# Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL



## Alzrius

I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!


----------



## Steampunkette

Love me some Ryan Dancey.


----------



## Art Waring

Cheers to Ryan Dancey, I really, really, really hope he is right.

I do worry that wotc may try to bully 3pp publishers, legal or not, due to the short time publishers have to decide to use the new 1.1 license before they have time to find an alternative solution.


----------



## Xethreau

Art Waring said:


> Cheers to Ryan Dancey, I really, really, really hope he is right.
> 
> I do worry that wotc my try to bully 3pp publishers, legal or not, due to the short time publishers have to decide to use the new 1.1 license before they have time to find an alternative solution.



This rumor mill has already had a chilling effect on third-party publishers I know personally. Suffice it to say the bullying train is going according to plan.


----------



## darjr

Just the prospect of lawyers fees for some 3pp on the bubble is bad.


----------



## Scrying Dutchman

Xethreau said:


> This rumor mill has already had a chilling effect on third-party publishers I know personally. Suffice it to say the bullying train is going according to plan.



Can confirm, as a 3rd party creator who just kickstarted his first 5e book.


----------



## overgeeked

Here's to hoping he's right.


----------



## Micah Sweet

I've already seen one publisher state they are pulling down their content on the 13th because of this.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> I've already seen one publisher state they are pulling down their content on the 13th because of this.



Who?


----------



## Micah Sweet

It was on a Discord server, so I'm not sure I should say.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I've already seen one publisher state they are pulling down their content on the 13th because of this.





overgeeked said:


> Who?



I second this... I think we need to keep a record of who is going what way with this


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I second this... I think we need to keep a record of who is going what way with this



Since Discord isn't technically public, I don't think its right to out a creator who hasn't made a public statement. I just mentioned it to let everyone know that the lines are already being drawn.


----------



## EpicureanDM

Deleted.


----------



## Retreater

I hope he's right. But does he have any authority other than his past employment with Wizards to make such a claim? Is he a lawyer? Does he know court precedents?


----------



## estar

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!



While I appreciate what Ryan and his team did.

Wizards at the time should have used the wording of Section 9 of the GPL. It was much clearer wording of what being attempted with this clause. Irrevocable doesn't appear in the GPL and it worked out just fine with that license.


----------



## kenmarable

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!



To be fair, if I recall, the GPL didn't even include that word until v3 in 2007. So Ryan basing the OGL on standard language of open-source software licenses of 2000 not having it makes sense.

Although, of course, I'm right there with you in wishing it was different to avoid this ambiguity.


----------



## jgbrowning

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!




Perpetual does.


----------



## Branduil

While it would be nice to have better wording in the OGL, I think it's wishful thinking to believe that would stop what is clearly a bad-faith, malicious reading of it. The decision makers chose to do this not because the OGL allows it, but because they think they can get away with it. It's very clear that the intent of the OGL was to be open and irrevocable.


----------



## Alzrius

jgbrowning said:


> Perpetual does.



Yeah, but there's an assertion being made (if I understand things correctly) that there's a difference between being perpetual (i.e. having no built-in expiration date) and being revocable (i.e. the issuer can say the license is no longer valid). I have no idea if that's necessarily true, and I suspect that it'd take a court ruling to conclusively affirm or deny, but it seems to be the current line of thinking on WotC's part as of now.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

estar said:


> While I appreciate what Ryan and his team did.
> 
> Wizards at the time should have used the wording of Section 9 of the GPL. It was much clearer wording of what being attempted with this clause. Irrevocable doesn't appear in the GPL and it worked out just fine with that license.



I can not stress enough how 2000 and before D&D was in a completely different place then 2023 D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jgbrowning said:


> Perpetual does.



but that isn't the same thing


----------



## jgbrowning

Here's my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth.

The original license was an agreement between WotC and the user. At the moment that the user published a product under that license, the license was authorized. And perpetually so. There is no revoking that authorization, particularly when (sect 9) it is mention that changes in the license allow the user to use previous version of the license if they so wish.

This means that any previously  publish work under the OGL is fine *providing *that you don't agree to the new license, because the new license says that the user agrees to alter previously existing licenses how WotC wants them altered.

If you have published materials under the OGL and want to publish under the new OGL, simply create a new legal entity that does not have the authority to speak for any of your other legal entities, so that the change in the license that WotC wants to happen isn't able to happen.

The OGL is perpetual, and you can use any version you like, UNLESS you agree to what WotC wants to change by publishing and agreeing with the new version.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning

Alzrius said:


> Yeah, but there's an assertion being made (if I understand things correctly) that there's a difference between being perpetual (i.e. having no built-in expiration date) and being revocable (i.e. the issuer can say the license is no longer valid). I have no idea if that's necessarily true, and I suspect that it'd take a court ruling to conclusively affirm or deny, but it seems to be the current line of thinking on WotC's part as of now.




The part where they are saying that the license is no longer valid is in another license, that you haven't *agreed *to use if you don't publish anything under it.

One does not alter existing contracts (which is what a license is) via another contract that *not all parties* have agreed to.
.
(Edit: to be clear, those signing on with the OGL signed a contract, not a Credit Card agreement that allowed the issuer to change terms as they desired and which only allowed the user to agree or to stop using. That is not the OGL. Particullary when the OGL specifically said that any new versions did not change the old version.)

joe b.


----------



## Alzrius

jgbrowning said:


> The part where they are saying that the license is no longer valid is in another license, that you haven't *agreed *to use if you don't publish anything under it.
> 
> One does not alter existing contracts (which is what a license is) via another contract that *not all parties* have agreed to.
> 
> joe b.



I've seen that interpretation advocated (heck, I've advocated for it myself), but while I think that's the most straightforward, common sense version of things, there seems to be a lot of knowledgeable people (some of them lawyers) saying that might not be the case.


----------



## SteveC

I just want to say thanks to Morrus for tracking him down. As someone who was there at the time, this was completely the intention and it was discussed then with the publishers at the time wanting to know that the license couldn't be pulled out from under them. Most of the people discussing this at the time are still in the game, and would never have gone into business without that assurance.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Retreater said:


> I hope he's right. But does he have any authority other than his past employment with Wizards to make such a claim? Is he a lawyer? Does he know court precedents?



I think he can help establish the original intent


----------



## God

Brownie points (current and retroactive) for Ryan Dancey.


----------



## TheSword

There are a couple of questions that are floating my head.

Q - Can WOC issue a licence that is more favorable to them? (Reporting, royalties etc) 
A - Yes of course

Q - Can they force third parties to accept it?
A - Maybe. Which is the same as yes if they have an army of lawyers and 95% of licensees don’t have the funds to challenge it in court. That said it only needs one gambling person with deep pockets to challenge it successfully in court.

Q - Are they likely to upset the 3pp to that extent.
A - It depends on whether they feel they have cover from a PR/Community point of view towards 3pp by offering free use up to a point.

My gut feeling is that WOC considers the IP theirs - particularly the stuff they have developed recently.

We know that D&D 5e is an order of magnitude bigger than it was then the OGL was released.

We know that they wish to monetize the brand further and free use of IP probably stings like a fishhook in the ass.

Ryan Dancey unfortunately no longer works for WOC and WOC can easily say circumstances have changed. They can say that 5e is a fundamentally different product, and that they are spending money developing and promoting something that didn’t exist when the OGL was created.

WOC/Hasbro almost certainly have lawyers who are advising them that there is either enough cover or possibility that they can win to make the change worth it.

I suspect they are gambling that the majority of 3pp will accept the new license - if grudgingly because it’s terms aren’t too onerous. Those that won’t because they are of a size that it is onerous are competition for D&D anyway and either aren’t producing content for 5e (Paizo) or aren’t big enough/are to dependent to find it worth fighting them (EN Publishing), Kobold Press etc etc.

Cleverly by getting this out of the way now they are ensuring that the fallout happens now, rather than during the launch of whatever the One D&D playtest turns into. I’m not surprised it’s leaked early.


----------



## jgbrowning

Alzrius said:


> I've seen that interpretation advocated (heck, I've advocated for it myself), but while I think that's the most straightforward, common sense version of things, there seems to be a lot of knowledgeable people (some of them lawyers) saying that might not be the case.




All the arguments come down to "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." in sect 9.

Every publication released under the OGL is released under an authorized version of the license because _every_ version WoTC released is an authorized one.

Creating a new version of the OGL that "un-authorizes" previous versions *for that user* requires the *user's agreement*, in that new license.

No new, unsigned, unagreed-upon license removes the prior section 4: "In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." Because it's not a contract until both sides agree to the terms, and the contract was already made with the terms set out at the time when a product is published under the OGL.

All of the versions of the OGLs are authorized until one agrees with WotC that they aren't anymore by making a new contract with them by publishing under the new OGL.

joe b.


----------



## Akodoken

All I can add is, support your 3PP. If you like their products, now is the perfect time to make those purchases.


----------



## ronaldsf

Good for him. If this goes to court, this is how he'll testify!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ronaldsf said:


> Good for him. If this goes to court, this is how he'll testify!




I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?



To provide some illumination on the purpose of the original OGL, particularly if it seems to contrast with WotC's statements now about what it was supposed to be for. I think, needless to say, he wouldn't be called by the lawyers representing WotC, but their opponent(s).


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?




As the rep of the company at the time the text in question was created, upon which all of this is standing.


----------



## God

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?



An expert witness testifying to the intent and context of the contract as it was originally drafted, and continues to bind successive dicebag WotC executives.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> To provide some illumination on the purpose of the original OGL, particularly if it seems to contrast with WotC's statements now about what it was supposed to be for. I think, needless to say, he wouldn't be called by the lawyers representing WotC, but their opponent(s).





Scribe said:


> As the rep of the company at the time the text in question was created, upon which all of this is standing.





God said:


> An expert witness testifying to the intent and context of the contract as it was originally drafted, and continues to bind successive dicebag WotC executives.



Yeah I worked for many companies that had 1 intent then with a change of leadership that intent changed. I don't know ifa legal argument of "I know what it says, but what I meant was..." means much unless (and this comes from a lawyer on this form) it is already a not clear writing.


----------



## RyanD

Hey look - this account still works!


<waves to all>


----------



## timbannock

And it's going to be working overtime for a few days/weeks/months, quite possibly ;-P


----------



## darjr

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



Well hello there.


----------



## overgeeked

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



Thanks for 20+ years of the OGL. It's been fun.


----------



## Charlaquin

Alzrius said:


> Yeah, but there's an assertion being made (if I understand things correctly) that there's a difference between being perpetual (i.e. having no built-in expiration date) and being revocable (i.e. the issuer can say the license is no longer valid). I have no idea if that's necessarily true, and I suspect that it'd take a court ruling to conclusively affirm or deny, but it seems to be the current line of thinking on WotC's part as of now.



And, to reiterate, they know it likely won’t matter what how court would rule, because no one is going to want to fight their lawyers over it anyway.


----------



## Ondath

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



Hello Mr Dancey! I just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you did with the OGL - regardless of how the license turns out in the coming days. I've been running games since high school in 2010, and knowing that the OGL allowed 3rd-party creators and people passionate about the hobby to thrive and share their creations with everyone was always reassuring when I tinkered with rules on my own.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yeah I worked for many companies that had 1 intent then with a change of leadership that intent changed. I don't know ifa legal argument of "I know what it says, but what I meant was..." means much unless (and this comes from a lawyer on this form) it is already a not clear writing.




I would think his opinion would matter though because of his role in the OGL and because WOTC has asserted something about what the intent was (and that assertion runs counter to most peoples understanding of the intentions of the OGL).


----------



## Konrad13

This whole ordeal is just a big oof. Hopefully WotC drops this or cleans it up to be far less a toxic pill.


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yeah I worked for many companies that had 1 intent then with a change of leadership that intent changed. I don't know ifa legal argument of "I know what it says, but what I meant was..." means much unless (and this comes from a lawyer on this form) it is already a not clear writing.



Isn’t the fact that no one seems to agree whether or not the license is revocable evidence that it isn’t clear?


----------



## TheSword

overgeeked said:


> Thanks for 20+ years of the OGL. It's been fun.



Ditto!

I spent 12 happy years playing Pathfinder that never would have existed were it not for the OGL. Not to mention necromancer games, Kobald press and several others.

Kudos!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> Isn’t the fact that no one seems to agree whether or not the license is revocable evidence that it isn’t clear?



maybe  
I'm not sure that a lawyer arguing "This word means this and that word means that and this is the word they used and that isn't" gets contradicted by the other lawyer arguing "Yes, they used the word that means that, but they meant this and I have a former employee from that time to say what they meant" is going to mean much. 

If that does work then it does, but I don't see it in my very limited experience.  However also the Judge is the DM... he can rewrite the rules


----------



## MwaO

Charlaquin said:


> Isn’t the fact that no one seems to agree whether or not the license is revocable evidence that it isn’t clear?



Yeah, the basic problem is this:
WotC: "We declare the 1.0a license no longer authorized"
Small publisher about to sink $1000 into writing/arting/editing say a PF2 supplement: "uh..."
WotC: <glares legally>


----------



## Sacrosanct

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



You're like BeetleJuice; your name was called 3 times.

On a serious note, thanks for what you and Peter did 20+ years ago.  He saved D&D, and you gave it to the rest of us.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if the goal is to prepare the way for SLAPP suits and make it like Fair Use, where you're technically allowed to do a bunch of things but they have enough of a pretext of wrongdoing to force legal action you can't afford-- WOTC could maintain the legal position that they have this right as a tool to force litigation and settlement, Hasbro has the deepest pockets of anyone they'd go to court with. If they insist that the OGL is being violated, that should be grounds to start a legal run around in any given instance they please.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if the goal is to prepare the way for SLAPP suits and make it like Fair Use, where you're technically allowed to do a bunch of things but they have enough of a pretext of wrongdoing to force legal action you can't afford-- WOTC could maintain the legal position that they have this right, Hasbro has the deepest pockets of anyone they'd go to court with.



I mean they already have the legal team on retainer right?


----------



## Ondath

The-Magic-Sword said:


> ...Hasbro has the deepest pockets of anyone they'd go to court with.



There is one possible way this might be false: If it looks like OGL v1.0a being unilaterally revoked would lead to implications for open source software licenses, then WotC might find themselves opposed by a large number of tech groups.


----------



## GracefulBreath

I think it's worth noting that the new OGL is clearly ignoring the original intent of the OGL regardless of whether or not we believe the recent leaks to be true. 

From the same Q&A:
_Q: Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?_ 
_A: No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc._ 
_Wizards, however, rarely releases Open Content that is not just mechanics._

however, from the *OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D* staff blog post on D&D Beyond back in december:
_Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it._


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ondath said:


> There is one possible way this might be false: If it looks like OGL v1.0a being unilaterally revoked would lead to implications for open source software licenses, then WotC might find themselves opposed by a large number of tech groups.



again this isn't a computer company, and as such the programmer base would need to argue that it effects them, and then want to throw good money at the problem when they can ignore it for free.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Yeah, they could also find themselves supported by some other interests as well though, walled gardens are big money, or it might just not matter since its not in the tech space in the first place.


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe
> I'm not sure that a lawyer arguing "This word means this and that word means that and this is the word they used and that isn't" gets contradicted by the other lawyer arguing "Yes, they used the word that means that, but they meant this and I have a former employee from that time to say what they meant" is going to mean much.
> 
> If that does work then it does, but I don't see it in my very limited experience.  However also the Judge is the DM... he can rewrite the rules



But it’s not just “this is what I meant when I said that.” The wording was based on that of open-source software licenses at the time, and conversations with prospective publishers included reassurances that the license couldn’t later be pulled out from under them. And WotC has continued to perpetuate that understanding of the meaning of the license in their own FAQ. IANAL, but it seems to me like WotC has benefited from creating the perception that they can’t take the license away, and are now trying to take it away anyway.


----------



## Vildara

Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?


----------



## Charlaquin

MwaO said:


> Yeah, the basic problem is this:
> WotC: "We declare the 1.0a license no longer authorized"
> Small publisher about to sink $1000 into writing/arting/editing say a PF2 supplement: "uh..."
> WotC: <glares legally>



Exactly.


----------



## Ondath

GMforPowergamers said:


> again this isn't a computer company, and as such the programmer base would need to argue that it effects them, and then want to throw good money at the problem when they can ignore it for free.



While this isn't a computer company, from what I understand the way the OGL was worded was based heavily on the open source licenses of the time. So if WotC says that their open license on tabletop games can be declared unauthorised and replaced with a walled garden, the same could apply for open source software licenses. Given that an unimaginable amount of technological infrastructure rests on open source software in one way or another, I think there would be a lot of people who wouldn't ignore the problem and want to oppose WotC's interpretation of how open licenses work.


----------



## Henry

If there was ONE controversy that could drag me out of mothballs too, 

THIS IS IT.
Very glad to see Ryan around the forum!


----------



## Alzrius

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



To quote something I wrote in another thread:



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


----------



## Reynard

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



As has been stated, RPG game mechanics really haven't been tested this way. "Game mechanics can't be copyrighted" was tested for things like "roll a die and move that many spaces." "Characters are defiend by these specific 6 stats with these specific impacts" has not been tested. Yet. Maybe soon.


----------



## Ondath

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



This point was made several thousand times in the discussions at this point (but then again the discussion is moving at breakneck speed in 5 separate threads), so here's a quick article by senior designer Justin Alexander on why you might want to prefer the safe harbor of OGL (v1.0a) over game mechanics being non-copyrightable: Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?


----------



## Reynard

Henry said:


> If there was ONE controversy that could drag me out of mothballs too,
> 
> THIS IS IT.
> Very glad to see Ryan around the forum!



kenobi-name-longtime.gif


----------



## Henry

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



Mainly because there’s not much legal precedent in the tabletop RPG space for “mechanics cannot be copyrighted” that’s in fact what the whole OGL safe harbor is based on - Neither the publisher nor the third-party publishers having to stand this up in court to a lot of court costs. Although depending on how nasty things get, It might happen anyway


----------



## Charlaquin

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



The problem is that the line between game mechanics (which can’t be copyrighted) and the presentation thereof (which can be) is very blurry when it comes to RPGs, and there’s basically no legal precedent to fall back on. So, if you want to risk having to fight WotC’s lawyers over whether dwarves being able to see in the dark is a game mechanic, you’re welcome to, but most publishers don’t want to go there.


----------



## Morrus

Charlaquin said:


> The problem is that the line between game mechanics (which can’t be copyrighted) and the presentation thereof (which can be) is very blurry when it comes to RPGs, and there’s basically no legal precedent to fall back on. So, if you want to risk having to fight WotC’s lawyers over whether dwarves being able to see in the dark is a game mechanic, you’re welcome to, but most publishers don’t want to go there.



Yeah. Game mechanics aren't actually defined. That rule comes from things like 'roll a die and move that many squares'. It's never been tested on anything more complex.


----------



## jgbrowning

Henry said:


> If there was ONE controversy that could drag me out of mothballs too,
> 
> THIS IS IT.
> Very glad to see Ryan around the forum!



I too have been dragged out of mothballs over this.  Heya, Henry!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ondath said:


> While this isn't a computer company, from what I understand the way the OGL was worded was based heavily on the open source licenses of the time.



of the time is the important part... in the lawyer thread and else where I have been told (and no I didn't read them or feel that if I did read them it would help) that the language has changed as of V3 on 2007 to close this.  So YES in 2000 it was based on something, that has since been fixed but WotC never changed/fixed the hole.


Ondath said:


> So if WotC says that their open license on tabletop games can be declared unauthorised and replaced with a walled garden, the same could apply for open source software licenses.



except all it takes is changing the wording, so not as big a deal especially if the default licence is multi version into fixing the issue.


Ondath said:


> Given that an unimaginable amount of technological infrastructure rests on open source software in one way or another, I think there would be a lot of people who wouldn't ignore the problem and want to oppose WotC's interpretation of how open licenses work.



again that is if and only if you can show that something taken and changed for a game fits something that has been updated multi times for software.


----------



## Ondath

GMforPowergamers said:


> of the time is the important part... in the lawyer thread and else where I have been told (and no I didn't read them or feel that if I did read them it would help) that the language has changed as of V3 on 2007 to close this.  So YES in 2000 it was based on something, that has since been fixed but WotC never changed/fixed the hole.



Wouldn't WotC being able to deauthorise an old license be a problem precisely for this? So the GNU foundation could suddenly release a new version of the GNU license that affects software licensed under GNU 1.0 or GNU 2.0, say in a way that makes these open source software suddenly a walled garden? So the current versions of the open source licenses (whose issues were fixed in 2007) could suddenly find themselves forever in the danger of being modified and closed off one day.


----------



## Sonny

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



Can you confirm that this was your reaction to reading the OGL 1.1 leaks? Sources that I just made up tell me it's exactly what happened.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ondath said:


> Wouldn't WotC being able to deauthorise an old license be a problem precisely for this? So the GNU foundation could suddenly release a new version of the GNU license that affects software licensed under GNU 1.0 or GNU 2.0, say in a way that makes these open source software suddenly a walled garden? So the current versions of the open source licenses (whose issues were fixed in 2007) could suddenly find themselves forever in the danger of being modified and closed off one day.



my limited understanding is that back in 2007 this loop hole was closed in computer licensees for open content where they now say they are irrevocable


----------



## Greg Benage

Since @RyanD is here, I wonder if the OGF would be the natural host for a legal defense fund on GoFundMe or similar. Some folks may have some dollars that were going to be spent on the new edition.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> And, to reiterate, they know it likely won’t matter what how court would rule, because no one is going to want to fight their lawyers over it anyway.



I wonder how much of a lawyer the folks angry about it could crowd-fund.

Edit: @Greg Benage  made an even better post a few seconds earlier...


----------



## Morrus

Charlaquin said:


> And, to reiterate, they know it likely won’t matter what how court would rule, because no one is going to want to fight their lawyers over it anyway.



Paizo might if necessary. Though I doubt it would come to that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Morrus said:


> Paizo might if necessary. Though I doubt it would come to that.



Yeah, I expect Paizo will be able to negotiate a better contract for themselves, which would be cheaper and easier than going to battle in court. I imagine that’d only happen as a last resort if they and WotC can’t come to terms.


----------



## Ondath

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I expect Paizo will be able to negotiate a better contract for themselves, which would be cheaper and easier than going to battle in court. I imagine that’d only happen as a last resort if they and WotC can’t come to terms.



If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest. They've branded themselves as the place where OGC thrives (even making a considerable portion of their game rules available under the OGL), and if they suddenly go "eff you, I've got mine (own deal with WotC)", that branding could cause the uproar to target them as well.


----------



## Greg Benage

Ondath said:


> If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest.



Easy for us to say, but it's not our business, employees and investors potentially facing an existential threat. Paizo strikes me in many ways as the _least _likely candidate.


----------



## overgeeked

Ondath said:


> If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest. They've branded themselves as the place where OGC thrives (even making a considerable portion of their game rules available under the OGL), and if they suddenly go "eff you, I've got mine (own deal with WotC)", that branding could cause the uproar to target them as well.



I’m not keen on Paizo being seen as a leader. How did all that mess go in 2021?


----------



## Ondath

overgeeked said:


> I’m not keen on Paizo being seen as a leader. How did all that mess go in 2021?



AFAIK, they ended up unionising, so I'm still hopeful about them to be honest. Add to that the fact that OGL was something they championed from the start, so it feels like abandoning it with a private deal with WotC would be fairly opposite to their current image.


----------



## billd91

Ondath said:


> If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest. They've branded themselves as the place where OGC thrives (even making a considerable portion of their game rules available under the OGL), and if they suddenly go "eff you, I've got mine (own deal with WotC)", that branding could cause the uproar to target them as well.



Oh, I don't see Paizo getting away with *anything* without ponying up royalties to WotC, whatever they may be able to negotiate. They'd be one of the bigger OGL dogs that the monetizers at WotC would want to milk for royalties.
I just don't see Paizo easily knuckling under OGL 1.1 for the reasons you've laid out - being champions of open game content.


----------



## Morrus

Ondath said:


> AFAIK, they ended up unionising, so I'm still hopeful about them to be honest. Add to that the fact that OGL was something they championed from the start, so it feels like abandoning it with a private deal with WotC would be fairly opposite to their current image.



I would be disappointed.


----------



## Tazawa

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I expect Paizo will be able to negotiate a better contract for themselves, which would be cheaper and easier than going to battle in court. I imagine that’d only happen as a last resort if they and WotC can’t come to terms.




I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.

I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.


----------



## Charlaquin

Tazawa said:


> I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.
> 
> I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.



I hope you’re right!


----------



## Alzrius

billd91 said:


> Oh, I don't see Paizo getting away with *anything* without ponying up royalties to WotC, whatever they may be able to negotiate. They'd be one of the bigger OGL dogs that the monetizers at WotC would want to milk for royalties.
> I just don't see Paizo easily knuckling under OGL 1.1 for the reasons you've laid out - being champions of open game content.



To be honest, the whole royalties thing seems to be targeted at Kickstarter and other crowdfunding campaigns more than anything, with larger third-party companies looking almost like an afterthought.

That said, while Paizo has had some leadership changes since 2007, when WotC took the magazines away from them, their upper management still has enough institutional memory present that I suspect they'd never agree to any license which allows WotC to terminate their product lines. So whether it's negotiating a private license that's perpetual and irrevocable, or by openly challenging WotC's ability to revoke the OGL v1.0a, I don't see them going quietly along with what WotC's trying to do now.


----------



## S'mon

Tazawa said:


> I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.
> 
> I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.




I agree. Their offered terms would surely have to be vastly more generous than the OGL 1.1 for them to be tempted.

If they or another 3PP does get sued, there needs to be a crowd sourced defence fund and lots of publicity. This is about the clearest case of bad action in the games industry I've seen since the last Games Workshop litigation. WoTC need to be seen to fail.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Ondath said:


> AFAIK, they ended up unionising, so I'm still hopeful about them to be honest. Add to that the fact that OGL was something they championed from the start, so it feels like abandoning it with a private deal with WotC would be fairly opposite to their current image.



Yeah and the leadership did elect to accept the union without them forcing the issue in the end, I think it really worked out well from what we've seen, ultimately the Union is incentivized to make sure the company can operate and no one is under any illusions about Paizo's position in the market-- which is positive, but ultimately precarious.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Tazawa said:


> I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.
> 
> I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.



I hope you're right.  Ignoring the 1.1 and continuing on with 1.0a would be best case scenario at this point, if it's legally feasible.


----------



## Ondath

S'mon said:


> This is about the clearest case of bad action in the games industry I've seen since the last Games Workshop litigation.



I have to admit I laughed a little when WotC's biggest breach of trust with the larger community in the last 20 years is just a regular litigation for Games Workshop in terms of severity.


----------



## Tazawa

Micah Sweet said:


> I hope you're right. Ignoring the 1.1 and continuing on with 1.0a would be best case scenario at this point, if it's legally feasible.




I think their likely back-up plan would be to minimize exposure to OGL 1.0a and move to either not producing additional open game content or producing open game content under a different license.


----------



## Dreamscape

Tazawa said:


> I think their likely back-up plan would be to minimize exposure to OGL 1.0a and move to either not producing additional open game content or producing open game content under a different license.



No matter the outcome of this I think from this point on everyone will be looking at how much they _really_ need that OGL in their products...


----------



## Simplicity

A group of seven Hasbro lawyers appear.  They are neither tarrying nor running.  One is a drummer.  They each carry a briefcase of no particular color.  They are expressionless as they don't make any statements.  They don't authorize former OGC, they don't unauthorize former OGC.  They are too haphazard to be Ivy League.  They don't joke as they move toward Paizo or some other content creator.


----------



## mamba

Tazawa said:


> I think their likely back-up plan would be to minimize exposure to OGL 1.0a and move to either not producing additional open game content or producing open game content under a different license.



I am perfectly fine with that, let 1.0a do its thing and WotC can do whatever


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

The thing about the idea of Paizo cutting a licencing deal with WotC, it puts them back under the sword of Damocles that fell on them in 2007.


----------



## rknop

I am also under the impression that Paizo has a pretty good relationship with the variety of 3pp that write stuff for Pathfinder and Starfinder.  Them making a devil's bargain (or should I say a Cheliax bargain?) with WotC to allow them to continue while screwing over all their partner 3pp would make me very sad.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



Welcome back!

You're our hero and thanks for everything you've done to create a massive, cooperative gaming industry!

If WotC its becoming a new evil empire that is trying to corrupt what you built, I'll keep a virtual torch and pitchfork at the ready. All you have to do is call.


----------



## Tazawa

rknop said:


> I am also under the impression that Paizo has a pretty good relationship with the variety of 3pp that write stuff for Pathfinder and Starfinder. Them making a devil's bargain (or should I say a Cheliax bargain?) with WotC to allow them to continue while screwing over all their partner 3pp would make me very sad.




Yes. Paizo also understands network effects.


----------



## Yaarel

As far as I can tell,

WotC is comfortable about the OGL liberating Table Top RPGs.

The problem is, WotC wants to get draconian about digital media, including video games, smartphone digital tools, and they stared with envy at a D&D theme Non-Fungible Token.

This corporate salivating is wrongminded.



The thing is, WotC came up with the DMsGuild. This is a successful innovation that proves a win-win for everyone involved.

It seems like, the same legally generous and symbiotic approach in play for DMsGuild can also work for in the future for digital media. There is a way to do this right that both empowers the gaming community and derives reasonable corporate profit.


----------



## bedir than

Ondath said:


> There is one possible way this might be false: If it looks like OGL v1.0a being unilaterally revoked would lead to implications for open source software licenses, then WotC might find themselves opposed by a large number of tech groups.



IANAL

Class action though?


----------



## Cadence

bedir than said:


> IANAL
> 
> Class action though?




Are there any parts of Android (or whatnot) built on open source?  Cheaper for Google (or whoever) to buy Hasbro than worth about it?  How ugly could them running things...


----------



## Nikosandros

Cadence said:


> Are there any parts of Android (or whatnot) built on open source?  Cheaper for Google (or whoever) to buy Hasbro than worth about it?  How ugly good then running things...



AFAIK, Android is an open source system, even though the customized variants that are shipped with specific brands, likely aren't completely.


----------



## mamba

Nikosandros said:


> AFAIK, Android is an open source system, even though the customized variants that are shipped with specific brands, likely aren't completely.



It's built on Linux, so the GPL should be somewhere in there


----------



## kenada

Cadence said:


> Are there any parts of Android (or whatnot) built on open source?  Cheaper for Google (or whoever) to buy Hasbro than worth about it?  How ugly good then running things...








						Android Open Source Project
					

Android unites the world! Use the open source Android operating system to power your device. COPY




					source.android.com


----------



## timbannock

GracefulBreath said:


> I think it's worth noting that the new OGL is clearly ignoring the original intent of the OGL regardless of whether or not we believe the recent leaks to be true.
> 
> From the same Q&A:
> _Q: Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?
> A: No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc.
> Wizards, however, rarely releases Open Content that is not just mechanics._
> 
> however, from the *OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D* staff blog post on D&D Beyond back in december:
> _Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it._



If anything's a "smoking gun" regarding intent, I think it's this.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Just out of curiousity, does anyone, anyone at all support WotC doing this or think it's a great idea, because so far it seems 100% against WotC revoking the 5e OGL, like I've never seen folks 100% against a WotC policy before, there is ALWAYS a supporting segment, however small, for anything WotC does until now.

 I think this has created an expanded opening for the Activist Investors to gather their forces and strike again. If they try this instead of backing off from this path, drawing all kinds of backlash that will only grow and lawsuits that could go on for years, it's going to be the final opening needed to take down some big folks at Hasbro.

 This is hands down the dumbesting thing Hasbro/WotC has done yet, if they don't back down.

 There's an old investment saying "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered", I think WotC is starting to move through Bull, into Bear, and now finally into Pig territory.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GracefulBreath said:


> I think it's worth noting that the new OGL is clearly ignoring the original intent of the OGL regardless of whether or not we believe the recent leaks to be true.
> 
> From the same Q&A:
> _Q: Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?
> A: No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc.
> Wizards, however, rarely releases Open Content that is not just mechanics._
> 
> however, from the *OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D* staff blog post on D&D Beyond back in december:
> _Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it._



That's interesting and important because that directly contradicts WotC's whole "the OGL was never intended to cover anything but print/PDF!" deal.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Henadic Theologian said:


> Just out of curiousity, does anyone, anyone at all support WotC doing this or think it's a great idea, because so far it seems 100% against WotC revoking the 5e OGL, like I've never seen folks 100% against a WotC policy before, there is ALWAYS a supporting segment, however small, for anything WotC does until now.



I've seen a few people on other sites, but they've universally been people who don't actually play D&D, or like played it once, and none of them have the foggiest clue what the OGL actually is or does, they just are defending WotC mindlessly because they are under the wild misapprehension it as a "free ride on WotC's dime" before (LOL frankly).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Henadic Theologian said:


> I think this has created an expanded opening for the Activist Investors to gather their forces and strike again.



They got the previous main thing they wanted, selling off eOne, even though in the meeting where they initially advocated it, it was bluntly refused.

The next thing on their list was selling off either just D&D, or all of WotC "whilst they were still valuable". Or alternatively spinning them off and giving them shares in them.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Ondath

Henadic Theologian said:


> Just out of curiousity, does anyone, anyone at all support WotC doing this or think it's a great idea, because so far it seems 100% against WotC revoking the 5e OGL, like I've never seen folks 100% against a WotC policy before, there is ALWAYS a supporting segment, however small, for anything WotC does until now.
> 
> I think this has created an expanded opening for the Activist Investors to gather their forces and strike again. If they try this instead of backing off from this path, drawing all kinds of backlash that will only grow and lawsuits that could go on for years, it's going to be the final opening needed to take down some big folks at Hasbro.
> 
> This is hands down the dumbesting thing Hasbro/WotC has done yet, if they don't back down.



A friend of mine thinks it's not too bad, and that WotC deserves some royalties for allowing people to make content with their rules, and that the royalty limit is too high anyway.

He also happens to my podcast co-host so I know I'll fiercely try to convince him the next time we meet.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Ondath said:


> A friend of mine thinks it's not too bad, and that WotC deserves some royalties for allowing people to make content with their rules, and that the royalty limit is too high anyway.
> 
> He also happens to my podcast co-host so I know I'll fiercely try to convince him the next time we meet.



I'm guessing he hasn't really thought through the wild and generalized destruction removing the 1.0a OGL from existence would cause. So far everyone I've pointed that out to has either not understood it because they don't actually understand what the OGL is, or gone "Huh that's not good they should just not do that bit".


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Ondath said:


> A friend of mine thinks it's not too bad, and that WotC deserves some royalties for allowing people to make content with their rules, and that the royalty limit is too high anyway.
> 
> He also happens to my podcast co-host so I know I'll fiercely try to convince him the next time we meet.




 Okay so were down to 99.5% of fans.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Scrying Dutchman said:


> Can confirm, as a 3rd party creator who just kickstarted his first 5e book.



Not to derail but what is your KS?


----------



## Ondath

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm guessing he hasn't really thought through the wild and generalized destruction removing the 1.0a OGL from existence would cause. So far everyone I've pointed that out to has either not understood it because they don't actually understand what the OGL is, or gone "Huh that's not good they should just not do that bit".



Yeah, the last time we discussed it was with the assumption that OGL v1.0 would stay intact.


----------



## Greg Benage

Henadic Theologian said:


> Just out of curiousity, does anyone, anyone at all support WotC doing this or think it's a great idea, because so far it seems 100% against WotC revoking the 5e OGL



I am 100% opposed from a hobby (and human) perspective, but I'm not at all sure it isn't a "good idea" from a business perspective. It really depends on their legal position. If they're really convinced their legal position is solid and that they can enforce it (practically speaking), I can definitely be persuaded that regaining control of their IP is in the company's best mid- to long-term interests.

But I think a more likely scenario is that their legal position is weak, they're trying to railroad publishers with a tight deadline, and it's going to blow up in their faces.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> I am 100% opposed from a hobby (and human) perspective, but I'm not at all sure it isn't a "good idea" from a business perspective. It really depends on their legal position. If they're really convinced their legal position is solid and that they can enforce it (practically speaking), I can definitely be persuaded that regaining control of their IP is in the company's best mid- to long-term interests.



and why would that be your primary concern rather than the first part of your post?


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> and why would that be your primary concern rather than the first part of your post?



It's not my concern. At all. I was answering in the "what are they thinking?" spirit of the question.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Ondath said:


> A friend of mine thinks it's not too bad, and that WotC deserves some royalties for allowing people to make content with their rules, and that the royalty limit is too high anyway.
> 
> He also happens to my podcast co-host so I know I'll fiercely try to convince him the next time we meet.



While it has nothing to do with the legal argument, the facts and how they strike the judge hearing a case in terms of equity do matter. Justice is complicated; injustice, however, is an emotional reaction to a set of facts. It's visceral.

How those facts appear to the consumer market is probably more important in a commercial context. If WotC does this? They are going to find they have grabbed on to the Third Rail of RPGs. Your podcast co-host aside, this will not end well for them. WotC is evidently feeling gorilla-like again and forgets that ~10 years ago? Its RPG products essentially abandoned store shelves and Paizo ruled the RPG roost for more than half a decade.

It can happen again, too. The over-the-top pro D&D bias on ENWorld leads to a knee-jerk scoffing at this. That would be ill-considered & unwise.


----------



## Bacon Bits

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can not stress enough how 2000 and before D&D was in a completely different place then 2023 D&D.



Not just that, so was WotC. It was still a privately owned gaming company owned by Peter Adkison. It was not the multibillion dollar juggernaut known as Hasbro.

OGL 1.0a was to keep D&D available as a game to the community forever. Even if WotC failed. So that what happened to TSR where the game nearly got parted out to dozens of different owners in bankruptcy court would instead always be there for the fans.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Steel_Wind said:


> Its RPG products essentially abandoned store shelves and Paizo ruled the RPG roost for more than half a decade.



Just as a cold matter of fact, that's not actually true. Paizo did well but someone had the actual figures a while back and they were not outselling 4E, contrary to the popular narrative. They were getting dangerously close at times.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Bacon Bits said:


> Not just that, so was WotC. It was still a privately owned gaming company owned by Peter Adkison. It was not the multibillion dollar juggernaut known as Hasbro.
> 
> OGL 1.0a was to keep D&D available as a game to the community forever. Even if WotC failed. So that what happened to TSR where the game nearly got parted out to dozens of different owners in bankruptcy court would instead always be there for the fans.



It was a privately owned  gaming company owned by Peter Adkinson and Lisa Stevens, the owner and founder of Paizo Inc. -- and the single largest user of the OGL, by far.

[fixed that for you]


----------



## Kinematics

Cadence said:


> Are there any parts of Android (or whatnot) built on open source?  Cheaper for Google (or whoever) to buy Hasbro than worth about it?  How ugly good then running things...



Ah, go look up the Oracle vs Google lawsuit over Java APIs.  It was a headache and a half, because if Oracle won it would have destroyed most software interoperability as we know it.

If Google thought Hasbro's actions threatened to create another such situation (suit filed for $8.8 billion, possible destruction of the entire Android ecosystem), I'm sure they'd buy Hasbro in a heartbeat and put it under a very heavy thumb.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Ruin Explorer said:


> Just as a cold matter of fact, that's not actually true. Paizo did well but someone had the actual figures a while back and they were not outselling 4E, contrary to the popular narrative. They were getting dangerously close at times.



I don't believe those numbers. And the only people who do? Are on ENWorld.

This is pro-D&D site to an unreasonable degree at times.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Just as a cold matter of fact, that's not actually true. Paizo did well but someone had the actual figures a while back and they were not outselling 4E, contrary to the popular narrative. They were getting dangerously close at times.



my understanding (and plenty argue over it) PF1e and D&D4e were very close with 4e beating it out until the last book came out. However PF got closer then anyone else ever did (but that means the only competition to D&D is other D&D)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Steel_Wind said:


> I don't believe those numbers. And the only people who do? Are on ENWorld.
> 
> This is pro-D&D site to an unreasonable degree at times.



LOL. Really bro?

You don't believe the numbers you haven't seen and we're all crazy biased except YOU. You, Steel_Wind, the One Sane Man in a sea of debauched and insane D&D Worshippers. Good thing you're here I guess to save us from our stupidity and wicked idolatry!


----------



## kenada

Kinematics said:


> If Google thought Hasbro's actions threatened to create another such situation (suit filed for $8.8 billion, possible destruction of the entire Android ecosystem), I'm sure they'd buy Hasbro in a heartbeat and put it under a very heavy thumb.



It’s Google. If they bought Hasbro, they’d get bored of it and kill it a few years later. Or we’d find out My Little Pony is somehow now a messaging app.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Greg Benage said:


> I am 100% opposed from a hobby (and human) perspective, but I'm not at all sure it isn't a "good idea" from a business perspective. It really depends on their legal position. If they're really convinced their legal position is solid and that they can enforce it (practically speaking), I can definitely be persuaded that regaining control of their IP is in the company's best mid- to long-term interests.
> 
> But I think a more likely scenario is that their legal position is weak, they're trying to railroad publishers with a tight deadline, and it's going to blow up in their faces.




 It isn't good from a business perpective, they going to get slammed with lawsuits, not small lawsuits, huge ones, because not only with the other TTRPG companies, but screwing their friends in Critical Role, which means this screws CR partner Amazon, Hasbro/WotC can't afford to piss off Amazon.

 Remember this will effect Amazon's show Vex Machina as well.

 There is also the possiblity that Hasbro could get nailed for anti competivity practices on this one because after convincing their competitors to use the OGL and become dependant on it, this would effectively put them all out of busineess.

 I will add that this was actually supposed to be official released today, January 4th, and it wasn't which suggests WotC is having serious secend thoughts and someone released this document to tip the scales against it (which I suspect they suceeded). Heck the PR is so bad the OGL 1.1 might get scrapped entirely.


----------



## Mecheon

Steel_Wind said:


> I don't believe those numbers. And the only people who do? Are on ENWorld.



I mean, while I do hate to out myself as a former Goon....

We kind of discussed this all of the time back on Something Awful as well. Pathfinder only started to outsell 4E at the absolute end of 4E's lifespan, once barely anything was coming out.

That D&D name recognition hard to get over


----------



## darjr

Steel_Wind said:


> It was a privately owned  gaming company owned by Peter Adkinson and Lisa Stevens, the owner and founder of Paizo Inc. -- and the single largest user of the OGL, by far.
> 
> [fixed that for you]



I dint think it was “owned” by Lisa Stevens. Not like Peter owned it. But I think she was as instrumental at WotC as anyone. Maybe more so.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL. Really bro?
> 
> You don't believe the numbers you haven't seen and we're all crazy biased except YOU. You, Steel_Wind, the One Sane Man in a sea of debauched and insane D&D Worshippers. Good thing you're here I guess to save us from our stupidity and wicked idolatry!



Oh FFS.  HERE is what I know:

After 4e was announced - WotC bailed on GenCon;
After 4e, Pathfinder sales took off with a bullet. So did the message traffic here. It was the game that mattered here when D&D didn't. Or did you think that 1.2 million messages happened by accident?

After 4e - ICV2 rated PF consistently as number 1 for SEVERAL YEARS.

When I was the Paizo correspondent here on ENWorld? I was contacted by a store owner in 2011 that there was a LARGE amount of brand new 4e product being sold at liquidation prices by a distributor in both Ontario and New York. The reception to this news on ENWorld was as hostile as it ever got for me. D&D adherents were UPSET to hear this news about 4e.

[This is the same edition others now claim sold better than 3.x? *DELUSIONAL. *]

A great selling game, the rebranded under the Essential line and then both version were sold at liquidation prices to retailers -- and then D&D *abandoned the market for 2 years*, ceding it to Paizo outright.

Even after 5e was released, it took about 18 months for 5e to get going and find its legs. It wasn't until 2016 that 5e was back in the pole position.

But sales were always great?

Put down that Kool-Aid.


----------



## Drake2000

Henadic Theologian said:


> It isn't good from a business perpective, they going to get slammed with lawsuits, not small lawsuits, huge ones, because not only with the other TTRPG companies, but screwing their friends in Critical Role, which means this screws CR partner Amazon, Hasbro/WotC can't afford to piss off Amazon.
> 
> Remember this will effect Amazon's show Vex Machina as well.



Nothing stops WOTC from making separate, and more beneficial to the licensee, deals with those entities, however.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I made an illustration to help my understanding of our current predicament as described by Steel_Wind.





On that note, it's too late at night and I should probably go to bed!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> I made an illustration to help my understanding of our current predicament as described by Steel_Wind.
> 
> View attachment 271389
> 
> On that note, it's too late at night and I should probably go to bed!



my favorite part is that Enworld is the place I get the MOST backlash against 4e. (TBF most I get is nobody cares one way or another and/or started in 5e)


----------



## Mecheon

Steel_Wind said:


> [This is the same edition others now claim sold better than 3.x? *DELUSIONAL. *]



I mean, the claim it sold better than 3.x came from WotC, who I think might know how their products sold....

Regardless though, if we're talking about "What we know", then I know for a fact Amazon's storefront constantly had 4E products as a higher seller than any Pathfinder products, until we hit tail end of Essentials when Pathfinder overtook it.

What I also know is 4E and Paizo products were both pretty dry on the ground in Australia, but I don't think that's telling either way and just local stores being local stores


----------



## Steel_Wind

darjr said:


> I dint think it was “owned” by Lisa Stevens. Not like Peter owned it. But I think she was as instrumental at WotC as anyone. Maybe more so.



Peter had ~6% more shares than she did (she had more than 40%). They both walked away with nearly $150m+ each. It wasn't Pathfinder $$ that built her Star Wars memorabilia collection (the largest in the world). That was M:TG, Pokemon  and the tap patent. If you Google it, her home & Star Wars collection et al are online if you dig.  It's beyond impressive.


----------



## Composer99

IvC2 shows PF and 4e were competing for top spot in last half of 2010, with PF pulling ahead in 2011 and staying ahead until 5e came out. All the same, D&D stayed in the top 5 until the quarter before 5e released. In short, sales for D&D products were fine - unless you're Hasbro, in which case they were disastrous.

While that period has the GSL debacle, which shares many features with the current "OGL" debacle, there isn't anything going on today like the edition war that was going on at the time, even without considering D&D's position in the market today relative to the 2008-2010 period.

Suffice to say that it's premature to say confidently that a competitor will soon kick D&D off the top of the heap; I wouldn't rule it out myself, but without the edition war impetus I am skeptical - to my mind 1D&D isn't different enough from 2014!5e to inspire anything like the 3.X/4e edition war.


----------



## DaveMage

Henry said:


> If there was ONE controversy that could drag me out of mothballs too,
> 
> THIS IS IT.
> Very glad to see Ryan around the forum!




Now, all we need is Orcus to show up and we'll really be back in the early 2000s.


----------



## troff

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!



It doesn't, but in EFFECT it does. Check clause 2, which reads: "No terms may be added or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License".


----------



## FoolishFrost

I think this is going to be a lot less about the publishers, and more about the VTT space.

Let me explain:

Everything I'm seeing out of Wotc sounds a lot like them getting on what is lovingly called the "Live Services" bandwagon.  I say lovingly due to game publishers seeming to love making live services out of anything that used to be called a "game".
The reason this is bad, is due to the fact the main goal of turning D&D into a "live service", is to monetize it. Alot.  In every darn way they can.
This means getting people into subscriptions, probably combined with microtransactions.  Don't laugh.  Look at magic the gathering, it's pretty much the posterchild for loot boxes, loooong before they were a thing in computer games.
In order to do the above, they need to control the market. That means getting rid of competition.  Other VTT softwares.
Easiest way to do that is to choke off the published content that the 3rd parties can post to those tools when related to D&D.  If a publisher cannot post software content based on D&D, then they can't add their material to VTT other than one run by Wotc.
Profit!
Now, can I prove this is the way it's going?  Nope.  But I've been working in the game industry (computer/console/mobile) for over a decade now, and this is the pattern I've seen over and over.  If they are NOT going that way with the patterns I've seen, I simply have no idea what they are doing.

I mean, really.  You better hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Branduil

Tazawa said:


> I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.
> 
> I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.



This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you _again_."


----------



## Gilwen

can't wait to see the full final terms are released. I do think the only way to "revoke" the OGL is for the new license to include a poison pill that makes you choose to leave the OGL 1/1a behind in order to agree to the new terms in the new license to gain access to the updated material. If what we've been seeing is accurate the new license is closer to a GSL/D20 system license combo than an open license. Thanks to all that have been commenting across all of these discussions, I've been learning a lot.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Branduil said:


> This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you _again_."



I'm not sure 22 years of open content is 'bad faith'


----------



## Branduil

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not sure 22 years of open content is 'bad faith'



I think you misread my post.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

jgbrowning said:


> Perpetual does.




per·pet·u·al
/pərˈpeCH(əw)əl/
See definitions in:
All
Finance
Horticulture
_adjective_

1.
never ending or changing.
"deep caves in perpetual darkness"


----------



## payn

Mecheon said:


> I mean, the claim it sold better than 3.x came from WotC, who I think might know how their products sold....
> 
> Regardless though, if we're talking about "What we know", then I know for a fact Amazon's storefront constantly had 4E products as a higher seller than any Pathfinder products, until we hit tail end of Essentials when Pathfinder overtook it.
> 
> What I also know is 4E and Paizo products were both pretty dry on the ground in Australia, but I don't think that's telling either way and just local stores being local stores



Nobody ever talks about the Paizo online store and direct sales of the time...


----------



## Steel_Wind

FoolishFrost said:


> I think this is going to be a lot less about the publishers, and more about the VTT space.
> 
> Let me explain:
> 
> Everything I'm seeing out of Wotc sounds a lot like them getting on what is lovingly called the "Live Services" bandwagon.  I say lovingly due to game publishers seeming to love making live services out of anything that used to be called a "game".
> The reason this is bad, is due to the fact the main goal of turning D&D into a "live service", is to monetize it. Alot.  In every darn way they can.
> This means getting people into subscriptions, probably combined with microtransactions.  Don't laugh.  Look at magic the gathering, it's pretty much the posterchild for loot boxes, loooong before they were a thing in computer games.
> In order to do the above, they need to control the market. That means getting rid of competition.  Other VTT softwares.
> Easiest way to do that is to choke off the published content that the 3rd parties can post to those tools when related to D&D.  If a publisher cannot post software content based on D&D, then they can't add their material to VTT other than one run by Wotc.
> Profit!
> Now, can I prove this is the way it's going?  Nope.  But I've been working in the game industry (computer/console/mobile) for over a decade now, and this is the pattern I've seen over and over.  If they are NOT going that way with the patterns I've seen, I simply have no idea what they are doing.
> 
> I mean, really.  You better hope I'm wrong.



You might be right.

I don't know if VTT licensing is what is motivating them now -- but I freely admit that it is a *distinct possibility*. I only play via VTT and have for more than a decade. I was an early-adopter and felt like a lonely evangelist for a long time in the 20-teens.  When, precisely, that changed is hard to put my finger on -- but it was before the pandemic. 2018, probably? Sometime around then. The pandemic certainly changed habits and I don't think they are ever going back -- but the trend was visible long before that point - the pandemic just pushed it over the edge, that's all.

So you might be right about that.

From a Hasbro exec's position, I would personally take great umbrage at Tactical Adventures and _Solasta _under the OGL. It hasn't exactly been a smash hit -- but Solasta is a game that if I were at WotC, I would see that as using MY DAMN IP FOR FREE -- and I would _not be okay with that_ if I were at WotC.  That would move the needle, for me. To be clear, I am not saying the publisher of Solasta has done anything legally wrong (great game!) but in terms of an emotional, visceral reaction? That would be _a stone in my shoe_ if I were an exec at WotC/Hasbro, no doubt about that.

I don't know if Foundry VTT creates the same feeling  -- and I am certainly of the view that it should not engender grievances at WotC if it does. Foundry VTT seems like it's been a bottle of nitro in the tank of DDB. It's not as if a good chunk of those Foundry sales have no beneficial effect on WotC revenue -- they surely do -- and more than any royalty on a one-time $50 purchase, too. I have spent ... more than $300 this year on DDB - solely because of Foundry VTT. That's a fair bit of coin in WotC's pockets at a marginal cost to them of *SFA.*

But in terms of product positioning going forward? You may well be right. We will see soon enough, I guess.


----------



## Branduil

Branduil said:


> This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you _again_."



Actually, now that I think about it, this is being too fair to nuWotC-- given the proposed rule in the new "OGL" where they can revoke your license at any time, it's more like they're saying "Oh yeah, I can sting you again at any time if I want, but don't worry, you're safe as long as you do exactly what I tell you."

Or, in other words "That's a nice TTRPG product you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."


----------



## FoolishFrost

Henadic Theologian said:


> per·pet·u·al
> /pərˈpeCH(əw)əl/
> See definitions in:
> All
> Finance
> Horticulture
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> never ending or changing.
> "deep caves in perpetual darkness"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar:
> everlasting
> 
> 
> never-ending
> 
> 
> eternal
> 
> 
> permanent
> 
> 
> unending
> 
> 
> endless
> 
> 
> without end
> 
> 
> lasting
> 
> 
> long-lasting
> 
> 
> constant
> 
> 
> abiding
> 
> 
> enduring
> 
> 
> perennial
> 
> 
> timeless
> 
> 
> ageless
> 
> 
> deathless
> 
> 
> undying
> 
> 
> immortal
> 
> 
> unfailing
> 
> 
> unchanging
> 
> 
> never-changing
> 
> 
> changeless
> 
> 
> unvarying
> 
> 
> unfading
> 
> 
> invariable
> 
> 
> immutable
> 
> 
> indissoluble
> 
> 
> indestructible
> 
> 
> imperishable
> 
> 
> sempiternal
> 
> 
> perdurable
> 
> 
> uninterrupted
> 
> 
> continuous
> 
> 
> unremitting
> 
> 
> unceasing
> 
> 
> persistent
> 
> 
> unbroken
> 
> 
> 
> Opposite:
> transitory
> 
> 
> temporary
> 
> 
> intermittent
> 
> 
> 2.
> occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted.
> "their perpetual money worries"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar:
> interminable
> 
> incessant
> 
> ceaseless
> 
> endless
> 
> without respite
> relentless
> 
> unrelenting
> 
> persistent
> 
> frequent
> 
> continual
> 
> continuous
> 
> nonstop
> 
> never-ending
> 
> recurrent
> 
> repeated
> 
> unremitting
> 
> sustained
> 
> round-the-clock
> 
> always-on
> 
> habitual
> 
> chronic
> 
> unabating
> 
> eternal



Please review Here: Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

Seems a lawyer says the legal definition of "perpetual" dos not mean the same as the dictionary.  Seems he might be right, but I'm not enough of a legal expert to be sure.


----------



## MGibster

I was a bit surprised when the OGL was originally released so many years ago; I just couldn't wrap my head around how it could possibly be good for WotC.  While it led to a glut of bad games/products, it provide publishers with an opportunity to produce a lot of very good games, many of which are sadly no longer in production.  From my point of view, it always looked like WotC made it easier for other publishers to compete directly against them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

payn said:


> Nobody ever talks about the Paizo online store and direct sales of the time...



it's part of the big shrug of "nobody can be sure" becuse you would need to take full game store data (and my understanding is that IVC isn't all stores) amazon/online orders the sub for 4e and the sub for PF... and guess who isn't shareing... both companies.


----------



## Tazawa

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not sure 22 years of open content is 'bad faith'




Attempting to revoke an agreement after 22 years, by changing your interpretation of a key clause, could certainly be considered bad faith.

It would make most rational people think twice about entering into any new agreement with you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FoolishFrost said:


> Please review Here: Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
> 
> Seems a lawyer says the legal definition of "perpetual" dos not mean the same as the dictionary.  Seems he might be right, but I'm not enough of a legal expert to be sure.



yeah this is my issue with law and rules... words either use there definitions or the don't... and sometimes people want to have there cake and eat it too


----------



## FoolishFrost

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah this is my issue with law and rules... words either use there definitions or the don't... and sometimes people want to have there cake and eat it too



Legalese is the ORIGINAL thieves cant.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Tazawa said:


> Attempting to revoke an agreement after 22 years, by changing your interpretation of a key clause, could certainly be considered bad faith.
> 
> It would make most rational people think twice about entering into any new agreement with you.




 Especially when folks built their entire businesses on the current agreement and would be bankrupted by the new one.


 WotC benifited from OGL by making their game D&D the industry standard, like Linux/Andriod is.


----------



## mamba

Mecheon said:


> I mean, the claim it sold better than 3.x came from WotC, who I think might know how their products sold....



that claim came when, a month or so in ? It did sell better than 3.x in the beginning, that did not last long though. I was dumped faster than any other edition, and that was not because sales were so great


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> that claim came when, a month or so in ? It did sell better than 3.x in the beginning, that did not last long though. I was dumped faster than any other edition, and that was not because sales were so great



What was the timeline on 4e? Released in 2008, 5e in 2014. When was Essentials? And did someone mention they had stopped supporting it by 2012?


----------



## mamba

Steel_Wind said:


> From a Hasbro exec's position, I would personally take great umbrage at Tactical Adventures and _Solasta _under the OGL. It hasn't exactly been a smash hit -- but Solasta is a game that if I were at WotC, I would see that as using MY DAMN IP FOR FREE -- and I would _not be okay with that_ if I were at WotC.



well, Solasta has a license, so there is no need for that


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> that claim came when, a month or so in ? It did sell better than 3.x in the beginning, that did not last long though. I was dumped faster than any other edition, and that was not because sales were so great



yeah that's your spin. you don't have the numbers, I don't have the numbers. We have that 3.5 out sold 3, 4 out sold 3.5 and 5 out sold 4. so with this (limited) information we can say every edition out sold the one before it.


----------



## payn

GMforPowergamers said:


> it's part of the big shrug of "nobody can be sure" becuse you would need to take full game store data (and my understanding is that IVC isn't all stores) amazon/online orders the sub for 4e and the sub for PF... and guess who isn't shareing... both companies.



Which is the reason I dont think folks should say "they told us...." but that doesnt stop them. 

I do know that I only bought my PF1 CRB at an FLGS. Everything else (holy f ton batman I have a lot of PF stuff) came from Paizo direct.


----------



## payn

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah that's your spin. you don't have the numbers, I don't have the numbers. We have that 3.5 out sold 3, 4 out sold 3.5 and 5 out sold 4. so with this (limited) information we can say every edition out sold the one before it.



To be fair nobody seems to have the "4E out sold 3E" quote from WotC either. I mean, I have looked and cant find it. Every time I ask for folks to provide it, they vanish. A day later they post it again in another thread.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Tazawa said:


> Attempting to revoke an agreement after 22 years, by changing your interpretation of a key clause, could certainly be considered bad faith.
> 
> It would make most rational people think twice about entering into any new agreement with you.



That would be a fair assessment.


----------



## mamba

Greg Benage said:


> What was the timeline on 4e? Released in 2008, 5e in 2014. When was Essentials? And did someone mention they had stopped supporting it by 2012?



yes, seems about right, 4e 2008, essentials 2010, dropped in 2012. Kinda proving my point about it being dropped faster than any other edition... apparently because they already had all the sales they ever needed


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> that claim came when, a month or so in ? It did sell better than 3.x in the beginning, that did not last long though. I was dumped faster than any other edition, and that was not because sales were so great





Greg Benage said:


> What was the timeline on 4e? Released in 2008, 5e in 2014. When was Essentials? And did someone mention they had stopped supporting it by 2012?








						Editions of Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




3 to 3.5 was 2ish-3ish years
4e to essentials was 2ish-3ish years...

the difference was 4e essentials was additive not replacement.


----------



## Steel_Wind

mamba said:


> well, Solasta has a license, so there is no need for that



Do they? Someone mentioned they did not and it was under the SRD only. If so? 

Never mind?


----------



## Greg Benage

mamba said:


> yes, seems about right, 4e 2008, essentials 2010, dropped in 2012. Kinda proving my point about it being dropped faster than any other edition... apparently because they already had all the sales they ever needed



Heh. Yeah, that's an unusual product strategy for a successful line.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah that's your spin. you don't have the numbers, I don't have the numbers. We have that 3.5 out sold 3, 4 out sold 3.5 and 5 out sold 4. so with this (limited) information we can say every edition out sold the one before it.



except that to my knowledge they did not say that when the total sales for each version were in but something like 2 months after 4e was released, and talking about 'opening sales', not lifetime


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> yes, seems about right, 4e 2008, essentials 2010, dropped in 2012. Kinda proving my point about it being dropped faster than any other edition... apparently because they already had all the sales they ever needed





Greg Benage said:


> Heh. Yeah, that's an unusual product strategy for a successful line.



depends on what you consider success. If you see a split fan base as "money left on the table" then you can look at the best selling version of your game and say "Hey, can we find a way to get MORE?"


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> Editions of Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 to 3.5 was 2ish-3ish years
> 4e to essentials was 2ish-3ish years...
> 
> the difference was 4e essentials was additive not replacement.



I do not count 3.0 and 3.5 as two editions, and I do the same for 4e and essentials.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> except that to my knowledge they did not say that when the total sales for each version were in but something like 2 months after 4e was released, and talking about 'opening sales', not lifetime



again, I'm not claiming we have info we don't. We have EXACTLY what I said. it also comes from a bias source. There is NO REASON to trust WotC wouldn't spin those numbers too. BUT you don't get to make up facts just cause we don't have them. so

either 1) we go by the little we know, or 2) we go by gut. neither way will either of us convince the other of our beliefs.


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> depends on what you consider success.



I'd define it as "don't have to try a reboot in two years and sunset in four." Anyway, while I missed it all, I know this is a fraught subject and I wasn't trying to edition war.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> I do not count 3.0 and 3.5 as two editions, and I do the same for 4e and essentials.



I don't count 4e essentials but I totally count 3e and 3,5 the same way I count 1e and 2e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Greg Benage said:


> I'd define it as "don't have to try a reboot in two years and sunset in four." Anyway, while I missed it all, I know this is a fraught subject and I wasn't trying to edition war.



okay, then can we all just agree to disagree and walk away form the 4e talk?


----------



## Steel_Wind

mamba said:


> well, Solasta has a license, so there is no need for that



Looking online, they are simply sheltered under the 1.0a 5.1 SRD. It's royalty free.

Am I missing something? Solasta: Crown of the Magister

Yeah, that stone in my WotC shoe is still there it seems.


----------



## Simplicity

Steel_Wind said:


> From a Hasbro exec's position, I would personally take great umbrage at Tactical Adventures and _Solasta _under the OGL. It hasn't exactly been a smash hit -- but Solasta is a game that if I were at WotC, I would see that as using MY DAMN IP FOR FREE -- and I would _not be okay with that_ if I were at WotC.  That would move the needle, for me. To be clear, I am not saying the publisher of Solasta has done anything legally wrong (great game!) but in terms of an emotional, visceral reaction? That would be _a stone in my shoe_ if I were an exec at WotC/Hasbro, no doubt about that.



I mean Wizards explicitly said that the SRD could be used for software.  If the suits at Hasbro could be bothered to shamble down from their golden coin piles, they would realize that they could be licensing D&D videogames such that all the good ones weren't like 20 years old.  I'm certain Solasta team would have loved to have used more than the SRD.  And in fact they would probably pay to include some non SRD stuff in a DLC.  But no.  Get angry because someone did something fairly simple (directly translate the game) that they couldn't bother to do.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> again, I'm not claiming we have info we don't. We have EXACTLY what I said. it also comes from a bias source. There is NO REASON to trust WotC wouldn't spin those numbers too. BUT you don't get to make up facts just cause we don't have them. so
> 
> either 1) we go by the little we know, or 2) we go by gut. neither way will either of us convince the other of our beliefs.



Well, we cannot go by what WotC said for the obvious reason I already pointed out, they were talking about initial sales and cannot have meant lifetime.

So we are left with how did WotC act, and having a revision 2 years after the initial release is not a sign of health. That revision being dropped two years later altogether is not either. Product lines being cancelled before they even started (Dragonlance 4e) because sales fell off a cliff also does not improve that picture.

So yes, we have no definitive numbers, but if 4e had outsold 3e, then WotC behaved pretty erratically during that time.


----------



## bedir than

mamba said:


> Well, we cannot go by what WotC said for the obvious reason I already pointed out, they were talking about initial sales and cannot have meant lifetime.
> 
> So we are left with how did WotC act, and having a revision 2 years after the initial release is not a sign of health. That revision being dropped two years later altogether is not either. Product lines being cancelled before they even started (Dragonlance 4e) because sales fell off a cliff also does improve that picture.
> 
> So yes, we have no definitive numbers, but if 4e had outsold 3e, then WotC behaved pretty erratically during that time.



Four people who would know


----------



## Cadence

bedir than said:


> Four people who would know




Are they like talking about over the respective product lifespans in total (which I don't think I've seen anyone argue otherwise), or that PF never outsold 4E in any given month/quarter when they were both being put out?


----------



## Mecheon

payn said:


> Nobody ever talks about the Paizo online store and direct sales of the time...



That'd be because that's an unknown. All I know is on Amazon, 4E outsold Pathfinder. Was Amazon an outlier? Could have been. Certainly a far off time to its modern dominance. But, well, with Paizo's numbers not really being known we can never know for sure


----------



## Steel_Wind

Simplicity said:


> I mean Wizards explicitly said that the SRD could be used for software.  If the suits at Hasbro could be bothered to shamble down from their golden coin piles, they would realize that they could be licensing D&D videogames such that all the good ones weren't like 20 years old.  I'm certain Solasta team would have loved to have used more than the SRD.  And in fact they would probably pay to include some non SRD stuff in a DLC.  But no.  Get angry because someone did something fairly simple (directly translate the game) that they couldn't bother to do.



I'm not blaming TA & Solasta. I like the game a lot.

I am, however, trying to see WotC's point of view here and their reasonable commercial interests -- and that one would push me over the cliff on the OGL. The rest I might ignore -- but *not* that.


----------



## mamba

Steel_Wind said:


> Looking online, they are simply sheltered under the 1.0a 5.1 SRD. It's royalty free.
> 
> Am I missing something? Solasta: Crown of the Magister
> 
> Yeah, that stone in my WotC shoe is still there it seems.



did not see any terms in the announcement that they licensed the SRD and would have been surprised to find any. They are under an NDA, so I would be surprised if all they had were the OGL and free access. Assuming they paid nothing, your initial point stands


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL. Really bro?
> 
> You don't believe the numbers you haven't seen and we're all crazy biased except YOU. You, Steel_Wind, the One Sane Man in a sea of debauched and insane D&D Worshippers. Good thing you're here I guess to save us from our stupidity and wicked idolatry!




Can we NOT MAKE THIS PERSONAL, please?  Thanks.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

bedir than said:


> Four people who would know



thank you. I appreciate this, I often lose these but I am going to try to save this


----------



## Umbran

Henadic Theologian said:


> per·pet·u·al
> /pərˈpeCH(əw)əl/




As if quoting the dictionary ever convinces people?
As if a list of common-use definitions necessarily applies in the very specific realm of contract law?


----------



## mamba

bedir than said:


> Four people who would know



"4e did fine early in its life cycle" and "4e outsold PF" do not '4e outsold 3e" make


----------



## Steel_Wind

Mecheon said:


> That'd be because that's an unknown. All I know is on Amazon, 4E outsold Pathfinder. Was Amazon an outlier? Could have been. Certainly a far off time to its modern dominance. But, well, with Paizo's numbers not really being known we can never know for sure



We know their employee numbers though -- and WotC's D&D employees, too. That tells you all you need to know.

At D&D's nadir, they were down to about 6 (SIX) full-time employees at WotC working on D&D. Paizo's full-time employees were at about 80. C'mon. You can't be sure? Really?_ Really_? This is willful blindness now.

Those numbers have blossomed at WotC over the past 6 years though (and they have hired a _lot_ of ex-Paizo people, too). Since 2017, WotC has hit it _out of the frikkin park_ with 5e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> "4e outsold PF" do not '4e outsold 3e" make



wait... what?!?
D&D 4e outsold Pathfinder should be the end of this... but okay so again we have to just agree to disagree.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
Folks, the more you go down angry ratholes, the less relevant this thread becomes.  Please don't.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Steel_Wind said:


> We know their employee numbers though -- and WotC's D&D employees, too. That tells you all you need to know.
> 
> At D&D's nadir, they were down to about 6 (SIX) full-time employees at WotC working on D&D. Paizo's full-time employees were at about 80. C'mon. You can't be sure? Really?_ Really_? This is willful blindness now.
> 
> Those numbers have blossomed at WotC over the past 6 years though (and they have hired a _lot_ of ex-Paizo people, too). Since 2017, WotC has hit it _out of the frikkin park_ with 5e.



so when 4 people that worked for Piazo AND WotC tell you out right "4e out sold PF" how is this argument still going?



Spoiler: spoiler blocked because I just saw mod note


----------



## SkidAce

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL. Really bro?
> 
> You don't believe the numbers you haven't seen and we're all crazy biased except YOU. You, Steel_Wind, the One Sane Man in a sea of debauched and insane D&D Worshippers. Good thing you're here I guess to save us from our stupidity and wicked idolatry!



mmmmmmm...sea of debauchery.....


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> wait... what?!?
> D&D 4e outsold Pathfinder should be the end of this... but okay so again we have to just agree to disagree.



my initial reply was to


Mecheon said:


> I mean, the claim it sold better than 3.x came from WotC, who I think might know how their products sold....



'it' being 4e, not sure what 4e > PF tells us about the relation of 3e to 4e

EDIT: I stop here because of mod note


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> my initial reply was to
> 
> 'it' being 4e, not sure what 4e > PF tells us about the relation of 3e to 4e



I am walking away please don't tag me, I don't want to go against Umbral here,


----------



## Mecheon

I am going to keep this as calm as I can but...


Steel_Wind said:


> We know their employee numbers though -- and WotC's D&D employees, too. That tells you all you need to know.
> 
> At D&D's nadir, they were down to about 6 (SIX) full-time employees at WotC working on D&D. Paizo's full-time employees were at about 80. C'mon. You can't be sure? Really?_ Really_? This is willful blindness now.



I wouldn't call it 'willful blindless', I'd call it 'Underestimating the staying power of the brand Dungeons and Dragons'

To illustrate, here's Google Trends from Jan 01 2009 until today on Pathfinder (Just the word, blue, so may be grabbing some other stuff) versus Dungeons and Dragons, the specific term, in red.

The one unambiguous spike above it? November, 2012. Well after 4E was dead.


----------



## Reynard

Steel_Wind said:


> Looking online, they are simply sheltered under the 1.0a 5.1 SRD. It's royalty free.
> 
> Am I missing something? Solasta: Crown of the Magister
> 
> Yeah, that stone in my WotC shoe is still there it seems.



I mean, you were on the website. It was right there.


----------



## MoonSong

Charlaquin said:


> Isn’t the fact that no one seems to agree whether or not the license is revocable evidence that it isn’t clear?



contra proferentem There seems to be a principle that in take it or leave it agreements any ambiguity shall be held against the party who redacted the contract.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> did not see any terms in the announcement that they licensed the SRD and would have been surprised to find any. They are under an NDA, so I would be surprised if all they had were the OGL and free access. Assuming they paid nothing, your initial point stands



Apparently because you didn't want to? It's not a secret. They made an ecstatic announcement.


----------



## Haplo781

mamba said:


> Well, we cannot go by what WotC said for the obvious reason I already pointed out, they were talking about initial sales and cannot have meant lifetime.
> 
> So we are left with how did WotC act, and having a revision 2 years after the initial release is not a sign of health. That revision being dropped two years later altogether is not either. Product lines being cancelled before they even started (Dragonlance 4e) because sales fell off a cliff also does not improve that picture.
> 
> So yes, we have no definitive numbers, but if 4e had outsold 3e, then WotC behaved pretty erratically during that time.



It did outsell the previous edition, as every iteration of D&D has since 1e.

It didn't hit Hasbro's ridiculous sales goals of $50 million per year, so they decided it was a "failure".


----------



## MoonSong

Greg Benage said:


> Since @RyanD is here, I wonder if the OGF would be the natural host for a legal defense fund on GoFundMe or similar. Some folks may have some dollars that were going to be spent on the new edition.



And overpriced luxury cardboard rectangles...


----------



## Steel_Wind

Reynard said:


> I mean, you were on the website. It was right there.



You need to read it.  That's just the 1.0a, it's royalty free. I linked to it.


----------



## tomBitonti

jgbrowning said:


> Here's my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth.
> 
> This means that any previously  publish work under the OGL is fine *providing *that you don't agree to the new license, because the new license says that the user agrees to alter previously existing licenses how WotC wants them altered.
> 
> joe b.




Additional text omitted.  My problem is how the modification is stated.  I’m not seeing how a simple assertion of fact, which may or may not be true, has any meaning in a contract.  I can imagine wordings that might work.  I don’t see the simple assertion doing anything.

TomB


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> Apparently because you didn't want to? It's not a secret. They made an ecstatic announcement.



I don’t think that says what you think it does… they can use the SRD, sure, but they are not doing so under the OGL. They would not be under an NDA if that were all it was (or really had anything worth announcing for that matter)


----------



## Reynard

Steel_Wind said:


> You need to read it.  That's just the 1.0a, it's royalty free. I linked to it.



They were still given a specific license to produce the game.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Reynard said:


> They were still given a specific license to produce the game.



Maybe. It's not at all clear to me what the arrangement is. It may be that they are an explicit licensee that pays a royalty, etc.. All of that might be true.

But that isn't what that press release says, okay?


----------



## Reynard

Steel_Wind said:


> Maybe. It's not at all clear to me what the arrangement is. It may be that they are an explicit licensee that pays a royalty, etc.. All of that might be true.
> 
> But that isn't what that press release says, okay?



A clarification in the thread under the press release:
----------
"Hey there Sulla! There are few people who're wondering the same, so just to clarify this^^

Video Games and Rulebooks are not exactly the same, so in order to avoid potential legal issues in the future we preferred to make a deal with WotC now^^ This should alleviate some worries we've seen around, as well as potentially open up new collaborations in the future."


----------



## Simplicity

I mean if they Hasbro were mad about something, it probably wouldn't be Solasta, a game which they have some sort of arrangement with the team.  It would be Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, two games which blow Solasta out of the water quality-wise and success-wise, use the Pathfinder system (OGL) and don't have any arrangement with Hasbro at all, but _do_ send money to their competitor.


----------



## darjr

Simplicity said:


> I mean if they Hasbro were mad about something, it probably wouldn't be Solasta, a game which they have some sort of arrangement with the team.  It would be Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, two games which blow Solasta out of the water quality-wise and success-wise, use the Pathfinder system (OGL) and don't have any arrangement with Hasbro at all, but _do_ send money to their competitor.



I dint think either of those Paizo video games use the OGL or any SRD material.


----------



## Composer99

Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are both adapted from published adventure paths for the first edition of Pathfinder RPG, which is an OGL game that is built off the SRD.


----------



## Clint_L

If I was Hasbro I would be most worried about Critical Role, not Paizo. I know CR and WotC have a good relationship that has benefitted both parties, but that hasn't stopped CR from steadily building an empire that, most significantly, has moved very successfully into streaming TV. You can bet that the bean counters at Hasbro look at _The Legend of Vox Machina_ and can't believe that they get nothing from that. And then there's the incredibly successful twitch channel, YouTube channel, shops on four continents, board games, novels, comics, extensive miniatures line, 5e compatible sourcebook _not_ published by WotC...


----------



## HomegrownHydra

Clint_L said:


> If I was Hasbro I would be most worried about Critical Role, not Paizo. I know CR and WotC have a good relationship that has benefitted both parties, but that hasn't stopped CR from steadily building an empire that, most significantly, has moved very successfully into streaming TV. You can bet that the bean counters at Hasbro look at _The Legend of Vox Machina_ and can't believe that they get nothing from that. And then there's the incredibly successful twitch channel, YouTube channel, shops on four continents, board games, novels, comics, extensive miniatures line, 5e compatible sourcebook _not_ published by WotC...



What do you mean by "shops on four continents"?


----------



## ChaosOS

I'm confused why people bring up CR, which has _very_ carefully tread around WotC IP and only uses the OGL for Darrington Press


----------



## Clint_L

HomegrownHydra said:


> What do you mean by "shops on four continents"?



I was wrong; it's only three. Their store now has outlets in Canada, the UK, Australia, and EU, presumably to make it cheaper to ship to fans in those areas. They offer a staggering array of stuff.


----------



## Clint_L

ChaosOS said:


> I'm confused why people bring up CR, which has _very_ carefully tread around WotC IP and only uses the OGL for Darrington Press



Because CR is monetizing D&D in ways that put Hasbro to shame.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Henadic Theologian said:


> per·pet·u·al
> /pərˈpeCH(əw)əl/
> See definitions in:
> All
> Finance
> Horticulture
> _adjective_



*Mod Note:*

Could you please format this post into a more compact format?  Thanks!


----------



## ChaosOS

Clint_L said:


> Because CR is monetizing D&D in ways that put Hasbro to shame.



That doesn't answer the question regarding the OGL; Wizards of the Coast has no ability to claim royalty rights over the characters and world created for CR, which is where all that additional monetization comes from. Even under this draft they can only claim _open gaming content_, such as subclasses, but they don't automatically gain IP rights to Taldorei _even if Darington Press published another book under this 1.1_. In fact, I strongly suspect that Darrington Press is a 3PP that's _least_ affected by these changes because they're not a high volume publisher; I would be shocked if their annual revenue was much over a million even in a release year, let alone the off years when it's just trickle sales that may not even cross the $750k royalty threshold.

These rights changes are MUCH more clearly pointed at competitor VTTs, especially upstart ones like Foundry and Talespire that don't have licensing agreements with WotC, in an attempt to clear the pathway for their eventual 1D&D VTT.


----------



## sigfried

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



That is accurate, the mechanics are not, it is the expression (how you describe) the mechanics that are protected by copyright. 

It affects people that use the OGL, which is a lot of publishers for various reasons.


----------



## S'mon

FoolishFrost said:


> Please review Here: Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
> 
> Seems a lawyer says the legal definition of "perpetual" dos not mean the same as the dictionary.  Seems he might be right, but I'm not enough of a legal expert to be sure.




Perpetual is not a legal term of art. The judge will consider what it means with all the context. In some cases judges have held it means 'indefinite', with the contract terminable on reasonable notice. In others it may mean irrevocable. AFAIK in this kind of open licence (eg open software), perpetual has indeed been held to mean irrevocable. And I think most lawyers looking at the OGL 1.0 would think that's what it was intended to mean, and was treated as meaning by all parties.

It's not 100% either way. In the eyes of the law, Perpetual does not always mean Irrevocable. But I think in this particular case that's the way to bet.


----------



## S'mon

MoonSong said:


> contra proferentem There seems to be a principle that in take it or leave it agreements any ambiguity shall be held against the party who redacted the contract.




In English Law at least, _contra proferentem_ is only reliably applied to exclusion clauses ("We're not liable if we don't do what we said we were going to do") - your Cornell link gives the example of insurers not compensating for water damage. Personally I think the principle makes sense to apply to all standard form contracts - certainly you should not be able to rely on an ambiguity in a contract you yourself wrote. But this would need to be argued. You can at least consider extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity; in the case of the OGL it seems clear what WoTC said it meant, what they intended it to mean, and what everyone thought it meant.


----------



## DiasExMachina

Another point to consider, back in 2008, when 4E released the GSL, few companies signed on, but one of the few that did was Goodman Games.  I was working with them back then, and one of the stipulations about the GSL was a moratorium on releasing adventures. I think you couldn't release books until November of 2008. But Goodman, wanting to release product immediately, published a series of 4E-compatible adventures. I own all of these--NONE of them have any OGL dialogue at all within their pages. They just say 4E-Compatible, and that was it. Only one of three featured a copy of the original 2000 OGL within their pages.


----------



## Xisiqomelir

RyanD said:


> Hey look - this account still works!
> 
> 
> <waves to all>



I love the historical parallels between M$ fruitlessly and ineffectually raging against the GPL as exposed in the Halloween docs

and ex-M$ hack Rawson's attempt to do the same to the OGL which will hopefully suffer the same ignominious end.

You are a hoopy frood Mr. Dancey!


----------



## Staffan

Bacon Bits said:


> Not just that, so was WotC. It was still a privately owned gaming company owned by Peter Adkison. It was not the multibillion dollar juggernaut known as Hasbro.



Hasbro bought Wizards in 1999, the year before 3e and the OGL was released (and I'm not sure, but I think the OGL/SRD wasn't finalized until 2001, and previous stuff was done under a draft version and a "gentleman's agreement" that as long as 3PP fixed things up when finalized, the stuff done under the draft version was safe). However, Hasbro initially had a very "live and let live" attitude to Wizards: "You keep the money coming in, you can keep doing whatever it is you're doing."

Also, I'm pretty sure Peter Adkison never *owned* Wizards of the Coast – certainly never all of it and likely never even a majority. See, Peter wasn't very good at business when Wizards was formed, and his legal advisors were... questionable. So when Wizards was formed and could assign shares as seen fit, Peter wasn't assigned any shares at all. Instead, what ownership he eventually had came from "sweat equity" – basically, being paid shares as part of his compensation for his job.

Edit: I figure some people might want a source on that.



MGibster said:


> I was a bit surprised when the OGL was originally released so many years ago; I just couldn't wrap my head around how it could possibly be good for WotC.  While it led to a glut of bad games/products, it provide publishers with an opportunity to produce a lot of very good games, many of which are sadly no longer in production.  From my point of view, it always looked like WotC made it easier for other publishers to compete directly against them.



The idea was basically two-fold. The main idea was that core books are much, much more profitable than sourcebooks and particularly adventures. But sourcebooks and adventures have a secondary effect: they support the core books, essentially serving as marketing (IIRC, Ryan Dancey once described the entirety of the D&D product line as self-sustaining advertisements for the PHB). So if you can get *other people* to publish those sourcebooks, you can rake in the core book dough without spending as much on support material.

The second idea was that it was OK if people used d20 derivatives for their own games, because doing so would make the d20 system kind of a lingua franca. That would make it easier for people who had played, say, the d20-based Farscape RPG to move to D&D. A related issue is that if many people know d20, that means many people likely play d20, so it's easier to find a group playing d20, and once you're in that group you're more likely to buy d20 stuff which basically means the PHB.

And then there was of course the semi-secret third purpose, of future-proofing access to D&D.


----------



## Bagpuss

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!




Good news! It appears in OGL v1.1 

Bad news! It appears in the bit about what WotC gets to do with content produced under the license. 



> WotC also gets the right to use any content that licensees create, whether commercial or non-commercial. Although this is couched in language to protect Wizards’ products from infringing on creators’ copyright, the document states that for any content created under the updated OGL, regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will have a “nonexclusive, perpetual,* irrevocable*, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”




And they get to use it for "any purpose" even pantomimes.


----------



## The DM Lair

Xethreau said:


> This rumor mill has already had a chilling effect on third-party publishers I know personally. Suffice it to say the bullying train is going according to plan.



Agreed. As a 3PP, I can confirm that the rumor mill is wreaking havoc in multiple ways. My team and I are hoping we all get something official from WOTC soon.


----------



## ngenius

Reading all the debates about the legal standing of the OGL 1.0 versus the OGL 1.1 is just giving common folk mental trauma. Sorry for the all questions below, but the hobby is in chaos in 2023 now.

*For simplicity, what effect will the OGL 1.1 have on projects like EN Publishing's Level Up 5e?*

In simple terms is Level Up 5e dead in the water come 2024?

Or will Level Up 5e exist as an alternative set of variant rules like Paizo's Pathfinder did in the 4e era?

Those of us who already have these books are fine, but how do we bring in new Players if those people cannot purchase the Level Up 5e core rulebook in 2024?

Will Wizards of the Coast issue cease and desist to all publishers who refuse to update to OGL 1.1?

I am thinking of selling mine, if there is no guarantee that variant rules will remain legal in 2024.


----------



## S'mon

ngenius said:


> *For simplicity, what effect will the OGL 1.1 have on projects like EN Publishing's Level Up 5e?*




No one knows yet. I'm sure ENP doesn't know.


----------



## aeFact

Isn't Ryan Dancey the one who's still of the opinion that, if we use free Open Game Content in our D&D mods, then we must offer them openly and for free too?


----------



## Ranger REG

I wonder if this will sour any Open Gaming movement provided by the new incarnation of the OGL. This is probably the worse thing since 4e GSL, IMNSHO. This is like being railroaded to WotC's conformity and compliance, rather than allow creative innovations by 3PP.

I better get all my 3e/d20 third-party products downloaded from drivethrurpg.com before they shut it down, the products, not the website.


----------



## Reynard

ngenius said:


> I am thinking of selling mine, if there is no guarantee that variant rules will remain legal in 2024.



Do you think someone is going to come take them? Why would you sell them for that reason? No one can stop you from playing LevelUp even if WotC somehow manages to make future supplements and adventures untenable.


----------



## Reynard

Ranger REG said:


> I wonder if this will sour any Open Gaming movement provided by the new incarnation of the OGL. This is probably the worse thing since 4e GSL, IMNSHO. This is like being railroaded to WotC's conformity and compliance, rather than allow creative innovations by 3PP.



Again, the GSL was tied to a unpopular major revision of D&D. The OGL 1.1 isn't. There's no reason to believe consumers en masse will care enough to leave D&D over it. So there's no reason to believe 3PPs won't support it, especially the ones like Kobold that invited to super secret NDA meetings with WotC. That's what WotC is banking on, and they probably don't care one way or another about people and companies that do a few tens of thousands or less dollars a year in sales.

But I bet thet all but kill unofficial and unlicensed VTT support for D&D.


----------



## Staffan

aeFact said:


> Isn't Ryan Dancey the one who's still of the opinion that, if we use free Open Game Content in our D&D mods, then we must offer them openly and for free too?



I'm not Ryan, but: if you rely on the OGL to publish a work, that work also has to be published under the Open Gaming License. That doesn't mean you have to release it for free, but you can't publish it as a "closed" work. You can mark parts of it as "Product Identity" (such as NPCs, setting elements, and so on), making them off-limits.


----------



## Reynard

Staffan said:


> I'm not Ryan, but: if you rely on the OGL to publish a work, that work also has to be published under the Open Gaming License. That doesn't mean you have to release it for free, but you can't publish it as a "closed" work. You can mark parts of it as "Product Identity" (such as NPCs, setting elements, and so on), making them off-limits.



Yeah, you are in violation of the OGL if you use OGC in a product and then try and close derivative material (such as calling a monster stat block Product Identity). Not that lots of 3PP didn't try and do that during the early days.


----------



## Alzrius

Ranger REG said:


> I wonder if this will sour any Open Gaming movement provided by the new incarnation of the OGL. This is probably the worse thing since 4e GSL, IMNSHO. This is like being railroaded to WotC's conformity and compliance, rather than allow creative innovations by 3PP.
> 
> I better get all my 3e/d20 third-party products downloaded from drivethrurpg.com before they shut it down, the products, not the website.



Crap. Now I have a _lot_ of downloading to do.


----------



## SAVeira

Alzrius said:


> Crap. Now I have a _lot_ of downloading to do.



There is tool on DriveThruRPG, install it and you can get it to download your library.  https://www.drivethrurpg.com/library_client.php 

I have used it to back up my library.  Took a while as I have thousands of items.


----------



## éxypnos

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!



LMAO!  It says PERPETUAL.


----------



## mamba

éxypnos said:


> LMAO!  It says PERPETUAL.



not the same word, not the same meaning


----------



## Alzrius

éxypnos said:


> LMAO!  It says PERPETUAL.



I'll refer you to my post near the bottom of the first page of this thread:



> Yeah, but there's an assertion being made (if I understand things correctly) that there's a difference between being perpetual (i.e. having no built-in expiration date) and being revocable (i.e. the issuer can say the license is no longer valid). I have no idea if that's necessarily true, and I suspect that it'd take a court ruling to conclusively affirm or deny, but it seems to be the current line of thinking on WotC's part as of now.


----------



## éxypnos

Alzrius said:


> I'll refer you to my post near the bottom of the first page of this thread:



Already checked with my international IP firm. The license is perpetual.  Cannot be cancelled.  This was well covered after the OGL was first released


----------



## Alzrius

éxypnos said:


> Already checked with my international IP firm. The license is perpetual.  Cannot be cancelled.  This was well covered after the OGL was first released



And I hope they're correct, I truly do. But WotC seems to have someone telling them otherwise, and they have the resources necessary to fight a legal battle over it (which, even if they wouldn't win, isn't something most other people or third-party companies could do). Hence why there's still a lot of nervousness and uncertainty over this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

éxypnos said:


> Already checked with my international IP firm. The license is perpetual.  Cannot be cancelled.  This was well covered after the OGL was first released





Alzrius said:


> And I hope they're correct, I truly do. But WotC seems to have someone telling them otherwise, and they have the resources necessary to fight a legal battle over it (which, even if they wouldn't win, isn't something most other people or third-party companies could do). Hence why there's still a lot of nervousness and uncertainty over this.



again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it.  If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.


----------



## Cadence

Alzrius said:


> And I hope they're correct, I truly do. But WotC seems to have someone telling them otherwise, and they have the resources necessary to fight a legal battle over it (which, even if they wouldn't win, isn't something most other people or third-party companies could do). Hence why there's still a lot of nervousness and uncertainty over this.




RE: Affording a Legal Battle

I bought a lot of my gaming stuff expressly because it was under the OGL 1.0A and the representations that it was eternal.   I wonder how big of a class of people that is and what the late night lawyer commercial to recruit peole to the suit would look like.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it.  If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.



My understanding was that the OGL wording was problematic/outdated even when 1.0a was created, but I would be unsurprised if it got even further behind in 2007. And of course the WotC of 2007 would have had no incentive to update it, because even 7 years later they must have been planning 4E and the GSL.


----------



## Alzrius

Cadence said:


> I wonder how big of a class of people that is and what the late night lawyer commercial to recruit peole to the suit would look like.



Probably something like this:


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it.  If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.



Yeah, but I believe that @Umbran mentioned elsewhere that there was a court case about that, and the open source license was found to be irrevocable even if it didn't include that specific word, which is hopeful.


----------



## kenada

Alzrius said:


> Yeah, but I believe that @Umbran mentioned elsewhere that there was a court case about that, and the open source license was found to be irrevocable even if it didn't include that specific word, which is hopeful.



I assume he means the same one mentioned earlier by @estar: Jacobsen v. Katzer.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it.  If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.



yes, but they already were tried and determined to be non-revocable before they added it. Still felt like a good idea to add it though…


----------



## rknop

Ranger REG said:


> I wonder if this will sour any Open Gaming movement provided by the new incarnation of the OGL. ....



Regardless of their attempt to destroy the OGL 1.0a (which is what most of the furor now is about), the "O"GL 1.1 as we knew about it before was in no way an open license, despite the very deceptive name.  (Indeed, I was already very grouchy about it because of the blatant attempt to claim openness that they didn't have, and because it would muddy the waters under openness.)

Any license that (a) requires you to send financials, and, eventually, royalties to a specific company, and (b) can be revoked at any time by that company, is in no way open, and anybody who pays attention to what they're doing will not bet anything they care about being able to keep selling on that license.

The license might allow a blossoming of D&D-derivative content within the strictly controlled walled garden of WotC, but in no way could it create or sustain any open gaming movement.  And, with their attempt now to kill the OGL 1.0a, they are explicitly trying to _end_ any open gaming movement that exists.


----------



## Kinematics

Ruin Explorer said:


> My understanding was that the OGL wording was problematic/outdated even when 1.0a was created, but I would be unsurprised if it got even further behind in 2007. And of course the WotC of 2007 would have had no incentive to update it, because even 7 years later they must have been planning 4E and the GSL.



WotC would have had no incentive to update it based on the changes in 2007, because 2007 was the release of GPL 3. There was a lot of controversy over GPL 3, but its main purpose was in closing loopholes regarding implementing code in hardware (such as router firmware), and patent rights (this was back in the days of the rush of patents for "doing X on a computer", where X would not have been patentable normally).

There is no reason for anyone drafting things at WotC to think those changes had anything remotely to do with their version of an open license.  The addition of the word "irrevocable" to the GPL didn't even get a mention in the discussions I read about it at the time, and almost certainly would not have merited a change on its own.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it.  If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.




But this can also mean that at that time, perpetual was meant to be irrevocable. And legal things are also usually ruled by the law at the time the contract was made... correct me if I am wrong regarding contracts...


----------



## Vincent55

they will try and cause as many problems for those who are making money off the game, and at the same time sell as much crap to players and lovers of the game in micro-transactions or small parts spread out over as much content as they can. Gone is the days of books like a rules Encylopedia or books with all you need for one setting. They will piecemeal out rules in small adventures leaving most up to DM's to fill out and do most of the work. And in the electronic area, we can see through their other games and others in the industry that you can get the basic stuff but have to pay for the cool looking things or a lock box or micro-transaction or both, getting a key to open a box that you might end up never getting. Books will be collector covers and even I dare say some may have exclusive content or possibly connected to that content online only. This is just me hypothesizing nothing has been stated as of yet, YET!!!!


----------



## Ibrandul

Branduil said:


> This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you _again_."



Surely anyone who read (and found credible) the lawsuits filed in 2020 by Gale Force Nine and Weis & Hickman must already have concluded that WotC is perfectly willing to renege on contracts and licences in the most weasely imaginable ways if they think they might get away with it. The practices alleged in those filings are the very definition of "bad faith" activity (literally—both suits alleged breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing).


----------



## Reynard

This is as good a thread as any to ask this question:

What, if anything, does it mean that the OGL itself is copyright Wizards of the Coast? Does that impact this debate or legal situation in any way?


----------



## TheSword

I’m in the camp that thinks it is a net loss for the community because content is stifled. As I said, I love Pathfinder.

However I totally understand where WOC is coming from and why they want to do it. There is an argument that there are a large number of people happily producing 3pp content through DMGuild on much worse terms and I do think that 5e has resulted in a vastly bigger market for 3pp (evidenced by the fact that every IP has a 5e variant.)

The bigger companies should probably negotiate a deal that lies somewhere between ‘Completely free’ and ‘25% of revenue’ and consider it the cost of business.


----------



## Alzrius

Reynard said:


> This is as good a thread as any to ask this question:
> 
> What, if anything, does it mean that the OGL itself is copyright Wizards of the Coast? Does that impact this debate or legal situation in any way?



Lay speculation here, but I'm not sure that has an impact. Copyright, as I understand it, is all about having the right to copy something, as the name states. Any idea that someone might be violating WotC's copyright by reprinting the OGL in OGL-compliant products seems undercut by the fact that the license explicitly states that you _have_ to reprint it in order to be compliant with it. 

Beyond that, I'm not sure there's a copyright aspect to the current situation.


----------



## payn

TheSword said:


> I’m in the camp that thinks while it is a net loss for the community because content is stifled. As I said, I love Pathfinder.
> 
> However I totally understand where WOC is coming from and why they want to do it. There is an argument that there are a large number of people happily producing 3pp content through DMGuild on much worse terms and I do think that 5e has resulted in a vastly bigger market for 3pp (evidenced by the fact that every IP has a 5e variant.)
> 
> The bigger companies should probably negotiate a deal that lies somewhere between ‘Completely free’ and ‘25% of revenue’ and consider it the cost of business.



The consumers pays more, ugh.


----------



## Charlaquin

ngenius said:


> Reading all the debates about the legal standing of the OGL 1.0 versus the OGL 1.1 is just giving common folk mental trauma. Sorry for the all questions below, but the hobby is in chaos in 2023 now.
> 
> *For simplicity, what effect will the OGL 1.1 have on projects like EN Publishing's Level Up 5e?*
> 
> In simple terms is Level Up 5e dead in the water come 2024?
> 
> Or will Level Up 5e exist as an alternative set of variant rules like Paizo's Pathfinder did in the 4e era?



Impossible to say before we have the full wording of the OGL 1.1. What we can say is that, if WotC revokes the OGL 1.0, Level Up could not exist as an alternative ruleset under it. Nor, for that matter, could Pathfinder, since that was and still is published under the OGL 1.0. In fact, a ton of RPGs are - most anything that uses the d20+mods vs target number core mechanic is probably OGL.

Would that mean these games would be “dead in the water?” Not necessarily. It would just mean they would have to operate under the terms of the new 1.1 license, or negotiate their own individual licenses with WotC. However, the 1.1 license’s terms are looking like they’ll be much more strict, which will make it less appealing to 3rd party publishers. Moreover, the fact that WotC could just revoke the old license and force publishers to adopt a new one at any time would make _any_ license unappealing.

I think the most likely outcome would be that a few of the bigger publishers negotiate their own licenses with WotC, a few cut ties and develop new editions of their games that remove anything remotely D&D-like, and all the smaller publishers just go out of business.


ngenius said:


> Those of us who already have these books are fine, but how do we bring in new Players if those people cannot purchase the Level Up 5e core rulebook in 2024?



Presumably the same way any out of print RPGs get new players - word of mouth, and sharing of existing resources.


ngenius said:


> Will Wizards of the Coast issue cease and desist to all publishers who refuse to update to OGL 1.1?



Quite possibly.


ngenius said:


> I am thinking of selling mine, if there is no guarantee that variant rules will remain legal in 2024.



I think it’s a bit soon to jump to such measures. At least wait until WotC releases the full wording of the new license and we can know for sure if the sky is actually falling.


----------



## FoolishFrost

Okay, the legal issue is that the legal issue is not absolute.  This means it can be litigated.  This means that if you're a small house with standard RPG company income, Hasbro can simply litigate you into the ground.

It's sadly not about right and wrong, legal or illegal.  It's about money and time.  Hasbro has enough to take on just about everyone else.

But that's not the point:  Hasbro and Wotc are not going to attack by shutting down other publishers.  They are going to try to control them in such a way as to leverage them into supporting the main product line.  They want a Steam cut of the profits.


----------



## Kinematics

Reynard said:


> This is as good a thread as any to ask this question:
> 
> What, if anything, does it mean that the OGL itself is copyright Wizards of the Coast? Does that impact this debate or legal situation in any way?



Largely nothing for the purposes of our discussion. The GPL, for example, is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the FSF has no connection to any software that uses the GPL.

Most likely the only relevance is that only WotC has the right to edit the content of the document, so someone else can't write a variant while claiming that their version is the real version of the OGL.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FoolishFrost said:


> Okay, the legal issue is that the legal issue is not absolute.  This means it can be litigated.  This means that if you're a small house with standard RPG company income, Hasbro can simply litigate you into the ground.
> 
> It's sadly not about right and wrong, legal or illegal.  It's about money and time.  Hasbro has enough to take on just about everyone else.
> 
> But that's not the point:  Hasbro and Wotc are not going to attack by shutting down other publishers.  They are going to try to control them in such a way as to leverage them into supporting the main product line.  They want a Steam cut of the profits.



the thing is the way the CAN (not saying should or even will) get the smaller fish to stay in line is by makeing sure none of the big fish break away... the WORST thing would be a lawsuit WotC/Hasbro wins... or a C&D ignored and an Injunction (I think thats the right word) filed and being upheld alone BEFORE trial could cripple a small 3pp.


----------



## Kinematics

Also, I must add another complaint: the new OGL should not be versioned 1.1. A minor version increase (1.0 to 1.1) indicates adding functionality that is backwards compatible with the previous version. WotC's 1.1 is clearly a breaking change, and thus should have been numbered as 2.0, a major version change.

This aside from the fact that it's not an open license, and in fact not even in the same category of license as the original OGL, since 1.1 ties the license specifically to WotC, rather than being a general content license that anyone could use for any system from any company.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Kinematics said:


> Also, I must add another complaint: the new OGL should not be versioned 1.1. A minor version increase (1.0 to 1.1) indicates adding functionality that is backwards compatible with the previous version. WotC's 1.1 is clearly a breaking change, and thus should have been numbered as 2.0, a major version change.
> 
> This aside from the fact that it's not an open license, and in fact not even in the same category of license as the original OGL, since 1.1 ties the license specifically to WotC, rather than being a general content license that anyone could use for any system from any company.



I wonder about that numbering too... I think OGL is kept more for PR then anything, but 1.1 compared to 2.0 is an interesting point.


----------



## J.Quondam

rknop said:


> Regardless of their attempt to destroy the OGL 1.0a (which is what most of the furor now is about), the "O"GL 1.1 as we knew about it before was in no way an open license, despite the very deceptive name.  (Indeed, I was already very grouchy about it because of the blatant attempt to claim openness that they didn't have, and because it would muddy the waters under openness.)
> 
> Any license that (a) requires you to send financials, and, eventually, royalties to a specific company, and (b) can be revoked at any time by that company, is in no way open, and anybody who pays attention to what they're doing will not bet anything they care about being able to keep selling on that license.
> 
> The license might allow a blossoming of D&D-derivative content within the strictly controlled walled garden of WotC, but in no way could it create or sustain any open gaming movement.  And, with their attempt now to kill the OGL 1.0a, they are explicitly trying to _end_ any open gaming movement that exists.



This is probably the part that galls me the most. I understand Hasbro/WotC's desire to control the market and protect their IP, especially given their pivot to the increasingly popular D&D "lifestyle" over the game. I don't care for it, but it's understandable.

What I strongly dislike is that they're doing it in a way that _pretends _to be open. Calling this new restrictive license "OGL" is an attempt to exploit the well-regarded "Open" terminology, without adhering to the actual Open philosophy.  At best, the term "OGL 1.1" is lazy, cynical marketing; at worst it's a straight up lie, imo.


----------



## Alzrius

J.Quondam said:


> What I strongly dislike is that they're doing it in a way that _pretends _to be open. Calling this new restrictive license "OGL" is an attempt to exploit the well-regarded "Open" terminology, without adhering to the actual Open philosophy.  At best, the term "OGL 1.1" is lazy, cynical marketing; at worst it's a straight up lie, imo.



Exactly, which suggests to me that they thought there was some benefit to keeping that title despite chucking the spirit of the thing. I wonder what, because if it was "good press" they wildly misjudged things.


----------



## DiasExMachina

The OGL was written before Hasbro took them over. It was intended to be irrevocable but that word was missing from the original OGL.  

As a result, Hasbro believes they have legal grounds to cancel it and end all 3pp support that is not under their complete control. 

The OGL was absolutely intended to be irrevocable, but because the people who wrote it failed to add that language, we are now in this mess twenty three years later thanks to a parent company that had decided to naughty word over a large aspect of the industry.


----------



## TheSword

Well it’s an open license - in so far as it’s open to anyone. Not that it is unfettered by obligations.


----------



## Scribe

darjr said:


> I dint think either of those Paizo video games use the OGL or any SRD material.




They certainly do.

And Wrath of the Righteous is better than anything Wizards has been associated with in the gaming space for decades, and its not even close.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

J.Quondam said:


> What I strongly dislike is that they're doing it in a way that _pretends _to be open. Calling this new restrictive license "OGL"



I will say that I would be MORE lenient on my dislike of how this is going on if they came out and said "We found a loophole to close the ogl, and are putting up a new more restrictive license"


----------



## Alzrius

DiasExMachina said:


> The OGL was written before Hasbro took them over. It was intended to be irrevocable but that word was missing from the original OGL.



Was it? Hasbro acquired WotC in 1999, and I don't think they'd drafted the OGL before then.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> They certainly do.
> 
> And Wrath of the Righteous is better than anything Wizards has been associated with in the gaming space for decades, and its not even close.



are they computer or consul and do you have links (I am googling wrath of righteous now)  even as conflicted as i am, I feel I should buy SOMETHING from piazo today


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> are they computer or consul and do you have links (I am googling wrath of righteous now)  even as conflicted as i am, I feel I should buy SOMETHING from piazo today




I play on PC, not sure about consoles, but I cannot recommend it more if you are into this style of game. Its fantastic.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Alzrius said:


> Was it? Hasbro acquired WotC in 1999, and I don't think they'd drafted the OGL before then.



You are correct. WotC got D&D in 97 (I thought it was 99) and Hasbro got them in 99 (I for some reason thought it was 2002)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> I play on PC, not sure about consoles, but I cannot recommend it more if you are into this style of game. Its fantastic.



for $50 I would buy it today even if I didn't play it... not a fan of pathfinder, but I want to support them today more then ever. Just in case.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> for $50 I would buy it today even if I didn't play it... not a fan of pathfinder, but I want to support them today more then ever. Just in case.



Alternatively buy a Pathfinder Beginner Box and a Starfinder Beginner Box and donate them to a local library or school game club. Same money and longer impact.


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro

Micah Sweet said:


> Since Discord isn't technically public, I don't think its right to out a creator who hasn't made a public statement. I just mentioned it to let everyone know that the lines are already being drawn.



I understand your position, but this reminds me of the scene in Fight Club where Jack is discussing car recalls and how a 'major manufacturer' calculates whether to do a recall or pay out damages.  The lady is horrified and asks what company this is and he says 'A major one'.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> Alternatively buy a Pathfinder Beginner Box and a Starfinder Beginner Box and donate them to a local library or school game club. Same money and longer impact.



good idea... we should all do that this week  Thank you for the idea


----------



## Maxperson

@Snarf Zagyg Question. With Dancy's statements and the statement in the OGL FAQ that people could always just use a prior version of the OGL that they liked, would/could Detrimental Reliance kick in?


----------



## Alzrius

GMforPowergamers said:


> for $50 I would buy it today even if I didn't play it... not a fan of pathfinder, but I want to support them today more then ever. Just in case.



Fun fact: if I remember correctly, the previous Pathfinder video game (i.e. Kingmaker) came with a special PDF-only tabletop adventure (but only if you bought it via Steam).


----------



## Simplicity

Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is by far the best D&D game to come out since the Infinity Engine (BG, Planescape, etc.).  It goes to mythic levels, so your _horse_ can have 40 armor class, crane kick, and deflect arrows.  It's a blast.  And I would full-throatedly support it, and did... And then world events occurred and it became relevant that it's from a Russian developer (based out of Cyprus, because that's what they do).  Do with that info what you will.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Maxperson said:


> @Snarf Zagyg Question. With Dancy's statements and the statement in the OGL FAQ that people could always just use a prior version of the OGL that they liked, would/could Detrimental Reliance kick in?




I mean ... maybe? Look, the interplay of various provisions can be difficult. For example, and off the top of my head-
1. This could fall under promissory estoppel (unambiguous promise, reasonable reliance, and injury due to reliance). 
2. Or it could be considered a "gap filler" given the lack of language regarding revocation; in other words, while there are majority and minority rules about licenses, those usually are used because the two parties are arguing over it and it wasn't contemplated at the time; here, while extrinsic evidence (parol evidence) is disfavored, it might be considered to some extent.
3. Or maybe, as I have seen, some courts would convert is from a unilateral to a bilateral contract due to the consideration section- that means that the operative provision is the termination provision (since you can't unilaterally terminate a bilateral contract- just breach it).

Point is- there's a lot of different ways to approach this, and anyone who is 100% confident has never gotten bench-slapped by a judge before.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> What, if anything, does it mean that the OGL itself is copyright Wizards of the Coast? Does that impact this debate or legal situation in any way?



that should just mean that no one but WotC can change the license terms


----------



## Simplicity

mamba said:


> that should just mean that no one but WotC can change the license terms



That is not what it means at all.  It protects who can copy the license and when.  It prevents others from claiming copyright.  WotC has the copyright of the license.  And they have granted the right to duplicate the license when you are producing OGC.


----------



## mamba

Simplicity said:


> That is not what it means at all.  It protects who can copy the license and when.  It prevents others from claiming copyright.  WotC has the copyright of the license.  And they have granted the right to duplicate the license when to produce OGC.



anyone can copy the license, see its widespread use even by RPGs that do not use material from the SRD

To cut to the chase / answer the original question: it is entirely meaningless in this debate


----------



## Simplicity

mamba said:


> anyone can copy the license, see its widespread use even by RPGs that do not use material from the SRD
> 
> To cut to the chase / answer the original question: it is entirely meaningless in this debate



That's not entirely accurate either.  You can reproduce it _if_ you have the copyright holder's permission.  You get their permission by agreeing to the terms of the license.  And this actually has enormous consequences for the rights towards your own material.  You give up stuff by copying it. 

The OGL was intended to be the beginning of an open source gaming movement non-specific to the SRD.  So other companies would use it to open their systems as well.


----------



## mamba

Simplicity said:


> That's not entirely accurate either.  You can reproduce it _if_ you have the copyright holder's permission.  You get their permission by agreeing to the terms of the license.  And this actually has enormous consequences for the rights towards your own material.  You give up stuff by copying it.



everyone has the permission, but yes, I agree to the license terms

It only has consequences for the rights to my material if I designate it as OGC



Simplicity said:


> The OGL was intended to be the beginning of an open source gaming movement non-specific to the SRD.  So other companies would use it to open their systems as well.



agreed


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> It only has consequences for the rights to my material if I designate it as OGC



Anything derivative of OGC is OGC, as I understand the terms of the OGL.


----------



## Simplicity

Reynard said:


> Anything derivative of OGC is OGC, as I understand the terms of the OGL.



Anything not Product Identity and anything you specifically designate as OGC, IIRC.


----------



## Reynard

Simplicity said:


> Anything not Product Identity and anything you specifically designate as OGC, IIRC.



The definitions section does not indicate (to my reading) that you can call Open Content Product Identity.
----------
_THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE. PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LICENSE IS MADE BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST!


OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.
1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
END OF LICENSE_


----------



## kenada

Reynard said:


> The definitions section does not indicate (to my reading) that you can call Open Content Product Identity.



I have games that declare basically everything not already OGC as Product Identity (e.g., Pugmire, OSE Advanced Fantasy), and I’m sure there are others. What are the practical consequences? It doesn’t seem like there are any.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> Anything derivative of OGC is OGC, as I understand the terms of the OGL.



but not everything I create is OGC, I have to declare it to be that


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> The definitions section does not indicate (to my reading) that you can call Open Content Product Identity.
> ----------
> _THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE. PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LICENSE IS MADE BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST!
> 
> 
> OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
> The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.
> 1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
> 2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
> 3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
> 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
> 5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
> 6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
> 7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
> 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
> 10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
> 11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
> 12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
> 13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
> 14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
> 15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
> System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
> END OF LICENSE_



Tfw when an entire gaming licence is shorter than the average Ruin Explorer post.

(Getting in there before anyone else does!)


----------



## Reynard

kenada said:


> I have games that declare basically everything not already OGC as Product Identity (e.g., Pugmire, OSE Advanced Fantasy), and I’m sure there are others. What are the practical consequences? It doesn’t seem like there are any.






mamba said:


> but not everything I create is OGC, I have to declare it to be that



Again
----
_(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; 
------_
These definitions seem pretty clear that if it is derivative mechanics, it is Open Content. Product Identity is not for mechanics.


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> but not everything I create is OGC, I have to declare it to be that



Read the definition of Open Game Content again. OGC is mechanics plus whatever else is designated as OGC.


----------



## kenada

Reynard said:


> These definitions seem pretty clear that if it is derivative mechanics, it is Open Content. Product Identity is not for mechanics.



I don’t disagree. I’m pointing out publishers do it anyway, and there seem to be no consequences for it.


----------



## Nikosandros

kenada said:


> I don’t disagree. I’m pointing out publishers do it anyway, and there seem to be no consequences for it.



I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.


----------



## Reynard

Nikosandros said:


> I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.



It's not that WotC should care. This behavior was an act against other publishers and the spirit of Open Gaming.


----------



## kenada

Nikosandros said:


> I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.



I’ve been wondering the same thing. If a publisher uses OGC but gives nothing back, are they even a Contributor, and what are the implications of that (e.g., should WotC actually try to revoke the OGL 1.0a)?


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> Again



"Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes 
and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement 
over the prior art and *any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor*"

If I create a setting, there is no new mechanic, if I create an adventure, there is no new mechanic, if I create a monster, there is no new mechanic, you get the picture...


----------



## mamba

kenada said:


> Read the definition of Open Game Content again. OGC is mechanics plus whatever else is designated as OGC.



my point exactly, what I designate as OGC


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> my point exactly, what I designate as OGC



_Plus_ what you designate as OGC. The definition of OGC provided in section 2 is mechanics _plus_ whatever you designate.


----------



## Simplicity

Yes but the fact that they have to say _and_ anything you identify... Should be enough to indicate that there are things which you don't identify that still become OGC.  (Pretty much everything but PI).


----------



## mamba

Simplicity said:


> Yes but the fact that they have to say _and_ anything you identify... Should be enough to indicate that there are things which you don't identify that still become OGC.  (Pretty much everything but PI).



I take that more to mean the mechanics that already are OGC, as I wrote a few posts up, most content, i.e. settings, adventures, monster manuals, etc. does not actually add new mechanics (or arguably ties them to the PI)


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> "Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes
> and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement
> over the prior art and *any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor*"
> 
> If I create a setting, there is no new mechanic, if I create an adventure, there is no new mechanic, if I create a monster, there is no new mechanic, you get the picture...



A monster stat block is what you use the to play the game. It’s obviously mechanics. Any new traps in an adventure? Treasures? NPC stats? Those are made of mechanics too. If there is non-mechanical stuff you want to protect, that is what PI declarations are for. Paizo is a good model for how to do this.


----------



## éxypnos

GMforPowergamers said:


> again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it.  If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.



One can always find a person to say something stupid.  If they go forward with such bad advice WotC will be creamated and buried in Federal court


----------



## GMforPowergamers

kenada said:


> A monster stat block is what you use the to play the game. It’s obviously mechanics. Any new traps in an adventure? Treasures? NPC stats? Those are made of mechanics too. If there is non-mechanical stuff you want to protect, that is what PI declarations are for. Paizo is a good model for how to do this.



Man I WISH it was that cut and dry, and if the Mayfair games TSR thing had a more definitive ending we MIGHT have an answer.

I made up 6 stats (aka the same ones) roll a d20 add mod try for a DC...but I don't have the guts to TRY to see if it gets a C&D


----------



## GMforPowergamers

éxypnos said:


> One can always find a person to say something stupid.  If they go forward with such bad advice WotC will be creamated and buried in Federal court



maybe

I am no lawyer (I need a hot key for that this weekkend) but I know that if a lawyer can make a solid argument (And we have seen on this very board some can) they can win. Again it comes down to who has a better legal team, and my money is on Hasbro. 

If I were running Piazo,, or advising them as accountant, I would say "Lets run the numbers what it would cost us to litigate this in theory for 1 year and for 2 years. Then we send the person WotC likes best with terms of how WE want a special contract for 5 or 10 years to keep useing pathfinder d20 ect... we will pay X now report income and 2% over that $750k. We start with X being half what it would cost to be in court for a year and if they negotiate we give as little as we can but cap at 5% over the $750 and Y now... where Y is half way between 1 year and 2 year forcast"


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe
> 
> I am no lawyer (I need a hot key for that this weekkend) but I know that if a lawyer can make a solid argument (And we have seen on this very board some can) they can win. Again it comes down to who has a better legal team, and my money is on Hasbro.
> 
> If I were running Piazo,, or advising them as accountant, I would say "Lets run the numbers what it would cost us to litigate this in theory for 1 year and for 2 years. Then we send the person WotC likes best with terms of how WE want a special contract for 5 or 10 years to keep useing pathfinder d20 ect... we will pay X now report income and 2% over that $750k. We start with X being half what it would cost to be in court for a year and if they negotiate we give as little as we can but cap at 5% over the $750 and Y now... where Y is half way between 1 year and 2 year forcast"




I still cannot wrap my head around a lawsuit, going against Paizo, which published Pathfinder in (looking) 2009, now in its second edition.

I mean crazier things have happened I'm sure, but this is something thats been in use, and (I assume) unchallenged, for over 13 years...


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> but not everything I create is OGC, I have to declare it to be that



If it’s derivative of existing OGC it’s OGC whether youndev


GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe
> 
> I am no lawyer (I need a hot
> I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners.
> key for that this weekkend) but I know that if a lawyer can make a solid argument (And we have seen on this very board some can) they can win. Again it comes down to who has a better legal team, and my money is on Hasbro.
> 
> If I were running Piazo,, or advising them as accountant, I would say "Lets run the numbers what it would cost us to litigate this in theory for 1 year and for 2 years. Then we send the person WotC likes best with terms of how WE want a special contract for 5 or 10 years to keep useing pathfinder d20 ect... we will pay X now report income and 2% over that $750k. We start with X being half what it would cost to be in court for a year and if they negotiate we give as little as we can but cap at 5% over the $750 and Y now... where Y is half way between 1 year and 2 year forcast"





Scribe said:


> I still cannot wrap my head around a lawsuit, going against Paizo, which published Pathfinder in (looking) 2009, now in its second edition.
> 
> I mean crazier things have happened I'm sure, but this is something thats been in use, and (I assume) unchallenged, for over 13 years...



Paizo is who are all looking to.


----------



## mamba

kenada said:


> A monster stat block is what you use the to play the game. It’s obviously mechanics. Any new traps in an adventure? Treasures? NPC stats? Those are made of mechanics too. If there is non-mechanical stuff you want to protect, that is what PI declarations are for. Paizo is a good model for how to do this.



mechanics to me are rules, a monster stat block is not that, it is a set of values that is only meaningful because of the existing mechanics

Let's turn this around, so any OGL monster book has to include the stats in the OGC automatically?


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> Paizo is who are all looking to.



_Where have you gone, Paizo Publishing
Us gamers turn our worried eyes to you
Woo woo woo_


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> I still cannot wrap my head around a lawsuit, going against Paizo, which published Pathfinder in (looking) 2009, now in its second edition.
> 
> I mean crazier things have happened I'm sure, but this is something thats been in use, and (I assume) unchallenged, for over 13 years...



I assume (Hotkey: I am not a lawyer but) that nothing could stop them from selling everything published as of today. That is not undoable... it's new books that could get the challenge. The way around it we know for sure is sign the new OGL. MY thought is they need to negotiate better terms and/or get a great lawyer.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

kenada said:


> I have games that declare basically everything not already OGC as Product Identity (e.g., Pugmire, OSE Advanced Fantasy), and I’m sure there are others. What are the practical consequences? It doesn’t seem like there are any.



Which is somehow unfair... You just take and don't give...


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> If it’s derivative of existing OGC it’s OGC whether youndev



what makes it derivative ? If I create a new monster, is that derivative because it uses the statblock of D&D? If I create a campaign setting, is it derivative because I publish it as a D&D setting? There must be a line somewhere because while maybe the monster is, I very much doubt the setting is.


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> what makes it derivative ? If I create a new monster, is that derivative because it uses the statblock of D&D? If I create a campaign setting, is it derivative because I publish it as a D&D setting? There must be a line somewhere because while maybe the monster is, I very much doubt the setting is.



That's where your lawyer comes in.


----------



## mamba

Alzrius said:


> _Where have you gone, Paizo Publishing
> Us gamers turn our worried eyes to you
> Woo woo woo_



pretty sure they won't say anything (publicly) before 1.1 is officially released


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> That's where your lawyer comes in.



figured as much  Would be so nice if not everything were apparently completely up to interpretation


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> pretty sure they won't say anything (publicly) before 1.1 is officially released



I wont blame them. Right now there is most likely a lot of stress on them.


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> figured as much  Would be so nice if not everything were apparently completely up to interpretation



Then there would be no lawyers or courts! That's literally their function.


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> Then there would be no lawyers or courts! That's literally their function.



I see their function more as drawing as clear a line as they can, with the remainder being resolved in court. This feels like intentionally mudding the water and doing so in a language no layman would interpret the way they prefer to pretend it should be read, so they can reap the big bucks


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> I see their function more as drawing as clear a line as they can, with the remainder being resolved in court. This feels like intentionally mudding the water and doing so in a language no layman would interpret the way they prefer to pretend it should be read, so they can reap the big bucks



I don't think Ryan Dancey intentionally muddied the waters so he could reap big bucks, and this certainly doesn't make him any money. I think he sincerely intended to create an irevocable share-a-like license to preserve D&D and support the game using network externalities.


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> I don't think Ryan Dancey intentionally muddied the waters so he could reap big bucks, and this certainly doesn't make him any money. I think he sincerely intended to create an irevocable share-a-like license to preserve D&D and support the game using network externalities.



oh, I am not talking about him really, but someone clearly is


----------



## Morrus

mamba said:


> oh, I am not talking about him really, but someone clearly is



Clearly writing the OGL 20 years ago to muddy the waters? I'm not sure what you're saying.


----------



## mamba

Morrus said:


> Clearly writing the OGL 20 years ago to muddy the waters? I'm not sure what you're saying.



I guess my point is that apparently no one can say for sure whether the license is in fact irrevocable, with lawyers arguing both sides even though the license was written to clearly be irrevocable. So we seem to have managed to get to the point where no matter how hard we try to make something clear, we simply cannot, not to the point where any layman must not throw the hands in the air and say 'I have no idea' and the judge can decide either way.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> So we seem to have managed to get to the point where no matter how hard we try to make something clear, we simply cannot, not to the point where any layman must not throw the hands in the air and say 'I have no idea' and the judge can decide either way.



this is why we can't just publish using fair use and 'rules can't be trade marked/copywritten' because known of this is layman.

Could dancy have written "I wizard of the cost do forever give D&D to the fans to work on no takes backs" sure... but I am also sure that wouldn't stand up in court either.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> Could dancy have written "I wizard of the cost do forever give D&D to the fans to work on no takes backs" sure... but I am also sure that wouldn't stand up in court either.



which is the point I am lamenting


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> mechanics to me are rules, a monster stat block is not that, it is a set of values that is only meaningful because of the existing mechanics



It’s in a condensed format, but the stat block provides the rules for running the monster. How else does one know how many dice to roll when the dragon breaths or what the DC is to save against the medusa’s gaze?



mamba said:


> Let's turn this around, so any OGL monster book has to include the stats in the OGC automatically?



Sure. It seems like they should be to me. That’s (more or less) how Paizo handles things in their OGC declarations. They don’t call out stat blocks or anything like that as something special. They just say the OGC is the OGC as defined by section 1(d).


----------



## mamba

kenada said:


> It’s in a condensed format, but the stat block provides the rules for running the monster. How else does one know how many dice to roll when the dragon breaths or what the DC is to save against the medusa’s gaze?



but all of that only is meaningful because you have the mechanics already.

If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.




kenada said:


> Sure. It seems like they should be to me. That’s (more or less) how Paizo handles things in their OGC declarations. They don’t call out stat blocks or anything like that as something special. They just say the OGC is the OGC as defined by section 1(d).



but they spell it out, they do not assume that they automatically are


----------



## Nikosandros

mamba said:


> If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.



Personally, I would be furious! That's completely broken! Plonk 5?! I could see, maybe, Plonk 4 for an elite goblin. But 5? Come on.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> but all if that only is meaningful because you have the mechanics already.
> 
> If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> but they spell it out, they do not assume that they automatically are



You are missing the point. Material derivative of Open Gaming Content is itself Open Gaming Content. Full stop. You can designate other things as OGC -- there are some people and companies that just say "everything but the defined Product Identity is OGC -- or not as you desire. But if it is derivative of any OGC it is OGC. So any monster stat block (not the description unless you specify), any feat or spell or class ability mechanics.

If you came up with a novel system -- say AiME's journey system, or an aerial combat system-- you can not designate those things assuming they aren't based on any OGC in your Section 15 references.


----------



## Simplicity

It's like open source all over again. Yeah, it's a somewhat viral license.  That's how the open source community builds up material that is open source.

Also I don't think you can declare stuff as PI.  You can declare OGC to give things away.  You can't declare PI to hold content back.  Certain things just are PI based on the definition.


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> but all if that only is meaningful because you have the mechanics already.
> 
> If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.



You have some of the mechanics but not all of them. Otherwise, the stats wouldn’t be necessary.



mamba said:


> but they spell it out, they do not assume that they automatically are



They spell it out because section 8 of the OGL requires them to identify which portions of the work are OGC.


----------



## mamba

Nikosandros said:


> Personally, I would be furious! That's completely broken! Plonk 5?! I could see, maybe, Plonk 4 for an elite goblin. But 5? Come on.



you know the rules better than I do


----------



## kenada

Reynard said:


> If you came up with a novel system -- say AiME's journey system, or an aerial combat system-- you can not designate those things assuming they aren't based on any OGC in your Section 15 references.



I’m having trouble parsing this. Are you saying you can opt not to declare the OGC? The way section 1(d) reads to me suggests mechanics are definitionally OGC except when they “embody” Product Identity or fail to be an enhancement over prior art (i.e., public domain material cannot be declared OGC).


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> You are missing the point. Material derivative of Open Gaming Content is itself Open Gaming Content. Full stop.



Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that

What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?


----------



## Tazawa

Simplicity said:


> It's like open source all over again. Yeah, it's a somewhat viral license.  That's how the open source community builds up material that is open source.
> 
> Also I don't think you can declare stuff as PI.  You can declare OGC to give things away.  You can't declare PI to hold content back.  Certain things just are PI based on the definition.



You most certainly can declare stuff as Product Identity. If you are publishing your own setting, characters, plots, etc. you would be foolish not too. The only thing you need to make Open Game Content is, not surprisingly, game content.

And only game content that is derived from Open Game Content. If you come up with a completely new game mechanic that has nothing to do with existing Open Game Content you can protect it by saying it is Product Identity.


----------



## mamba

mamba said:


> Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that



or maybe we do, MCDM has the following for its Flee Mortals packs

"The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: *All content which is not included in the Systems Reference Document version 5.1 or has otherwise been specifically designated as Open Game Content*, including empyrean stag, dancing lady, Dohma Raskovar, Hanging Tree, hulking brain"

the list of monsters continues


----------



## Simplicity

Nikosandros said:


> Personally, I would be furious! That's completely broken! Plonk 5?! I could see, maybe, Plonk 4 for an elite goblin. But 5? Come on.






mamba said:


> Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that
> 
> What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?



My understanding is that in an undesignated stat block would be OGC.  The name of it (Sniveling Snerksucker) would be PI.  The textual descriptions of abilities might also be PI, but they could be rephrased to do the same thing in someone else's work.

Same with a weapon.  The Hammer of Kaboosh.  PI.  It's flavor text, PI.  What the hammer does is OGC.


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that



You can declare the name and description are Product Identity. If the mechanics “embodied” the Product Identity, you could also declare them Product Identity. However, the default is that mechanics are OGC.

Of course, some publishers use very expansive Product Identity declarations. I’d guess the only way to challenge those would be to create a derivative work, get sued, and then try to argue the classification was improper. Probably not worth the fight.



mamba said:


> What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?



Mechanics are OGC by definition. If that 1d8+1 embodies Product Identity (perhaps it is evocative of Plussy-One the deity of swords), you could declare it as Product Identity. Or you could just do like other publishers and declare it regardless (see above).


----------



## mamba

Tazawa said:


> You most certainly can declare stuff as Product Identity. If you are publishing your own setting, characters, plots, etc. you would be foolish not too. The only thing you need to make Open Game Content is, not surprisingly, game content.
> 
> And only game content that is derived from Open Game Content. If you come up with a completely new game mechanic that has nothing to do with existing Open Game Content you can protect it by saying it is Product Identity.



So it is up to me whether my 'Goblin Dragonarcher' is OGC or not, there is nothing that says it has to be... which was my point


----------



## kenada

mamba said:


> or maybe we do, MCDM has the following for its Flee Mortals packs
> 
> "The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: *All content which is not included in the Systems Reference Document version 5.1 or has otherwise been specifically designated as Open Game Content*, including empyrean stag, dancing lady, Dohma Raskovar, Hanging Tree, hulking brain"
> 
> the list of monsters continues



This is the thing I was complaining about up thread. I don’t think it’s in the spirit of the license to declare everything outside of the source SRD as Product Identity, but what’s you can do about it? Probably not much of anything.


----------



## Tazawa

mamba said:


> Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that
> 
> What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?



The monster name and description (and perhaps the non-mechanical description of abilities) can be product identity. You would need to be explicit in your declarations.

1d8+1 damage is derivative. Everything else you use to describe the weapon could be product identity if it was not derived from open game content.


----------



## mamba

Simplicity said:


> My understanding is that in an undesignated stat block would be OGC.  The name of it (Sniveling Snerksucker) would be PI.  The textual descriptions of abilities might also be PI, but they could be rephrased to do the same thing in someone else's work.
> 
> Same with a weapon.  The Hammer of Kaboosh.  PI.  It's flavor text, PI.  What the hammer does is OGC.



so basically all statblocks are OGC in your view, I can keep the art and flavor text PI. Not sure there is an official / definitive answer though


----------



## Simplicity

I rechecked the license.  It does say that you can declare PI.  I was wrong about that.


----------



## mamba

kenada said:


> This is the thing I was complaining about up thread. I don’t think it’s in the spirit of the license to declare everything outside of the source SRD as Product Identity, but what’s you can do about it? Probably not much of anything.



I understand the complaint, I was just wondering about the actual rules


----------



## Tazawa

kenada said:


> This is the thing I was complaining about up thread. I don’t think it’s in the spirit of the license to declare everything outside of the source SRD as Product Identity, but what’s you can do about it? Probably not much of anything.



It isn't in the spirit of the license or against the spirit of the license to not create additional open game content. It simply is.

The goal of the license isn't to create open content for its own sake, it is to create gaming material that is compatible with D&D and spread its network of influence.

The reason Pathfinder (for example) adds open game content (they don't have to) is that they want to allow people to create compatible content and spread Pathfinder's influence.


----------



## kenada

Tazawa said:


> It isn't in the spirit of the license or against the spirit of the license to not create additional open game content. It simply is.
> 
> The goal of the license isn't to create open content for its own sake, it is to create gaming material that is compatible with D&D and spread its network of influence.
> 
> The reason Pathfinder (for example) adds open game content (they don't have to) is that they want to allow people to create compatible content and spread Pathfinder's influence.



That’s fair. I just dislike that it’s possible to draw from the pool of OGC without having to contribute anything back. It’s the same how I prefer copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL for software over permissive ones like the BSD or MIT licenses.


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> figured as much  Would be so nice if not everything were apparently completely up to interpretation



That used to be the whole point of the OGL.


----------



## Staffan

kenada said:


> That’s fair. I just dislike that it’s possible to draw from the pool of OGC without having to contribute anything back. It’s the same how I prefer copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL for software over permissive ones like the BSD or MIT licenses.



I think the d20 STL used to require that a certain percentage of the work (5%?) was OGC. Not necessarily *new* OGC, but at least OGC.


----------



## mamba

Staffan said:


> I think the d20 STL used to require that a certain percentage of the work (5%?) was OGC. Not necessarily *new* OGC, but at least OGC.



what is the point of forcing 5% of existing OGC to be included? Either you need new content under it or I fail to see the point of the requirement


----------



## Ondath

mamba said:


> what is the point of forcing 5% of existing OGC to be included? Either you need new content under it or I fail to see the point of the requirement



Perhaps making sure that your d20 system uses at least the common foundation as the other d20 systems? The point of the d20 system was to standardise D&D's d20 mechanic for different genres and allow people to jump from one game to another (so a person who played a d20 World of Darkness game could go "Huh, this game was cool, I guess I could give D&D 3.5 a try").


----------



## Staffan

mamba said:


> what is the point of forcing 5% of existing OGC to be included? Either you need new content under it or I fail to see the point of the requirement



Presumably because then you need to have a way to define what's new OGC and what isn't. For example, stat blocks are generally OGC, right? But what if I have a stat block of a caster with a bunch of spells from the SRD? Is that part of the stat block new OGC (because it's a stat block I wrote) or is it old OGC (because they're all old spells)?


----------



## Staffan

Ondath said:


> Perhaps making sure that your d20 system uses at least the common foundation as the other d20 systems? The point of the d20 system was to standardise D&D's d20 mechanic for different genres and allow people to jump from one game to another (so a person who played a d20 World of Darkness game could go "Huh, this game was cool, I guess I could give D&D 3.5 a try").



That was a different part of the d20 STL. There was a long list of terms you were not allowed to change, in order to make sure d20-branded stuff was actually compatible with D&D.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> So it is up to me whether my 'Goblin Dragonarcher' is OGC or not, there is nothing that says it has to be... which was my point



This is super shakey ground and I have seen people argue that you can't, in fact, designate the stat block of the Goblin Dragonarcher as PI. You can designate the name and likeness and story and ecology as PI, but not the stat block.

Now, I am not a lawyer or even adjacent, but I have been freelance writing and designing since the inception of the OGL. I have worked on specially licensed products (Gamma World d20) and for small and big publishers (I have designed monsters for Starfinder, for example). I don't mean that as an appeal to authority, just to illustrate that I have been involved for a long time. And in my experience most people who I have worked _for_ have followed the interpretation that anything derivative of OGC is itself OGC and publishers that try and PI their game mechanics are at least working against the intent of the OGL, if not in violation of it.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> what is the point of forcing 5% of existing OGC to be included? Either you need new content under it or I fail to see the point of the requirement



the d20STL went away a long time ago but if I remember correctly the point was that you weren't supposed to use it to vanity press your novel or generic world book. it existed to support D&D in a much more explicit (and restrictive) way than the OGL.


----------



## Erdric Dragin

Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it. 

Intent matters.


----------



## Drake2000

Erdric Dragin said:


> Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.
> 
> Intent matters.



That could very well be. However, it will take years of pre-trial motions, discovery, witness testimony and possible injunctions before a judge can make that ruling, and someone will have to pay for all of that.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Erdric Dragin said:


> Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.
> 
> Intent matters.



Presenting something to threaten the indie rank and file into line via a lawsuit that would ruin them even if they could easily win also matters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Erdric Dragin said:


> Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.
> 
> Intent matters.





Drake2000 said:


> That could very well be. However, it will take years of pre-trial motions, discovery, witness testimony and possible injunctions before a judge can make that ruling, and someone will have to pay for all of that.



It is possible if you get a really good argument to shut it down with a pre trial motion. HOWEVER, wotc lawyers get to argue against it and there is as much up in the air as there is concrete... so I wouldn't bet my farm on it.


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> This is super shakey ground



Here's something I've been thinking about. Any publisher who decides to fight this is going to have to be super-comfy with their own implementation of the license and with Hasbro lawyers combing through all their published materials looking for violations/breaches. And in many cases, I assume those potential issues will themselves fall within gray areas subject to interpretation by a court.

I would not have felt super-comfy with any such process during my time running the RPG business at FFG.


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> Here's something I've been thinking about. Any publisher who decides to fight this is going to have to be super-comfy with their own implementation of the license and with Hasbro lawyers combing through all their published materials looking for violations/breaches. And in many cases, I assume those potential issues will themselves fall within gray areas subject to interpretation by a court.
> 
> I would not have felt super-comfy with any such process during my time running the RPG business at FFG.



I wonder if there has ever been a case where one publisher called out another for using closed content from an OGL product.


----------



## blakesha

jgbrowning said:


> Here's my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth.
> 
> The original license was an agreement between WotC and the user. At the moment that the user published a product under that license, the license was authorized. And perpetually so. There is no revoking that authorization, particularly when (sect 9) it is mention that changes in the license allow the user to use previous version of the license if they so wish.
> 
> This means that any previously  publish work under the OGL is fine *providing *that you don't agree to the new license, because the new license says that the user agrees to alter previously existing licenses how WotC wants them altered.
> 
> If you have published materials under the OGL and want to publish under the new OGL, simply create a new legal entity that does not have the authority to speak for any of your other legal entities, so that the change in the license that WotC wants to happen isn't able to happen.
> 
> The OGL is perpetual, and you can use any version you like, UNLESS you agree to what WotC wants to change by publishing and agreeing with the new version.
> 
> joe b.



But section 9 DOESNT state what you are saying. It says you can continue to sell EXISTING works through future revisions of the OGL


----------



## blakesha

jgbrowning said:


> All the arguments come down to "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." in sect 9.
> 
> Every publication released under the OGL is released under an authorized version of the license because _every_ version WoTC released is an authorized one.
> 
> Creating a new version of the OGL that "un-authorizes" previous versions *for that user* requires the *user's agreement*, in that new license.
> 
> No new, unsigned, unagreed-upon license removes the prior section 4: "In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." Because it's not a contract until both sides agree to the terms, and the contract was already made with the terms set out at the time when a product is published under the OGL.
> 
> All of the versions of the OGLs are authorized until one agrees with WotC that they aren't anymore by making a new contract with them by publishing under the new OGL.
> 
> joe b.



Only for EXISTING works. Once the 1.1 drops you cannot go back and use 1.0 to create NEW works


----------



## blakesha

Bedrockgames said:


> I would think his opinion would matter though because of his role in the OGL and because WOTC has asserted something about what the intent was (and that assertion runs counter to most peoples understanding of the intentions of the OGL).



All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now


----------



## blakesha

Quick question for those a little more knowledgeable:

How the Open Gaming License ever actually been "Open". As in owned by someone NOT WotC?


----------



## blakesha

ngenius said:


> Reading all the debates about the legal standing of the OGL 1.0 versus the OGL 1.1 is just giving common folk mental trauma. Sorry for the all questions below, but the hobby is in chaos in 2023 now.
> 
> *For simplicity, what effect will the OGL 1.1 have on projects like EN Publishing's Level Up 5e?*
> 
> In simple terms is Level Up 5e dead in the water come 2024?
> 
> Or will Level Up 5e exist as an alternative set of variant rules like Paizo's Pathfinder did in the 4e era?
> 
> Those of us who already have these books are fine, but how do we bring in new Players if those people cannot purchase the Level Up 5e core rulebook in 2024?
> 
> Will Wizards of the Coast issue cease and desist to all publishers who refuse to update to OGL 1.1?
> 
> I am thinking of selling mine, if there is no guarantee that variant rules will remain legal in 2024.



They can still purchase it under OGL 1.1 if section 9s wording is taken literally. Hell Enworld Publishing can make modifications to that set of published material under OGL 1.1 and continue to sell it without having to adhere to the other terms of OGL 1.1 (like the royalty clause). Based on the terms of section 9. EWP just can't create NEW works without having to then adhere to the new terms (ie the royalty ones)


----------



## catseye_yellow

blakesha said:


> All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now



of course that the intent of the one contractual party at the time when contractual obligation has been established is relevant


----------



## catseye_yellow

double post


----------



## blakesha

catseye_yellow said:


> of course that the intent of the one contractual party at the time when contractual obligation has been established is relevant




Absolutely agree Ryan. The irrelevant point being that WotC will argue that they can change that license / enact a new license as per the use of the word "authorised" in the terms. It infers that there was intent for there to be unauthorised version of the license.

As stated in another thread, I dont think this is great PR, and the fact it could potentially kill off a segment of the 3p content creator community is even less great, but you can understand SOME of the business logic behind the decision.

But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.


----------



## humble minion

blakesha said:


> But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.



They can, but they don't want to.  It's very much a package deal for them.  This is about WotC regaining control over, and reaping no-effort revenue from, the 3pp sector (as one would expect from a Hasbro executive team packed with Microsoft and Amazon alumni, abuse of market power is the first tool pulled out of the toolbox).  They can certainly do that for 5.5 by creating a new licence with the sort of conditions that are being leaked about 1.1 - but unless the creation of the new licence is accompanied by revocation of the old one, it's a very risky move for them.  The last thing they want to do is open the door to whoever wants create another Pathfinder, based off the 5e rulebase, licenced under OGL  1.0a.  If there's a 5finder ruleset (to coin a phrase) floating around under the OGL 1.0a, then it'd be a rare 3pp publisher who voluntarily decides to adhere to all the strictures of OGL 1.1 and pay WotC a chunk of their earnings should they dare to become too successful, when they can simply go with 5finder and ... not have to do any of that.  WotC have already stated that 5.5 will be back-compatible with their 5e supplements, so it logically follows that new 5e/5finder supplements will also be compatible with 5.5e, even if the publishers may not be able to explicitly refer to that fact. 

Mind you, even if any of this happens it's unlikely to affect the success or failure of 5.5 very much one way or another unless one of the REALLY big dogs in the 3pp industry (Critical Role may possibly be the only people with that sort of heft) jump onboard 5finder, but WotC will be very keen to avoid the possibility anyway.


----------



## S'mon

humble minion said:


> Mind you, even if any of this happens it's unlikely to affect the success or failure of 5.5 very much one way or another




I strongly suspect that the future success of 5.5 has already been affected, to its detriment, by the fear and trepidation that WoTC have created in the 3PP community, and the better informed segment of D&D players.


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> I strongly suspect that the future success of 5.5 has already been affected, to its detriment, by the fear and trepidation that WoTC have created in the 3PP community, and the better informed segment of D&D players.



It's a long time until release and gamers have short memories. Unless the big players that WotC is courting now balk, 1D&D will have strong 3PP support.


----------



## Staffan

blakesha said:


> But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.



I don't think anyone is arguing that Wizards can't release 5.5e/6e/OneD&D under a different license, or potentially no license at all. One might question the wisdom of such a move, but not that it's a thing they can do. The issue at hand is whether they can "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a when it says "perpetual" and their representatives have previously assured people that that's not a thing they can do.


----------



## Alzrius

blakesha said:


> But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.



They can absolutely put a 1D&D SRD out under a more-restrictive license, or even not issue an SRD at all if they so choose. But as for whether or not they can unilaterally revoke the existing OGL v1.0a, preventing anyone from publishing new material under it, is much murkier. There's an excellent post on this, from an actual lawyer, over here.


----------



## mamba

blakesha said:


> Quick question for those a little more knowledgeable:
> 
> How the Open Gaming License ever actually been "Open". As in owned by someone NOT WotC?



not a requirement for openness…


----------



## Art Waring

blakesha said:


> All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now



No it isn't. Ryan Dancey's testimony in court would establish the true intent of the 1.0a OGL, he was a part of the company when it was drafted and his words go a long way in the 3pp OGL community. Dancey is the furthest thing from irrelevant right now.


----------



## wingsandsword

Retreater said:


> I hope he's right. But does he have any authority other than his past employment with Wizards to make such a claim? Is he a lawyer? Does he know court precedents?



He's the person who thought up the OGL, spearheaded it's development, and approved it for release when he was the Vice President for Dungeons and Dragons at WotC in 2000.

He's very qualified to speak about what the intent of WotC was with regards to the OGL 1.0a and what WotC thought could and could not be done with the OGL at the time they granted it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> It's a long time until release and gamers have short memories. Unless the big players that WotC is courting now balk, 1D&D will have strong 3PP support.



Years of edition wars tell me that gamers most certainly do not have short memories.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> Years of edition wars tell me that gamers most certainly do not have short memories.



Their wallets certainly do.


----------



## qstor

Alzrius said:


> I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!



He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable


----------



## GMforPowergamers

qstor said:


> He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable



if we had a time machine I am sure Ryan would have put that and more in the license...


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Vildara said:


> Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?



What is “game mechanics” has not been defined legally.


----------



## Morrus

qstor said:


> He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable



He didn’t _write_ it! Lawyers wrote it, he oversaw it.


----------



## S'mon

qstor said:


> He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable




The English case says it depends on the circumstances, and the rest of the contract. The circumstances around the OGL and its overall wording strongly support non-revocability IMO.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> He didn’t _write_ it! Lawyers wrote it, he oversaw it.



and that case had not happened yet at the time. In no way is this Ryan did something wrong, or the lawyer under him did anything wrong. They based it on Open license's in the year 1999 and 2000. The problem is that in 2003 2005 2007 ect the licenses did not keep up with other open licenses being updated.
post 2008 I would argue that WotC didn't WANT to update it to be MORE open and everlasting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

S'mon said:


> The English case says it depends on the circumstances, and the rest of the contract. The circumstances around the OGL and its overall wording strongly support non-revocability IMO.



yup... and that means there can be an argument... if you have the money to make it through all the hoops WotC lawyers can throw at you.


----------



## Blue

EDIT:  Some big changes after @S'mon cleared up PI vs. IP.  Big oops on my part.



TheSword said:


> My gut feeling is that WOC considers the IP theirs - particularly the stuff they have developed recently.



Mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the exact wording used.  The OGL just lets them use the exact wording, so you can refer to a spell by name, etc.  So there's a lot out there they couldn't touch anyway.



TheSword said:


> We know that D&D 5e is an order of magnitude bigger than it was then the OGL was released.



And a good part of that is due to the OGL.  It took a fragmenting RPG mechanical landscape and focused people on using a core set of rules.  Reading Ryan Dancey's essays about how it would have other game companies produce material that sold D&D core books and kept players in the D&D yard.



TheSword said:


> Ryan Dancey unfortunately no longer works for WOC and WOC can easily say circumstances have changed.



Contracts between businesses do not require that the original signee is still with the business.  If my realtor retires, my house isn't unsold, and even if circumstances for the seller have changed that doesn't allow them to rewrite the contract that we all agreed on.



TheSword said:


> They can say that 5e is a fundamentally different product, and that they are spending money developing and promoting something that didn’t exist when the OGL was created.



Which is perfectly fine, and true, and irrelevant.  They published 5e under the OGL willingly.  They did not have to.  Look at 4e, where they decided to publish under the GSL, which would have absolutely sidestepped all of this.  They could publish OneD&D under another license without problem.  But publishing "something new" under a license that explicitly contains protections against changing versions of that license doesn't negate those protection.

Also, there are plenty of products that are based off of D&D 3ed or 3.5 that are published under the OGL, like Pathfinder (1st).  So even if 5e beign different was a point, changing the OGL which would affect all of them and render the point moot.



TheSword said:


> WOC/Hasbro almost certainly have lawyers who are advising them that there is either enough cover or possibility that they can win to make the change worth it.



Absolutely.  That someone up the corporate chain said "we want to get royalties, enter the lair of the lawyers and see if they see a way to change it", and the lawyers came up with what they thought was the best way.

That doesn't mean that's the way it will shake out.  There are civil cases all the time where lawyers on both sides think the law says they shall win.



TheSword said:


> I suspect they are gambling that the majority of 3pp will accept the new license - if grudgingly because it’s terms aren’t too onerous. Those that won’t because they are of a size that it is onerous are competition for D&D anyway and either aren’t producing content for 5e (Paizo) or aren’t big enough/are to dependent to find it worth fighting them (EN Publishing), Kobold Press etc etc.



I again agree - this having supposed to go out Jan 4th and take affect Jan 23rd is very much a bully move.  Only-RPG publishers run on thin margins, they are leveraging their large-corporation lawyers.

Of course, since this was based on open source licenses, we might even get defenders like the EFF in addition to publishers.  (Or if it threatens the GPL then IBM might get involved like they did with SCO.)



TheSword said:


> Cleverly by getting this out of the way now they are ensuring that the fallout happens now, rather than during the launch of whatever the One D&D playtest turns into. I’m not surprised it’s leaked early.



Leaking is perfect for them, I would not be surprised if they did it on purpose.  Especially with the "we can be proven wrong" thing.  It seems they are floating this, and if it gets huge backlash then they can disavow it as "new senior management didn't understand our wonderful customers, but they get it now.  We want great games that come from diversity of choice.  Woo!"


----------



## S'mon

Blue said:


> IP (Intellectual Property) is not covered under the OGL, never was.  That's things like the Mind Flayer and Elminster.




I think you're confusing IP with Product Identity (an invented term). There is a lot of IP - copyright work - licenced under the SRD. It's a literary work. That's protected by copyright.

_FIREBALL
3rd-level evocation
*Casting Time:*1 action
*Range:*150 feet
*Components:*V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
*Duration:*Instantaneous
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
*At Higher Levels*: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd._

That Fireball text from the SRD is copyrighted.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

It would appear to me that irrespective of the OGLs merits, unless it is defended in court now, or WoTC is forced to concede that it cannot be revoked then it has failed of its original purpose. That of keeping a version of "D&D in the wild" independent of the vagaries of corporate policies. 
It looks like the indies are not relying on the licence but running for the exits, unless some thing comes out the "big players" negotiations.


----------



## Blue

S'mon said:


> I think you're confusing IP with Product Identity (an invented term). There is a lot of IP - copyright work - licenced under the SRD. It's a literary work. That's protected by copyright.



Dang, you're right - I was swapping PI and IP.  Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## humble minion

UngainlyTitan said:


> It would appear to me that irrespective of the OGLs merits, unless it is defended in court now, or WoTC is forced to concede that it cannot be revoked then it has failed of its original purpose. That of keeping a version of "D&D in the wild" independent of the vagaries of corporate policies.




Yep.  A licence that can be revoked at will is functionally no licence at all.


----------



## wingsandsword

Blue said:


> Of course, since this was based on open source licenses, we might even get defenders like the EFF in addition to publishers.  (Or if it threatens the GPL then IBM might get involved like they did with SCO.)



Yeah, the _SCO/Linux _lawsuits have been on my mind the whole time.

They were completely baseless and without legal merit, entirely rooted in spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) around Linux as a strategy to discredit Linux as an OS.

. . .and this scheme from WotC seems to be much the same for the OGL, an attempt to spread similar FUD around their own OGL.  

If there's any real sign that this could potentially be applied to any other open source license agreements. . .yeah the EFF and others will get involved and Hasbro will be in for a much bigger fight than they probably expected.  They were expecting to force Paizo and a few others to the table to negotiate specific license agreements, not for IBM to come knocking because they're threatening the legal underpinnings of a lot of software.


----------



## Scribe

UngainlyTitan said:


> It would appear to me that irrespective of the OGLs merits, unless it is defended in court now, or WoTC is forced to concede that it cannot be revoked then it has failed of its original purpose. That of keeping a version of "D&D in the wild" independent of the vagaries of corporate policies.
> It looks like the indies are not relying on the licence but running for the exits, unless some thing comes out the "big players" negotiations.




That is kind of worrisome at this point...


----------



## Prime_Evil

wingsandsword said:


> Yeah, the _SCO/Linux _lawsuits have been on my mind the whole time.
> 
> They were completely baseless and without legal merit, entirely rooted in spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) around Linux as a strategy to discredit Linux as an OS.
> 
> . . .and this scheme from WotC seems to be much the same for the OGL, an attempt to spread similar FUD around their own OGL.
> 
> If there's any real sign that this could potentially be applied to any other open source license agreements. . .yeah the EFF and others will get involved and Hasbro will be in for a much bigger fight than they probably expected.  They were expecting to force Paizo and a few others to the table to negotiate specific license agreements, not for IBM to come knocking because they're threatening the legal underpinnings of a lot of software.



WoTC don't need to spread FUD. They just need Drivetrhurpg and Kickstarter to refuse to carry material released under OGL v.1.0a. That renders the entire point moot, regardless of any legal technicalities. Both of these companies depend upon good relations with WoTC for a substantial portion of their revenues. Therefore I think it will quickly become impossible to publish anything under the OGL v1.0a - even if it for a different game system unrelated to any WoTC IP. Neither Drivethrurpg nor Kickstarter will want to annoy one of their biggest revenue sources.


----------



## mamba

Prime_Evil said:


> I think it will quickly become impossible to publish anything under the OGL v1.0a - even if it for a different game system unrelated to any WoTC IP. Neither Drivethrurpg nor Kickstarter will want to annoy one of their biggest revenue sources.



I am unaware of WotC kickstarting anything


----------



## wingsandsword

Prime_Evil said:


> WoTC don't need to spread FUD. They just need Drivetrhurpg and Kickstarter to refuse to carry material released under OGL v.1.0a.



The entire RPG industry is not just two websites.


----------



## Morrus

wingsandsword said:


> The entire RPG industry is not just two websites.



For many smaller creators it is. You have to be fairly successful to have a decent revenue stream from your own store, and even then not having DTRPG or KS is a huge percentage of your business.


----------



## wingsandsword

Morrus said:


> For many smaller creators it is. You have to be fairly successful to have a decent revenue stream from your own store, and even then not having DTRPG or KS is a huge percentage of your business.



I'm not even talking about commercial publishers.

Right now, today, if I wanted to make my own RPG that's derived from D&D 3.x, 5e, d20 Modern, and other OGL d20 variants, and just put it out there and post it online and share it, I can, as long as I follow the very generous terms of the OGL 1.0a.

If, big if, this leaked WotC OGL 1.1 is completely real and something they implement, that would be copyright infringement for me to do so (assuming the rescinding of OGL 1.0a is legally valid, which courts may rule on at some point).

If the OGL 1.0a is still valid, it wouldn't be.

This stomps on fans making and distributing their own D&D-related materials just as much as it does on commercial publications.

I remember _quite _well the 1990's "T$R" era, when fans were sent Cease & Desist letters simply for posting home-brew spells or monsters, or posting their homebrew campaign settings, because they referenced D&D IP elements in those postings.  That's when I started gaming, and I was introduced to D&D by people who had a seething hatred of TSR because of the culture of fear and distrust that TSR created.  The OGL is what silenced that and assured fans that wouldn't come back, that WotC wasn't interested in going after fans and instead supported fans making their own D&D content, as long as it was within some pretty generous terms.

. . .WotC is making just as much a threat at fans making homebrew and sharing it as they are with commercial publishers by rescinding the OGL 1.0a.  While OGL 1.1 may be friendlier towards non-commercial fan productions, the very fact that OGL 1.1 says it can be rescinded at any time by WotC means it's really no license at all and cannot be trusted. . .since we've already seen WotC rescind (or try to rescind) a license that was even intended to not be able to be rescinded in the first place.  You'd have to be a fool to ever use OGL 1.1, under any circumstance, even as a fan making a completely non-commercial production.


----------



## bedir than

wingsandsword said:


> I'm not even talking about commercial publishers.
> 
> Right now, today, if I wanted to make my own RPG that's derived from D&D 3.x, 5e, d20 Modern, and other OGL d20 variants, and just put it out there and post it online and share it, I can, as long as I follow the very generous terms of the OGL 1.0a.
> 
> If, big if, this leaked WotC OGL 1.1 is completely real and something they implement, that would be copyright infringement for me to do so (assuming the rescinding of OGL 1.0a is legally valid, which courts may rule on at some point).
> 
> If the OGL 1.0a is still valid, it wouldn't be.
> 
> This stomps on fans making and distributing their own D&D-related materials just as much as it does on commercial publications.
> 
> I remember _quite _well the 1990's "T$R" era, when fans were sent Cease & Desist letters simply for posting home-brew spells or monsters, or posting their homebrew campaign settings, because they referenced D&D IP elements in those postings.  That's when I started gaming, and I was introduced to D&D by people who had a seething hatred of TSR because of the culture of fear and distrust that TSR created.  The OGL is what silenced that and assured fans that wouldn't come back, that WotC wasn't interested in going after fans and instead supported fans making their own D&D content, as long as it was within some pretty generous terms.
> 
> . . .WotC is making just as much a threat at fans making homebrew and sharing it as they are with commercial publishers by rescinding the OGL 1.0a.  While OGL 1.1 may be friendlier towards non-commercial fan productions, the very fact that OGL 1.1 says it can be rescinded at any time by WotC means it's really no license at all and cannot be trusted. . .since we've already seen WotC rescind (or try to rescind) a license that was even intended to not be able to be rescinded in the first place.  You'd have to be a fool to ever use OGL 1.1, under any circumstance, even as a fan making a completely non-commercial production.



The Fan Content Policy is unchanged.
Nothing in the OGL 1.1 revokes that


----------



## Reynard

bedir than said:


> The Fan Content Policy is unchanged.
> Nothing in the OGL 1.1 revokes that



The fan content policy does not cover game mechanics. You have to use the OGL for that.


----------



## wingsandsword

bedir than said:


> The Fan Content Policy is unchanged.
> Nothing in the OGL 1.1 revokes that



A "fan content policy" is just that, a policy.

It can change at any time.  WotC can just arbitrarily say they don't allow fans to produce anything for D&D, at any time, at their discretion.

It's as revocable as OGL 1.1, so it's meaningless and worthless.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

wingsandsword said:


> This stomps on fans making and distributing their own D&D-related materials just as much as it does on commercial publications.
> 
> I remember _quite _well the 1990's "T$R" era, when fans were sent Cease & Desist letters simply for posting home-brew spells or monsters,



Okay this new OGL is bad, but it's not that.

If you put stuff up for free no issue.
If you put stuff sell it and make less then 50k a year no issue.

I can't imagine anything I or my friends make ever being effected. Even if I wanted to it would be through the DMsGuild.

THe issue isn't fans. The issue is 100% the people who do this professionally. The people who have mortgage and rent payments they make by selling D&D related stuff... not some dude that throws a few things up on the web.


----------



## bedir than

Reynard said:


> The fan content policy does not cover game mechanics. You have to use the OGL for that.



No. I don't.
They've absolutely read my website and never contacted me for violating the OGL by not publishing under it 

EN World isn't violating the OGL by existing


----------



## bedir than

wingsandsword said:


> A "fan content policy" is just that, a policy.
> 
> It can change at any time.  WotC can just arbitrarily say they don't allow fans to produce anything for D&D, at any time, at their discretion.
> 
> It's as revocable as OGL 1.1, so it's meaningless and worthless.



The mythology that WotC would chase down the millions of people who have shared their own created content for free and/or go to legal war with the publishers of that is hilarious.

WotC isn't going to battle with Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest or Chad down the street


----------



## Minigiant

wingsandsword said:


> A "fan content policy" is just that, a policy.
> 
> It can change at any time.  WotC can just arbitrarily say they don't allow fans to produce anything for D&D, at any time, at their discretion.
> 
> It's as revocable as OGL 1.1, so it's meaningless and worthless.



The fn contentpolicy can be changed but it likely wont be as it is free press with no competitive lane with the main IP.


----------



## Reynard

bedir than said:


> No. I don't.
> They've absolutely read my website and never contacted me for violating the OGL by not publishing under it
> 
> EN World isn't violating the OGL by existing



I'm just telling you what the fan content policy says.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

wingsandsword said:


> A "fan content policy" is just that, a policy.
> 
> It can change at any time.  WotC can just arbitrarily say they don't allow fans to produce anything for D&D, at any time, at their discretion.
> 
> It's as revocable as OGL 1.1, so it's meaningless and worthless.



dude they have had this policy since the 90's they COULD revoke it anytime...but why would they? and why would we worry about some weird thing they MIGHT do?


----------



## bedir than

Reynard said:


> I'm just telling you what the fan content policy says.



I'm just telling you that this is settled case law.
Fan fiction isn't illegal. Twilight exists, it made billions.


----------



## wingsandsword

GMforPowergamers said:


> dude they have had this policy since the 90's they COULD revoke it anytime...but why would they? and why would we worry about some weird thing they MIGHT do?



They've had OGL 1.0a for 22 years. . .nobody thought they could ever revoke it.

. . .so just because something has been around a long time or nobody thought it would happen has just been proven irrelevant by WotC's recent actions.


----------



## Reynard

bedir than said:


> I'm just telling you that this is settled case law.
> Fan fiction isn't illegal. Twilight exists, it made billions.



I was specifically talking about game mechanics.


----------



## bedir than

Reynard said:


> I was specifically talking about game mechanics.



 If you think WotC is going to go after every publication of not for profit game mechanics then you are insisting that every single table playing the game is in danger of a lawyer knocking on their door.

Since every table has at least one mechanical variant are you really suggesting that WotC is going to forbid playing D&D?


----------



## rcade

Greg Benage said:


> Here's something I've been thinking about. Any publisher who decides to fight this is going to have to be super-comfy with their own implementation of the license and with Hasbro lawyers combing through all their published materials looking for violations/breaches. And in many cases, I assume those potential issues will themselves fall within gray areas subject to interpretation by a court.
> 
> I would not have felt super-comfy with any such process during my time running the RPG business at FFG.




Yep. OGL 1.0 created a safe harbor that even the smallest RPG publishers could trust.

Hasbro's actions have already cast into serious doubt whether there's going to be a safe harbor at all. If you're a small- to medium-sized RPG publisher putting out a new game that was going to be OGL-licensed and derived from the SRD, the risk is likely to be unbearably high.


----------



## Reynard

bedir than said:


> If you think WotC is going to go after every publication of not for profit game mechanics then you are insisting that every single table playing the game is in danger of a lawyer knocking on their door.
> 
> Since every table has at least one mechanical variant are you really suggesting that WotC is going to forbid playing D&D?



Why are you constructing straw men? All I said was if you post mechanics online you are technically under the OGL not the Fan Content Policy. That's all. Whether WotC would be motivated to pull a TSR and attack such content wasn't an assertion I made.

If you are looking to attack a WotC defender, you got the wrong person. I'm not. I'm just trying to help bring clarity where I can in a discussion that is absolutely rife with misunderstanding, misinformation, and, frankly, purely fanciful assessments of the situation.


----------



## rknop

bedir than said:


> If you think WotC is going to go after every publication of not for profit game mechanics then you are insisting that every single table playing the game is in danger of a lawyer knocking on their door.



Two things to keep in mind.  First, TSR _did_ go after fan sites in the 1990s, not with lawyers in person, but with cease & desist letters.

Second, automated copyright enforcement is a thing and has been a thing for some time.  It's not universal, it's capricious and (apparently) random, but people have settled for thousands with the RIAA and MPAA, YouTube videos get taken down by copyright bots, etc.

It's entirely reasonable to suppose that WotC may go after fan sites in addition to Paizo, Kickstarter, dtrpg, etc.  And while they have a seemingly friendly fan policy now, they are also signaling a propensity for removing friendly policies on short notice- even ones they promised never to removed, and that they previously said they legally couldn't remove.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

wingsandsword said:


> They've had OGL 1.0a for 22 years. . .nobody thought they could ever revoke it.
> 
> . . .so just because something has been around a long time or nobody thought it would happen has just been proven irrelevant by WotC's recent actions.



I mean we have had "what if they took out the OGL" threads on here since 4e. SO no it's not that nobody thought they could it's that popular opnion was it would be hard to not possible.

I never said it wasn't possible they change the fan policy, I said there is no reason to assume they will and worry about it now. So far the new OGL isn't fully open and isn't as generous as the old... but it still allows for 80-90% of creators (those making less then $750k a year) to keep on going with only a little change.

I work 40-50 hours a week, my fiancé is closer to 40-42 and just picked up a side job for 8-10 more hours (at better pay) starting next week. My mother lives with us and gets both retirement, social security AND a pay out from and IRA (mandatory min pay outs) if you add all 3 of us together we don't make 750k a year.  If you add my friend who works at a comic shop, and my friend that works at Walmart in to make 5 of us (even though we don't live together) we don't make $750k a year. (TBF I did choose the lowest paid friends not the highest there)

There are problems. There are REAL victims, including the guy who makes it possible to have this conversation... you a fan with some fan works are NOT the victim here.  People could lose there main source of income over this. Keep that in mind.


----------



## Blue

wingsandsword said:


> If there's any real sign that this could potentially be applied to any other open source license agreements. . .yeah the EFF and others will get involved and Hasbro will be in for a much bigger fight than they probably expected.  They were expecting to force Paizo and a few others to the table to negotiate specific license agreements, not for IBM to come knocking because they're threatening the legal underpinnings of a lot of software.



Had an IBM business partner once repeat to me a quote:  "The IBM Legal Team has an unlimited budget, _which they regularly exceed_."


----------



## wingsandsword

GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean we have had "what if they took out the OGL" threads on here since 4e. SO no it's not that nobody thought they could it's that popular opnion was it would be hard to not possible.



We've had people ask that question, to which the consensus has always been: They can't.

The idea of rescinding it has always been a fringe theory.  

The legal theory under which they're rescinding it is dubious to say the least.   I seriously think this was a WotC exec telling legal to come up with ANY argument, no matter how shaky, revoking the OGL, even if they think it's a bad one or would be unlikely to hold up to a serious legal challenge.


----------



## bedir than

Reynard said:


> if you post mechanics online you are technically under the OGL



If this is true then every website and podcast right now is in violation, as they don't have the OGL printed in full on it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

rknop said:


> It's entirely reasonable to suppose that WotC may go after fan sites in addition to Paizo, Kickstarter, dtrpg, etc.



no it isn't. That is not at all reasonable.  It still would not be a reasonable fear if it happened.

When I was 7 I had to get on my first airplane ride. I was scared and the main 2 fears I voiced was "What if the engines shut down and we crash or what if terrorist take over the plane" I was 7, and those were unreasonable fears.

When I was in my mid 20s hijackers DID take over 4 airplanes in the US aire space and caused the worst terrorist attack in US modern history... the fact that some day my unreasonable fear came true did not and would not  retroactively 20 years earlier make my fear reasonable.


----------



## Reynard

bedir than said:


> If this is true then every website and podcast right now is in violation, as they don't have the OGL printed in full on it.



No. Every homebrew spell or monster is, though.

I mean, just go read the fan policy if you don't believe me.


----------



## Vaalingrade

bedir than said:


> I'm just telling you that this is settled case law.
> Fan fiction isn't illegal. Twilight exists, it made billions.



Fifty Shades was the fanfic. Twilight was the original.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> No. Every homebrew spell or monster is, though.
> 
> I mean, just go read the fan policy if you don't believe me.



not sure where you read that in the policy


----------



## Vildara

So what happens to existing materials? Do they just have to go in the bin? Should I start downloading everything I have on DTRPG in case they nuke the database?


----------



## mamba

Vildara said:


> So what happens to existing materials? Do they just have to go in the bin? Should I start downloading everything I have on DTRPG in case they nuke the database?



no harm in doing so, not expecting it to be necessary, but no one can tell you definitively imo


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> not sure where you read that in the policy



Look under the FAQ.









						Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast
					

Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy.




					company.wizards.com


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vildara said:


> So what happens to existing materials? Do they just have to go in the bin? Should I start downloading everything I have on DTRPG in case they nuke the database?





mamba said:


> no harm in doing so, not expecting it to be necessary, but no one can tell you definitively imo



download everything today.
EVERYTHING
and if nothing comes of it, keep that backup ANYWAY...


----------



## rcade

bedir than said:


> If this is true then every website and podcast right now is in violation, as they don't have the OGL printed in full on it.



A lot of websites that offer SRD-derived content do publish the OGL with the site in Section 15. Here's an example:









						Open Game License
					

OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0aThe following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.1. Definitions:




					thealexandrian.net


----------



## wingsandsword

GMforPowergamers said:


> Okay this new OGL is bad, but it's not that.
> 
> If you put stuff up for free no issue.
> If you put stuff sell it and make less then 50k a year no issue.
> 
> I can't imagine anything I or my friends make ever being effected. Even if I wanted to it would be through the DMsGuild.
> 
> THe issue isn't fans. The issue is 100% the people who do this professionally. The people who have mortgage and rent payments they make by selling D&D related stuff... not some dude that throws a few things up on the web.



Except they can revoke OGL 1.1 at will, explicitly.

A license that can be revoked at will is _meaningless_, it's as worthless as their "Fan Content Policy".

The OGL isn't supposed to be able to be revoked, that was a substantial part of its appeal, that the nuts & bolts of D&D were out there "in the open" in perpetuity.

Without the OGL 1.0a, there is literally nothing stopping WotC from going straight to "T$R" legal tactics like cease and desist letters, DMCA takedowns, and various other legal threats and actions.  They could just unilaterally declare war on all fan and 3rd party D&D-related content on the web.

. . .and no, I don't trust WotC not to do that.  If this OGL 1.1 is actually released, they will have forever forfeited that kind of trust.  WotC spent a quarter-century telling D&D fans they weren't like the TSR of old, and the OGL was a backbone of that. . .now they've gone back on that.

. . .all because (as was covered elsewhere on ENWorld a few months ago), a Hasbro exec was caught saying that he thought D&D was under-monetized.  I'd put money that this is an extension of that pressure from executives to get more money out of D&D.

This is WotC destroying 25 years of good will they cultivated from the D&D community in one fell swoop, and destroying any kind of trust on a scale that will take decades (if ever) to restore.


----------



## Reynard

wingsandsword said:


> . . .and no, I don't trust WotC not to do that.  If this OGL 1.1 is actually released, they will have forever forfeited that kind of trust.



I don't think it even needs released in that form to have broken the trust. The fact that they seriously considered it and sent it out to 3PPs tells you what their goals are. Even if they walk back now, it's a feint.


----------



## jgbrowning

Reynard said:


> I don't think it even needs released in that form to have broken the trust. The fact that they seriously considered it and sent it out to 3PPs tells you what their goals are. Even if they walk back now, it's a feint.




It is hard to deny that the relationship seems to have turned adversarial.

joe b.


----------



## Umbran

blakesha said:


> All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now




His statements are somewhat more than "an opinion" as he was WotC's _official voice_ on what the intent of the license was when it was first released, which WotC has echoed well after Dancey left.

Contracts are weird, and sometimes what everyone _understands_ them to mean has a weight.  If you've spent 20+ years establishing that it means X, suddenly unilaterally saying it means Y may not hold up.


----------



## Simplicity

GMforPowergamers said:


> Okay this new OGL is bad, but it's not that.
> 
> If you put stuff up for free no issue.
> If you put stuff sell it and make less then 50k a year no issue.
> 
> I can't imagine anything I or my friends make ever being effected. Even if I wanted to it would be through the DMsGuild.
> 
> THe issue isn't fans. The issue is 100% the people who do this professionally. The people who have mortgage and rent payments they make by selling D&D related stuff... not some dude that throws a few things up on the web.



The new license is changeable at any time, so it is however onerous as Hasbro wants it to be.  No one should ever agree to a contract like that.  I agree to whatever percentage you want, given 30 days notice...


----------



## wingsandsword

Branduil said:


> While it would be nice to have better wording in the OGL, I think it's wishful thinking to believe that would stop what is clearly a bad-faith, malicious reading of it. The decision makers chose to do this not because the OGL allows it, but because they think they can get away with it. It's very clear that the intent of the OGL was to be open and irrevocable.



Exactly.

No matter how well worded the OGL was, they'd make or claim something to say it wasn't, and rely on intimidation and legal threats.

At this point I firmly believe they, strictly speaking, legally can't rescind the OGL 1.0a and that the "de authorization" in OGL 1.1 is invalid. . .

. . .but I have zero faith that they won't try intimidation and barratry to users, especially large-scale commercial users, of the OGL 1.0a with regards to material derived from the SRD's.

This isn't a legal strategy, it's an intimidation strategy.


----------



## Von Ether

Didn't they have a story about killing the golden goose? 

I think quite a few of us have white collar stories of a VP taking over and they'd rather ruin proven processes or get rid of people who tell them "That can't work due to X or we can do Y if you give us more resources" too often.

They use the chaos to claim they made more profits and then get promoted and gone in two years.


----------



## Dausuul

Reynard said:


> Why are you constructing straw men? All I said was if you post mechanics online you are technically under the OGL not the Fan Content Policy.



No, you're not. You are under the OGL if you publish material which contains the OGL license notice.

Otherwise, you are under nothing but regular copyright* law... which _usually_ allows you to copy mechanics as long as you put them in your own words. If you screw up, Wizards can sue you for copyright infringement, but not for a breach of the OGL -- you can't breach a contract you never accepted.

*And/or trademark law, and/or patent law, depending on exactly what you're publishing.



Reynard said:


> No. Every homebrew spell or monster is, though.
> 
> I mean, just go read the fan policy if you don't believe me.



If what you're doing is permitted by law, and you have not published under the OGL, then neither the fan policy nor the OGL affects you. Wizards is not the government; it does not get to dictate terms to other people on how they can exercise their legal rights.


----------



## darjr

I dunno about downloading everything right now….

But if you have an OGL product that needs SRD stuff on the cusp of release get it out now.


----------



## wingsandsword

On a related note, I'd like to say that this entire "OGL 1.1" crisis has been the most divisive, bitter, hateful, angry, thing I've ever seen in D&D fandom in my life.

Worse than the 3e/4e edition wars.  Much worse.

I'm not talking about on ENWorld, which is well moderated, but away from here.  On Facebook, on Twitter, on Reddit.

I'm seeing insults, condescension, mocking, and general hostility thrown around casually and constantly.

I think the last straw for me was seeing someone (who _claims _they're an IP lawyer, but ) go off on Reddit about how WotC blatantly and obviously has complete power to do this, how anyone who says otherwise is clearly not a lawyer or if they are they're incompetent, how any court that would find against WotC on this is wrong and it would be overturned on appeal, and that virtually any lawsuit on this would be won on summary judgement. . .and _anyone _who would even argue that WotC is wrong here should get an "F- in Contract Law" because supposedly there's no valid good-faith argument that WotC is even possibly wrong here. . .I'm at my wits end.

That was the worst, but there's a lot of it around anywhere on the internet where D&D is discussed  

I seriously have never seen this much anger and hatred wrapped up in the gaming hobby. . .ever.  The level of rage, insults, hatred, anger, and just plain lack of basic civility being shown here (especially by the people defending WotC on this) is so extreme that it makes the old edition wars look like a schoolyard scuffle by comparison.


----------



## Alzrius

wingsandsword said:


> The level of rage, insults, hatred, anger, and just plain lack of basic civility being shown here (especially by the people defending WotC on this) is so extreme that it makes the old edition wars look like a schoolyard scuffle by comparison.



I know this isn't really the takeaway from what you said, but I'm honestly shocked that anyone is defending WotC over this. I mean, not _that_ shocked, because there's always going to be a wide variety of opinions on any given topic, but still...even if you think that WotC has a legal right to do this, who thinks it's a good idea, let alone a noble one? It's a textbook case of the big guy screwing a whole bunch of little guys. Who defends that?


----------



## rcade

wingsandsword said:


> On a related note, I'd like to say that this entire "OGL 1.1" crisis has been the most divisive, bitter, hateful, angry, thing I've ever seen in D&D fandom in my life.



Going back to the 1990s I remember much worse flamewars than this one, which has most commenters on the same side.

In 1995 when Sean "Veggie Boy" Reynolds was the face of TSR's effort to introduce a new Internet Policy as a lot of sites containing DND content were driven offline by the company, the heat was volcanic.

There have also been periodic dustups over the treatment of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and the level of credit they deserve.

Edited to Add: Veggie Boy would have quite a perspective on this, having worked at TSR to protect its IP, worked at Paizo to create PathFinder, and worked in recent years at WOTC/Hasbro on D&D licensing.


----------



## wingsandsword

rcade said:


> Going back to the 1990s I remember much worse flamewars than this one, which has most commenters on the same side.
> 
> In 1995 when Sean "Veggie Boy" Reynolds was the face of TSR's effort to introduce a new Internet Policy as a lot of sites containing DND content were driven offline by the company, the heat was volcanic.
> 
> There have also been periodic dustups over the treatment of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and the level of credit they deserve.



None of those are remotely as heated as what I've seen from some corners of the Internet on the OGL 1.1 story.

Also, no, most commenters aren't on the same side on this one. . .away from ENWorld at least.  I've seen plenty of people on Facebook and Reddit who are vehemently, intensely on WotC's side here.  Twitter is more anti-WotC in its consensus.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Alzrius said:


> I know this isn't really the takeaway from what you said, but I'm honestly shocked that anyone is defending WotC over this. I mean, not _that_ shocked, because there's always going to be a wide variety of opinions on any given topic, but still...even if you think that WotC has a legal right to do this, who thinks it's a good idea, let alone a noble one? It's a textbook case of the big guy screwing a whole bunch of little guys. Who defends that?



There seems to be a contingent of folks who don't care about 3PP, and therefore believe this issue doesn't affect them.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> There seems to be a contingent of folks who don't care about 3PP, and therefore believe this issue doesn't affect them.



Unfortunately, that’s how a lot of people treat a lot of things in the world.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Alzrius said:


> I know this isn't really the takeaway from what you said, but I'm honestly shocked that anyone is defending WotC over this. I mean, not _that_ shocked, because there's always going to be a wide variety of opinions on any given topic, but still...even if you think that WotC has a legal right to do this, who thinks it's a good idea, let alone a noble one? It's a textbook case of the big guy screwing a whole bunch of little guys. Who defends that?



I suspect most of the people defending wotc now are diehard contrarians who are compelled to always take the opposite position to the majority, now matter how unreasonable that makes them.


----------



## overgeeked

wingsandsword said:


> None of those are remotely as heated as what I've seen from some corners of the Internet on the OGL 1.1 story.
> 
> Also, no, most commenters aren't on the same side on this one. . .away from ENWorld at least.  I've seen plenty of people on Facebook and Reddit who are vehemently, intensely on WotC's side here.  Twitter is more anti-WotC in its consensus.



Reddit’s mostly on side with the OGL and 3PP. Even the main r/DnD sub has several pro-OGL 1.0 posts with hundreds or a few thousand upvotes. All the other smaller subs are also opposed to WotC’s shenanigans.


----------



## wingsandsword

overgeeked said:


> Reddit’s mostly on side with the OGL and 3PP. Even the main r/DnD sub has several pro-OGL 1.0 posts with hundreds or a few thousand upvotes. All the other smaller subs are also opposed to WotC’s shenanigans.



Not from what I've seen.  I've been shouted down way too many times on too many D&D-related subs for simply saying that WotC is on poor legal grounds to cancel the OGL. . .I've had enough self-proclaimed lawyers scream at me that I'm unfollowing everything D&D related on Reddit after this.


----------



## Mecheon

Doesn't match what I've been seeing. Mind most I see over at Reddit is 'oh the poor WotC, the mean Hasbro is making them do this!' which, yeah, nah, its just WotC

Most folks arguing the pro WotC stance tend to get downvoted to oblivion from what I can see


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> There seems to be a contingent of folks who don't care about 3PP, and therefore believe this issue doesn't affect them.



I mean If you could guarantee every writer/creator could bounse right back get a new creative job as good or better and not miss a beat, I would agree.
If no one was going to get hurt(and I don't mean fans) I would think "oh well some good stuff will be lost but we can go on"

If someone doesn't know anyone that works on games (and I'm counting if you talk online and know there name) and they only own 1 or 2 books (most likely all from wotc) they are correct, it will not effect them... of course they then don't care about people it IS effecting (and again I don't mean fans I mean employees)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

wingsandsword said:


> Not from what I've seen.  I've been shouted down way too many times on too many D&D-related subs for simply saying that WotC is on poor legal grounds to cancel the OGL. . .I've had enough self-proclaimed lawyers scream at me that I'm unfollowing everything D&D related on Reddit after this.



this is my experience too... I am see a lot of "they can" on reedit


----------



## wingsandsword

Von Ether said:


> Didn't they have a story about killing the golden goose?
> 
> I think quite a few of us have white collar stories of a VP taking over and they'd rather ruin proven processes or get rid of people who tell them "That can't work due to X or we can do Y if you give us more resources" too often.
> 
> They use the chaos to claim they made more profits and then get promoted and gone in two years.



That's the real tragedy here.

The Hasbro exec that has doubtless mandated this is doing it for some short-term gain that he hopes will help his career.  Inside 2 or 3 years he'll be on to a new position and D&D will be a distant memory.

. . .the industry he trashed on the way there however, will suffer the harm caused for decades to come.


----------



## MoonSong

GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean we have had "what if they took out the OGL" threads on here since 4e. SO no it's not that nobody thought they could it's that popular opnion was it would be hard to not possible.
> 
> I never said it wasn't possible they change the fan policy, I said there is no reason to assume they will and worry about it now. So far the new OGL isn't fully open and isn't as generous as the old... but it still allows for 80-90% of creators (those making less then $750k a year) to keep on going with only a little change.
> 
> I work 40-50 hours a week, my fiancé is closer to 40-42 and just picked up a side job for 8-10 more hours (at better pay) starting next week. My mother lives with us and gets both retirement, social security AND a pay out from and IRA (mandatory min pay outs) if you add all 3 of us together we don't make 750k a year.  If you add my friend who works at a comic shop, and my friend that works at Walmart in to make 5 of us (even though we don't live together) we don't make $750k a year. (TBF I did choose the lowest paid friends not the highest there)
> 
> There are problems. There are REAL victims, including the guy who makes it possible to have this conversation... you a fan with some fan works are NOT the victim here.  People could lose there main source of income over this. Keep that in mind.



You know that a publisher selling $750k a year is lucky to take home $70k of that? Margins are thin, and this isn't the only problem. The main problem is that NOBODY will be able to keep giving ongoing support to older editions of D&D and games that were OGL and there isn't anybody left with the power to relicense them?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> I work 40-50 hours a week, my fiancé is closer to 40-42 and just picked up a side job for 8-10 more hours (at better pay) starting next week. My mother lives with us and gets both retirement, social security AND a pay out from and IRA (mandatory min pay outs) if you add all 3 of us together we don't make 750k a year. If you add my friend who works at a comic shop, and my friend that works at Walmart in to make 5 of us (even though we don't live together) we don't make $750k a year. (TBF I did choose the lowest paid friends not the highest there)



This is absolutely disconnected from reality.

The costs on many TTRPG Kickstarters are 80-95% of the revenue. Especially the ones which do numbers! Can you explain why you didn't consider that?

If 5 of you are making $750k/pa between you you're making insanely more than the Kickstarter! That's $150k/pa average! Hell even your "lowest-paid" friends are earning nearly 3x the US average!


----------



## Tazawa

darjr said:


> I dunno about downloading everything right now….
> 
> But if you have an OGL product that needs SRD stuff on the cusp of release get it out now.



It may be a good idea to make your Section 15 Copyright Notice as broad as possible so that you are not just licensing from WOTC, but are also sub-licensing from other contributors.

The Level-Up license (Open Game License | Level Up) would be a good place to start, as it incorporates foundational content from Paizo and Necromancer. Consider adding:

The Hypertext SRD
Green Ronin's True20 SRD
Darrington Press' copyright notice from Tal'Dorei Reborn
Troll Lords' copyright notice from Castles & Crusades
The OSRIC copyright notice
Any others you have access to
This could help if you intend to continue to produce open game content under OGL 1.0a after WotC attempts to 'un-authourize' it. If they remove their SRD, are your works derived from WotC open game content or the other contributors'?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MoonSong said:


> You know that a publisher selling $750k a year is lucky to take home $70k of that?



yes I do... infact I am a book keeper/accountant and understand EXACTLY what it means... lucky to take home 70k I am sure half or more of those look at that as a pipe dream, because they aren't near it.

I did the math out a few times, and even have a thread about it. The fact that the % is crazy and not even close to a standard contract is boarder line insane... 


MoonSong said:


> Margins are thin, and this isn't the only problem.



and those margins will be forced to be smaller.  If every publisher is smart they would end up having to publish less and hope to either make the numbers work or come in under the 750k.


MoonSong said:


> The main problem is that NOBODY will be able to keep giving ongoing support to older editions of D&D and games that were OGL and there isn't anybody left with the power to relicense them?



this I don't mind. If every edition had a end date I would be fine with it (even wanting more 4e support)


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes I do... infact I am a book keeper/accountant and understand EXACTLY what it means... lucky to take home 70k I am sure half or more of those look at that as a pipe dream, because they aren't near it.
> 
> I did the math out a few times, and even have a thread about it. The fact that the % is crazy and not even close to a standard contract is boarder line insane...
> 
> and those margins will be forced to be smaller.  If every publisher is smart they would end up having to publish less and hope to either make the numbers work or come in under the 750k.
> 
> this I don't mind. If every edition had a end date I would be fine with it (even wanting more 4e support)



Every 3pp's end date, no matter how new on the scene, shouldn't be January 13th.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes I do... infact I am a book keeper/accountant and understand EXACTLY what it means... lucky to take home 70k I am sure half or more of those look at that as a pipe dream, because they aren't near it.
> 
> I did the math out a few times, and even have a thread about it. The fact that the % is crazy and not even close to a standard contract is boarder line insane...



You need to explain why you gave the example you did, then.

Your example makes absolutely no sense at all if you understood this before you posted it. Your example only makes any sense at all if you were assuming that a $750k KS mean the creators taking home (pre-tax) $750k, because your examples were all of pre-tax incomes. It's okay to make a mistake, but it's best to admit them. If you think you didn't make an error and in fact had a different point re: $750k, what was it?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> You need to explain why you gave the example you did, then.
> 
> Your example makes absolutely no sense at all if you understood this before you posted it. Your example only makes any sense at all if you were assuming that a $750k KS mean the creators taking home (pre-tax) $750k, because your examples were all of pre-tax incomes. It's okay to make a mistake, but it's best to admit them. If you think you didn't make an error and in fact had a different point re: $750k, what was it?



my example was revenue... not profit and I said that many times,
but let me say (what I think) is the most important part again...

There are problems. There are REAL victims, including the guy who makes it possible to have this conversation... you a fan with some fan works are NOT the victim here. People could lose there main source of income over this. Keep that in mind.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> my example was revenue... not profit and I said that many times,



Exactly.

Which makes no sense, because you focused on something vastly more profitable - having a normal job and other income sources that average to around $150k. I'm wondering if you didn't miss some words or something in your example, because it really looked 100% like you were saying the Kickstarter was 100% profit not 100% revenue. If that wasn't what you intended, you failed to convey it.


GMforPowergamers said:


> There are problems. There are REAL victims, including the guy who makes it possible to have this conversation... you a fan with some fan works are NOT the victim here. People could lose there main source of income over this. Keep that in mind.



I'm not sure what this is even supposed to mean? I've never once in hundreds of posts on this subject claimed to be a "victim", but have you repeatedly suggested that people aren't really suffering. Now you're changing that, so okay but...


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> There are problems. There are REAL victims, including the guy who makes it possible to have this conversation... you a fan with some fan works are NOT the victim here. People could lose there main source of income over this. Keep that in mind.



Nah fam, they're also targeting fan works. While it's not the version that got leaked, but there is a fan work policy that will bring the hammer down on those too.

And yeah, those fans might not be making a living, but there's no point of trying to one up someone's harm when the same guy is harming both.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Which makes no sense, because you focused on something vastly more profitable - having a normal job and other income sources that average to around $150k. I'm wondering if you didn't miss some words or something in your example, because it really looked 100% like you were saying the Kickstarter was 100% profit not 100% revenue. If that wasn't what you intended, you failed to convey it.



at no point did I ever in any of my examples say ANYTHING is 100% profit... in my day job I have had to explain in detail to managers that NO in fact useing something we bought for another project, and people who 'are already on payroll' is not in fact free profit... and no I am not kidding I had to give a power point presentation to explain that concept. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not sure what this is even supposed to mean? I've never once in hundreds of posts on this subject claimed to be a "victim", but have you repeatedly suggested that people aren't really suffering. Now you're changing that, so okay but...



no you haven't... but I have seen plenty that think if you are against people losing there lively hood (I am) you must think the OGL was the best thing since sliced bread (I do not). and I have been accused in the past of thinking that individual creators at 3pp should not exists (I do not feel that way either) and right now I see A LOT of people claiming that the fans are being victimized (I do not believe that or support that belief) and that there is an right of some kind to all games/ip ext to be free and open (I am understanding why and how someone feels that way but I personally do not).  I have a VERY complex set of thoughts and put things like that on my posts to show that there is a nuance to my beliefs... 
If WotC could shut down all the 3pp legally the only issue I see is the people being put out of work.
If (and this one I think is what is happening) WotC is Bullying the others out with questionable legal wordsmithing I see not only the above 'people out of work' issue but the bully/throwing your weight around as an issue too. 
I will also be upset if (I don't think it will happen with back projects but worst case here) my 3pp book I just kickstarted never happens because of this I will be disappointed I only got the PDF and not the physical book... HOWEVER I will be VERY much more upset if those writers lose the jobs they have and don't immediately get a new one of equal or lesser value.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> Nah fam, they're also targeting fan works.



how so? do you think if I put a new class up on enworld 6 weeks after this new OGL goes live they will send me a C&D over a free class on a website?
Simeone said something up page about a blog that charged... if that blog make $200 a month (revenue not profit) for $2,400 a year do you think a C&D is coming there way?


Vaalingrade said:


> While it's not the version that got leaked, but there is a fan work policy that will bring the hammer down on those too.



I am not a diviner... I only play one in ravenloft so I can't see the future.  My fears are not currently on fan works, mine is on VTT being shut down, and the idea that after Beyond (or if they rebrand it) fails to do what they say it will (and someone in another thread said it better then I could, we could be here all day listing electronic WotC fails) and they already shut the other ones down we WONT have ANY way to do it.


Vaalingrade said:


> And yeah, those fans might not be making a living, but there's no point of trying to one up someone's harm when the same guy is harming both.



I am not one upping. (Infact my worst harm I can imagine right now is being out about $60) I am saying that people are blowing out of proportion how bad this is for us who play D&D from WotC and buy the occasional 3pp product.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> how so? do you think if I put a new class up on enworld 6 weeks after this new OGL goes live they will send me a C&D over a free class on a website?
> Simeone said something up page about a blog that charged... if that blog make $200 a month (revenue not profit) for $2,400 a year do you think a C&D is coming there way?



So here's the thing that hasn't been discussed much.

There are two OGL 1.1s.

OGL: Commercial

and

OGL: Non-commercial

The latter seems to be strictly for products you do not intend to make any money off.

However, it's very hard to see why OGL: Non-commercial exists, if fan works aren't going to be targeted in some way. WotC have publicly stated the Fan Content Policy will continue to exist, but why this other OGL? Because literally everything it could cover (and vastly more) is covered by the Fan Content Policy.

It's true that it's a much more uncertain threat, but it is definitely weird and concerning, especially in the context of what else is happening.


GMforPowergamers said:


> I am saying that people are blowing out of proportion how bad this is for us who play D&D from WotC and buy the occasional 3pp product.



What you don't seem to realize is that not all of us ONLY do that. A lot of ALSO play games covered by the OGL, which the general deauthorization will absolutely jack to hell and back. That's my bigger concern. I don't buy that much 3PP material for 5E. But I do buy plenty of non-5E compatible OGL-covered games, and/or games WotC may decide it would be fun to sue once they've deleted the OGL 1.0a.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> There are two OGL 1.1s.
> 
> OGL: Commercial
> 
> and
> 
> OGL: Non-commercial
> 
> The latter seems to be strictly for products you do not intend to make any money off.
> 
> However, it's very hard to see *why OGL: Non-commercial exists*, if fan works aren't going to be targeted in some way. WotC have publicly stated the Fan Content Policy will continue to exist, but why this other OGL? Because literally everything it could cover (and vastly more) is covered by the Fan Content Policy.
> 
> It's true that it's a much more uncertain threat, but it is definitely weird and concerning, especially in the context of what else is happening.
> 
> What you don't seem to realize is that not all of us ONLY do that. A lot of ALSO play games covered by the OGL, which the general deauthorization will absolutely jack to hell and back. That's my bigger concern. I don't buy that much 3PP material for 5E. But I do buy plenty of non-5E compatible OGL-covered games, and/or games WotC may decide it would be fun to sue once they've deleted the OGL 1.0a.



*The OGL:Noncommercial exists because: "We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever."*


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> What you don't seem to realize is that not all of us ONLY do that.



right and I spelled out where I am and how it will and will not effect me.


Ruin Explorer said:


> A lot of ALSO play games covered by the OGL, which the general deauthorization will absolutely jack to hell and back.



correct, if this goes the worst way Piazo and Pathfinder is gone. I will sing no victory song and do no dance on that grave (and I have even supported that company FYI even though that is my path) However the players will take a minor hit, and still have every book and can still access every pdf they bought. the 'damage' to the PF player is no more or less then was to the 2e player when 3e launched, or 4e player when 5e launched. It sucks. I would much rather get new updated fixes and support for 4e then have 5e. But I am not a victim I am not harmed in a major life altering way that 4e died.  And I have watched pathfinder players do exactly what I said I would not... sing victory songs and dance on the grave of 4e. 
However and I can not stress this enough... if that happens all of those employees still have bills (I wont go into unemployment and current job markets) and have to figure out what to do when last week they were secure in there jobs (well maybe 7 weeks ago but under NDA)


Ruin Explorer said:


> That's my bigger concern. I don't buy that much 3PP material for 5E. But I do buy plenty of non-5E compatible OGL-covered games, and/or games WotC may decide it would be fun to sue once they've deleted the OGL 1.0a.



The examples I have seen (mutants and master minds, Fate, Pathfinder, Level Up, and Castles and Crusaders) only 2 I don't know a lot about... but I know enough I bet Fate is fine. Mutants and Masterminds is WAY more grey, they have already grown so far that they MAY get under it. PF LU and C&C are all on the firing line. I have a small amount of sympathy for the players of any of those systems that go out. The same amount I have if your favorite show ended on a cliff hanger and was canceled.  THe employees and owners on the other hand are not just missing a game, they have major life changes because of this. THOSE people I feel very sorry for.


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not one upping. (Infact my worst harm I can imagine right now is being out about $60)



You're downplaying those of others for... I have no idea why.


GMforPowergamers said:


> I am saying that people are blowing out of proportion how bad this is for us who play D&D from WotC and buy the occasional 3pp product.



I don't think you quite understand really how big the OGL was back in the day and how many games and tools and elements are its descendants. 

This is like if someone was threatening to Thanos snap a certain brand of nails out of existence. A lot of people are kind of inexplicably pulling up to laugh and say "I don't care, I've never even heard of that brand of nails and I'm being very careful not to think of the livelihoods of all the people involved in it, so I can joyfully tell everyone I don't care for some reason", only they don't know if those nails were used to build their house or the swing set on their kids' playground, or if just one was used to hold up that family photo hanging over the mantle _just so_ that it might knock over nana's ashes if it fell off the wall.

The OGL is a widespread, thought not ubiquitous or universal element of the gaming industry. There's no cool points to win saying you don't care or are unaffected; there's too many people who are for that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> You're downplaying those of others for... I have no idea why.



because when I look at this, i don't see it.


Vaalingrade said:


> I don't think you quite understand really how big the OGL was back in the day and how many games and tools and elements are its descendants.



I was here when TSR was sending C&D to young kids with fan sites (Not here enworld didn't exsist yet and would have gotten a C&D if it did but you get what I mean)

I have a VERY good idea how much the OGL did and is worth. I also know that it pretty much made D&D the only game in town to most. 


Vaalingrade said:


> This is like if someone was threatening to Thanos snap a certain brand of nails out of existence. A lot of people are kind of inexplicably pulling up to laugh and say "I don't care, I've never even heard of that brand of nails and I'm being very careful not to think of the livelihoods of all the people involved in it, so I can joyfully tell everyone I don't care for some reason", only they don't know if those nails were used to build their house or the swing set on their kids' playground, or if just one was used to hold up that family photo hanging over the mantle _just so_ that it might knock over nana's ashes if it fell off the wall.



yeah, see this again seems overblown. I'm not saying that this isn't effecting anyone, and I want to single out I must have said 200 times in the last 3 days part of what you said is 100% false.


> I'm being very careful not to think of the livelihoods of all the people involved in it, so I can joyfully tell everyone I don't care for some reason



I AM fighting for those people. I am advocating (in my small modest way) not because I think this will hurt me (its worst case most likely is a minor issue at best TO ME)  however it is earth shattering to some... and contrary to what some of those people who's earth is being shattered think, THAT UPSETS ME... thinking of the people who could lose everything is WHY I am here now posting instead of sleeping. Trying to piece to gather things, trying to help with my knowledge (limited as it is) where I can.
But make no mistake, for most of us (aka people not selling any D&D work) this is as annoying as if there favorite show got canceled after the cliffhanger season ender.  Or ANY edition ends. 4e ended. It was my favorite version of D&D. V5 replaced V20 and V20 is my favored WoD system, in between they had there own 4e like fiasco... 
Deadlands became Savage worlds and as much as I like Savage worlds I miss the old Deadlands a bit. 

systems going out of print sucks, but in a "ouch I stubbed my toe" kind of way. 
Losing your job could be so life changing (both good and bad) and can mess up everything you have been working toward for years. 


Vaalingrade said:


> The OGL is a widespread, thought not ubiquitous or universal element of the gaming industry. There's no cool points to win saying you don't care or are unaffected; there's too many people who are for that.



again, I will be minor effected. I am sure there are players (NOT CREATORS) who both have more and less that will be effected by this. Over all just measuring by EFFECTING ME PERSONALLY, I would not care... EXCEPT I have this dumb voice in my head and feeling in my stomach that makes me have this thing called empathy. My empathy allows me to remember every job I lost and every set back I have had and look at the 3pp like paizo and feel for them. Those people, the people working on Level up, the people working on Pathfinder, those people is who I am advocating for, not me myself. 

However no, the guy who went from 3e to PF and now tor PF2e who is complaining his life will be effected so bad if PF2e goes out an Piazo shuts down... nope my empathy for him is the same as it is for you or me losing 4e, or someone that felt that Tasha's started down a path taking 5e from them. It stinks to not get new content. I'm sorry... but not the same or even close to "Oh, you were getting married the same week as me but now you are unemployed"


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> However the players will take a minor hit



I don't agree. I've played RPGs for 34 years. When an RPG stops getting content, what matters is how that RPG was designed. Some games, like Worlds Without Number or Dungeon World, don't really need expansions or support, because they're designed to self-generate content. Others though, like PF1/2, and most "adventure-centric" games (I'd include DCC and stuff in that) benefit heavily from support. PF2 particularly would be painful.

I noted a post by a PF person which I'll comment on later though which suggests either Paizo have signed a sweetheart deal or the OGL 1.1 is changing (or both).


GMforPowergamers said:


> And I have watched pathfinder players do exactly what I said I would not... sing victory songs and dance on the grave of 4e.



I watched a lot more people than PF1 players do that, indeed the most aggressive celebration was from people who never even swapped to PF1, because they wanted the D&D brand as well as the mechanics they wanted, and more to the point, PF1 didn't cause it. WotC did.

So blaming people who cheer, not people who do seem to me to be pretty wrong. There were also quite a number of PF1 fans, I was surprised to note, who felt bad when 4E got replaced, and expressed sympathy.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> *The OGL:Noncommercial exists because: "We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever."*



I don't get it. Can you explain further?


----------



## Maxperson

blakesha said:


> They can still purchase it under OGL 1.1 if section 9s wording is taken literally. *Hell Enworld Publishing can make modifications to that set of published material under OGL 1.1 and continue to sell it without having to adhere to the other terms of OGL 1.1* (like the royalty clause). Based on the terms of section 9. EWP just can't create NEW works without having to then adhere to the new terms (ie the royalty ones)



This can be false, depending on how 1.1 is written. If 1.1 is written with a clause that requires anyone using it to give up their rights to use all prior OGL's, ENworld could not do what you suggest.


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> because when I look at this, i don't see it.



Okay, but why keep on trying to compare and equate harm? What is the value of it? Why did the entire post after this quote just go on to basically enumerate who does and does not get to be worried, concerned with or hurt by this?

It's just being pointlessly nasty for no one's gain but WotC's because you better believe their defenders are going to use the 'you aren't actually being hurt' as a rallying cry.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> So blaming people who cheer, not people who do seem to me to be pretty wrong. There were also quite a number of PF1 fans, I was surprised to note, who felt bad when 4E got replaced, and expressed sympathy.



again. I have my sympathy for anyone that can't buy new content. I also have sympathy for people who's favorite TV show gets canceled. I just don't see where that is anywhere near the same scope as losing your lively hood.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> I never said it wasn't possible they change the fan policy, I said there is no reason to assume they will and worry about it now. So far the new OGL isn't fully open and isn't as generous as the old... but it still allows for 80-90% of creators (those making less then $750k a year) to keep on going with only a little change.



This really isn't true, though.  WotC can deny people access to the new license whenever want(with 30 days notice), and produce that content when and if they want with no payment to the creator.  They can also lower the threshold to 30k or even $1 a year if they want.  

Many of the smaller creators are not going to want that hanging over their heads and will turn to other ways to make money.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> This really isn't true, though.  WotC can deny people access to the new license whenever want(with 30 days notice), and produce that content when and if they want with no payment to the creator.  They can also lower the threshold to 30k or even $1 a year if they want.
> 
> Many of the smaller creators are not going to want that hanging over their heads and will turn to other ways to make money.




Honestly I think this could lead to an explosion of original systems, something we haven't seen in the hobby on a broad scale since before the OGL (there have long been other systems but d20 has been so dominant and replicated that it often feels like there aren't alternatives out there to many). This also may have created the first opportunity in a number of years for D&D to be challenged by serious competition (it could also seal D&D as the one true game depending on how things go). I think if they yank the license, and people don't want to sign on for the new one, they've essentially produced a spark like the one that motivated Paizo to launch Pathfinder but on a much larger scale and spread out across many more companies. So they may have created the opportunity for more competition and given the competition real motivation to beat them. We will see how that plays out


----------



## payn

Bedrockgames said:


> Honestly I think this could lead to an explosion of original systems, something we haven't seen in the hobby on a broad scale since before the OGL (there have long been other systems but d20 has been so dominant and replicated that it often feels like there aren't alternatives out there to many). This also may have created the first opportunity in a number of years for D&D to be challenged by serious competition (it could also seal D&D as the one true game depending on how things go). I think if they yank the license, and people don't want to sign on for the new one, they've essentially produced a spark like the one that motivated Paizo to launch Pathfinder but on a much larger scale and spread out across many more companies. So they may have created the opportunity for more competition and given the competition real motivation to beat them. We will see how that plays out



I dont know if folks have the resources or market to really launch a bunch of independent systems. Most of them have limped along because of the OGL. Now, if the third party community along with say Paizo creates their own OGL, I could see a major competitor to D&D rising.


----------



## darjr

@RyanD did you write the OGL 1.0? Did a lawyer write it? Or did you write it and a lawyer reviewed/edited it?


----------



## Scribe

Ruin Explorer said:


> I noted a post by a PF person which I'll comment on later though which suggests either Paizo have signed a sweetheart deal or the OGL 1.1 is changing (or both).




? This is relevant to my interests.


----------



## RyanD

darjr said:


> @RyanD did you write the OGL 1.0? Did a lawyer write it? Or did you write it and a lawyer reviewed/edited it?



it was drafted by the in house counsel with my input and participation.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Scribe said:


> ? This is relevant to my interests.




I mean, there are a lot of possible interpretations, but the "soon" is interesting. The "shut up" tone is interesting too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> ? This is relevant to my interests.



on twitter someone asked for people to stop saying she may be unemployed soon and suggested everyone stop bugging piazo employees... people read between the lines (or maybe tea leaves) to figure out why,


----------



## darjr

RyanD said:


> it was drafted by the in house counsel with my input and participation.



Thank you!

Another question? 
Did drafts go back and forth between 3pp? And if so were significant changes made? Or did most of the details get hashed out before it was written?

Also where contracts involved at all?


----------



## bedir than

Ruin Explorer said:


> The "shut up" tone is interesting too.



That's probably a response to the extraordinarily abusive nature of the fandom at this time. There have been threats of violence towards people who make games. It's an absurd response. We are blessed with actual moderators here.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

bedir than said:


> That's probably a response to the extraordinarily abusive nature of the fandom at this time. There have been threats of violence towards people who make games. It's an absurd response. We are blessed with actual moderators here.



Ugh twonks. I shouldn't be surprised I guess. I assumed people were being nice to Paizo, but there's always someone.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

bedir than said:


> That's probably a response to the extraordinarily abusive nature of the fandom at this time. There have been threats of violence towards people who make games. It's an absurd response. We are blessed with actual moderators here.



yup... I hope we don't get tot eh point where this escalates to WORSE


----------



## Reynard

bedir than said:


> That's probably a response to the extraordinarily abusive nature of the fandom at this time. There have been threats of violence towards people who make games. It's an absurd response. We are blessed with actual moderators here.



Remember when game journalists got death and rape threats for daring to criticize AAA video games?

Welcome to the internet.


----------



## Knuffeldraak

Xethreau said:


> This rumor mill has already had a chilling effect on third-party publishers I know personally. Suffice it to say the bullying train is going according to plan.




Well, as numerous sources stated, the threshold for this Royalty Fee only applies if you make 750k or more in a year. Of which there really are not a lot (less than 20 in total). And even then, the fee is only deducted from the money you make _above_ this threshold, not in its entirity 'as soon as'. Anyone that makes between 50K and 750K in a year simply just needs to declare their profits, but not pay a fee.

Also, they did confirm that WOTC partners and other associates already having agreed-to terms (such as VTT hosts like Roll20 and FantasyGrounds), as well as retailers/sellers of merchandise, do not fall under the new OGL.

So this feels much more like a (semi-) targetted attack at the big fish earning from WOTC's product like MCDM and Critical Roll, rather than the grand scope of truly 'anyone' trying to make money by using D&D (or its variants thereof).


----------



## Knuffeldraak

(accidental double-post.)


----------



## billd91

Knuffeldraak said:


> So this feels much more like a (semi-) targetted attack at the big fish earning from WOTC's product like MCDM and Critical Roll, rather than the grand scope of truly 'anyone' trying to make money by using D&D (or its variants thereof).



Sure, but even targeted attacks can cause collateral damage. Is Griffin Macaulay one of the 20-odd entities targeted? Or is he collateral damage because his $15,000 Kickstarter campaign hit a windfall and raked in an amount 2 orders of magnitude greater than his target?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Knuffeldraak said:


> Also, they did confirm that WOTC partners and other associates already having agreed-to terms (such as VTT hosts like Roll20 and FantasyGrounds), as well as retailers/sellers of merchandise, do not fall under the new OGL.



so based on what we know now Roll20 should remain the same?


----------



## mamba

Knuffeldraak said:


> Well, as numerous sources stated, the threshold for this Royalty Fee only applies if you make 750k or more in a year. Of which there really are not a lot (less than 20 in total). And even then, the fee is only deducted from the money you make _above_ this threshold, not in its entirity 'as soon as'. Anyone that makes between 50K and 750K in a year simply just needs to declare their profits, but not pay a fee.



for now, WotC can change the terms at any time for any resason. I am sure the 50-750k range is for them to figure out how to squeeze everyone to within an inch of their lives


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> so based on what we know now Roll20 should remain the same?



Maybe? I would expect their license arrangement remains separate - though the assault on OGL 1.0a publishers may reduce the variety of products they can offer support for. I assume they can sell full sets of WotC's adventures, complete with art and the full text, because of their direct license. Doing the same with other publishers probably means similar arrangements with them - and many of them produce some of their works thanks to the OGL. If they can't product and distribute content, they can't make it available on Roll20 and Roll20's versatility and convenience goes down.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Let's be honest; a lot of the big boys are probably in talks with Hasbro right now and under NDAs.


----------



## SteveC

RyanD said:


> it was drafted by the in house counsel with my input and participation.



Ryan: I just wanted to say THANK YOU for doing something that resulted in hundreds if not thousands of hours of fun for me and my friends over the past 20 odd years. We played a lot of games that were made possible by the OGL. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, you really shook the pillars of heaven.


----------



## MoonSong

Knuffeldraak said:


> Well, as numerous sources stated, the threshold for this Royalty Fee only applies if you make 750k or more in a year. Of which there really are not a lot (less than 20 in total). And even then, the fee is only deducted from the money you make _above_ this threshold, not in its entirity 'as soon as'. Anyone that makes between 50K and 750K in a year simply just needs to declare their profits, but not pay a fee.
> 
> Also, they did confirm that WOTC partners and other associates already having agreed-to terms (such as VTT hosts like Roll20 and FantasyGrounds), as well as retailers/sellers of merchandise, do not fall under the new OGL.
> 
> So this feels much more like a (semi-) targetted attack at the big fish earning from WOTC's product like MCDM and Critical Roll, rather than the grand scope of truly 'anyone' trying to make money by using D&D (or its variants thereof).



The leaked text as written also completely nukes the OGL ecosysten as a whole. It would basically void the existing OGL so no more OGC content can be created or republished using it while leaving only OneD&D content as possible. This means no more M&M, PF1, OSRIC, the open version of runequest, nothing. With a swipe everything OGL just ceases to exist.


----------



## Knuffeldraak

GMforPowergamers said:


> so based on what we know now Roll20 should remain the same?



Because Roll20 (same with Fantasy Grounds) got a D&D License, which means they got an agreement beyond the OGL already. So any change to the OGL, or a whole new OGL, doesn't matter, as these only apply if you 'don't' work with a settled agreement.

So to answer shortly; yes. It should.


----------



## Knuffeldraak

mamba said:


> for now, WotC can change the terms at any time for any resason. I am sure the 50-750k range is for them to figure out how to squeeze everyone to within an inch of their lives



To be fair, that's just conjecture. There's no perceiveable way to "know" that. We only know that anyone that does make 50k-750k a year will need to provide transparancy on their revenue. Whatever ill intent non-officials _think_ WOTC would have with this info, is simply doomspeak. Which doesn't help anyone except just create more drama.

Also; while they absolutely can change their terms, they cannot forcibly apply it to any prior (ie; grandfathered) agreements w/o settling for a new agreement, and they have always to provide these new terms on a timely manner. Hence why the royalties change is in effect no earlier than 2024.



billd91 said:


> Sure, but even targeted attacks can cause collateral damage. Is Griffin Macaulay one of the 20-odd entities targeted? Or is he collateral damage because his $15,000 Kickstarter campaign hit a windfall and raked in an amount 2 orders of magnitude greater than his target?



Are you referring to the Kickstarter that yielded 800k? (also, to be fair, despite this kickstarter his yearly revenue stands on a whopping 1.9 million as 5e Content Creator and illustrator). But then, yeah, this example is one of the things the new OGL would fall under. I believe this one was even named in specific.

Even then, explosions like this don't even incur less than you think. If you had a goal to raise 400k, and you earn 800k instead, you only pay 12.5k in royalties (25% of 50k). You still would raise a total of 788.5k. WOTC wouldn't even end up getting 2% of that. The emphasis is on that the threshold begins, and only then and there, at 750k. So even if you earn 750.001 dollars in a year, WOTC only ends up getting 25 cents


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Nikosandros said:


> I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.



Ambiguity favours the party who did NOT draft the contract.

 Learned that on big bang theory, thanks to the lovely Priya.


----------



## darjr

I didn't know Lucas had a forever license to the d20 Star Wars game? @RyanD Can you discuss this when you are on with Roll For Combat later in the week?

Oh and does this mean Disney now has that license?


----------



## darjr

Ope


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

darjr said:


> I didn't know Lucas had a forever license to the d20 Star Wars game? @RyanD Can you discuss this when you are on with Roll For Combat later in the week?
> 
> Oh and does this mean Disney now has that license?
> 
> View attachment 271861



Hey, maybe someone can inform Disney's lawyers that Wizards is now claiming perpetual doesn't mean unrevokable.


----------



## Henry

Branduil said:


> This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you _again_."



To me, it’s like if the FSF and Richard Stallman had said in 1995, “now that open software is turning a profit, we’re retroactively changing the GPL license terms so that we now own rights to all open software published under it -SURPRISE, MOTHER*****!” it would have strangled half of the software that powers the world in its crib.


----------



## Henry

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Hey, maybe someone can inform Disney's lawyers that Wizards is now claiming perpetual doesn't mean unrevokable.



As they used to say on Boston Legal (yes I know about as life-accurate as a Star Wars film) “if you want the Jury to care, make it about them.”


----------



## Haplo781

Kinematics said:


> Also, I must add another complaint: the new OGL should not be versioned 1.1. A minor version increase (1.0 to 1.1) indicates adding functionality that is backwards compatible with the previous version. WotC's 1.1 is clearly a breaking change, and thus should have been numbered as 2.0, a major version change.
> 
> This aside from the fact that it's not an open license, and in fact not even in the same category of license as the original OGL, since 1.1 ties the license specifically to WotC, rather than being a general content license that anyone could use for any system from any company.



GSL 2.0


----------



## Henry

Haplo781 said:


> GSL 2.0



GSL 2: Electrocution Boogaloo


----------



## kjdavies

bedir than said:


> That's probably a response to the extraordinarily abusive nature of the fandom at this time. There have been threats of violence towards people who make games. It's an absurd response. We are blessed with actual moderators here.



Or "our legal team is handling this and told us to keep silent so we don't make their job harder".

One of the most important bits of dealing with legal situations is to know when to say nothing.


----------



## kjdavies

Knuffeldraak said:


> Well, as numerous sources stated, the threshold for this Royalty Fee only applies if you make 750k or more in a year. Of which there really are not a lot (less than 20 in total). And even then, the fee is only deducted from the money you make _above_ this threshold, not in its entirity 'as soon as'. Anyone that makes between 50K and 750K in a year simply just needs to declare their profits, but not pay a fee.



Until they go an change it... as they reserve the right to with 30 days notice.


----------



## RyanD

darjr said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Another question?
> Did drafts go back and forth between 3pp? And if so were significant changes made? Or did most of the details get hashed out before it was written?
> 
> Also where contracts involved at all?



Throughout Y2K I operated a mailing list called ogf-l (actually I operated two, the other was ogf-d20-l for discussions about the D20 trademark license).

Starting at the GAMA Trade Show in the spring we engaged with as many 3rd parties as we could to get as much feedback as we could on the text of the two licenses. A lot of the people who participated in those discussions became publishers of various open gaming projects.

The biggest change was that the initial idea was one license that was both a trademark and a copyright license. That's close to what the leaks suggest that 1.1 will try to be. We abandoned that approach to make both licenses much simpler and easier to understand; but the result was that I spent close two years starting messages with "there are two licenses".

The OGL is a very simple document so the goal was to try an make it as "plain English" as we could while still checking all the boxes needed to make it fit for purpose. There are still some bits I wish had been further reduced but the legal team got to a point where they just didn't want to make further cuts; so we now all get to learn the definition of "potate".

The people who participated in those discussions were important to the process and without their input the license would not have worked as well as it did.

Unfortunately I lost my personal copies of the ogf-l and ogf-d20-l mailing list archives. I suspect that there are people who kept all those messages though. I further suspect that they might resurface as a part of discovery pursuant to litigation so I'm looking forward to reading what 23 years ago me said about a bunch of stuff.


----------



## Jadeite

Henry said:


> GSL 2: Electrocution Boogaloo



GSL 2: This time it's personal.
GSL 2: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into publishing.


----------



## Knuffeldraak

kjdavies said:


> Until they go an change it... as they reserve the right to with 30 days notice.



A month is a fairly common ahead notice. The business standard for changes to contract or terms has been 4 weeks (28 days) for quite a long time.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Knuffeldraak said:


> A month is a fairly common ahead notice. The business standard for changes to contract or terms has been 4 weeks (28 days) for quite a long time.



It really looks like you're _intentionally_ missing the point.

_If so_, please don't do that. It lowers the tone of an already-fraught discussion.

The issue isn't 30 days, for god's sake, as should be absolutely obvious. The issue is that they reserve the right to completely change the terms of OGL 1.1 at any time.

Which is absolutely _not_ normal, standard, reasonable or the like, when it's a document a business would be relying in order to keep doing business. They also threaten that if you take them to court, they'll automatically terminate you (probably wouldn't fly in the UK/EU, but I don't know about the US), so even if they gave you 30 days notice there'd be absolutely nothing you could do about it. No business can function if they rely on terms that could be changed to literally anything at any time, with no recourse.


----------



## SteveC

Ruin Explorer said:


> The issue isn't 30 days, for god's sake, as should be absolutely obvious. The issue is that they reserve the right to completely change the terms of OGL 1.1 at any time.
> 
> Which is absolutely _not_ normal, standard, reasonable or the like, when it's a document a business would be relying in order to keep doing business. They also threaten that if you take them to court, they'll automatically terminate you (probably wouldn't fly in the UK/EU, but I don't know about the US), so even if they gave you 30 days notice there'd be absolutely nothing you could do about it. No business can function if they rely on terms that could be changed to literally anything at any time, with no recourse.



I think this is the point and it's well said. I know people who have gaming as their day job, and they are just about my age, which is to say old. They have kids, a mortgage and some still have student loans. I can't imagine being in a situation where you are 30 days away from needing a new job based on entirely arbitrary standards and where the person making that decision doesn't want you doing that job.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

RyanD said:


> Throughout Y2K I operated a mailing list called ogf-l (actually I operated two, the other was ogf-d20-l for discussions about the D20 trademark license).
> 
> Starting at the GAMA Trade Show in the spring we engaged with as many 3rd parties as we could to get as much feedback as we could on the text of the two licenses. A lot of the people who participated in those discussions became publishers of various open gaming projects.



Out of just curiosity, do you remember what the feel was they gave off at the time? Were people skeptical of this (very different for 2000) idea? Were they all immediately excited, or were any apprehensive?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SteveC said:


> I think this is the point and it's well said. I know people who have gaming as their day job, and they are just about my age, which is to say old. They have kids, a mortgage and some still have student loans. I can't imagine being in a situation where you are 30 days away from needing a new job based on entirely arbitrary standards and where the person making that decision doesn't want you doing that job.



I mean I 100% understand and more or less agree (since this announcement the financial and stress strain on people has been 99% of my concern)
However you just described half the people I know that work bad jobs. Walmart, Sears, Gas Station, Pizza Hut, Duncan Doughnuts, heck some call centers. You work with a sword of Damocles over your head that a single misstep (not worth even mentioning as a mistake) and a manager in a bad mood is you are gone.  Heck a down turn in sales got one of my friends 'layed off' right before covid when he himself was the best seller... the reason, he was the 'most expensive' since he got more bonuses. 

SO yeah, I can't imagine today in my 40's working like that. However I know people who do. I have a woman that I met LARPing Vampire in the 90's, and she works at Walmart. She has seen people fired over literally no issue. She wakes up terrified of losing her job. She lives with a daughter (1 or 2 kids she raised as a single parent) and her 2 grandchildren... she is the main income. 
I have never worked in gaming. I don't know if it's like me and my buddies with decent (I would not say any of us have good or great) jobs and feel secure week to week month to month... or is it like retail where you could just be fired on a whim. I am guessing it has to be closer to my current experience because the way you just described this change...

NOw I want to make sure I am 100% clear, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THAT. However the fact that this may turn into what at least some of the fans already live like reminds me how bad the job situation is in general. 
WotC please don't turn good office jobs into Walmart and Pizza Hut. PLEASE.


----------



## eyeheartawk

GMforPowergamers said:


> WotC please don't turn good office jobs into Walmart and Pizza Hut. PLEASE.



Why would WOTC/Hasbro be different from any other corporation? 

This is the system working as designed.

The cruelty is the point.


----------



## Reynard

eyeheartawk said:


> Why would WOTC/Hasbro be different from any other corporation?
> 
> This is the system working as designed.
> 
> *The cruelty is the point.*



Please. The profit/growth is the point.


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> Please. The profit/growth is the point.



I can't help but feel they could have pursued profit/growth without being quite the titanic pricks they're being now.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Reynard said:


> Please. The profit/growth is the point.



Yeah,  that's what I'm saying. 

The cruelty is _intentional _as it's neccessary to exploit _all the things, _to achieve the profit.


----------



## Reynard

billd91 said:


> I can't help but feel they could have pursued profit/growth without being quite the titanic pricks they're being now.



Oh, sure, but I don't think they would throw away profits just to be cruel, which is what @eyeheartawk implied.


----------



## SteveC

GMforPowergamers said:


> However you just described half the people I know that work bad jobs. Walmart, Sears, Gas Station, Pizza Hut, Duncan Doughnuts, heck some call centers. You work with a sword of Damocles over your head that a single misstep (not worth even mentioning as a mistake) and a manager in a bad mood is you are gone. Heck a down turn in sales got one of my friends 'layed off' right before covid when he himself was the best seller... the reason, he was the 'most expensive' since he got more bonuses.



I get what you are saying, and was actually thinking about that as I wrote the message. I think the difference is that if you're working retail, everything you do is entirely at the whim of your manager and the Karens and Kevins (I think that the term for a male Karen...). You know that. And that's why I'm super nice to people in that situation because I know that's ridiculously difficult to live under.

But if you work in the gaming industry, you are much more in charge of your own fate. You are producing something that lots of people want, and you've made it your day job after building up and audience over time. And *now *you're about to be in a situation where someone you don't know and have no real contact with can just end you. Arbitrarily. And that's something you didn't sign up for.

Don't get me wrong: retail work (or any customer facing work) in America is scary. I have been the customer after someone has just been shouted down for ridiculous reasons, so I know it can be horrible. I think saying "let's not turn gaming into working at Walmart" is something we can agree on.


----------



## humble minion

eyeheartawk said:


> The cruelty is _intentional _as it's neccessary to exploit _all the things, _to achieve the profit.




I’d argue that the cruelty is to a certain degree performative. There is a certain type of manager who wants to show off to their bosses or shareholders how driven and tough and decisive they are, and how willing to Make The Hard Decisions(tm). 

A bit of ruthless cruelty can really help sell that image. Of such things are executive bonuses made…


----------



## embee

Morrus said:


> I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one.
> 
> He responded as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan also maintains the Open Gaming Foundation.
> 
> As has been noted previously, even WotC in its own OGL FAQ did not believe at the time that the licence could be revoked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?*
> 
> Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271373
> ​



I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of Mr. Dancey's position is one of the bedrock principles of contract law: Unless otherwise specified, ambiguities in a contract are generally construed against the drafter. 

Is it or is it not revocable? Construed against WOTC (the drafter), it is irrevocable.


----------



## overgeeked

embee said:


> I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of Mr. Dancey's position is one of the bedrock principles of contract law: Unless otherwise specified, ambiguities in a contract are generally construed against the drafter.
> 
> Is it or is it not revocable? Construed against WOTC (the drafter), it is irrevocable.



Now we just need someone with enough money to step up and fight Hasbro in court to get a judge to rule that way.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

overgeeked said:


> Now we just need someone with enough money to step up and fight Hasbro in court to get a judge to rule that way.




 I don't think it'll come to that, I think OGL 1.1 is dead, but there are folks who seem willing to take Hasbro on if they have too.


----------



## Greg Benage

Henadic Theologian said:


> I don't think it'll come to that, I think OGL 1.1 is dead, but there are folks who seem willing to take Hasbro on if they have too.



Who?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

eyeheartawk said:


> Why would WOTC/Hasbro be different from any other corporation?
> 
> This is the system working as designed.
> 
> The cruelty is the point.



I wish I could disagree


----------



## kjdavies

eyeheartawk said:


> Yeah,  that's what I'm saying.
> 
> The cruelty is _intentional _as it's neccessary to exploit _all the things, _to achieve the profit.



And I daresay this is likely to bite them, hard, and be less profitable than they hope. They're developing a huge amount of ill will in the industry right now.

The old 'smaller slice of bigger pie' thing comes to play here. I have the sense the current economy (with people having generally less discretionary spending capacity) means Hasbro sees the pie getting smaller, so they want a bigger piece.

If I'm interpreting generously. I wouldn't be surprised their complaint is not "we're not getting enough" but "others are getting some that should be ours!"


----------



## ngenius

blakesha said:


> They can still purchase it under OGL 1.1 if section 9s wording is taken literally. Hell Enworld Publishing can make modifications to that set of published material under OGL 1.1 and continue to sell it without having to adhere to the other terms of OGL 1.1 (like the royalty clause). Based on the terms of section 9. EWP just can't create NEW works without having to then adhere to the new terms (ie the royalty ones)



Good news for EN Publishing and bad for me, a buyer already paid for my books yesterday. But a new Level Up 5e Kickstarter is running. So EN Publishing found a providable way out of the OGL disaster. 








						Level Up: A5E Gate Pass Gazette Annual 2022
					

A hardcover compilation of archetypes, feats, spells, heritages, monsters, and more for Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition!




					www.kickstarter.com


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Greg Benage said:


> Who?




 I don't remember the name, but the dude who sent the letter for one and I'm certain there are others as well.


----------



## Greg Benage

Henadic Theologian said:


> I don't remember the name, but the dude who sent the letter for one and I'm certain there are others as well.



Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. If you know of a publisher with the capability to fight Hasbro who has announced an intention to do so, I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Greg Benage said:


> Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. If you know of a publisher with the capability to fight Hasbro who has announced an intention to do so, I'd love to hear about it.




 You make fighting Hasbro sound harder then it is, DL writers did and won.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Henadic Theologian said:


> You make fighting Hasbro sound harder then it is, DL writers did and won.



don't try to talk people into long expensive fights. Maybe someone will, and we can back them up. However we have to all be honest, it will be an uphill fight.


----------



## SAVeira

Henadic Theologian said:


> You make fighting Hasbro sound harder then it is, DL writers did and won.



Did they really?  The case never made it to court.  In the end was a definitive statement about what each side gained and/or lost?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

SAVeira said:


> Did they really?  The case never made it to court.  In the end was a definitive statement about what each side gained and/or lost?




 The fact that WotC flinched shows out soft they are and this orders of magnitude worse.


----------



## Nylanfs

RyanD said:


> Unfortunately I lost my personal copies of the ogf-l and ogf-d20-l mailing list archives. I suspect that there are people who kept all those messages though. I further suspect that they might resurface as a part of discovery pursuant to litigation so I'm looking forward to reading what 23 years ago me said about a bunch of stuff.




Hmm, I wonder if I kept my copies somewhere...


----------



## SAVeira

Henadic Theologian said:


> The fact that WotC flinched shows out soft they are and this orders of magnitude worse.



Again, did they really flinch?  We have no idea what the lawyers discussed or agreed to, and it is likely we will never know.  There is a good chance that they when just cut this paragraph out and their writers' lawyers told their clients to agree.

We are on the outside.  Here the whole picture is not visible, and it would be a bad thing to make assumptions about WotC's strengths, weaknesses or strategies.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SAVeira said:


> Again, did they really flinch?  We have no idea what the lawyers discussed or agreed to, and it is likely we will never know.  There is a good chance that they when just cut this paragraph out and their writers' lawyers told their clients to agree.
> 
> We are on the outside.  Here the whole picture is not visible, and it would be a bad thing to make assumptions about WotC's strengths, weaknesses or strategies.



most times people (not even just lawyers just people) make agreements it meets in a middle ground. Most times unless the playing field is VERY even it is closer to the side with more power/money.  We will never know what happened.


----------



## Nylanfs

All we know currently, is that it wasn't released on the schedule they expected.


----------



## qstor

Morrus said:


> He didn’t _write_ it! Lawyers wrote it, he oversaw it.



My bad, sir.


----------



## qstor

I'm a US lawyer but don't do IP work. I totally support Paizo. Etc.
All's I'm saying is that it's NOT cut and dry.

Dancey says is irrevocable but that word isn't in the OGL 1.0a.  Perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable.  See UK case BMS Computer Solutions Ltd. V AB Agri.

 Any court case probably in US Federal Court would probably apply State of Washington law or US federal IP law. Federal copyright doesn't favor "forever" contracts neither do other US jurisdictions like Texas.


----------



## Maxperson

eyeheartawk said:


> Yeah,  that's what I'm saying.
> 
> The cruelty is _intentional _as it's neccessary to exploit _all the things, _to achieve the profit.



This is false. If I buy a can of soda for 50 cents and sell it to you for 75 cents, you have not been exploited even though I have achieved profit.


----------



## Henry

qstor said:


> My bad, sir.



That’s why I’m careful to use the term “originator” when referring to Ryan, because based on articles he’s written, he’s definitely the one who started and championed the idea within WotC pre-buyout. (And the one who was jokingly called crazy at the time, according to him )


----------



## darjr

RyanD said:


> Throughout Y2K I operated a mailing list called ogf-l (actually I operated two, the other was ogf-d20-l for discussions about the D20 trademark license).
> 
> Starting at the GAMA Trade Show in the spring we engaged with as many 3rd parties as we could to get as much feedback as we could on the text of the two licenses. A lot of the people who participated in those discussions became publishers of various open gaming projects.
> 
> The biggest change was that the initial idea was one license that was both a trademark and a copyright license. That's close to what the leaks suggest that 1.1 will try to be. We abandoned that approach to make both licenses much simpler and easier to understand; but the result was that I spent close two years starting messages with "there are two licenses".
> 
> The OGL is a very simple document so the goal was to try an make it as "plain English" as we could while still checking all the boxes needed to make it fit for purpose. There are still some bits I wish had been further reduced but the legal team got to a point where they just didn't want to make further cuts; so we now all get to learn the definition of "potate".
> 
> The people who participated in those discussions were important to the process and without their input the license would not have worked as well as it did.
> 
> Unfortunately I lost my personal copies of the ogf-l and ogf-d20-l mailing list archives. I suspect that there are people who kept all those messages though. I further suspect that they might resurface as a part of discovery pursuant to litigation so I'm looking forward to reading what 23 years ago me said about a bunch of stuff.



Thank you so much for this!

This leads me to ask if any of the drafts of the OGL and d20 license were ever as bad as this OGL 1.1 document. 

Were there threats? WotC ownership of everything in a third party product? etc?

Also I hope someone reading that has a copy of those lists can send you a copy.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Maxperson said:


> This is false. If I buy a can of soda for 50 cents and sell it to you for 75 cents, you have not been exploited even though I have achieved profit.



I was speaking somewhat specifically, but sure. 

What about the third world aluminum miner who mined the metal for that can, he isn't being exploited and working in sub-optimal conditions being payed next to nothing? 

It's always there. If not right at the top, certainly down the line. But that's really just a discussion about economics generally. 

In this case, the cruelty they are inflicting to all these people who make money from the previous OGL is 100% intentional.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

eyeheartawk said:


> I was speaking somewhat specifically, but sure.
> 
> What about the third world aluminum miner who mined the metal for that can, he isn't being exploited and working in sub-optimal conditions being payed next to nothing?
> 
> It's always there. If not right at the top, certainly down the line. But that's really just a discussion about economics generally.
> 
> In this case, the cruelty they are inflicting to all these people who make money from the previous OGL is 100% intentional.



this is spiraling into political economic theory (and as much as I would LOVE to debate you guys) this is not the place to really go in depth.


----------



## Henry

qstor said:


> I'm a US lawyer but don't do IP work. I totally support Paizo. Etc.
> All's I'm saying is that it's NOT cut and dry.
> 
> Dancey says is irrevocable but that word isn't in the OGL 1.0a.  Perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable.  See UK case BMS Computer Solutions Ltd. V AB Agri.
> 
> Any court case probably in US Federal Court would probably apply State of Washington law or US federal IP law. Federal copyright doesn't favor "forever" contracts neither do other US jurisdictions like Texas.



The one thing that gives me hope is Alan Bushlow’s take on it (the lawyer which was consulted in the Roll for Combat YouTube segment) in that he suggests that, in a contract for which there is consideration given, as is the case of the OGL 1.0, that courts have been less likely to say that it can be automatically revoked by terms not in the license because of the expectations of both parties, whereas if it were worded without consideration (basically gratis) then it has been more likely. I’d have to revisit the discussion again, but that was my basic understanding of it.

but in the end, all our discussions won’t mean Jack because unless WotC relents, a judge is very likely going to have to solve this thing.


----------



## Maxperson

eyeheartawk said:


> I was speaking somewhat specifically, but sure.
> 
> What about the third world aluminum miner who mined the metal for that can, he isn't being exploited and working in sub-optimal conditions being payed next to nothing?
> 
> It's always there. If not right at the top, certainly down the line. But that's really just a discussion about economics generally.
> 
> In this case, the cruelty they are inflicting to all these people who make money from the previous OGL is 100% intentional.



Sure. People CAN be(and often are) exploited, but that's not a property of profit, but of greed.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Maxperson said:


> Sure. People CAN be(and often are) exploited, but that's not a property of profit, but of greed.



I don't agree. 

But rather than have a nuanced discussion of competing economic models let's settle this the old fashioned way. 

You float over there by that mountain, and I'll float over here by this one. Then, we'll both be enveloped by colored balls of energy in which we will clench our fists and yell. Then we'll fly at each other exchanging kicks and punches in an extremely rapid fashion until one of us gets thrown into the horizon or a nearby mountain. Going by previous examples this should take anywhere from 4-8 episodes of time.


----------



## Maxperson

eyeheartawk said:


> You float over there by that mountain, and I'll float over here by this one. Then, we'll both be enveloped by colored balls of energy in which we will clench our fists and yell. Then we'll fly at each other exchanging kicks and punches in an extremely rapid fashion until one of us gets thrown into the horizon or a nearby mountain. Going by previous examples this should take anywhere from 4-8 episodes of time.



Hah! Goku doesn't lose.


----------



## Henry

Speaking of “potation”, which I never noticed before in the license: does it honestly refer to D&D themed drinks as “derivative material”?  Because that’s the only definition I’m getting.


----------



## overgeeked

Maxperson said:


> Sure. People CAN be(and often are) exploited, but that's not a property of profit, but of greed.



Profit is just unpaid wages.


----------



## Tazawa

darjr said:


> Thank you so much for this!
> 
> This leads me to ask if any of the drafts of the OGL and d20 license were ever as bad as this OGL 1.1 document.
> 
> Were there threats? WotC ownership of everything in a third party product? etc?
> 
> Also I hope someone reading that has a copy of those lists can send you a copy.




The earliest version of the license I can find via the Wayback machine is version .02.



			Open Game License v0.1 Simplified
		


It was simpler than 1.0 which was the next version posted.

The off-l list is archived at The Mail Archive.



			ogf-l


----------



## Scribe

Maxperson said:


> Sure. People CAN be(and often are) exploited, but that's not a property of profit, but of greed.



In the scales corporations operate on, exploitation is absolutely a feature of capitalism.

Once public shares enter the picture, all bets are off.

We are witnesses to this economic illness, right now.


----------



## Tazawa

Henry said:


> Speaking of “potation”, which I never noticed before in the license: does it honestly refer to D&D themed drinks as “derivative material”?  Because that’s the only definition I’m getting.




In this case, potation is to transfer something into a different format. For example, transfer a text document to HTML for a website.

This could, in fact, be a fairly important term to include in the OGL. It enables the creation of SRD-based content on VTTs.


----------



## Tazawa

Tazawa said:


> The earliest version of the license I can find via the Wayback machine is version .02.
> 
> 
> 
> Open Game License v0.1 Simplified
> 
> 
> 
> It was simpler than 1.0 which was the next version posted.
> 
> The off-l list is archived at The Mail Archive.
> 
> 
> 
> ogf-l




Unfortunately the archive only goes back to 2004. There may be more complete archives somewhere.


----------



## Maxperson

overgeeked said:


> Profit is just unpaid wages.



That's not true at all.  No profit = no job. No job = no wages at all. People aren't going to go through all that effort not to earn anything.


----------



## Maxperson

Scribe said:


> In the scales corporations operate on, exploitation is absolutely a feature of capitalism.
> 
> Once public shares enter the picture, all bets are off.
> 
> We are witnesses to this economic illness, right now.



The vast majority of corporations have no public shares.  That you can point to exploitive megacorporations does not equate to capitalism equaling exploitation or make it a feature of corporations.


----------



## Scribe

Maxperson said:


> The vast majority of corporations have no public shares.  That you can point to exploitive megacorporations does not equate to capitalism equaling exploitation or make it a feature of corporations.



I'm comfortable in my position regarding capitalism.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Maxperson said:


> The vast majority of corporations have no public shares.  That you can point to exploitive megacorporations does not equate to capitalism equaling exploitation or make it a feature of corporations.



We'll win you over yet, tovarich.


----------



## Reynard

Henry said:


> Speaking of “potation”, which I never noticed before in the license: does it honestly refer to D&D themed drinks as “derivative material”?  Because that’s the only definition I’m getting.



You can buy multiple microbrews named after D&D monsters right now.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Profit is just unpaid wages.



only at high level...


----------



## overgeeked

Maxperson said:


> That's not true at all.  No profit = no job. No job = no wages at all. People aren't going to go through all that effort not to earn anything.



Okay. So yes, profit is unpaid wages. Profit is the difference between the cost to produce a widget and what it's sold for. So say it costs $5 to make a widget but the widget is sold for $12. That's a profit of $7. The cost of labor is included in that $5 cost to make the widget. So, generally speaking, the person who actually made the thing doesn't get the "extra" $7. The person who makes the thing was underpaid. The value of the widget is $12. The person who made it should get all the value of the widget they made...you know...cause they made it. So the profit, that "extra" $7 the boss keeps despite doing nothing, yeah...that's unpaid wages.

You should really check out things like Wikipedia and some of the projects people do on Minecraft. People will put in a whole heap of effort without the desire to "earn" anything. Look at the moment we're in right now. Dozens of creators are volunteering to step up to make RPG systems and give them away for free. Not so much with the profit motive. That's what WotC's doing by the way. They're purely profit motivated. Hence their nuking the entire RPG industry from orbit. That's basic capitalism.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> Okay. So yes, profit is unpaid wages. Profit is the difference between the cost to produce a widget and what it's sold for. So say it costs $5 to make a widget but the widget is sold for $12. That's a profit of $7. The cost of labor is included in that $5 cost to make the widget. So, generally speaking, the person who actually made the thing doesn't get the "extra" $7. The person who makes the thing was underpaid. The value of the widget is $12. The person who made it should get all the value of the widget they made...you know...cause they made it. So the profit, that "extra" $7 the boss keeps despite doing nothing, yeah...that's unpaid wages.



That person who made the widget probably couldn't have built the factory or bought the widget making machines, tho. Capitalism is really complex and it definitely needs oversight and regulation to enforce good practices, but it also creates jobs, drives innovation and provides wages necessary to enjoy completely silly hobbies like role-playing games.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> That person who made the widget probably couldn't have built the factory or bought the widget making machines, tho. Capitalism is really complex and it definitely needs oversight and regulation to enforce good practices, but it also creates jobs, drives innovation and provides wages necessary to enjoy completely silly hobbies like role-playing games.



No. We innovated before capitalism and we will innovate after capitalism. If we survive it that is. We live on a planet that produces more food than we need globally, yet there is hunger. That's because of capitalism. And it's workers all the way down. The people who built the factory were underpaid, too. So were the workers who built the tools and machines used to build the factory. All to line the pockets of someone who does no work. Everyone's an artist until the rent is due.


----------



## Siberys

The cost of the factory and machines is covered by overhead, which would be part of the "cost to make the widget". Profit is money above and beyond that. Arguably you could say that profit is the portion of the sale that pays for the managerial side of the business, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone of that, let alone someone arguing that profit is wage theft.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> No. We innovated before capitalism and we will innovate after capitalism. If we survive it that is. We live on a planet that produces more food than we need globally, yet there is hunger. That's because of capitalism. And it's workers all the way down. The people who built the factory were underpaid, too. So were the workers who built the tools and machines used to build the factory. All to line the pockets of someone who does no work. Everyone's an artist until the rent is due.



Surely you aren't suggesting there was no hunger before capitalism? Or that the last 200 years of absolutely miraculous technological, social and cultural development isn't due at least in part to the movement of capital?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

redacted to stop off trail

sorry mods


----------



## rknop

... can't we get back to something less contentious like, I don't know, edition wars?


----------



## eyeheartawk

rknop said:


> ... can't we get back to something less contentious like, I don't know, edition wars?



I'm a edition war Anarchist. 

I choose chess.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:

Folks, this thread is not titled "The Nature of Capitalism".  So how about that line of discussion dies, and you get back on topic, please?  Thanks.*


----------



## Greg Benage

Pure evil.  

OOPS: Ninja'd by moderation. Sorry!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Redacted due to red text


----------



## Ondath

Any chance the upcoming WotC announcement might actually spill the beans on whether OGL v1.0a will actually be deauthorised or not?

I'm not betting on it, but I do get the feeling that they felt like they *had* to say something after Kobold Press raised the black flag (in multiple senses of the word), so hopefully some emergency course correction is happening within the firm.


----------



## Maxperson

Edited: didn't see mod note.


----------



## Maxperson

rknop said:


> ... can't we get back to something less contentious like, I don't know, edition wars?



Fair enough.  I'll stop now.


----------

