Hasbro has surrendered completely in the OGL war. But is it all really over?
#dnd #ogl #ttrpg #onednd #orclicense
Completely? Did they put in writting the OGL is irrovocable and always was? Nope, they didn't.
Did they put the 3.0 / 3.5 SRDs under CC By? No, they didn't.
It's not over because they can't surrender to something they could never actually do.
The issue now is on whether the "fans" will continue grazing on WotC's pasture as the erect walls around them.
I had to stop buying Paizo stuff because of the Wokeness. It got really painful ca 2012-13.
If Kobold Press material goes painfully Woke, I'll not buy it either. I'm not going to not buy it just because the marketing director has pink hair though. Currently their stuff is a lot better and less Woke than WotC product.
Isn't Kobold Press already painfully woke?
As far as Hasbro, they're regrouping. I don't think it's over.
I'd call this a tactical retreat, not a surrender. They've put the 5E GSL under CC, which is a concession, but I expect they'll just double-down on making AshD&D more attractive and more distinct. I really doubt they're going to bother with the OGL-based stuff any further, since Paizo is the only company that would still need that (as opposed to just migrating to the CC stuff) that's competitive with WotC, and they've already shown their determination to go their own way and their willingness to fight on the point. If someone pulls a NuTSR and makes themselves obnoxious, they may risk ticking that sleeping dragon, but I expect they'll let it lie otherwise.
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 12:09:54 PM
Isn't Kobold Press already painfully woke?
I've really not seen any wokeness in their products. I'm not really sure where this reputation comes from. Their adventures (& setting) are nothing like Paizo's IME.
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 12:09:54 PM
Isn't Kobold Press already painfully woke?
I've really not seen any wokeness in their products. I'm not really sure where this reputation comes from. Their adventures (& setting) are nothing like Paizo's IME.
This is what I was thinking of: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/kobold-press-bends-the-knee/
I agree on Paizo. I bought a used Pathfinder beginners boxed set when I was looking to get back into gaming 10 or so years ago. Ultimately I chose C&C. I didn't know until afterward how progressive Paizo was. Glad I haven't spent any $$ on their stuff directly.
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 12:09:54 PM
Isn't Kobold Press already painfully woke?
I've really not seen any wokeness in their products. I'm not really sure where this reputation comes from. Their adventures (& setting) are nothing like Paizo's IME.
This is what I was thinking of: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/kobold-press-bends-the-knee/
I agree on Paizo. I bought a used Pathfinder beginners boxed set when I was looking to get back into gaming 10 or so years ago. Ultimately I chose C&C. I didn't know until afterward how progressive Paizo was. Glad I haven't spent any $$ on their stuff directly.
I really only bought into Pathfinder 1st Edition products, as a way of approaching D&D 3.5 after the fact. I was out of the hobby for a very long time; and Pathfinder 1E was very available, at the time i jumped back in. The books were in every single book store, at the time.
Very few 3.5 books were still in the stores in 2016, but I bought what I could. Then there were those PF1E books, everywhere I went. "3.5 Lives".
Quote from: tenbones on January 28, 2023, 12:46:07 AMThe issue now is on whether the "fans" will continue grazing on WotC's pasture as the erect walls around them.
Those who only play "current D&D" will play whatever WotC D&D publishes. These fans never leave the garden, even in the TSR days.
Those who want to play VTT D&D will love WotC's walled garden, especially if they really have invested in making a next-gen VTT.
Those who want to play TableTop Fantasy RPGs and don't care about WotC drama? Some will stay with WotC, but that depends on 6e being better for them than 5e. Those who loved 5e - like those who loved 1e, 2e or 3e - can keep on trucking for the next decade or more with just 3PP goodies designed just for the editions they want.
And 4e fans have 13th Age.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 28, 2023, 12:12:29 AM
Completely? Did they put in writting the OGL is irrovocable and always was? Nope, they didn't.
Did they put the 3.0 / 3.5 SRDs under CC By? No, they didn't.
Yes, they DID put in writing it's irrevocable. By putting it into the Creative Commons, which is MORE irrevocable than anything WOTC lawyers could write.
They have not yet put 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern into the Creative Commons. I think they will, but we shall see.
But, and this is important: there is no meaningful way to "make OGL 0.1a irrevocable." NOTHING anyone can ever do could do that. By it's own wording that license cannot be expanded on, amended, or altered in any way by any future license.
What they can do is issue a 1.0b which is identical to 1.0a but adds that it's irrevocable. But, that does very little. Because it cannot retroactively make everything released in 1.0 and 1.0a irrevocably into it. Every publisher would need to re-publish with 1.0b to make it apply to their works.
And if they're going to do that, they would do better to re-publish with Creative Commons instead. Because CC is more clear, includes more SRD items like the names Beholder and Strahd, and is not controlled or written by WOTC.
Now again, they still need to stick 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern in it. But, they'd need to do that for an OGL 1.0b as well. We shall see if they do that. I suspect they will but let's see.
But this idea that WOTC could just "fix" 1.0a by issuing some sort of document doing that? Not real. Can't be done. Can't retroactively change 1.0a to add that. Can't move everything from 1.0a SRD into 1.0b by stating it. Can't function that way as doing that is barred by the words of 1.0a.
There were threads on this board about renaming things, at least that all goes away with the 5.1 SRD available as CC. You don't even need to mention it or include an OGL. It's out there as readily available so I don't think they can't really make any claims against anything within.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 28, 2023, 09:45:57 PM
There were threads on this board about renaming things, at least that all goes away with the 5.1 SRD available as CC. You don't even need to mention it or include an OGL. It's out there as readily available so I don't think they can't really make any claims against anything within.
You do need to include proper attribution of those names and a reference to the CC-BY license, though you don't need to include the full text of the license (unlike the OGL). Here's from the Creative Commons explanation:
QuoteTASL is a nice mnemonic for good attribution of CC-licensed material. Include the Title, Author, Source, and License of the work (if that information is disclosed by the licensor). In addition, if a copyright notice and/or disclaimer of warranties was included with the work, you must retain that as well. You must also indicate if you modified the material and/or if it was previously modified. You must not attribute in a way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 12:09:54 PM
Isn't Kobold Press already painfully woke?
I've really not seen any wokeness in their products. I'm not really sure where this reputation comes from. Their adventures (& setting) are nothing like Paizo's IME.
This is what I was thinking of: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/kobold-press-bends-the-knee/
I agree on Paizo. I bought a used Pathfinder beginners boxed set when I was looking to get back into gaming 10 or so years ago. Ultimately I chose C&C. I didn't know until afterward how progressive Paizo was. Glad I haven't spent any $$ on their stuff directly.
The linked quote (which is unsourced, but whatever) has them apologising for an absence of Wokeness in their product. I'm sure it was by a Woke or Ally employee/representative. But like I said, I've run a LOT of KP adventures and never seen any Woke content within them. This is a very different experience from running Paizo adventures. With KP they put out non-Woke stuff, take some flack, then issue a cringing apology. Not great but not the same as pushing Woke in their adventures, monster books, setting book - I've just not seen it there at all.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 28, 2023, 02:09:03 PM
I'd call this a tactical retreat, not a surrender. They've put the 5E GSL under CC, which is a concession, but I expect they'll just double-down on making AshD&D more attractive and more distinct. I really doubt they're going to bother with the OGL-based stuff any further, since Paizo is the only company that would still need that (as opposed to just migrating to the CC stuff) that's competitive with WotC, and they've already shown their determination to go their own way and their willingness to fight on the point. If someone pulls a NuTSR and makes themselves obnoxious, they may risk ticking that sleeping dragon, but I expect they'll let it lie otherwise.
I think you may have hit on a big possibility here— to me, it seems logical that Hasbro/WOTC will now abandon plans to make OneD&D backwards-compatible and instead make it distinct enough that they can suck players in with "shiny and better" marketing of the new system. (I know none of us believe that OneD&D would ACTUALLY be backwards-compatible effectively, but Hasbro was selling it as such up to now.) If 5e is available for third-party publishers to make a competing system to prevent players from moving on to OneD&D, like what happened with 4e and Pathfinder, then IMHO the way for Hasbro to go forward is to make their VTT walled garden even more distinct. Similar, maybe, but definitely not compatible. The suits in charge will mandate that third party publishers, who refuse to sign on to whatever new license appears for OneD&D, be unable to market their work as in any way compatible with OneD&D players.
They are convinced the new virtual will be so awesome that it'll dwarf tabletop in members. Imagine if you are a player who has never played, going online and playing a semi-video game with a brain would seem amazing. You may not need to find a group, you don't really need to imagine things and like a video game you don't need to play in public to give it a try so worries of nerd-shame are gone. And everyone pays, not just DMs, and they'll pay to have cool armor and a better avatar and to join a game with higher ranked DMs or whatever they can think of.
Now this sounds like crap to those used to the tabletop because your choices will be restricted by the virtual assets (increasing those I was probably what the 'if you make its we own it' clause was originally about) but for those that have never played or know the game only from Critical Role it'll probably be pretty spectacular. So they are betting on a flood of new players and don't care much about the tabletop.
I suspect the cancelling subscriptions didn't do as much as people think but the growing 'boycott the movie' was what really got their attention. It'll be really hard to launch all of this on the back of a flop. Especially when failure would mean every news report/review would talk about how horribly managed the whole thing was.
They are correct in that a videogame-like VTT has a possibility of drawing in the videogame playing crowd of players.
What remains to be seen:
- Will a D&D bring-your-own-story videogame appeal to videogame players?
Thus far the successful D&D videogames are successful as singleplayer experiences. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, etc. However, the VTT-side of D&D is pretty much all about the ruleset. Does anyone care so much about the D&D ruleset when it's being automated behind the scenes?
- Will a D&D bring-your-own-story videogame appeal to roleplayers?
One of my friends roleplays regularly in an F2P MMORPG which has more-or-less zero built in game rules or tools for roleplaying. They just move their avatars around in the world and talk. Sometimes they roll dice on Discord using a bot. Will they migrate to WOTC's VTT?
Quote from: Mistwell on January 28, 2023, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 28, 2023, 12:12:29 AM
Completely? Did they put in writting the OGL is irrovocable and always was? Nope, they didn't.
Did they put the 3.0 / 3.5 SRDs under CC By? No, they didn't.
Yes, they DID put in writing it's irrevocable. By putting it into the Creative Commons, which is MORE irrevocable than anything WOTC lawyers could write.
You're wrong, they ONLY placed the 5.1 SRD under CC By, which has zero descriptions for lots of monsters. They did say they were leaving the OGL 1.0a as is untouched, and noithing else.
Quote from: Mistwell on January 28, 2023, 09:19:19 PM
They have not yet put 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern into the Creative Commons. I think they will, but we shall see.
No, they will not put it under CC By, because it does have the descriptions that they deleted from the 5.1 SRD, and that's what they care about
Quote from: Mistwell on January 28, 2023, 09:19:19 PM
But, and this is important: there is no meaningful way to "make OGL 0.1a irrevocable." NOTHING anyone can ever do could do that. By it's own wording that license cannot be expanded on, amended, or altered in any way by any future license.
What they can do is issue a 1.0b which is identical to 1.0a but adds that it's irrevocable. But, that does very little. Because it cannot retroactively make everything released in 1.0 and 1.0a irrevocably into it. Every publisher would need to re-publish with 1.0b to make it apply to their works.
And if they're going to do that, they would do better to re-publish with Creative Commons instead. Because CC is more clear, includes more SRD items like the names Beholder and Strahd, and is not controlled or written by WOTC.
Now again, they still need to stick 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern in it. But, they'd need to do that for an OGL 1.0b as well. We shall see if they do that. I suspect they will but let's see.
But this idea that WOTC could just "fix" 1.0a by issuing some sort of document doing that? Not real. Can't be done. Can't retroactively change 1.0a to add that. Can't move everything from 1.0a SRD into 1.0b by stating it. Can't function that way as doing that is barred by the words of 1.0a.
Like you said, they CAN'T change OGL 1.0 or 1.0a but they could release OGL 1.0b with the word IRREVOCABLE added to it and a new clause grandfathering the works published under 1.0/1.0a. BUT they won't do that nor will they put those SRDs (as they are right now) under CC By BECAUSE those SRDs have the precious IP they scrubed from the 5.1 SRD.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 28, 2023, 09:45:57 PM
There were threads on this board about renaming things, at least that all goes away with the 5.1 SRD available as CC. You don't even need to mention it or include an OGL. It's out there as readily available so I don't think they can't really make any claims against anything within.
CC By = Creative Commons Attribution
You do have to give the correct attribution and say if you did modifications, meaning D&D keeps on being the "most influential RPG ever" because people keep using THEIR shit.
Even if, in the case of the 5.1 SRD you can only use the names for a lot of stuff BECAUSE they srubbed their precious IP from it.
So, in exchange of not creating your own floating eye monster's name, description and stat block and instead using THEIR Beholder (only the name, since it lacks stat blocks and description) you still have to create your own floating eye monster's description and stat block but with their name.
While giving them credit...
doesn't sound like a good deal to me but to each his own.
Hasbro has shown themselves to be bad actors. Fuck 'em!
No more WotC anything.
Quote from: The Spaniard on January 28, 2023, 12:09:54 PM
Isn't Kobold Press already painfully woke?
Yes, they are. I give a major recent example of their wokeness on my video.