a repeat of history.



Yeah, there's going to be like a dozen competitors eating each other in a year or two this time because there's no longer just the one near-universally beloved third party and none of them have any lead time to make their own immediately after the rollover.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> At the time, Paizo wanted to create content for both 3e and 4e. The Paizo contributions would have broadened the appeal of 4e to more customers.



Lisa Stevens made it very clear that once they had a chance to see 4E in action, they weren't interested in supporting it and  were going to make Pathfinder as a continuation of 3.5 D&D.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Vaalingrade said:


> Yeah, there's going to be like a dozen competitors eating each other in a year or two this time because there's no longer just the one near-universally beloved third party and none of them have any lead time to make their own immediately after the rollover.



"Eating each other" seems a bit much. Green Ronin has shown no obvious desire to destroy Goodman Games who don't seem to have any desire to see Kobold Press disappear from the face of the earth.

They are not in real competition for each other. They're all serving different niches in the broader D&D-like ecosystem.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "Eating each other" seems a bit much. Green Ronin has shown no obvious desire to destroy Goodman Games who don't seem to have any desire to see Kobold Press disappear from the face of the earth.
> 
> They are not in real competition for each other. They're all serving different niches in the broader D&D-like ecosystem.



I can not stress enough, you can like Rifts, D&D, Savage world, TORG, and Vampire all... and the writers of Vampire don't have to wish ill on the writers of TORG... infact they may be the same writers sometimes.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "Eating each other" seems a bit much. Green Ronin has shown no obvious desire to destroy Goodman Games who don't seem to have any desire to see Kobold Press disappear from the face of the earth.
> 
> They are not in real competition for each other. They're all serving different niches in the broader D&D-like ecosystem.



Even if they love each other and always party together after Gencon, if each of those release their d&d alternative sometime next year they'll be competing for the same gamers, and there probably aren't enough of those to go around.


----------



## mhd

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Even if they love each other and always party together after Gencon, if each of those release their d&d alternative sometime next year they'll be competing for the same gamers, and there probably aren't enough of those to go around.



"Alternative" is okay, most of them do that already, and most of the industry has been doing that since the 70s. 

"D&D successor" would be an issue, but I doubt that any of the game companies would actually try that. It's not a winning strategy, that moment happened once and because of mechanics, not legalities.


----------



## Reynard

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Even if they love each other and always party together after Gencon, if each of those release their d&d alternative sometime next year they'll be competing for the same gamers, and there probably aren't enough of those to go around.



They really aren't though. Games generally compete in niches, because gamers that aren't playing D&D are looking for a specific experience and style of game. So Delta Green competes to some degree with Night's Black Agents, but not TORG or ICONS.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> They really aren't though. Games generally compete in niches, because gamers that aren't playing D&D are looking for a specific experience and style of game. So Delta Green competes to some degree with Night's Black Agents, but not TORG or ICONS.



Yeah, I have a hard time imagining someone being torn between Fantasy AGE and Dungeon Crawl Classics. Even if they're nominally in the same genre, they're doing very different things.


----------



## mamba

mhd said:


> "Alternative" is okay, most of them do that already, and most of the industry has been doing that since the 70s.
> 
> "D&D successor" would be an issue, but I doubt that any of the game companies would actually try that. It's not a winning strategy, that moment happened once and because of mechanics, not legalities.



the difference between alternative and successor is the level of success...


----------



## mamba

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, I have a hard time imagining someone being torn between Fantasy AGE and Dungeon Crawl Classics. Even if they're nominally in the same genre, they're doing very different things.



I am torn because I do not know much of either


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> They really aren't though. Games generally compete in niches, because gamers that aren't playing D&D are looking for a specific experience and style of game. So Delta Green competes to some degree with Night's Black Agents, but not TORG or ICONS.



Can I take a moment to pimp out TORG... 

TORG isn't a game, it's like 8 games hiding in a trench coat. The base game has a setting with 7 or 8 mini settings (depending if you count modern earth) and as such can be anything.

Want a D&D like fantasy game take Aysle and Living Lands and mix them a bit you got it
Want a shadowrun like scifi fantasy hybrid take  Pan-Pacifica and Cyberpapyc
Want to run a more urban fantasy take the base earth and work in ANY 1 or 2 other
Want to run super heroes take Nile

I am just now playing with using them as a ruleset to make settings in and finding how versatile it is once you take the metaplot out.

It also is easy to learn for a D&D player... bunch of stats and skills under them, roll a d20 add the skill or stat if you don't have the skill crit on both a nat 10 and nat 20...

now where it is different is that combat is just a skill not it's own system... so melee weapons and hacking are both equal (more like white wolf then D&D) and there are ways to use any skill in combat... I personally played 2 different characters 1 with 0 combat skills (except the reality skill that is like a soak damage roll) and 1 that did have a passing ability to fight and a few spells but both had OTHER options in combat. 
ANd the cards...


----------



## Staffan

GMforPowergamers said:


> the writers of Vampire don't have to wish ill on the writers of TORG... infact they may be the same writers sometimes.



True in at least one case: the late Stewart Wieck (one of the co-founders of both White Wolf and later DrivethruRPG) worked on both The Land Below for TORG as well as a number of Vampire books, including Ashes to Ashes and the Player's Guides for both 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Staffan said:


> True in at least one case: the late Stewart Wieck (one of the co-founders of both White Wolf and later DrivethruRPG) worked on both The Land Below for TORG as well as a number of Vampire books, including Ashes to Ashes and the Player's Guides for both 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.



I didn't know that. I used the two as a random example... but now I am sad because I just looked him up and found how tragic it was. I own multi books he worked on... although I can't put my finger on his exact work on them, and I did not know his name by memory yesterday, that was a major loss to the community.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Reynard said:


> They really aren't though. Games generally compete in niches, because gamers that aren't playing D&D are looking for a specific experience and style of game. So Delta Green competes to some degree with Night's Black Agents, but not TORG or ICONS.



But now we're talking about the niche of games that are "D&D" but aren't published by WotC. There's probably only room for one contender in that niche. If it isn't big it isn't "D&D"!


----------



## mamba

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> But now we're talking about the niche of games that are "D&D" but aren't published by WotC. There's probably only room for one contender in that niche. If it isn't big it isn't "D&D"!



that niche might be getting bigger just about now, even if there can only be one bigger contender in there, it is worth being that one


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> But now we're talking about the niche of games that are "D&D" but aren't published by WotC. There's probably only room for one contender in that niche. If it isn't big it isn't "D&D"!



The entire OSR scene, which is made up of dozens of games, several of which appear to support at least a few full-time employees, are D&D-like games that aren't D&D.

This is not a new thing.


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The entire OSR scene, which is made up of dozens of games, several of which appear to support at least a few full-time employees, are D&D-like games that aren't D&D.
> 
> This is not a new thing.



And if the OSR was going to eat D&D's lunch, it would have done it already. It's been literally 20 years.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> And if the OSR was going to eat D&D's lunch, it would have done it already. It's been literally 20 years.



OK, but I wasn't asserting it was. But also, why is that the metric? Surviving and thriving isn't sufficient for an RPG, it has to destroy D&D?

There are lots of non-D&D gamers very happily playing Traveller, Savage Worlds, PbtA games, etc. and more. If you want to do something other than D&D, you don't need it to be played by millions of people to be able to find other players and have a continual flow of stuff to play.


----------



## billd91

Ruin Explorer said:


> (also I really assumed he had a beard!)



He did! At least once (but I’m pretty sure more than once)


----------



## Reynard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> OK, but I wasn't asserting it was. But also, why is that the metric? Surviving and thriving isn't sufficient for an RPG, it has to destroy D&D?
> 
> There are lots of non-D&D gamers very happily playing Traveller, Savage Worlds, PbtA games, etc. and more. If you want to do something other than D&D, you don't need it to be played by millions of people to be able to find other players and have a continual flow of stuff to play.



You brought up the idea that there needs to be one "contender" for the not-D&D spot, unless I misunderstood you (which is certainly possible, as it is late and there are too many of these threads).


----------



## overgeeked

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> OK, but I wasn't asserting it was. But also, why is that the metric? Surviving and thriving isn't sufficient for an RPG, it has to destroy D&D?
> 
> There are lots of non-D&D gamers very happily playing Traveller, Savage Worlds, PbtA games, etc. and more. If you want to do something other than D&D, you don't need it to be played by millions of people to be able to find other players and have a continual flow of stuff to play.



The enthusiasm of the players (and a bit of imagination) are more than enough to carry any game through for years. Things like dice and shiny books are extras, not necessities.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> You brought up the idea that there needs to be one "contender" for the not-D&D spot, unless I misunderstood you (which is certainly possible, as it is late and there are too many of these threads).



No, I think there's going to be a diaspora, rather than a new destination game. And I think that's actually preferable.


----------



## Retreater

I think the real danger will come from people who will attempt to create a "5e heartbreaker" - something specifically designed to fill the niche that 5e currently fills. Cypher has its fans, DCC has its fans, PF2 has its fans. Of course there can be overlap. 
One in hand is worth two in the bush - I think that's the expression.


----------



## Leejna

I am fairly new to DnD, when en the OGL 1.0 was made I was about 8, I do not make my living from DnD, though I have definitely enjoyed the system and resulting games greatly the past few years, and I have even begun DMing to become a better storyteller and to bring fun to other people's experiences. I also do not know who Monte Cook is (though I probably should), however I do read a lot into how people word things, and this does come off as slightly gaslighting, along the lines of "I can't believe you would question our intentions when I was there for the first OGL", no one is questioning the intent of the individuals who are writing this draft, what we are questioning is the intent of the gigantic greedy corporation behind the new OGL that is most certainly going to be exploiting it for their own gain/greed. If I created content for DnD I would definitely be considering either changing up the system I was presenting, if creating it at all, I can understand it is a business, however there is a fine line between "Hey we would like some credit" and "Hey if your stuff is good enough then legally it belongs to us and thanks for doing all our legwork for us, now go away while we reap the rewards of your hard work until the end of time". It's not right.

It can also be stated that the original OGL is the main reason the DnD market boomed as big as it did the past 2+ decades. And without it they would never be in the position to make this big of a change to try for money. So to take their hands off for 20+ years, let it explode and flourish as a community, then to turn around and say "Hey this belongs to us" is ridiculous, it's ingenious in a sense, but by no means is it right. In fact the quote "DnD is under monetized" speaks a lot to their intent and mindset. In fact they really should be fine with the old OGL because that allowed people creative freedom, to make their own supplements, three of which I backed just last year, people who based their work on the 5E system, and by that sense, DnD and WoTC. Hence boosting sales.

Long take away, I can understand the decision, however that does not mean I have to accept nor approve of it, in fact I think it's much too far, and even though I don't make a living or income on it, I am definitely considering switching to a different system, such as PF2E, to avoid supporting those decisions/mindsets.


----------



## Nikosandros

Leejna said:


> I am fairly new to DnD, when en the OGL 1.0 was made I was about 8, I do not make my living from DnD, though I have definitely enjoyed the system and resulting games greatly the past few years, and I have even begun DMing to become a better storyteller and to bring fun to other people's experiences. I also do not know who Monte Cook is (though I probably should), however I do read a lot into how people word things, and this does come off as slightly gaslighting, along the lines of "I can't believe you would question our intentions when I was there for the first OGL", no one is questioning the intent of the individuals who are writing this draft, what we are questioning is the intent of the gigantic greedy corporation behind the new OGL that is most certainly going to be exploiting it for their own gain/greed. If I created content for DnD I would definitely be considering either changing up the system I was presenting, if creating it at all, I can understand it is a business, however there is a fine line between "Hey we would like some credit" and "Hey if your stuff is good enough then legally it belongs to us and thanks for doing all our legwork for us, now go away while we reap the rewards of your hard work until the end of time". It's not right.
> 
> It can also be stated that the original OGL is the main reason the DnD market boomed as big as it did the past 2+ decades. And without it they would never be in the position to make this big of a change to try for money. So to take their hands off for 20+ years, let it explode and flourish as a community, then to turn around and say "Hey this belongs to us" is ridiculous, it's ingenious in a sense, but by no means is it right. In fact the quote "DnD is under monetized" speaks a lot to their intent and mindset. In fact they really should be fine with the old OGL because that allowed people creative freedom, to make their own supplements, three of which I backed just last year, people who based their work on the 5E system, and by that sense, DnD and WoTC. Hence boosting sales.
> 
> Long take away, I can understand the decision, however that does not mean I have to accept nor approve of it, in fact I think it's much too far, and even though I don't make a living or income on it, I am definitely considering switching to a different system, such as PF2E, to avoid supporting those decisions/mindsets.



I apologize if this is not the case, but there might be a misunderstanding here. Monte Cook is one of the designers of D&D 3rd edition and he  hasn't worked for Wizards of the Coast in a long time. He's saying that the OGL was not meant to be revoked. He's also saying that his company has released their game under an open license and if people are getting nervous about open licenses in general, he's willing to revise their license to make it even safer for third parties.


----------



## Reynard

Leejna said:


> It can also be stated that the original OGL is the main reason the DnD market boomed as big as it did the past 2+ decades.



We should be careful about overly broad statements,  because the D&D market and fortunes have fluctuated pretty significantly over those 2+ decades. The OGL (and STL) certainly helped launch 3E to success, but there was a lot of 3PP dissatisfaction with 3.5. Then when 4E came with the GSL, the OGL was a tool against D&D. 5E has benefited from a robust 3rd parry network (among other things) but it is important to note that 5E did NOT launch with an SRD, even while WotC turned to 3rd parties to produce early support.

All this to say: it isn't simple.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Leejna said:


> I also do not know who Monte Cook is (though I probably should), however I do read a lot into how people word things, and this does come off as slightly gaslighting, along the lines of "I can't believe you would question our intentions when I was there for the first OGL", no one is questioning the intent of the individuals who are writing this draft, what we are questioning is the intent of the gigantic greedy corporation behind the new OGL that is most certainly going to be exploiting it for their own gain/greed.



1) Monte Cook is probably the most prominent of the 3E designers, then and now, and he's gone on to have a successful third party company -- two, actually -- currently producing the Cypher system and 5E content.

2) The intent of the original folks matters for legal reasons. If Hasbro could walk in and say "well, we don't know what the long-dead drafters of the document intended," getting a ruling that the OGL was never meant to be irrevocable will be much easier. If, instead, as is happening, all those not-dead-after-all folks are saying "hey, we did our best to make it irrevocable; any failings in the language are due to our inability to craft it better," it's much more likely the existing OGL will stand.

3) Also, if Monte was going to gaslight people, he'd just use _modify memory._ The man loves his wizard spells.


----------



## Leejna

Nikosandros said:


> I apologize if this is not the case, but there might be a misunderstanding here. Monte Cook is one of the designers of D&D 3rd edition and he  hasn't worked for Wizards of the Coast in a long time. He's saying that the OGL was not meant to be revoked. He's also saying that his company has released their game under an open license and if people are getting nervous about open licenses in general, he's willing to revise their license to make it even safer for third parties.





Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> 1) Monte Cook is probably the most prominent of the 3E designers, then and now, and he's gone on to have a successful third party company -- two, actually -- currently producing the Cypher system and 5E content.
> 
> 2) The intent of the original folks matters for legal reasons. If Hasbro could walk in and say "well, we don't know what the long-dead drafters of the document intended," getting a ruling that the OGL was never meant to be irrevocable will be much easier. If, instead, as is happening, all those not-dead-after-all folks are saying "hey, we did our best to make it irrevocable; any failings in the language are due to our inability to craft it better," it's much more likely the existing OGL will stand.
> 
> 3) Also, if Monte was going to gaslight people, he'd just use _modify memory._ The man loves his wizard spells.



Thank you both for clarifying, I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this regard, as well as for any confusion my post may have caused. I retract my previous "Gaslighting" statement then, it came from the assumption that he still worked there (and previous personal experiences).


----------

