Given WOTC statements about D&D being undermonetised as a brand, their desires to monetise D&D like mobile games are monetised (off the backs of DM's, to boot), their recent statements about a new 1.1 version of the OGL (which isn't actually an OGL but the kind of hybrid trademark/open/royalty license WOTC wisely avoided back in '00), and their already-on-a-slippery-slope demands for royalties...
WOTC is clearly being run by greedheads who are seeking a much larger level of control over D&D, in order to extract more money from D&D customers without having to provide more value.
I'm surmising that WOTC lawyers are planning even now to bring a suit to claw back the release of D&D mechanics, creatures, etc. in the 3.5 SRD (under the terms of the 1.0a Open Gaming License) in an attempt to invalidate all the "we don't get paid for it" D&D (and free-to-customers D&D) out in the wild. THEY WANT ROYALTIES ON EVERYTHING. ACKS, Stars Without Number, Pathfinder, everything.
They may even seek to invalidate the 1.0a OGL itself.
This company is going the same route as Activision, EA, John Deere, Mercedes Benz, and so many others: they exert control to extract, or seek to extract, money from customers without providing value. In fact, in many cases they provide WORSE value in their attempts to maximize the money they extract.
Suing over the SRD is a logical step in this progression, and only a matter of time. I'm not saying they will succeed, I'm predicting that they will try.
This is a prediction with a time horizon of, let's say, 5 years. Even if it happens after 5 years I'll be wrong, and happy to admit to it. But I don't think I will.
It will be interesting to see how the OGL holds up compared to similar Open Source software licences. OSS licenses have been successful so far. If the OGL has similar legalities, it should be pretty much untouchable. The only semi-successful attack I'm aware of on open source software licenses was based on patents (Oracle vs Google over Java), which I think don't apply to game rules or content. In any case, I'm glad I already have hard copies of a bunch of cool stuff....
Edit to add: I really hope ACKS Imperial Edition gets released before any legal apocalypses!
Hasbro's market cap is $8.5 billion.
"clearly being run by greedheads"
You do understand how large corporations work, right? All they see is money that is being taken from their coffers. I'm honestly surprised WotC has gotten this far along without having to tighten the screws on obvious money-bleeding policies (even if it's literally pennies in the grand scheme of things). The SRD/OGL can be challenged in court by Hasbro and then all the independent publishers go under because one can afford to actually to defend the litigation. That's life, son.
I don't think going after SRDs is going to do anything for them. In fact, I doubt small publishers are even on their radar. Reading the new 1.1 nOGL it's pretty clear they think digital tools are the future and they probably plan on micro-transactioning them to the hilt(1999 crowns to unlock the necromancer subclass!!).
They'll go after things that threaten their monopoly on the digital platform. Character generators, VTTs, online campaign tools, basically anything that would compete with them on One, which will completely out-date and replace 5e.
People still on 3.5 and earlier is too small potatoes for them. They don't care about neckbeards like us. They want the Twitch and Critical Role generation who are used to the Diablo Immortal treatment.
Quote from: atomic on January 02, 2023, 03:11:29 PM
It will be interesting to see how the OGL holds up compared to similar Open Source software licences. OSS licenses have been successful so far. If the OGL has similar legalities, it should be pretty much untouchable.
There is a big difference here. The original OSS licenses were written by independent programmers, starting with Richard Stallman.
However, the original OGL (v1.0a) was written by WotC lawyers as a corporate move to maximize their profits. I suspect they might not try to invalidate the license in general. They are still fine with most use of it, as it improves their profits just as planned. However, they might get more stringent in enforcing the content chain. They might go after any use of non-open content, like people copying stuff that's in D&D books but not in the SRD. This has been done by a number of retro-clones, and possibly by other OGL users.
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 05:14:37 PM
...
However, the original OGL (v1.0a) was written by WotC lawyers as a corporate move to maximize their profits. I suspect they might not try to invalidate the license in general. They are still fine with most use of it, as it improves their profits just as planned. However, they might get more stringent in enforcing the content chain. They might go after any use of non-open content, like people copying stuff that's in D&D books but not in the SRD. This has been done by a number of retro-clones, and possibly by other OGL users.
Agreed.
I think an issue that they might face if they decide to do so, is that they have not done any such enforcement for well over a decade now. Which
if things actually go to court, it could be a significant factor for things not going WotC's way.
Of course,
"if things actually go to court" being the operative statement...
WotC will get
a lot of mileage just out of pure lawfare until they run into someone willing to go to the expense of fighting them in court, should they choose to go down this route.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 02, 2023, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 05:14:37 PM
...
However, the original OGL (v1.0a) was written by WotC lawyers as a corporate move to maximize their profits. I suspect they might not try to invalidate the license in general. They are still fine with most use of it, as it improves their profits just as planned. However, they might get more stringent in enforcing the content chain. They might go after any use of non-open content, like people copying stuff that's in D&D books but not in the SRD. This has been done by a number of retro-clones, and possibly by other OGL users.
Agreed.
I think an issue that they might face if they decide to do so, is that they have not done any such enforcement for well over a decade now. Which if things actually go to court, it could be a significant factor for things not going WotC's way.
Of course, "if things actually go to court" being the operative statement...
WotC will get a lot of mileage just out of pure lawfare until they run into someone willing to go to the expense of fighting them in court, should they choose to go down this route.
Or until they run into someone, who simply tells them to drink piss.
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
How do you think this will affect games like Cepheus Engine because Mongoose Publishing used the WotC OGL for Traveller 1e, but did not use anything besides the license from WotC.
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
I haven't watched the video yet, but the OGL will matter for those who use the OGL. To win a lawsuit, WotC doesn't necessarily have to prove copyright violation. They just have to prove breach of contract that the users have not followed the terms of the OGL.
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:
Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."
Still, I think the leverage there was Gygax as author. And I haven't looked over the wording myself. Still, most other game companies did not get sued by TSR.
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:
Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."
To amplify: Is this a baloney claim? Of course it is.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, usually it's the guys with the deeper pockets who win. So clear baloney may just have its way.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 02, 2023, 07:33:20 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:
Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."
To amplify: Is this a baloney claim? Of course it is.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, usually it's the guys with the deeper pockets who win. So clear baloney may just have its way.
The real trick is going to come with products not derived from WotC material who used the license to make it easier for other properties to make things for THEIR systems. Also for those who subsequently so modified their systems that the OGL exists more as a vestigal limb than anything core to either the mechanics or content
I. e. good luck with the d20Hero SRD associated with Mutants & Masterminds 3e... other than rolling a d20 to resolve actions... and only a d20, no variable polyhedral damage rolls... there's almost nothing shared. Not attributes, not derived stats, not classes, not level structure, not powers, not setting, not opponents. One may as well try to re-litigate Andy Worhol's painting of a the Coca-Cola cans (where it was determined that ownership of a thing doesn't prevent someone else from creating something based on the thing if the original remains intact).
The same for Stars Without Number, which uses different dice mechanics and whose setting has no connection at all to any WotC has released.
My suspicion is that if WotC goes after companies using the OGL1.0 in earnest that an effort at a crowdfunded class action against them would start to organize fairly quickly as a joint ruling would protect everyone.
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
Rules procedures are not protectable, neither is a high level concept such as magical healing. But an RPG is more than just rules. In the absence of the OGL, I think OSRIC & BFRPG etc very likely would be infringing WoTC's copyrights in AD&D and B/X D&D. Conversely I think something like White Star probably does not infringe any copyrights even sans OGL, even though it takes a bunch of SF aliens and general concepts, and OD&D mechanics.
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 03:04:57 AM
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
Rules procedures are not protectable, neither is a high level concept such as magical healing. But an RPG is more than just rules. In the absence of the OGL, I think OSRIC & BFRPG etc very likely would be infringing WoTC's copyrights in AD&D and B/X D&D. Conversely I think something like White Star probably does not infringe any copyrights even sans OGL, even though it takes a bunch of SF aliens and general concepts, and OD&D mechanics.
How possible is it for a blurred lines type case to emerge? I am thinking about how something you couldn't copyright before (essentially a 'sound') suddenly became copyrightable (I am not a lawyer so I may be getting that case's details wrong, but I followed it because I am interested in music). There were a couple of other weird cases in music, including the Kate Perry one (but I believe that was overturned by a later judge). The bottom line in music though is all this stuff I was told about what you can and can't copyright, when I was learning to play, has been thrown into question by recent legal decisions. Has the whole "You can't copyright a game mechanic" thing already been established in the courts or is that just something that reflects current legal thinking but hasn't actually been tested?
All I know for sure is, when I realized I had as many or more differences from any version of D&D as Palladium does I decided I would drop the WotC OGL entirely (the plan is to use a custom one; probably lacking section 7 since I want third parties to be able to identify compatibility of their material).
This required a few more nomenclature changes* and dropping the traditional D&D monster lore for either going back to real myths and legends or to my own ideas... and I actually think that actually made it a stronger product as a result because I, and I suspect many others, have sort of used D&D's lore like a crutch. How many settings have chromatic dragons just because D&D does? How many have green rubbery regenerating trolls? How many have halflings just because D&D does? How many treat Medusa as a class of humanoid monster while gorgons are four-legged bull-like beasts... because D&D did it that way? How many divide the infernal into opposing devil and demon camps because that's D&D's lore? How about the arcane/divine casting divide where only divine magic heals?
It's really easy to get lazy with your world-building when someone has already done a lot of work and for the low low cost of adding a single page of legalese to the back of your book it can, minus a few exceptions, all be yours. But that comes with other strings, like section seven and, well, the odds that, in spite of the license being perpetual, that Hasbro's greed/desperation would eventually result in lawfare to revoke it on the legal grounds of "at $400 an hour, how long can you afford to oppose Hasbro's lawyers dragging things out?"
My hunch is they punch Paizo first because, even with PF2 mechanics, so much of the lore came out of the 3.5eSRD that they'll try to claim its derivative of their copyrights.
The other place I think they'd hit early is d20SRD.org which hosts full versions of the 3.5e and 5e SRDs for reference by others via the OGL1.0a, because they don't want easy access to the older SRDs and they probably wouldn't have near as much money to fight the lawfare.
Win those and maybe something against one of the main OSR brands that used the OGL to recreate an earlier version of D&D whole cloth (again on the "we have the money to drag this out until you're bankrupt" principle of lawfare rather than anything that would actually stand in court) and Hasbro would have a significant chilling effect on the competition who's been using the OGL1.0a that will all just "go away" if you update to the v1.1 and start reporting your income and products for their licensing badge (and because they are so tone deaf I wouldn't be surprised if the badge they want applied is a gold star).
The best defense as I see it is a crowdfunded class action (all the main OGL users) countersuit against Hasbro for breach of contract (the license says perpetual and they are trying to force it to not be) as soon as their first warning letters go out.
* ironically, what convinced me to drop it was all the changes to terms I'd already had to make due to how much interia some existing terms had; i.e. hit points = meat. No matter how I tried to get testers to understand they were 100% skill/fatigue/morale/luck and non-physical in the system it wouldn't stick and players had issues with non-magical recovery from say, a captain rallying you to keep fighting (so you dig deep and push through your fatigue and fear) until I dropped hit points and added "Edge" which you spent to avoid taking serious damage... it's the same damnable thing, but when the mechanics say "The captain uses Rally on you and restores your Edge" no one fights it as unrealistic anymore.
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
Questing Beast says in the video "In the United States at least, it is not possible to legally protect rules or game mechanics for a game."
This is false. One may
patent game mechanics. The most obvious example is WoTC's Magic the Gathering.
However TSR did not patent D&D mechanics, and so while Questing Beasts statement is false, the legal path to protect D&D game mechanics has been moot.
Quote from: DocJones on January 03, 2023, 09:32:56 AM
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
Questing Beast says in the video "In the United States at least, it is not possible to legally protect rules or game mechanics for a game."
This is false. One may patent game mechanics. The most obvious example is WoTC's Magic the Gathering.
However TSR did not patent D&D mechanics, and so while Questing Beasts statement is false, the legal path to protect D&D game mechanics has been moot.
Even if they HAD filed a patent on the d20 System it would have expired by now.
Regular patents are 20 years, design patents are 15 (14 back when the patent process would have had to be going on). The same process being used by other non-TSR companies for 20 years before that (ex. Palladium has been using d20+mod vs. target's armor rating since the early 80's... before WotC even existed as a company) would have also shot any attempt at a process patent down as well.
Yes, this also means the patent on MtG's card tapping process expired in 2014. You're free to use it for anything you want.
Basically, the core mechanics of D&D (and most rpgs in general; ex. WoDs dice pool system dates to the early 90's, simple add dice pools to at least the late 80's) are too old to have any active patent on and can't be copyrighted.
So while technically correct that you could patent your mechanics, you would have to prove them to be something entirely unique from those presently in existence. The core d20 mechanic can be proven to predate WotC's existence as a company (founded in 1990 vs. Palladium Books using d20+mod vs. armor rating in Mechanoid Invasion in 1981).
At this point you'd need some type of custom dice plus a unique way of reading them (ex. FF Star Wars system could have likely been patented) to really stand a shot at a patent on anything game mechanic related.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 03, 2023, 09:32:56 AM
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
Questing Beast says in the video "In the United States at least, it is not possible to legally protect rules or game mechanics for a game."
This is false. One may patent game mechanics. The most obvious example is WoTC's Magic the Gathering.
However TSR did not patent D&D mechanics, and so while Questing Beasts statement is false, the legal path to protect D&D game mechanics has been moot.
Even if they HAD filed a patent on the d20 System it would have expired by now.
Regular patents are 20 years, design patents are 15 (14 back when the patent process would have had to be going on). The same process being used by other non-TSR companies for 20 years before that (ex. Palladium has been using d20+mod vs. target's armor rating since the early 80's... before WotC even existed as a company) would have also shot any attempt at a process patent down as well.
Yes, this also means the patent on MtG's card tapping process expired in 2014. You're free to use it for anything you want.
Basically, the core mechanics of D&D (and most rpgs in general; ex. WoDs dice pool system dates to the early 90's, simple add dice pools to at least the late 80's) are too old to have any active patent on and can't be copyrighted.
So while technically correct that you could patent your mechanics, you would have to prove them to be something entirely unique from those presently in existence. The core d20 mechanic can be proven to predate WotC's existence as a company (founded in 1990 vs. Palladium Books using d20+mod vs. armor rating in Mechanoid Invasion in 1981).
At this point you'd need some type of custom dice plus a unique way of reading them (ex. FF Star Wars system could have likely been patented) to really stand a shot at a patent on anything game mechanic related.
Yes for all those reasons PATENT for D&D is moot.
Yet another point is that as long as you are NOT using the OGL, are not implying a business relationship, and are simply naming a product,
it is certainly legal to state your product is "Compatible with D&D™" as long as you state that D&D is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast
and reference to it does not imply sanction of the holder.
Again, the fun part will be if this brings them into conflict with some of the same people responsible for D&D getting it's bump.
I admit it's improbable, but WotC and Hasbro strike me as just stupid enough to get cross-threaded with Mercer and Critical Role. Cue Ken Watanabe saying 'Let them fight'.
Quote from: DocJones on January 03, 2023, 10:40:13 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 03, 2023, 09:32:56 AM
Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo
Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.
Questing Beast says in the video "In the United States at least, it is not possible to legally protect rules or game mechanics for a game."
This is false. One may patent game mechanics. The most obvious example is WoTC's Magic the Gathering.
However TSR did not patent D&D mechanics, and so while Questing Beasts statement is false, the legal path to protect D&D game mechanics has been moot.
Even if they HAD filed a patent on the d20 System it would have expired by now.
Regular patents are 20 years, design patents are 15 (14 back when the patent process would have had to be going on). The same process being used by other non-TSR companies for 20 years before that (ex. Palladium has been using d20+mod vs. target's armor rating since the early 80's... before WotC even existed as a company) would have also shot any attempt at a process patent down as well.
Yes, this also means the patent on MtG's card tapping process expired in 2014. You're free to use it for anything you want.
Basically, the core mechanics of D&D (and most rpgs in general; ex. WoDs dice pool system dates to the early 90's, simple add dice pools to at least the late 80's) are too old to have any active patent on and can't be copyrighted.
So while technically correct that you could patent your mechanics, you would have to prove them to be something entirely unique from those presently in existence. The core d20 mechanic can be proven to predate WotC's existence as a company (founded in 1990 vs. Palladium Books using d20+mod vs. armor rating in Mechanoid Invasion in 1981).
At this point you'd need some type of custom dice plus a unique way of reading them (ex. FF Star Wars system could have likely been patented) to really stand a shot at a patent on anything game mechanic related.
Yes for all those reasons PATENT for D&D is moot.
Yet another point is that as long as you are NOT using the OGL, are not implying a business relationship, and are simply naming a product,
it is certainly legal to state your product is "Compatible with D&D™" as long as you state that D&D is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast
and reference to it does not imply sanction of the holder.
Personally, one advantage I saw to not using the OGL was the ability to refer directly to D&D in compare/contrast marketing (ex. D&D's core player book: $60 + ongoing microtransactions on a web app for content they left out to sell you later. Ruins & Realms core player book $25 and has everything you need for endless fun with your friends).
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on January 03, 2023, 08:37:40 AM
How possible is it for a blurred lines type case to emerge? I am thinking about how something you couldn't copyright before (essentially a 'sound') suddenly became copyrightable (I am not a lawyer so I may be getting that case's details wrong, but I followed it because I am interested in music). There were a couple of other weird cases in music, including the Kate Perry one (but I believe that was overturned by a later judge). The bottom line in music though is all this stuff I was told about what you can and can't copyright, when I was learning to play, has been thrown into question by recent legal decisions. Has the whole "You can't copyright a game mechanic" thing already been established in the courts or is that just something that reflects current legal thinking but hasn't actually been tested?
I understand there have been US cases saying game mechanics not copyrightable, but I'm not a US copyright lawyer & can't recall any names. The USA and most countries are signed up to the Berne Convention on Copyright and the 1994 WTO TRIPS treaty, which says
2. Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such. - https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/trips_e.htm#art1
This has been taken to mean that a formula such as "XP to level = 2000 at 1st, doubling every level" is not protected. Nor is a procedure such as "roll d20+bonus vs target number". But no one knows exactly where the line is between non-protected procedures and protected creative expression. I'd say it was somewhere between White Star (fine) and Swords & Wizardry (not fine, in the absence of OGL). I can imagine it's conceivable a court might say even a D&D retro-clone did not infringe copyright, but I think most courts would see them as infringing adaptations/derivative works of the original, and it would not matter that they were games.
Rules procedures are not protectable, neither is a high level concept such as magical healing. But an RPG is more than just rules. In the absence of the OGL, I think OSRIC & BFRPG etc very likely would be infringing WoTC's copyrights in AD&D and B/X D&D. Conversely I think something like White Star probably does not infringe any copyrights even sans OGL, even though it takes a bunch of SF aliens and general concepts, and OD&D mechanics.
Anyway I would not rely on Questing Beast's comment about that guy who snubbed his nose at WoTC in 2019. They chose not to go after him, but I think his arguments* were pretty shaky and his stat blocks might well have been found infringing if they'd sued him.
*Eg his claim that a WotC Cyclops stat block was not copyright protected because cyclops are public domain. Sure cyclops are free to use, but a particular creative expression can be protected. Are monster stats a creative expression & copyright protected? Maybe.
I don't think a decisive case in the RPG industry is very likely compared to the music industry. Music definitely has the strongest protection. Big players like WoTC don't want to risk a loss that would stop them sending C&D letters. In the computer games industry they focus on the code, which is protectable, plus art & story elements, not rules.
Re formulas not being protected, this means that the 3e and 4e D&D XP tables are not copyright protected AFAICS, as they can each be derived from a formula. The 5e one though deliberately avoids following a formula and so may well be protected.
Quote from: atomic on January 02, 2023, 03:11:29 PM
It will be interesting to see how the OGL holds up compared to similar Open Source software licences. OSS licenses have been successful so far. If the OGL has similar legalities, it should be pretty much untouchable. The only semi-successful attack I'm aware of on open source software licenses was based on patents (Oracle vs Google over Java), which I think don't apply to game rules or content. In any case, I'm glad I already have hard copies of a bunch of cool stuff....
Jacobsen v. Katzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer
The case was over open source software in the world of Model Railroading. Basically a open source standard, JMRI, took hold and an asshole, Matthew Katzer, used the JMRI files without following the terms of the Artistic License. Which in my opinion are far more vague and confusing than the GPL and other open source license.
The Artistic License
https://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic-license-20.html
If the court upheld the Artistic License as a valid terms for the use of copyrighted material. Then I think the OGL 1.0/1.0a will also stand any challenge as well.
Quote from: Brad on January 02, 2023, 04:15:49 PM
Hasbro's market cap is $8.5 billion.
"clearly being run by greedheads"
You do understand how large corporations work, right? All they see is money that is being taken from their coffers. I'm honestly surprised WotC has gotten this far along without having to tighten the screws on obvious money-bleeding policies (even if it's literally pennies in the grand scheme of things). The SRD/OGL can be challenged in court by Hasbro and then all the independent publishers go under because one can afford to actually to defend the litigation. That's life, son.
How about "run by greedheads who misunderstand the underlying moral dimension Adam Smith detailed for free markets to continue to function."
I think that is a more accurate description. Microtransactions, subscription everything (you will own nothing, corporate version), and so on are perfect examples of failing at free markets from both a Smith and Randian perspective.
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 12:04:07 PM
Re formulas not being protected, this means that the 3e and 4e D&D XP tables are not copyright protected AFAICS, as they can each be derived from a formula. The 5e one though deliberately avoids following a formula and so may well be protected.
Even though they probably wouldn't be, XP tables are such a triviality I'd make a different one for any project I created just on principle.
My current one uses "number of adventures where you faced a significant challenge" as the benchmark for its leveling formula (i.e. you only get stronger when you do something that pushes you at least a bit... beating up lone goblin mooks when you're level 5 doesn't teach you anything new, hence no improvement from it... surviving a swarm of three dozen at once on the hand would definitely be an experience where you'd have to push yourself and could learn from.
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:
Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."
Still, I think the leverage there was Gygax as author. And I haven't looked over the wording myself. Still, most other game companies did not get sued by TSR.
I'd also point out that the lawsuit achieved its goal via "the process is the punishment" and "I don't have to have the law on my side, just more lawyers than you can afford to counter":
1. Mythus ended.
2. Gygax wasn't published for at least a decade by anyone else.
3. GDW entered bankruptcy whose major causes were elsewhere, but even small pebbles are part of the avalanche.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 09:59:43 AM
Even if they HAD filed a patent on the d20 System it would have expired by now.
It is tricky patenting games because you can't patent math. You can only patent inventions not discoveries*. A procedure can be an invention, and some new math could be instrumental to making the procedure possible. But the math itself remains a discovery and unpatentable.
Wizard's patent on card tapping worked out because it was a procedure that was invented not discovered.
*There is an exception for getting patents on new materials.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 09:59:43 AM
...
Yes, this also means the patent on MtG's card tapping process expired in 2014. You're free to use it for anything you want.
...
Which didn't stop WotC from going all lawfare on a MtG e-clone released in 2014 and get concessions from the developer leading to their demise.
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 11:57:09 AM
I understand there have been US cases saying game mechanics not copyrightable, but I'm not a US copyright lawyer & can't recall any names. The USA and most countries are signed up to the Berne Convention on Copyright and the 1994 WTO TRIPS treaty, which says
2. Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such. - https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/trips_e.htm#art1
...
Luckily whenever a treaty conflicts with Federal Law - Federal Law takes precedence.
Of course there is still this:
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 02, 2023, 07:33:20 PM
...
Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, usually it's the guys with the deeper pockets who win. So clear baloney may just have its way.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 09:01:46 AM
...
My hunch is they punch Paizo first because, even with PF2 mechanics, so much of the lore came out of the 3.5eSRD that they'll try to claim its derivative of their copyrights.
...
Win those and maybe something against one of the main OSR brands that used the OGL to recreate an earlier version of D&D whole cloth (again on the "we have the money to drag this out until you're bankrupt" principle of lawfare rather than anything that would actually stand in court) and Hasbro would have a significant chilling effect on the competition who's been using the OGL1.0a that will all just "go away" if you update to the v1.1 and start reporting your income and products for their licensing badge ...
This will be the basis for the lawfare.
Even Baizuo will not be able to really stand up to WotC if they chose to go down this route - they will get GDW'd...
I think that WotC is more likely to go down this route if the OneVTT is a success, than if it flops.
And Just like the T$R days; yeah, lots of people bitched about "They Sue Regularly', but it was still the #1 selling RPG until it literally went out of print...
Quote from: Jaeger on January 03, 2023, 01:01:30 PM
And Just like the T$R days; yeah, lots of people bitched about "They Sue Regularly', but it was still the #1 selling RPG until it literally went out of print...
It was the #1 selling RPG most of the time even when it was 'out of print'--it slipped to #2
once, and that was the month
Vampire: The Masquerade, at what was probably the height of its popularity, released their big shiny new Revised 2nd Edition.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 03, 2023, 01:01:30 PM
And Just like the T$R days; yeah, lots of people bitched about "They Sue Regularly', but it was still the #1 selling RPG until it literally went out of print...
While not cause and effect, I'd argue the sue regularly and the out of print are related.
When management worried more about better lawyers than better products you eventually run out of money for lawyers. The time spent on managing lawsuits should have been spent managing product lines and knowing what was making a profit and what wasn't. A lot of that top-selling product ended up losing money on each unit, so best-selling hurt the bottom line.
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 12:04:07 PM
Re formulas not being protected, this means that the 3e and 4e D&D XP tables are not copyright protected AFAICS, as they can each be derived from a formula. The 5e one though deliberately avoids following a formula and so may well be protected.
Any table could be defined as a mathematical piecewise function. The simplest being the step function, but they can have arbitrary limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise. So if you wanted an exact copy, you could define the function in the rules, and then have a 'quick reference chart' of the outputs at particular levels ;D
I am not a lawyer, but in discussions like this with real lawyers (who are also RPG designers) I have been informed that tables can indeed be copyrighted, but the underlying formula (if any) can't be, so you can include the formula but not the table. I've been told "spiritual successors" and non-OGL clones include formulas, not tables for this very reason.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 03, 2023, 01:01:30 PM
Luckily whenever a treaty conflicts with Federal Law - Federal Law takes precedence.
Sure, the USA is often not Treaty compliant. And anyway US judges especially tend to ignore Statute wording in favour of case precedents.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 03, 2023, 10:46:21 AM
Again, the fun part will be if this brings them into conflict with some of the same people responsible for D&D getting it's bump.
I admit it's improbable, but WotC and Hasbro strike me as just stupid enough to get cross-threaded with Mercer and Critical Role. Cue Ken Watanabe saying 'Let them fight'.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what they're planning. WotC wishes they could take a cut of Critical Role, which if we're being honest with ourselves, never gets off the ground were it not for Dungeons & Dragons. They're also probably trying to get a cut of NFTs and some of that VTT revenue. Again, if we're being honest with ourselves, nobody uses VTT programs without D&D. Likewise, I doubt WotC gives a single dingleberry of a shit about small time guys selling D&D or near-D&D products on DrivethruRPG.
Quote from: atomic on January 03, 2023, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 12:04:07 PM
Re formulas not being protected, this means that the 3e and 4e D&D XP tables are not copyright protected AFAICS, as they can each be derived from a formula. The 5e one though deliberately avoids following a formula and so may well be protected.
Any table could be defined as a mathematical piecewise function. The simplest being the step function, but they can have arbitrary limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise. So if you wanted an exact copy, you could define the function in the rules, and then have a 'quick reference chart' of the outputs at particular levels ;D
Oh is that why they did it like that? :D Well, I guess I can look forward to a fully integrated weapon verses armour type table in this "One D&D" thing right?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 03, 2023, 02:27:55 PM
I am not a lawyer, but in discussions like this with real lawyers (who are also RPG designers) I have been informed that tables can indeed be copyrighted, but the underlying formula (if any) can't be, so you can include the formula but not the table. I've been told "spiritual successors" and non-OGL clones include formulas, not tables for this very reason.
Sort-of, yes. Technically if you created your own table from the unprotected formula, that is not infringing, but if you copy THEIR table, that's potentially infringing (in USA & UK - not in some European countries).
Quote from: Corolinth on January 03, 2023, 03:28:23 PM
Again, if we're being honest with ourselves, nobody uses VTT programs without D&D.
People do use VTTs for non-D&D games, obviously. I ran a Mini-Six game on Roll20 for nearly a year.
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 03:31:51 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 03, 2023, 03:28:23 PM
Again, if we're being honest with ourselves, nobody uses VTT programs without D&D.
People do use VTTs for non-D&D games, obviously. I ran a Mini-Six game on Roll20 for nearly a year.
Foundry has some excellent plug-ins for Savage Worlds as well. Works really well for our Star Wars campaign.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 03:31:51 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 03, 2023, 03:28:23 PM
Again, if we're being honest with ourselves, nobody uses VTT programs without D&D.
People do use VTTs for non-D&D games, obviously. I ran a Mini-Six game on Roll20 for nearly a year.
Foundry has some excellent plug-ins for Savage Worlds as well. Works really well for our Star Wars campaign.
I believe that he was implying that the majority of every VTT's userbase is made up of 5e D&D players. Nobody makes a VTT that caters exclusively to non-D&D based games...
Chris24601 can correct me if I guessed wrong.
All another company has to do is create a new OGL but give it a different name, like Universal Game License or something. Just because WotC made the OGL doesn't stop another publisher from doing the same. There is way too much tribalistic attachment to the D&D label and brand in this hobby and this attachment to D&D is what gives WotC this imaginary leverage they are trying to assert over the industry.
It's really quite pathetic how so many people are attached to D&D and how the entire industry freaks out whenever D&D is getting a new edition. It's honestly just pathetic. There are a thousand other games but D&D is held as some sacred thing, put on a pedestal and it doesn't deserve it. It never did.
Quote from: RebelSky on January 03, 2023, 06:42:04 PM
All another company has to do is create a new OGL but give it a different name, like Universal Game License or something.
Mongoose did with their
Legend licence, though it hasn't caught on much apart from a brief upsurge of publishers switching from OGL Mongoose
RuneQuest I because of nuChaosium's continued disinformation on the legitimacy of the latter.
The courts has already rules that game mechanics can't be copywrited. What D&D can sue over is IP they own like Beholders (lets see my Eye Master), Mind Flayers (watch out here is the Brain Bashers) or Ropers (Beware the Stalacbeast) and there are too many work arounds to nullify whatever WotC tries to do. You could put out a complete copy of the game using some common sense in naming of classes, spreading abilities, coin for items, classes/subclasses, races etc and even use advantage/disadvantage and WotC will lose in court. Just don't put in a term like Dungeon Master for instance and you are good.
https://strebecklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DaVinci-80fb93d0-05e5-4f5a-b3ca-84241d32fd0c.pdf
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 03, 2023, 01:08:45 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 03, 2023, 01:01:30 PM
And Just like the T$R days; yeah, lots of people bitched about "They Sue Regularly', but it was still the #1 selling RPG until it literally went out of print...
It was the #1 selling RPG most of the time even when it was 'out of print'--it slipped to #2 once, and that was the month Vampire: The Masquerade, at what was probably the height of its popularity, released their big shiny new Revised 2nd Edition.
ROTFL! It was worse than I thought!
If anyone thinks that the one true game's current audience is less prone to such lemming behavior; Hit me up, I have some screaming deals on beachfront property in Nevada...
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 03, 2023, 02:27:55 PM
I am not a lawyer, but in discussions like this with real lawyers (who are also RPG designers) I have been informed that tables can indeed be copyrighted, but the underlying formula (if any) can't be, so you can include the formula but not the table. I've been told "spiritual successors" and non-OGL clones include formulas, not tables for this very reason.
That's pretty interesting, and now that I think about it there was a parallel argument with software patents. Originally, software was protected by copyright and had to be litigated to get patent protection. One of the counter arguments is that every program is effectively a mathematical proof and therefore not patent-able. Sadly, that argument didn't fly.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 03, 2023, 04:54:11 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 03, 2023, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 03:31:51 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 03, 2023, 03:28:23 PM
Again, if we're being honest with ourselves, nobody uses VTT programs without D&D.
People do use VTTs for non-D&D games, obviously. I ran a Mini-Six game on Roll20 for nearly a year.
Foundry has some excellent plug-ins for Savage Worlds as well. Works really well for our Star Wars campaign.
I believe that he was implying that the majority of every VTT's userbase is made up of 5e D&D players. Nobody makes a VTT that caters exclusively to non-D&D based games...
Chris24601 can correct me if I guessed wrong.
Close enough. I was actually rolling all editions of D&D up together.
If you remove D&D from the equation, the remaining games don't offer much incentive to put in the effort to develop a VTT platform. The money just isn't there.
"We are altering the deal. Pray We don't alter it any further."
WOTC trying to REVOKE THE OGL for D&D (Lawyer-gamer shares leaked language and comments on it)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 04, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
"We are altering the deal. Pray We don't alter it any further."
WOTC trying to REVOKE THE OGL for D&D (Lawyer-gamer shares leaked language and comments on it)
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, toys do not move by themselves, but...
I just can't see this working. The understanding we've all had this whole time of the "authorized version" is that you can always update to a new version of the license, but only WoTC gets to release new versions.
The idea that "authorization" is some bit WoTC can twiddle at will makes an absolute mockery of the documented intention of the license.
Furthermore, there are works released under the OGL that aren't derived from any copyrighted material by WOTC; is WOTC really claiming they can unilaterally change the terms of the license for those works and force people to use OGL 1.1 for those works? Considering the new royalty provisions in 1.1 that will be... interesting.
.
I gave myself a time horizon of 5 years for my prediction, and it came true in 2 days.
What can I say, it's a gift.
;)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 04, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
"We are altering the deal. Pray We don't alter it any further."
WOTC trying to REVOKE THE OGL for D&D (Lawyer-gamer shares leaked language and comments on it)
So, yeah.
Hasbro plans to go to court to revoke the OGL1.0a (it is no longer "authorized" and while the old license was perpetual it was not "irrevocable") and demand everyone operating under it (even it it's not derived from their material) must update to OGL1.1 which, in turn, grants THEM a perpetual irrevocable royalty free license to use anything you created as they wish.
I'll also note that, as worded, it doesn't matter if your work was derived from WotC's SRDs or not, just the use of the OGL1.0 or 1.0a is enough for them to capture your content in their 1.1 regulatory net if their play to de-"authorize" the prior versions stands.
I'll say it now. Crowdfunded Class Action suit against WotC to clarify provision 9 is going to be needed, perhaps even preemptively, because they are planning on coming for anything and everything ever made under any version of the OGL to claim it as perpetually irrevocably and royalty-free theirs.
You will own nothing and be happy (or else).
Crowd funded hostile takeover of Hasbro in 1.. 2... 3... ;D
Cavet; I am not a lawyer, but I did go look up terms and apparently legally "perpetual" without "irrevocable" just means "until the licensor terminates the license" vs. "this license is good for a set term."
So, yeah, if this leak is correct, get your affairs in order people.* Hasbro intends to claim every last thing the OGL ever touched is subject to 1.1, which not only gives them free perpetual and irrevocable use of it, but also allows them to terminate your use of it after 30 days for any reason they care to define (like insufficient wokeness).
Maybe I'm paranoid and/or maybe they won't come for the smaller fish first, but this is all about annihilating it's main competition ahead of launching OneD&D and their microtransaction laden VTT.
* specifically, if your material doesn't rely primarily upon WotC SRD specific lore elements, now is the time to a "second edition" to change some terms/expressions and drop the OGL from your content.
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 05, 2023, 03:45:32 AM
I gave myself a time horizon of 5 years for my prediction, and it came true in 2 days.
What can I say, it's a gift.
;)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 04, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
"We are altering the deal. Pray We don't alter it any further."
WOTC trying to REVOKE THE OGL for D&D (Lawyer-gamer shares leaked language and comments on it)
I wanna take you to Vegas and see if it's actually possible to beat the house. Holy shit.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
Cavet; I am not a lawyer, but I did go look up terms and apparently legally "perpetual" without "irrevocable" just means "until the licensor terminates the license" vs. "this license is good for a set term."
So, yeah, if this leak is correct, get your affairs in order people.* Hasbro intends to claim every last thing the OGL ever touched is subject to 1.1, which not only gives them free perpetual and irrevocable use of it, but also allows them to terminate your use of it after 30 days for any reason they care to define (like insufficient wokeness).
Maybe I'm paranoid and/or maybe they won't come for the smaller fish first, but this is all about annihilating it's main competition ahead of launching OneD&D and their microtransaction laden VTT.
* specifically, if your material doesn't rely primarily upon WotC SRD specific lore elements, now is the time to a "second edition" to change some terms/expressions and drop the OGL from your content.
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
That's about the safest option at this point. Wouldn't surprise me if WOTC began suing anyone that did so, though. Reminds me of how people speak about 90's TSR and their lawsuits against small publishers.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 04, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
"We are altering the deal. Pray We don't alter it any further."
WOTC trying to REVOKE THE OGL for D&D (Lawyer-gamer shares leaked language and comments on it)
I'm really hoping this leaked language isn't true. WOTC already accounts for over 50% of the market for tabletop RPG's. If they are planning to revoke the old OGL, this puts most of their competition out of business, and really puts the OSR in a bad place.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 05:19:35 AM
So, yeah.
Hasbro plans to go to court to revoke the OGL1.0a (it is no longer "authorized" and while the old license was perpetual it was not "irrevocable") and demand everyone operating under it (even it it's not derived from their material) must update to OGL1.1 which, in turn, grants THEM a perpetual irrevocable royalty free license to use anything you created as they wish.
I'll also note that, as worded, it doesn't matter if your work was derived from WotC's SRDs or not, just the use of the OGL1.0 or 1.0a is enough for them to capture your content in their 1.1 regulatory net if their play to de-"authorize" the prior versions stands.
I'll say it now. Crowdfunded Class Action suit against WotC to clarify provision 9 is going to be needed, perhaps even preemptively, because they are planning on coming for anything and everything ever made under any version of the OGL to claim it as perpetually irrevocably and royalty-free theirs.
You will own nothing and be happy (or else).
This apparent new strategy of theirs is the legal equivalent of all-out nuclear war. I don't think they'd win in court, but even if they did they'd leave an irradiated wasteland behind. Either way, no sane third party publisher would use a license from WoTC-Hasbro ever again. More than that though, the entire non-WoTC RPG industry would be crippled.
Realistically, I don't see "This licence means something completely different from what we told you it meant, including in our contemporary FAQ" as being at all likely to work. If it goes to court every Third Party publisher will have a strong - existential - interest in seeing the other side properly represented.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 05, 2023, 08:01:06 AM
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 05, 2023, 03:45:32 AM
I gave myself a time horizon of 5 years for my prediction, and it came true in 2 days.
What can I say, it's a gift.
;)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 04, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
"We are altering the deal. Pray We don't alter it any further."
WOTC trying to REVOKE THE OGL for D&D (Lawyer-gamer shares leaked language and comments on it)
I wanna take you to Vegas and see if it's actually possible to beat the house. Holy shit.
To be fair, for anyone who understands how corpos think this wasn't ready hard. I suggested the same thing back on Christmas...
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 25, 2022, 01:21:00 PM
I dumped the OGL (I'll use a creative commons license instead) from my project entirely as I have sufficiently different mechanics that my only real concern was sharing some game terms and have since renamed many of those just in case. I think re-examining whether you actually NEED even the OGL1.0a might be worth it for other publishers as I think a desperate enough WotC might go after it and, as I have been reminded in the past, the validity of your claim is far less important than having the money to litigate.
... because Corpos gonna Corpo.
Short version, Hasbro told us exactly what it wanted D&D to be with the 4E GSL, but got blindsided by the OGL and not being able to deliver on digital content... so this time they're doing the exact same thing, but they're going after the OGL first, before they even launch to lock down any possible competition before their products even hit the shelves.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
Cavet; I am not a lawyer, but I did go look up terms and apparently legally "perpetual" without "irrevocable" just means "until the licensor terminates the license" vs. "this license is good for a set term."
It can be taken to mean either 'never ending' or 'indefinite' depending on the context - one brief discussion at https://www.keystonelaw.com/keynotes/termination-of-intellectual-property-licences-are-you-at-risk
I think in this context a judge would most likely rule the obvious apparent intent was not to make the licence revocable at WoTC's option.
If this "leaked" document turns out to be true, I think the safest bet for any third party publisher is to never use the OGL ever again, even if WotC ultimately doesn't go through with it. The fact that they're even considering such an absurdly overreaching license alone should scare tha hell out of anyone ever using their licenses. EVER!
The brass cojones on these fucking guys. Jeesh! :o
Quote from: S'mon on January 05, 2023, 08:20:24 AM
This apparent new strategy of theirs is the legal equivalent of all-out nuclear war. I don't think they'd win in court, but even if they did they'd leave an irradiated wasteland behind. Either way, no sane third party publisher would use a license from WoTC-Hasbro ever again. More than that though, the entire non-WoTC RPG industry would be crippled.
And?
Do you think Hasbro cares an iota about the state of the non-WotC RPG industry? They would be perfectly happy if it all went bankrupt tomorrow. They are not your friends, they are corporate parasites whose duty is to maximize their short term profits at all costs.
Similarly, whether it can win in an actual court of law is irrelevant. With lawfare the process is the punishment. More simply, "at $400/hour, how long can you afford to have the case draw out as Hasbro's lawyers swamp yours with thousands of hours of pre-trial motions?"
That's what we're talking here. They have their in-house lawyers on a salary who can easily swamp you with half a million dollars in legal fees before you even get to court. Even if you win, you lose in an industry this small.
Short of a crowdfunded class action to get the likely millions it would take to reach a courtroom, WotC plans on just using it 800lb. gorilla status to make you comply.
Rendering your existing OGL material defunct (i.e. non-OGL edition with sufficient nomenclature changes from traditional D&D terms to muddy things) ahead of time so the license doesn't have to be updated to 1.1 (by which WotC claims perpetual irrevocable free use of everything produced) is about the only way I see around it that doesn't require some lawyers willing to do a lot of pro bono work or the rest of the industry uniting against Hasbro.
Once you're out of the OGL window there's a lot more recognized case law to protect you and make it difficult for them to lawfare you.
Again, maybe I'm being paranoid, but if this leak is accurate Hasbro is planning on trying to kill the OGL1.0 and force everyone to either go onto the 1.1 travesty or go out of business unless they have the funds to withstand their lawfare legions.
If WotC tries it, welcome to crowd funding. It will take some time, but WotC will lose that fight and they know it. A lot of people are going to fight Wotc over this if they try to take their IP. And then comes the very bad will it will generate towards Wotc from the people in the industry. I believe even the deballed types like Colville or Mercer might stop supporting D&D and look at a different game system altogether.
I think the more rational course under what's been laid out would simply be for WotC to release all new SRDs under OGL 1.1 and make sure that OneD&D is just different enough to make 5E products feel obsolete, a la 3.5 ... but evil is fundamentally irrational. :)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 08:49:16 AM
And?
Do you think Hasbro cares an iota about the state of the non-WotC RPG industry? They would be perfectly happy if it all went bankrupt tomorrow. They are not your friends, they are corporate parasites whose duty is to maximize their short term profits at all costs.
Yes, but the reality is they do benefit a lot from the rich third-party ecosystem. Maybe they don't realise that, despite what happened with 4e. The new people seem to have no corporate memory.
Quote from: S'mon on January 05, 2023, 09:41:25 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 08:49:16 AM
And?
Do you think Hasbro cares an iota about the state of the non-WotC RPG industry? They would be perfectly happy if it all went bankrupt tomorrow. They are not your friends, they are corporate parasites whose duty is to maximize their short term profits at all costs.
Yes, but the reality is they do benefit a lot from the rich third-party ecosystem. Maybe they don't realise that, despite what happened with 4e. The new people seem to have no corporate memory.
Corpos gotta corpo. Short term profits are all that matter as a matter of law (i.e. you could lose your job and be sued into oblivion for failing to do your fiduciary duty to grow the corporation's bottom line for the investors) and Hasbo's sales are way down post pandemic.
So, yes. You should fully expect them to be desperate greedy corpos willing to burn down the industry for another quarter of profits.
Well, I guess I should start eating my hat over thinking WoTC was more focused on digital tool competition and not worried about standard RPGs. They have zero reason to want to make "no longer authorized" the current OGL except to force competition(aka Paizo) over to the 1.1 and steal their money/shut them down.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
This seems like the safest course to take. The OGL is basically tainted at this point. Though I'd think other systems currently using OGL should already be free of WotC IP, unless they were using the DM Guild's licensing that allowed for using Wizard's IP.
Quote from: Dracones on January 05, 2023, 10:08:34 AM
Well, I guess I should start eating my hat over thinking WoTC was more focused on digital tool competition and not worried about standard RPGs. They have zero reason to want to make "no longer authorized" the current OGL except to force competition(aka Paizo) over to the 1.1 and steal their money/shut them down.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
This seems like the safest course to take. The OGL is basically tainted at this point. Though I'd think other systems currently using OGL should already be free of WotC IP, unless they were using the DM Guild's licensing that allowed for using Wizard's IP.
Based on the leaked wording, it doesn't matter if your particular product uses any of WotC's content. Simply using their license agreement, once you're forced to update to 1.1 gives them free irrevocable use of your content forever... did you invent a whole new system and slap the OGL1.0a on it so third parties could make easy supplements? Well, because the license touched it WotC will claim the whole thing and could repackage it with the WotC logo on it, sell it, and not owe you a dime.
Oh, and they can order you to cease all publication of your own version for any reason with 30 days notice while still selling it under their logo.
That's what they're claiming the right to.
Quote from: Dracones on January 05, 2023, 10:08:34 AM
Well, I guess I should start eating my hat over thinking WoTC was more focused on digital tool competition and not worried about standard RPGs. They have zero reason to want to make "no longer authorized" the current OGL except to force competition(aka Paizo) over to the 1.1 and steal their money/shut them down.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
This seems like the safest course to take. The OGL is basically tainted at this point. Though I'd think other systems currently using OGL should already be free of WotC IP, unless they were using the DM Guild's licensing that allowed for using Wizard's IP.
Don't beat yourself up too much. I didn't expect them to reach for the cudgel that fast either.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 10:17:24 AM
Based on the leaked wording, it doesn't matter if your particular product uses any of WotC's content. Simply using their license agreement, once you're forced to update to 1.1 gives them free irrevocable use of your content forever... did you invent a whole new system and slap the OGL1.0a on it so third parties could make easy supplements? Well, because the license touched it WotC will claim the whole thing and could repackage it with the WotC logo on it, sell it, and not owe you a dime.
Oh, and they can order you to cease all publication of your own version for any reason with 30 days notice while still selling it under their logo.
That's what they're claiming the right to.
You may not be forced to update if you drop the OGL 1.0a. As an example, if I wrote a RPG and released it under the OGL that doesn't get rid of my full copyright on the product. I can still release that product under any other license I want in tandem with the OGL licensed copy. This was common for companies to do with software and the GPL(an open software license). They'd release, say, a software library under the GPL and if you needed a library that wasn't GPL you could buy a non-GPL licensed version for your commercial software.
So if I released my product under the OGL nothing stops me from also releasing it under a FGL down the road. The workflow could most likely be:
1> WoTC has stated that the OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. Therefore we will no longer be using the OGL.
2> All our product is now covered under the FGL.
The question would be could Wizards somehow force you into the OGL 1.1 rather than just dropping the OGL 1.0a entirely(since it's no longer a valid license) from your product line in favor of a FGL.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 05, 2023, 09:24:22 AM
If WotC tries it, welcome to crowd funding. It will take some time, but WotC will lose that fight and they know it. A lot of people are going to fight Wotc over this if they try to take their IP. And then comes the very bad will it will generate towards Wotc from the people in the industry. I believe even the deballed types like Colville or Mercer might stop supporting D&D and look at a different game system altogether.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Fundation) might be of help since Hasbro taking the OGLto court to nulify it would set a precedent for Open Source Software.
So the front to fight this might be way bigger than WotC thinks.
https://www.eff.org/es (https://www.eff.org/es)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 05, 2023, 09:38:50 AM
I think the more rational course under what's been laid out would simply be for WotC to release all new SRDs under OGL 1.1 and make sure that OneD&D is just different enough to make 5E products feel obsolete, a la 3.5 ... but evil is fundamentally irrational. :)
Throughout all of these threads and videos, I have come away suspecting it will be as you describe above. I think WOTC will force creators of content to either choose to stay the course with the old / current OGL path, or else to be part of the new OGL path. Either Play in the past, or Pay in the future.
If one chooses to Play in the past; they will not be allowed to have "compatibility", with WOTC's future endeavors.
Quote from: Dracones on January 05, 2023, 10:49:42 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 10:17:24 AM
Based on the leaked wording, it doesn't matter if your particular product uses any of WotC's content. Simply using their license agreement, once you're forced to update to 1.1 gives them free irrevocable use of your content forever... did you invent a whole new system and slap the OGL1.0a on it so third parties could make easy supplements? Well, because the license touched it WotC will claim the whole thing and could repackage it with the WotC logo on it, sell it, and not owe you a dime.
Oh, and they can order you to cease all publication of your own version for any reason with 30 days notice while still selling it under their logo.
That's what they're claiming the right to.
You may not be forced to update if you drop the OGL 1.0a. As an example, if I wrote a RPG and released it under the OGL that doesn't get rid of my full copyright on the product. I can still release that product under any other license I want in tandem with the OGL licensed copy. This was common for companies to do with software and the GPL(an open software license). They'd release, say, a software library under the GPL and if you needed a library that wasn't GPL you could buy a non-GPL licensed version for your commercial software.
So if I released my product under the OGL nothing stops me from also releasing it under a FGL down the road. The workflow could most likely be:
1> WoTC has stated that the OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. Therefore we will no longer be using the OGL.
2> All our product is now covered under the FGL.
The question would be could Wizards somehow force you into the OGL 1.1 rather than just dropping the OGL 1.0a entirely(since it's no longer a valid license) from your product line in favor of a FGL.
Most likely you would be required to destroy every copy and cease digital distribution of every copy with the OGL included in it in order to not run afoul of WotC's "this is no longer using an authorized license" clause.
If this is legit it goes one of two ways...
1. They pull back and then introduce additional restrictions piecemeal to slow boil the frog.
2. They push it out ASAP (it was always coming in "early 2023", what's a few weeks?) banking on the "30 days to comply" blindsiding enough publishers and alternate VTTs that they'll have no time for any alternative other than updating to 1.1 or ceasing distribution until they have an alternative.
ETA: the biggest poison pill in this is their attempt to claim free use of any IP distributed under the OGL. "You must update your license or be in noncompliance" and as soon as you have "we can now release our own version of your product with a WotC logo on it and not pay you a cent... oh, and you have 30 days to cease publication of your own version."
You own it, but you can't use it, while they can use it free forever. Which basically means they own it.
Not sure if you've seen the Gizmodo article yet, it just came out https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634
Basically WoTC are really shooting the puppy, it looks like.
Despite reassurances from Wizards of the Coast last month, the original OGL will become an "unauthorized" agreement, and it appears no new content will be permitted to be created under the original license.
Money quote:
The original OGL granted "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license" to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System Resource Document) and directed that licensees "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." But the updated OGL says that "this agreement is...an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement."
The new document clarifies further in the "Warranties" section that "this agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force."
According to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL.
Wizards of the Coast declined to clarify if this is in fact the case.
Additional money quote from the Gizmodo article...
It addresses new technologies like blockchain and NFTs, and takes a strong stance against bigoted content, explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is "blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.".
It also cites a date of January 13th, 2023 as the point the new OGL1.1 goes into effect.
Pretty good argument for them not being able to undo the old OGL:
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/section-9-of-open-game-license.html
Quote from: Mithgarthr on January 05, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Pretty good argument for them not being able to undo the old OGL:
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/section-9-of-open-game-license.html
Good argument. Who wants to spend the $$$ to get it in front of an actual judge is the real question.
This is the same kind of crap that Greg Stafford did in licensing for Glorantha and Runequest. He killed untold fanzines, websites, and interest over an ill-considered license. He wanted to protect his IP for possible licensing deals, but the language allowed for him to steal other people's IP and use it however he wanted. Kind of like what WOTC is proposing.
I admit, the worst case scenario here; is that WOTC is about to squash the D&D flavored portion, of the RPG hobby. They will make a power play on the industry; and try to put the 3.0 OGL genie, back into the bottle.
The best case scenario, is that the big players in the industry decide to resist. Or, a massive shift toward different games, could take place?
Quote from: S'mon on January 05, 2023, 11:45:30 AM
Not sure if you've seen the Gizmodo article yet, it just came out https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634
Basically WoTC are really shooting the puppy, it looks like.
Despite reassurances from Wizards of the Coast last month, the original OGL will become an "unauthorized" agreement, and it appears no new content will be permitted to be created under the original license.
Money quote:
The original OGL granted "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license" to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System Resource Document) and directed that licensees "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." But the updated OGL says that "this agreement is...an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement."
The new document clarifies further in the "Warranties" section that "this agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force."
According to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL.
Wizards of the Coast declined to clarify if this is in fact the case.
Never ever give them the clicks, here's an archived version:
https://archive.is/iHTxP (https://archive.is/iHTxP)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 12:03:09 PM
Quote from: Mithgarthr on January 05, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Pretty good argument for them not being able to undo the old OGL:
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/section-9-of-open-game-license.html
Good argument. Who wants to spend the $$$ to get it in front of an actual judge is the real question.
This is where the future is decided. How hard will WOTC push it, and will someone effectively stand up to it? One good precedent, is what the rest of the industry needs to see.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 12:03:09 PM
Quote from: Mithgarthr on January 05, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Pretty good argument for them not being able to undo the old OGL:
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/section-9-of-open-game-license.html
Good argument. Who wants to spend the $$$ to get it in front of an actual judge is the real question.
Crowdfunding is a hell of a way to counter that tactic.
So, how would the revoking of the WotC OGL 1.0 affect Mongoose Traveller and Cepheus Engine?
Both used the OGL to get started and Cepheus Engine still uses it even though it doesn't use any WotC IP except the OGL in it's products.
The best thing existing content creators can do is kick the original OGL out of new printings of their work. Stop using it.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 05, 2023, 12:12:01 PM
This is where the future is decided. How hard will WOTC push it, and will someone effectively stand up to it? One good precedent, is what the rest of the industry needs to see.
I think it's so bad that if WoTC persist with it, they're pushing the industry into fight-or-die. AFAICT, WoTC-Hasbro would probably lose that fight. They'll certainly do a lot of damage though.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 05, 2023, 12:18:58 PM
So, how would the revoking of the WotC OGL 1.0 affect Mongoose Traveller and Cepheus Engine?
Both used the OGL to get started and Cepheus Engine still uses it even though it doesn't use any WotC IP except the OGL in it's products.
What it would seem is that the OGL 1.0a is no longer a valid license from Wizard's perspective. So that license is cancelled and no longer valid for any use(from Wizard's perspective). They can either go with the OGL 1.1 which is the current valid license(which they can cancel at any time for any reason and steal your product if they wanna), they can go with no license which means standard copyright law applies(pretty open for RPG games, but maybe murky for what fans can and can't exactly copy) or they can create a new public use, fan friendly license and go with that for their copyrighted material.
All IMO, IANAL, etc etc.
In the alternative, members of the OGL community who are using any of WotC's SRD material (those who merely put out their own systems under the license can just drop the license... which I recommend they do ASAP) need to put their heads together on an alternate "different but close enough" SRD of raw mechanics to pull from and to which a new body of shared lore (the main appeal of the SRD was not having to reinvent the wheel on monsters... how many settings have chromatic dragons simply because the SRD let them have chromatic dragons instead of having to invent their own variety?) and "Free Systems License."
Totally self-serving I'll admit, but I've got my own non-OGL d20-based system with its own monster lore nearly ready to go (it's lacking only art and some editing passes that I put on hold after a personal loss earlier this year, but this is restoring my fighting spirit) that I was planning on have my own version of an open license for (main difference from the OGL1.0a being no section seven... I WANT people to be able to indicate compatibility because that grows name recognition for my system and, as of this clusterf***, adding "irrevocable" alongside perpetual and royalty-free to the license terms) so people could make 3rd party content. If anyone wants to get involved with doing that as an alternative, my PM box is open.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 05, 2023, 12:18:58 PM
So, how would the revoking of the WotC OGL 1.0 affect Mongoose Traveller and Cepheus Engine?
Both used the OGL to get started and Cepheus Engine still uses it even though it doesn't use any WotC IP except the OGL in it's products.
As written, if they include the OGL in their product, WotC gets perpetual free use of their IP and can shut the current distributors down for any reason. They aren't claiming IP infringement... they are claiming the license itself is no longer a valid one, anyone using it must update the license to 1.1 and that 1.1 gives them the ability to shut down your use while enabling them to use it.
Basically, Mongoose and Cepheus need to dump the OGL from every product they produce ASAP and get a new open license agreement for them.
Quote from: Mithgarthr on January 05, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Pretty good argument for them not being able to undo the old OGL:
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/section-9-of-open-game-license.html
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 05, 2023, 12:18:58 PM
So, how would the revoking of the WotC OGL 1.0 affect Mongoose Traveller and Cepheus Engine?
Both used the OGL to get started and Cepheus Engine still uses it even though it doesn't use any WotC IP except the OGL in it's products.
I'm not a lawyer, but I see that in its OGL the Cepheus Engine SRD cites both the original SRD from Wizards of the Coast and the Traveller SRD from Mongoose Publishing.
cf. https://www.orffenspace.com/cepheus-srd/legal.html
Which is odd because the Traveller SRD doesn't cite anything from WotC except the OGL itself.
https://www.traveller-srd.com/open-game-license/
If
(a) Wizards of the Coast officially says that the OGL version 1.0a is now unauthorized,
and
(b) this de-authorization is legal despite the intent argument Mithgarthr cited,
then any publications relying on the Traveller SRD would need a separate agreement from Mongoose Publishing to use that material. Without such a new agreement, they would be vulnerable to being sued by Mongoose Publishing - but such a lawsuit might be tough to win, and its not clear that Mongoose is inclined to try such a move.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.
One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.
One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.
Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.
One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.
Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.
One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.
Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.
I might be wrong but I think Jhkim is talking directly about the license, the OGL and not the game mechanics.
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.
One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.
Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
In part, because...
1) I need something that distinguishes content types. For example, you can't just release your whole RPG book as open content if you don't actually own all the content. I'm thinking specifically of artwork, which is often licensed from third parties and therefore unable to legally be offered as part of an Open License.
2) I also desire to retain a small amount of Product Identity for my own projects (specifically the proper names of specific NPCs and places in my setting). For the record, I don't care if you want to use the raw statblock for "Kalla Blackthorne" for some NPC named "Karina Desdemona" (or whatever) in your own derived product. I DO care if you put a character named Kalla Blackthorne in your work as a temple prostitute or release a module where every member of the Free Cities' of Old Praetoria Warden Council is a raging tranny pedophile.
In my admittedly not exhaustive searches through options I've yet to see a Creative Commons license that really addresses these issues.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on January 05, 2023, 01:36:41 PM
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players
The entire point of this thread is that WotC is making moves to make such an effort impossible. If no one opposes their claims you'd not be able to duplicate any of 5e's classes or spells or many of their monsters in order to make such a clone possible.
AFAIK I'm searching for an existing license that might work as a substitute for the OGL, not a lawyer but so far the GNU FDL seems like the best option.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html)
Ryan Dancey weighs in:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-cannot-deathorize-ogl.694196/
Quote from: Enworld
Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deathorize OGL
Thread starter Morrus
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.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on January 05, 2023, 01:36:41 PM
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players
We need to remember that the only reason Pathfinder was a thing was because WotC totally screwed the pooch on releasing the 4e GSL in a timely manner.
If WotC was even halfway on the ball: Pazio would have
absolutely been a 3rd party developer for 4e D&D.
The incentives for most 3pp to toe the line, and stay within the 'official' 5.5e ecosystem are huge.
The overwhelming majority will toe that line.
WotC fucked up a lot more things with 4e than just going to the GSL to create the conditions for it to be outsold by a clone.
People are extremely loyal to the D&D IP in RPG land. Nothing WotC is currently doing even remotely effects the majority of them.
This OGL kerfuffle is just not on that level.
Personally, I think that this is all wonderful, and I have a big bag of popcorn by my side ready for what WotC is going to do next...
Quote from: Jaeger on January 05, 2023, 02:23:25 PM
We need to remember that the only reason Pathfinder was a thing was because WotC totally screwed the pooch on releasing the 4e GSL in a timely manner.
If WotC was even halfway on the ball: Pazio would have absolutely been a 3rd party developer for 4e D&D.
The incentives for most 3pp to toe the line, and stay within the 'official' 5.5e ecosystem are huge.
The overwhelming majority will toe that line.
WotC fucked up a lot more things with 4e than just going to the GSL to create the conditions for it to be outsold by a clone.
And Pathfinder had a
lot of resources and advantages available to them--the subscriber lists, the track record on Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and the ability to pretty much republish the whole game minus a few Product Identity bits--that I'm not sure anyone does today. The Critical Role folks are probably the only ones I can think of who have the leverage to mount a successful challenge, and even that's a wild guess on my part--I'm far too detached from the 5E ecosystem to know the details.
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.
So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.
Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.
One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.
Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
In part, because...
1) I need something that distinguishes content types. For example, you can't just release your whole RPG book as open content if you don't actually own all the content. I'm thinking specifically of artwork, which is often licensed from third parties and therefore unable to legally be offered as part of an Open License.
2) I also desire to retain a small amount of Product Identity for my own projects (specifically the proper names of specific NPCs and places in my setting). For the record, I don't care if you want to use the raw statblock for "Kalla Blackthorne" for some NPC named "Karina Desdemona" (or whatever) in your own derived product. I DO care if you put a character named Kalla Blackthorne in your work as a temple prostitute or release a module where every member of the Free Cities' of Old Praetoria Warden Council is a raging tranny pedophile.
In my admittedly not exhaustive searches through options I've yet to see a Creative Commons license that really addresses these issues.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on January 05, 2023, 01:36:41 PM
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players
The entire point of this thread is that WotC is making moves to make such an effort impossible. If no one opposes their claims you'd not be able to duplicate any of 5e's classes or spells or many of their monsters in order to make such a clone possible.
Rename, and Reword "Everything" in the original "5E Basic Rules". Change "Every Word", slightly. Release it under Creative Commons. Allow others to state their compatibility to your new creation. Then, continue to expand those Basic Rules, with periodic updates. Perhaps you could call your new alternative ruleset, FWOTC the RPG?
Quote from: Monero on January 05, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.
So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?
ACKS and Castles & Crusades are D&D derivatives whose creators have already committed to keep on going and fight this. Macris is already planning a new printing of ACKS and has said that he will, if necessary, de-OGLify it. (https://twitter.com/archon/status/1611068424670806016)
Quote from: Monero on January 05, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.
So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?
Sine nominee. It's compatible with all old stuff bjt was never under ogl. It covers sci-fi, fantasy and I think cyberpunk in the future.
And now it's coming out that for Kickstarters if you launch an OGL 1.1 product, you'll owe 20% of that to Wizards if you go over 750k.
https://twitter.com/jonritter/status/1611077486254645252?t=CHpmF8ZYznF4T0W_xs7l-A&s=19
The head of Kickstarter pretty much acknowledges that this kills any profit for these projects.
Quote from: Monero on January 05, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.
So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?
Quixalted Extended. You play high fantasy heroes in a mythic world.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 05, 2023, 02:49:17 PM
And Pathfinder had a lot of resources and advantages available to them--the subscriber lists, the track record on Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and the ability to pretty much republish the whole game minus a few Product Identity bits--that I'm not sure anyone does today. The Critical Role folks are probably the only ones I can think of who have the leverage to mount a successful challenge, and even that's a wild guess on my part--I'm far too detached from the 5E ecosystem to know the details.
Yup...
Personally, I think that a 5e clone would have to come out of one of the bigger OSR publishers. But you are looking at a much longer process to do what Baizuo did in just a few years.
And it would be a big risk...
A lot of this is assuming WotC will get really aggressive about shutting down everything not 1.1 OGL compliant.
Once they lock down the big 3pp players, they may not care about anyone not in the 1.1 DnDone ecosystem.
In my opinion; a lot of what WotC will do going forward will revolve around the success of the OneVTT, as that will be their primary vehicle for monetizing the 5.5e player base.
I believe that the effects of the OneVTT ecosystem on the hobby will have a far greater effect on whether or not the conditions are created for a 5e clone to gain significant traction in the hobby.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 05:19:35 AM
So, yeah.
Hasbro plans to go to court to revoke the OGL1.0a (it is no longer "authorized" and while the old license was perpetual it was not "irrevocable") and demand everyone operating under it (even it it's not derived from their material) must update to OGL1.1 which, in turn, grants THEM a perpetual irrevocable royalty free license to use anything you created as they wish.
I'll also note that, as worded, it doesn't matter if your work was derived from WotC's SRDs or not, just the use of the OGL1.0 or 1.0a is enough for them to capture your content in their 1.1 regulatory net if their play to de-"authorize" the prior versions stands.
I'll say it now. Crowdfunded Class Action suit against WotC to clarify provision 9 is going to be needed, perhaps even preemptively, because they are planning on coming for anything and everything ever made under any version of the OGL to claim it as perpetually irrevocably and royalty-free theirs.
You will own nothing and be happy (or else).
You know, I can remember everyone, including me, laughing when Kevin Siembieda quashed D20 conversions and refused to do OGL for
Rifts because his IP lawyer advised him it could taint his product and allow WotC (or others) to claim the rights to his stuff.
If WotC wins on this, and they might on the "I can afford more lawyers than you" clause, he'll be proven right.
Quote from: S'mon on January 05, 2023, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
Cavet; I am not a lawyer, but I did go look up terms and apparently legally "perpetual" without "irrevocable" just means "until the licensor terminates the license" vs. "this license is good for a set term."
It can be taken to mean either 'never ending' or 'indefinite' depending on the context - one brief discussion at https://www.keystonelaw.com/keynotes/termination-of-intellectual-property-licences-are-you-at-risk
I think in this context a judge would most likely rule the obvious apparent intent was not to make the licence revocable at WoTC's option.
Maybe. Their own FAQ seems to indicate otherwise. It indicates an intent to match GPL.
Again, the real victory will be who can spend the most on lawyers (which includes judge shopping), not the law.
Quote from: S'mon on January 05, 2023, 09:41:25 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 08:49:16 AM
And?
Do you think Hasbro cares an iota about the state of the non-WotC RPG industry? They would be perfectly happy if it all went bankrupt tomorrow. They are not your friends, they are corporate parasites whose duty is to maximize their short term profits at all costs.
Yes, but the reality is they do benefit a lot from the rich third-party ecosystem. Maybe they don't realise that, despite what happened with 4e. The new people seem to have no corporate memory.
Or they thing there is critical mass for D&D as a lifestyle brand without an actual game being a good seller.
I think they are wrong and they are looking at the crest of a wave thinking they are on a flat surface, but they might be right.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 05, 2023, 11:30:49 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 05, 2023, 09:24:22 AM
If WotC tries it, welcome to crowd funding. It will take some time, but WotC will lose that fight and they know it. A lot of people are going to fight Wotc over this if they try to take their IP. And then comes the very bad will it will generate towards Wotc from the people in the industry. I believe even the deballed types like Colville or Mercer might stop supporting D&D and look at a different game system altogether.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Fundation) might be of help since Hasbro taking the OGLto court to nulify it would set a precedent for Open Source Software.
So the front to fight this might be way bigger than WotC thinks.
https://www.eff.org/es (https://www.eff.org/es)
If they came on board they also have experience fighting this and winning their own precedents.
Given the discussion of how the OGL was inspired by and supposed to be a game version of the GPL they could be strong allies, especially on WotC claiming they always intended to be able to remove material already under OGL 1.0
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 11:35:38 AM
ETA: the biggest poison pill in this is their attempt to claim free use of any IP distributed under the OGL. "You must update your license or be in noncompliance" and as soon as you have "we can now release our own version of your product with a WotC logo on it and not pay you a cent... oh, and you have 30 days to cease publication of your own version."
You own it, but you can't use it, while they can use it free forever. Which basically means they own it.
If they try to enforce that it would probably be their biggest issue in court. Back handed attempts to obtain other people's rights have a mixed history at best.
Quote from: FingerRod on January 05, 2023, 12:19:17 PM
The best thing existing content creators can do is kick the original OGL out of new printings of their work. Stop using it.
This is the only logical step. The 1.0 OGL will soon be a liability.
But I disagree with most of the people here who think that WotC is going to try to legally void the OGL 1.0. Their plan seems to be much simpler: To make a product for 6e, you need to use OGL 1.1 and if a company uses 1.1 they cannot release any product under OGL 1.0.
This forces companies to make the choice, either support the current version of D&D and abandon earlier versions or stick to making products only for early versions and try to survive. I'm 100% sure all the big companies will stop using OGL 1.0 on these conditions.
Then the next step is to not sell PDFs for 6e on any platform that sells products under OGL 1.0. Forcing sites like DriveThruRPG to make a similar choice.
Both of these things can be accomplished with absolutely zero need for lawyers.
The RPG market is just too fragmented to create a competing product simply because 6e is almost identical mechanically to 5e so their is no need for players to stick to older versions like there was when 4e came out.
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
Is CC BY-SA as flexible as the OGL? Can you keep some things private (usually people do that for names and such) by only licensing some text CC or do you need to license the whole document as such and then either let everything go or us CC BY-NC?
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
In part, because...
1) I need something that distinguishes content types. For example, you can't just release your whole RPG book as open content if you don't actually own all the content. I'm thinking specifically of artwork, which is often licensed from third parties and therefore unable to legally be offered as part of an Open License.
2) I also desire to retain a small amount of Product Identity for my own projects (specifically the proper names of specific NPCs and places in my setting). For the record, I don't care if you want to use the raw statblock for "Kalla Blackthorne" for some NPC named "Karina Desdemona" (or whatever) in your own derived product. I DO care if you put a character named Kalla Blackthorne in your work as a temple prostitute or release a module where every member of the Free Cities' of Old Praetoria Warden Council is a raging tranny pedophile.
In my admittedly not exhaustive searches through options I've yet to see a Creative Commons license that really addresses these issues.
OK, fair points. I think it's possible to release a work that is only partially under Creative Commons - such as not including licensed illustrations. You would just declare the parts that the license applies to. However, it isn't the standard way that people use CC, and the CC licenses don't explain how to do so. The same is true of the GNU Free Documentation License.
I wonder about the point of it all, though. In practice, most OGL work has not been "share alike". It's only been a one-way flow down from the original sources. It's rare for anyone downstream to use shared material. For example, when I published an SRD of open content from the True20 system in 2008, Green Ronin had problems with that. I discussed that here:
https://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/67263.html
I feel what most people want is for mechanics to be open and shared, but other content to not be open or shared. But I don't know the best way to get that.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 05, 2023, 04:23:01 PM
This forces companies to make the choice, either support the current version of D&D and abandon earlier versions or stick to making products only for early versions and try to survive. I'm 100% sure all the big companies will stop using OGL 1.0 on these conditions.
That I can see being successful.
Quote
Then the next step is to not sell PDFs for 6e on any platform that sells products under OGL 1.0. Forcing sites like DriveThruRPG to make a similar choice.
That I am much less sure they can pull off. Sure, DM's Guild makes the parent company a lot of money, but comes with restrictions. Plenty of other companies use the OGL and have licensing programs that make DTRPG a lot of money as well with fewer or no strings. The parent company may crunch the numbers and decide lost sales plus added costs of excluding OGL 1.0 is greater than money made via DM's Guild.
I have no insight, but that isn't an out of the question possibility.
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 04:34:26 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
In part, because...
1) I need something that distinguishes content types. For example, you can't just release your whole RPG book as open content if you don't actually own all the content. I'm thinking specifically of artwork, which is often licensed from third parties and therefore unable to legally be offered as part of an Open License.
2) I also desire to retain a small amount of Product Identity for my own projects (specifically the proper names of specific NPCs and places in my setting). For the record, I don't care if you want to use the raw statblock for "Kalla Blackthorne" for some NPC named "Karina Desdemona" (or whatever) in your own derived product. I DO care if you put a character named Kalla Blackthorne in your work as a temple prostitute or release a module where every member of the Free Cities' of Old Praetoria Warden Council is a raging tranny pedophile.
In my admittedly not exhaustive searches through options I've yet to see a Creative Commons license that really addresses these issues.
OK, fair points. I think it's possible to release a work that is only partially under Creative Commons - such as not including licensed illustrations. You would just declare the parts that the license applies to. However, it isn't the standard way that people use CC, and the CC licenses don't explain how to do so. The same is true of the GNU Free Documentation License.
I wonder about the point of it all, though. In practice, most OGL work has not been "share alike". It's only been a one-way flow down from the original sources. It's rare for anyone downstream to use shared material. For example, when I published an SRD of open content from the True20 system in 2008, Green Ronin had problems with that. I discussed that here:
https://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/67263.html
I feel what most people want is for mechanics to be open and shared, but other content to not be open or shared. But I don't know the best way to get that.
How about a wrapper license. The Gaming Commons License (layman's quick version) would be:
1. The following is product identity: $FOO. It is not licensed for any usage by other publishers.
2. Anything not product identity is licensed under CC BY-SA (or even CC BY).
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 05, 2023, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on January 05, 2023, 12:19:17 PM
The best thing existing content creators can do is kick the original OGL out of new printings of their work. Stop using it.
This is the only logical step. The 1.0 OGL will soon be a liability.
But I disagree with most of the people here who think that WotC is going to try to legally void the OGL 1.0. Their plan seems to be much simpler: To make a product for 6e, you need to use OGL 1.1 and if a company uses 1.1 they cannot release any product under OGL 1.0.
This forces companies to make the choice, either support the current version of D&D and abandon earlier versions or stick to making products only for early versions and try to survive. I'm 100% sure all the big companies will stop using OGL 1.0 on these conditions.
Then the next step is to not sell PDFs for 6e on any platform that sells products under OGL 1.0. Forcing sites like DriveThruRPG to make a similar choice.
Both of these things can be accomplished with absolutely zero need for lawyers.
The RPG market is just too fragmented to create a competing product simply because 6e is almost identical mechanically to 5e so their is no need for players to stick to older versions like there was when 4e came out.
The reason I think they'll try to void the past OGL is because they tried not doing that with 4E and look how that turned out. They aren't going to make that mistake again which is why they're pushing the 1.1 out well ahead of 6e... they want the board cleared BEFORE they launch.
Also of note; the tweet from the Kickstarter games rep said they talked the royalty fees DOWN to 20% of the gross for OGL project Kickstarters. That means the amount WotC plans to collect from their general license will be higher still.
And they can update the new OGL whenever they want to lower the royalty threshold and, to put the rotten cherry on top of the turd sundae, further reading into the 9000 word license (by comparison OGL1.0a is 900), under OGL1.1 you also waive your right to sue WotC for any reason.
How about:
"Except X,Y,Z and the art all text in this book is under the public domain"
I don't see how that wouldn't apply for CCBySA
As for the FDL it was written by talibans so it might have a provision where you can't do so, haven't read it in full and I'm not a lawyer.
Quote from: PulpHerb on January 05, 2023, 04:23:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM
That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.
https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/
Is CC BY-SA as flexible as the OGL? Can you keep some things private (usually people do that for names and such) by only licensing some text CC or do you need to license the whole document as such and then either let everything go or us CC BY-NC?
What I (not a lawyer) would personally do in that situation to avoid issues is license a clearly-defined part of the work (the text and tables in subsection 1.2.3, for example) as CC-BY and the rest under standard all rights reserved copyright.
You can mix your own CC-BY-SA content with proprietary content because you can give yourself special permission but no one downstream will be able to add their own proprietary content, which might defeat the purpose of the license to attract third-party commercial supplements. Similar situation with NC.
CC-BY-SA is a copyleft license like the GNU GPL. If that's your goal, awesome, but then you probably wouldn't want to mix in proprietary content in the first place.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 12:03:09 PM
Quote from: Mithgarthr on January 05, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Pretty good argument for them not being able to undo the old OGL:
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/section-9-of-open-game-license.html
Good argument. Who wants to spend the $$$ to get it in front of an actual judge is the real question.
It's called crowd funding. All it will take is for WotC to try to sue one publisher and WotC is dead in the court of public opinion and then comes in the millions of dollars from 50 year old+ D&D players/dms who are in their prime earning years really pissed off about how WotC treated them and their game.
What this new "reimagining" of the OGL is a threat and nothing more. The moment WotC initiates litigation they have lost. They have heavily courted leftards and will have to contend with unions going after their workers if they go after a leftist kickstarter and if they go after a small company in the OSR they'll do with previously said 50 year old+ with a lot of money and an axe to grind against WotC. Either way it will be a crowd funded lawsuit and WotC doesn't have the money to win such a campaign. Remember what happened with the H3H3 production and its crowd funded lawsuit for fair use? This will end up the exact same way.
Even worse for WotC would be if companies just dropped the license completely and quit publishing content for 5E and worked together to form a competitor. In the past, TSR realized the benefit of 3rd parties for content creation to sell books. WotC will learn that lesson in the future.
I think you both overestimate how much money the OSR has and underestimate how much lawyers make Lawyers fees could be in the tens of millions.
The other thing is that WOTC is more or less in kahoots with DTRPG. So they have an easy way to enforce the new OGL, even if it doesn't stand up in court. They could have DTRPG simply decline to carry problems that don't use the new OGL. And that's like 95% of the PDF market, with I guess itch.io the rest
Quote from: JeremyR on January 05, 2023, 05:51:48 PM
I think you both overestimate how much money the OSR has and underestimate how much lawyers make Lawyers fees could be in the tens of millions.
The other thing is that WOTC is more or less in kahoots with DTRPG. So they have an easy way to enforce the new OGL, even if it doesn't stand up in court. They could have DTRPG simply decline to carry problems that don't use the new OGL. And that's like 95% of the PDF market, with I guess itch.io the rest
The Electronic Frontier Fundation can be enlisted to help fight this battle since it would impact them too.
You underestimate the power of crowds and social media. A lot of people love D&D and really hate the shit WotC pulled on the older content. It will not be hard to get influencers to help donate to fight WotC if they try get squirrely and break their license. WotC knows they have not a single foot to stand on with how the license is written. WotC goal would be to run them out of money which they won't. Someone with 5 or less years of contract litigation can run this case and win. WotC is trying to change an existing contract and then force your older content to fall under the new content and they get full access to whatever you created to sell? Really?
WotC benefited from 3rd party content under the old license. With a new version of the game, they can create a new license for it, and they should win in a court, but not for the license that covers the existing content.
I've already seen influencers break with WotC over this and stop making content for WotC, this is just the beginning. The only reason D&D is doing well is do social media. And a lot of these social media fucks WotC courted are weak sisters. Matt Mercer was actually coerced through a few tweets to his account to quit playing in a black DM's game because Matt was playing an Asian character. Matt Mercer was coerced to break a contract with Wendy's over catchup because a few tweets threatened his virtue signal image because Wendy's doesn't use unionized catchup (the fuck is that?) and donated to Trump /heaven's I's gots the vapors -faints). Do you think how easy it would be for a bunch of twitter folks to pressure Mercer into supporting a lawsuit against WotC when they paint him as a bully for supporting WotC over creators. Mercer is a giant feckless pussy, he's an easy one to knock over.
With proper pressure they could probably force Mercer to play D&D B/X ed as protest for example.
Quote from: Brad on January 02, 2023, 04:15:49 PMI'm honestly surprised WotC has gotten this far along without having to tighten the screws on obvious money-bleeding policies (even if it's literally pennies in the grand scheme of things). The SRD/OGL can be challenged in court by Hasbro and then all the independent publishers go under because one can afford to actually to defend the litigation. That's life, son.
They were under the screws during the mid to end of 4e and the start of 5e.
Now though Hasbro has been infested and marketing is pushing agendas left and right so bleeding money "for the cause" is getting a pass. So far.
But wotc may be feeling some screws again. They just recently announced cancelling some un-named video game projects and odds are that is just a hint.
Found this posted under a youtube video on the subject:
Quote from: Foxhole CreationsLook no further than Games Workshop for a model Hasbro could easily follow when it comes to Copyright Trolling. GW has a legal team whose whole job it is to look at websites and issue sweeping DMCA takedowns to de-platform designers. There is no court involved because it is the host website that does not want to have to fight for a single creator and so just complies. It is the up to the single creator to fight each DMCA, eating into their own time to try and get their creations back online. GW never goes after other big companies, they tried once and lost that case on 75% of their claims. They do target many smaller creators to create a chilling effect in the marketplace that never once sees a legal contest. Hasbro KNOWS this works. They have seen the model in place and thriving and are just adding it to their toolbox when it comes to making their closed environment the only way to enjoy the hobby.
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:
And there are more than a few OSR games out there that have taken stuff whole cloth from older editions. Material very not covered by the OGL or the SRD. What happens next depends on just how stupid or confident wotc is they can bully anyone. And they are pretty confident. And stupid.
Fifth Age Fantasy SRD, we have enough people here to make it happen, then publish it under public domain because fuck WotC.
If a small group of woke folk on twitter can get companies to make bad decisions imagine what will happen when the entire OSR (players included) get pissed at Hasbro for destroying their niche games. How hard would it be to position this as Hasbro the bully? I bet cable news would even cover the dust-up. Hasbro wouldn't want any part of that when they have a lifestyle brand to launch. They'll ignore the the original OGL and bet it all that enough will following into 3.1 virtual land.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 05, 2023, 06:37:49 PM
If a small group of woke folk on twitter can get companies to make bad decisions imagine what will happen when the entire OSR (players included) get pissed at Hasbro for destroying their niche games. How hard would it be to position this as Hasbro the bully? I bet cable news would even cover the dust-up. Hasbro wouldn't want any part of that when they have a lifestyle brand to launch. They'll ignore the the original OGL and bet it all that enough will following into 3.1 virtual land.
Like they covered Gamer Gate, painting the megacorp as the poor victim and the consumers as they evil istaphobes.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 05, 2023, 06:37:49 PM
If a small group of woke folk on twitter can get companies to make bad decisions imagine what will happen when the entire OSR (players included) get pissed at Hasbro for destroying their niche games. How hard would it be to position this as Hasbro the bully? I bet cable news would even cover the dust-up. Hasbro wouldn't want any part of that when they have a lifestyle brand to launch. They'll ignore the the original OGL and bet it all that enough will following into 3.1 virtual land.
All people have to do is consistently portray Hasbro as being anti-labor, anti-artist, anti-writer and anti-worker. Just keep launching it on them. Go to Reddit and pose as a leftist and start stirring up the idiots there against Hasbro. Just start riling up the public and give them a good cash rich target taking anti-consumer action and just watch them burn it down. The left is a circular firing squad and its easy to use them.
on a weird side note - I'm wondering how Paizo's special dispensation status with WotC's licensed IP parts will affect Savage Pathfinder (if at all).
Quote from: tenbones on January 05, 2023, 06:43:33 PM
on a weird side note - I'm wondering how Paizo's special dispensation status with WotC's licensed IP parts will affect Savage Pathfinder (if at all).
Sadly Savage Pathfinder Falls under OGL in parts.
Quote from: tenbones on January 05, 2023, 06:43:33 PM
on a weird side note - I'm wondering how Paizo's special dispensation status with WotC's licensed IP parts will affect Savage Pathfinder (if at all).
My personal take? I'm glad SWADE has Fantasy Companion as a fallback, because until it's settled I wouldn't want anything OGL touching my IP.
It seems that Hasbro corporate is currently in the process of unwittingly saving the RPG hobby from itself...
The walled garden will be so beautiful:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvxNIWXgAAXuMp?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://i.imgflip.com/1cjt7q.jpg)
Quote from: Jaeger on January 05, 2023, 07:36:07 PM
It seems that Hasbro corporate is currently in the process of unwittingly saving the RPG hobby from itself...
So beautiful:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvxNIWXgAAXuMp?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://i.imgflip.com/1cjt7q.jpg)
That would be nice, I guess. Ideally they suffer for their idiocy. But also I'm afraid a lot of people will follow them off the cliff and that it could still damage usage of and content creation with the 3.5 SRD and the like.
IDK, WoTC has become a place where their products push questionable messaging that I personally find disturbing. But also that kind of BS seems to have a market.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 05, 2023, 07:36:07 PM
It seems that Hasbro corporate is currently in the process of unwittingly saving the RPG hobby from itself...
The walled garden will be so beautiful:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvxNIWXgAAXuMp?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://i.imgflip.com/1cjt7q.jpg)
I can't find the post in the Tavern, links?
Edited to add:Never mind, found a video where he talks about it
Quote from: PulpHerb on January 05, 2023, 03:57:57 PM
You know, I can remember everyone, including me, laughing when Kevin Siembieda quashed D20 conversions and refused to do OGL for Rifts because his IP lawyer advised him it could taint his product and allow WotC (or others) to claim the rights to his stuff.
If WotC wins on this, and they might on the "I can afford more lawyers than you" clause, he'll be proven right.
Actually even if WotC loses on this (and they should), he'll
STILL be proven right. It's a huge loss to have to even
worry about this stuff- suddenly Hasbro makes a huge change and...
1- Makes it so you can't update your product line to 6e (they definitely can do this)
2- Makes it so you can't use their old license for new things in your product line (this is definitely open to challenge and probably isn't real)
3- Makes it so you can't even continue to release your existing product line (hey, why stop with the above when you can go
all the way, and then walk in with a special 10% royalty contract to make the pain all go away?)
Or, if you avoided the OGL, this affects you not at all. Huge win, even if eventually one of the many companies they apparently plan to sue eventually wins.
---
Ok, new thing I don't see much discussion of yet- the gizmodo article has this quote:
QuoteIt addresses new technologies like blockchain and NFTs, and takes a strong stance against bigoted content, explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is "blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory."
This is hidden under a bunch of woke SJW spew, but the important piece is that this is
at will termination on a person by person basis. If Wizards decides that you are "blatantly bigoted", how do you go to court and
prove you are not? Is there a legal standard for "sexist material"? In which jurisdiction? Can you prove in, say, California court, that your use of "race" instead of "species" for elves is not "blatantly racist"? Hasbro will hire a specialist from Harvard to prove their point, right? It seems like almost anyone could be thrown against the wall with this, if you have some IP that they want to shake you down for.
Rules Lawyer had a video showing the wording and apparently if you opt-in anything you create is usable by WotC for perpetuity even if they cancel the license. I assume this means new spells, monsters, classes, etc and not entire products but it could mean literally everything.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2023, 10:19:00 AM
Rules Lawyer had a video showing the wording and apparently if you opt-in anything you create is usable by WotC for perpetuity even if they cancel the license. I assume this means new spells, monsters, classes, etc and not entire products but it could mean literally everything.
This kind of thing is basically designed to
discourage anyone from using the licence, like the nuChaosium NOGL. What they want is for producers to sign actual contracts with them instead, and lock themselves into the coming WotC VTT walled garden.
It's certainly an interesting strategy. If you want to sell for the "current" D&D, which has traditionally been the most profitable, then they presumably can use the 1.1 to lock you out of creating 1.0a OGL content(OSR, 5E clones, etc). Seems like they're trying to create a GSL that prevents a new Paizo/Pathfinder situation.
For any RPG publishers barely making it while selling 5E content today, it'll be a tough call. I think a lot of them will just move on with One D&D and hope Hasbro doesn't alter the terms of the deal further.
(https://i.imgur.com/VQ1B8wT.png)
So, is this meant to essentially destroy all the competition? It's such an odd situation to try and destroy 20+ years of publishers. I get why they are trying to do it. They just went full totalitarian. What are they going to do? Force Paizo to stop making Pathfinder? Send Pundit a C&D?
Essentially "join us or die". And on that end, it seemed like if One D&D were to fail, it would keep publishers from picking up the pieces. If they are trying to destroy the old OGL, then this would ensure no one can create a 5E retro clone type thing while One D&D sinks beneath the waves. They really want to make sure they are the only D&D style game out there.
Quote from: World_Warrior on January 06, 2023, 12:32:51 PM
So, is this meant to essentially destroy all the competition? It's such an odd situation to try and destroy 20+ years of publishers. I get why they are trying to do it. They just went full totalitarian. What are they going to do? Force Paizo to stop making Pathfinder? Send Pundit a C&D?
Essentially "join us or die". And on that end, it seemed like if One D&D were to fail, it would keep publishers from picking up the pieces. If they are trying to destroy the old OGL, then this would ensure no one can create a 5E retro clone type thing while One D&D sinks beneath the waves. They really want to make sure they are the only D&D style game out there.
Yes. All of that. In one fell swoop, they are attacking all of their new school and old school competition.
A lot of crying wolf going on here. The fact is that Hasbro/WotC cannot revoke the 1.0a version of the OGL. Any judge worth the robe would recognize the permanency of the licence. And even if some activist judge did allow the rescindment to go through, any 1.0a licence holder can file an appeal and throw it to a higher court, where (hopefully) a better educated judge will overturn the decision.
What Hasbro CAN do is write a new version (i.e. 1.1), in which case there would be two "authorized" versions of the license. WotC can limit their new content to only v1.1, requiring anyone who wants to use it to comply with v1.1, but anything released under 1.0a would be "locked in" to that version of the license. A similar thing exists in building code know as the "Grandfather Clause." Basically, if your house has out-of-code framing or wiring, etc., the municipality cannot force you to change it (barring safety issues) as long as it WAS up to code when it was installed.
Another thing, at least in the United States, is a private person or entity cannot be forced into contract by another private person or entity. Hasbro cannot "force" someone to update 1.0a to 1.1 if they licensee doesn't want to. As mentioned above, 1.0a will exist in perpetuity, but assuming courthouse shennanigans are afoot and the status of 1.0a is placed in limbo, the only thing that would happen to a licensee is being non-compliant with 1.1. They cannot be forced to abide by the terms.
So all questions about what would happen to Paizoo or Mongoose or even Savage Pathfinder is easily answered with one word: Nothing. Unless, of course, they choose to update to v1.1, in which case WotC will probably steal their content and 20% of their profits.
Quote from: Effete on January 06, 2023, 04:30:29 PM
A lot of crying wolf going on here. The fact is that Hasbro/WotC cannot revoke the 1.0a version of the OGL. Any judge worth the robe would recognize the permanency of the licence. And even if some activist judge did allow the rescindment to go through, any 1.0a licence holder can file an appeal and throw it to a higher court, where (hopefully) a better educated judge will overturn the decision.
What Hasbro CAN do is write a new version (i.e. 1.1), in which case there would be two "authorized" versions of the license. WotC can limit their new content to only v1.1, requiring anyone who wants to use it to comply with v1.1, but anything released under 1.0a would be "locked in" to that version of the license. A similar thing exists in building code know as the "Grandfather Clause." Basically, if your house has out-of-code framing or wiring, etc., the municipality cannot force you to change it (barring safety issues) as long as it WAS up to code when it was installed.
Another thing, at least in the United States, is a private person or entity cannot be forced into contract by another private person or entity. Hasbro cannot "force" someone to update 1.0a to 1.1 if they licensee doesn't want to. As mentioned above, 1.0a will exist in perpetuity, but assuming courthouse shennanigans are afoot and the status of 1.0a is placed in limbo, the only thing that would happen to a licensee is being non-compliant with 1.1. They cannot be forced to abide by the terms.
The other thing Hasbro CAN do is try to revoke OGL 1.0a and drown anyone fighting them with paper. It might not matter what a judge thinks if Hasbro bankrupts you with lawyers before you get to a judgment.
Hell, if you fear Hasbro can do that it changes your likelihood to fight. I think legal at Hasbro is betting on that fear.
The *only* answer to Hasbro is to just stop producing D&D content, negotiate licenses with every single one of the competitors with great public fanfare, and choke them off from any future content.
Their own content is for shit and their whole track record with digital anything has always been a failure.
Engage in guerrilla tactics with these fucks.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 06, 2023, 05:31:04 PM
The *only* answer to Hasbro is to just stop producing D&D content, negotiate licenses with every single one of the competitors with great public fanfare, and choke them off from any future content.
Their own content is for shit and their whole track record with digital anything has always been a failure.
Engage in guerrilla tactics with these fucks.
It's hard to say if that would work. Spelljammer was a shot against the bow and they fired Winninger for it, I'm assuming that was his last chance. They might actually pay attention to quality control. Its just frankly too hard to tell with Hasbro how much they care about profits vs their ESG score. If they go for ESG score over profit they'll be dead in a decade. They can't do both.
Identify the current RPG that is the most immune to the OGLs and SRDs, and then encourage all of the creators to claim compatibility with that RPG. The creators need to form a united front, and oppose WOTC together.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 06, 2023, 05:37:37 PM
Identify the current RPG that is the most immune to the OGLs and SRDs, and then encourage all of the creators to claim compatibility with that RPG. The creators need to form a united front, and oppose WOTC together.
3DT+ is either public domain or CC By, it's in portuguese and would need translation/adaptation to the new dice mechanics (it uses 3d6).
Quote from: PulpHerb on January 06, 2023, 04:48:28 PM
The other thing Hasbro CAN do is try to revoke OGL 1.0a and drown anyone fighting them with paper. It might not matter what a judge thinks if Hasbro bankrupts you with lawyers before you get to a judgment.
Hell, if you fear Hasbro can do that it changes your likelihood to fight. I think legal at Hasbro is betting on that fear.
That's only if things go to litigation. *If* a judge rules that 1.0a can be revoked, an appeal to get it overturned would cost about $4-600 bucks and you wouldn't even need to show up to court. Get a dozen or so complaintants to sign onto the appeal and split the cost. Or crowdfund it.
It seems like Hasbro and their crooked lawyers are banking on the ambiguity of the word "authorized" in clause #9 to support their case. That word does not mean Wizards can revoke the license, though, it just means that Joe Schmoe down the road can't write a version 1.0x and expect it to be legally binding.
Hasbro/WotC have very little chance of erasing 1.0a completely. They can make it virtually obsolete by requiring all future products to use 1.1, but from what I know of that version (I've not read the entire thing yet) only morons would opt-into it.
All that being said, a separate license for the OSR, with game terms divorced from anything WotC can claim as IP, is a great idea. It would require a lot of collaboration and different publishers agreeing on what terms should be used, but anything that gives the finger to Hasbro/WotC is a good thing.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 06, 2023, 05:31:04 PM
The *only* answer to Hasbro is to just stop producing D&D content, negotiate licenses with every single one of the competitors with great public fanfare, and choke them off from any future content.
Their own content is for shit and their whole track record with digital anything has always been a failure.
Engage in guerrilla tactics with these fucks.
I agree with this sentiment 100%. Unfortunately, there are enough clapping seals and Critical Roll wannabes to keep Hasbro/WotC chugging along.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 06, 2023, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 06, 2023, 05:31:04 PM
The *only* answer to Hasbro is to just stop producing D&D content, negotiate licenses with every single one of the competitors with great public fanfare, and choke them off from any future content.
Their own content is for shit and their whole track record with digital anything has always been a failure.
Engage in guerrilla tactics with these fucks.
It's hard to say if that would work. Spelljammer was a shot against the bow and they fired Winninger for it, I'm assuming that was his last chance. They might actually pay attention to quality control. Its just frankly too hard to tell with Hasbro how much they care about profits vs their ESG score. If they go for ESG score over profit they'll be dead in a decade. They can't do both.
I would just say this: the only reason we ever got to 4.0 was because of 3PP content for 3.0/3.5. WotC can not produce the *quantity* of content of sufficient *quality* needed to sustain themselves.
There are 162 products for 5e published by WotC on DMs Guild. T
here are over 32000 products for 5e published by the DMs Guild Community. Let's assume 10% of them are actually driving players and DMs to continue to buy and play.
That is **95%** of the 5e content being 3PP.
No one understands the compound interest effect of all these small 3PP until they stop providing content - but it needs to be en masse and spearheaded by at least one of the larger 3PP.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 06, 2023, 05:58:28 PM
There are 162 products for 5e published by WotC on DMs Guild. T
here are over 32000 products for 5e published by the DMs Guild Community. Let's assume 10% of them are actually driving players and DMs to continue to buy and play.
That is **95%** of the 5e content being 3PP.
No one understands the compound interest effect of all these small 3PP until they stop providing content - but it needs to be en masse and spearheaded by at least one of the larger 3PP.
MATH IS ABLEIST AND RACIST AND SHIT, YOU FUCKING BIGGOT!!!
;) ;D
Quote from: Mithgarthr on January 06, 2023, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 06, 2023, 05:58:28 PM
There are 162 products for 5e published by WotC on DMs Guild. T
here are over 32000 products for 5e published by the DMs Guild Community. Let's assume 10% of them are actually driving players and DMs to continue to buy and play.
That is **95%** of the 5e content being 3PP.
No one understands the compound interest effect of all these small 3PP until they stop providing content - but it needs to be en masse and spearheaded by at least one of the larger 3PP.
MATH IS ABLEIST AND RACIST AND SHIT, YOU FUCKING BIGGOT!!!
;) ;D
Inorite. Isn't it great being able to use numbers to your advantage (or to prevent bridges from collapsing or planes falling out of the sky)...
Quote from: Effete on January 06, 2023, 05:46:45 PM
That's only if things go to litigation. *If* a judge rules that 1.0a can be revoked, an appeal to get it overturned would cost about $4-600 bucks and you wouldn't even need to show up to court.
Oh my sweet summer child, this isn't the idealized world of Andy Griffin. This is Lawfare.
Try a minimum of a HUNDRED (more likely a THOUSAND) times that if you want your initial complaint to even reach a judge by the time Hasbro's salaried lawyers are done burying you in pre-trial motions.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 05, 2023, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 05, 2023, 06:37:49 PM
If a small group of woke folk on twitter can get companies to make bad decisions imagine what will happen when the entire OSR (players included) get pissed at Hasbro for destroying their niche games. How hard would it be to position this as Hasbro the bully? I bet cable news would even cover the dust-up. Hasbro wouldn't want any part of that when they have a lifestyle brand to launch. They'll ignore the the original OGL and bet it all that enough will following into 3.1 virtual land.
All people have to do is consistently portray Hasbro as being anti-labor, anti-artist, anti-writer and anti-worker. Just keep launching it on them. Go to Reddit and pose as a leftist and start stirring up the idiots there against Hasbro. Just start riling up the public and give them a good cash rich target taking anti-consumer action and just watch them burn it down. The left is a circular firing squad and its easy to use them.
This is unbearably naive. You're making the false assumption that SJWs actually in any way believe what they say. When history has shown them to be hypocrites and liars. They are pro corporation every single time it matters. Because at the end of the day they want to be in control. They won't be. That's their fallacy. But they cheer for anything that reduces the rights of the individual
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 06, 2023, 05:46:45 PM
That's only if things go to litigation. *If* a judge rules that 1.0a can be revoked, an appeal to get it overturned would cost about $4-600 bucks and you wouldn't even need to show up to court.
Oh my sweet summer child, this isn't the idealized world of Andy Griffin. This is Lawfare.
Try a minimum of a HUNDRED (more likely a THOUSAND) times that if you want your initial complaint to even reach a judge by the time Hasbro's salaried lawyers are done burying you in pre-trial motions.
^TRUTH^
Quote from: tenbones on January 06, 2023, 11:48:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/VQ1B8wT.png)
LMAO, ;D
Don't know if I'd be able to run that, since I've been having difficulty getting a group together lately, and I'd rather finish and test my own system. But I just did a test SWADE character earlier today for the 2023 Character Creation Challenge thread at the Pub, and freaking loved how easy and straightforward it was.
I did have a few gripes with it, like not getting any free Edges at creation and relying entirely on Hindrances for starting Edges, or their extensive use Roleplaying Hindrances, which I'm normally opposed to. But those are SUPER mega easy problems to house rule away, and SWADE seems build for that kind of GM discretion in mind, and making it super easy for them to make adjustments to their game.
I'll be giving a closer look at SWADE now.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 05, 2023, 06:37:49 PM
If a small group of woke folk on twitter can get companies to make bad decisions imagine what will happen when the entire OSR (players included) get pissed at Hasbro for destroying their niche games. How hard would it be to position this as Hasbro the bully? I bet cable news would even cover the dust-up. Hasbro wouldn't want any part of that when they have a lifestyle brand to launch. They'll ignore the the original OGL and bet it all that enough will following into 3.1 virtual land.
Except that wotc has never listened to the actual players, only to the woke mob. This will be more of the same and it will likely blow over like every other one and nothings changed other than getting worse.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 06:32:27 PM
Oh my sweet summer child, this isn't the idealized world of Andy Griffin.
*ahem* Andy Griffith.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2023, 10:19:00 AM
Rules Lawyer had a video showing the wording and apparently if you opt-in anything you create is usable by WotC for perpetuity even if they cancel the license. I assume this means new spells, monsters, classes, etc and not entire products but it could mean literally everything.
Thats in the old one too. By using the DMs guild you forfeit the right to your stuff in perpetuity.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked on January 06, 2023, 07:45:56 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 06:32:27 PM
Oh my sweet summer child, this isn't the idealized world of Andy Griffin.
*ahem* Andy Griffith.
Clearly, you've never visited my campaign world.
High-level Paladin
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Effete on January 06, 2023, 05:46:45 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on January 06, 2023, 04:48:28 PM
The other thing Hasbro CAN do is try to revoke OGL 1.0a and drown anyone fighting them with paper. It might not matter what a judge thinks if Hasbro bankrupts you with lawyers before you get to a judgment.
Hell, if you fear Hasbro can do that it changes your likelihood to fight. I think legal at Hasbro is betting on that fear.
That's only if things go to litigation. *If* a judge rules that 1.0a can be revoked, an appeal to get it overturned would cost about $4-600 bucks and you wouldn't even need to show up to court. Get a dozen or so complaintants to sign onto the appeal and split the cost. Or crowdfund it.
It seems like Hasbro and their crooked lawyers are banking on the ambiguity of the word "authorized" in clause #9 to support their case. That word does not mean Wizards can revoke the license, though, it just means that Joe Schmoe down the road can't write a version 1.0x and expect it to be legally binding.
Hasbro/WotC have very little chance of erasing 1.0a completely. They can make it virtually obsolete by requiring all future products to use 1.1, but from what I know of that version (I've not read the entire thing yet) only morons would opt-into it.
All that being said, a separate license for the OSR, with game terms divorced from anything WotC can claim as IP, is a great idea. It would require a lot of collaboration and different publishers agreeing on what terms should be used, but anything that gives the finger to Hasbro/WotC is a good thing.
I wish you were right, but unfortunately I believe you are wrong. :(
By the misfortune of having studied law, I have a wide network of attorneys in my contacts. I already consulted with one of the top IP lawyers in the United States about this issue and the situation is grim. The attorney I spoke to is personally familiar with Hasbro and he said that Hasbro's litigation war chest is absolutely huge and they are out for blood. He said to expect them to litigate to win back their IP rights with a courtroom battle lasting 3-4 years. I asked him if I could fight back with a $100,000 GoFundMe and he literally laughed. He said it would cost $500,000 simply to get through pre-trial motions and $2-3M to see it through to completion. Hasbro will utterly bury any opponent in motions. The expense alone makes it impossible for anyone at all to fight this except the likes of Paizo. He stressed this over and over in the call: It doesn't matter how good my argument is because I will never get to make that argument. I'll be bankrupt before then.
Moreover, Wizards doesn't even need to litigate. It just needs to persuade Kickstarter and DriveThruRPG that the bread is buttered on their side. Then they can simply have my game, Pundit's game, anyone's game they don't like, shut off from the crowdfunding and distribution we need to be viable. They can do the same on YouTube, just as music companies and Nintendo do, on anyone they want to tread on. We already know how platforms behave in the face of corporate bullies. It will happen in our industry, too, if we're not careful.
I asked what my options were, given this dire situation, and he said "try not to let them notice you." Well, they've already noticed me. "Release anything you can before the new license drops." Well, what about my future product? "Never use the OGL and SRD again in the future and hope they don't care enough to sue you anyway."
The attorney I spoke to is a gamer, has impeccable credentials, and is a trusted friend of 20 years; he has no reason to lie to me or dissuade me. So, based on the advice of the best expert I know, I believe the situation is quite dire. I wish it were a case of crying wolf, but there is literally a wolf and it's here to feast.
I wish I had better news but that's the cold splash of water I got in my face yesterday.
Quote from: Omega on January 06, 2023, 07:51:18 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2023, 10:19:00 AM
Rules Lawyer had a video showing the wording and apparently if you opt-in anything you create is usable by WotC for perpetuity even if they cancel the license. I assume this means new spells, monsters, classes, etc and not entire products but it could mean literally everything.
Thats in the old one too. By using the DMs guild you forfeit the right to your stuff in perpetuity.
Nope, that's a sepparate agreement you "sign" in order to be able to publish on the DMs Guild.
Quote from: amacris on January 06, 2023, 08:23:26 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 06, 2023, 05:46:45 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on January 06, 2023, 04:48:28 PM
The other thing Hasbro CAN do is try to revoke OGL 1.0a and drown anyone fighting them with paper. It might not matter what a judge thinks if Hasbro bankrupts you with lawyers before you get to a judgment.
Hell, if you fear Hasbro can do that it changes your likelihood to fight. I think legal at Hasbro is betting on that fear.
That's only if things go to litigation. *If* a judge rules that 1.0a can be revoked, an appeal to get it overturned would cost about $4-600 bucks and you wouldn't even need to show up to court. Get a dozen or so complaintants to sign onto the appeal and split the cost. Or crowdfund it.
It seems like Hasbro and their crooked lawyers are banking on the ambiguity of the word "authorized" in clause #9 to support their case. That word does not mean Wizards can revoke the license, though, it just means that Joe Schmoe down the road can't write a version 1.0x and expect it to be legally binding.
Hasbro/WotC have very little chance of erasing 1.0a completely. They can make it virtually obsolete by requiring all future products to use 1.1, but from what I know of that version (I've not read the entire thing yet) only morons would opt-into it.
All that being said, a separate license for the OSR, with game terms divorced from anything WotC can claim as IP, is a great idea. It would require a lot of collaboration and different publishers agreeing on what terms should be used, but anything that gives the finger to Hasbro/WotC is a good thing.
I wish you were right, but unfortunately I believe you are wrong. :(
By the misfortune of having studied law, I have a wide network of attorneys in my contacts. I already consulted with one of the top IP lawyers in the United States about this issue and the situation is grim. The attorney I spoke to is personally familiar with Hasbro and he said that Hasbro's litigation war chest is absolutely huge and they are out for blood. He said to expect them to litigate to win back their IP rights with a courtroom battle lasting 3-4 years. I asked him if I could fight back with a $100,000 GoFundMe and he literally laughed. He said it would cost $500,000 simply to get through pre-trial motions and $2-3M to see it through to completion. Hasbro will utterly bury any opponent in motions. The expense alone makes it impossible for anyone at all to fight this except the likes of Paizo. He stressed this over and over in the call: It doesn't matter how good my argument is because I will never get to make that argument. I'll be bankrupt before then.
Moreover, Wizards doesn't even need to litigate. It just needs to persuade Kickstarter and DriveThruRPG that the bread is buttered on their side. Then they can simply have my game, Pundit's game, anyone's game they don't like, shut off from the crowdfunding and distribution we need to be viable. They can do the same on YouTube, just as music companies and Nintendo do, on anyone they want to tread on. We already know how platforms behave in the face of corporate bullies. It will happen in our industry, too, if we're not careful.
I asked what my options were, given this dire situation, and he said "try not to let them notice you." Well, they've already noticed me. "Release anything you can before the new license drops." Well, what about my future product? "Never use the OGL and SRD again in the future and hope they don't care enough to sue you anyway."
The attorney I spoke to is a gamer, has impeccable credentials, and is a trusted friend of 20 years; he has no reason to lie to me or dissuade me. So, based on the advice of the best expert I know, I believe the situation is quite dire. I wish it were a case of crying wolf, but there is literally a wolf and it's here to feast.
I wish I had better news but that's the cold splash of water I got in my face yesterday.
Or, you could identify everyone within Hasbro driving this and pay a sicario... It's about the same level of success as trying to litigate. So, the answer still seems to be that you just have to never support 5e or 6e. Starve them of content.
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 06, 2023, 07:51:18 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2023, 10:19:00 AM
Rules Lawyer had a video showing the wording and apparently if you opt-in anything you create is usable by WotC for perpetuity even if they cancel the license. I assume this means new spells, monsters, classes, etc and not entire products but it could mean literally everything.
Thats in the old one too. By using the DMs guild you forfeit the right to your stuff in perpetuity.
Nope, that's a sepparate agreement you "sign" in order to be able to publish on the DMs Guild.
I don't know what the DMs Guild agreement is, but the OGL 1.0a does mean that you permanently give away exclusive rights to any derivative material and anything else you declare open. That's sort of the point. WotC or anyone else can use any of your open material.
In practice, I don't think WotC has ever published any commercial product under the OGL, so it seems like a moot point. Still, in principle, they could.
That's been a problem for some publishers, like Green Ronin Games complaining about publishing an SRD of their True20 material.
Quote from: jhkim on January 06, 2023, 09:30:24 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 06, 2023, 07:51:18 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2023, 10:19:00 AM
Rules Lawyer had a video showing the wording and apparently if you opt-in anything you create is usable by WotC for perpetuity even if they cancel the license. I assume this means new spells, monsters, classes, etc and not entire products but it could mean literally everything.
Thats in the old one too. By using the DMs guild you forfeit the right to your stuff in perpetuity.
Nope, that's a sepparate agreement you "sign" in order to be able to publish on the DMs Guild.
I don't know what the DMs Guild agreement is, but the OGL 1.0a does mean that you permanently give away exclusive rights to any derivative material and anything else you declare open. That's sort of the point. WotC or anyone else can use any of your open material.
In practice, I don't think WotC has ever published any commercial product under the OGL, so it seems like a moot point. Still, in principle, they could.
That's been a problem for some publishers, like Green Ronin Games complaining about publishing an SRD of their True20 material.
Nope, the OGL says your content is now Open, not that WotC or anyone else can cancel your license but retain the use of your content while you can't because you no longer have a license. Important distinction.
When you publish on the Guild you cede your rights to WotC, and many fools have done so because "I'm a published contributor to D&D!". The Guild can kick you out and you can't publish that content elsewhere.
Which is exactly what the NoOGL does. Since it's not really an open license it works different than the OGL.
Under the OGL anyone can use my material, but NO ONE can prevent me from using it too. Under the NoOGL WotC can for any reason unilaterally cancel my license but retain the rights to my material, material to which I would no longer have the rights to since it was published under their NoOGL.
Do you understand now?
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Or some of us get together, make the SRD AND then launch a crowdfunding campaign to publish it.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
That is my view, too, agreed.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Halfling is probably fine because the term has a lot of precedent in other works. Tolkien uses it, and it's hundreds of years old. The D&D conception of "halfling" is about as generic as they come, and there's really no unique features to their portrayal you can't find elsewhere. I'm not even sure why they are in D&D besides the historical baggage of Tolkien emulation, plus a different racial statpackage.
In my opinion almost all "Product Identity" things are like this. Does anyone care if there's a spell named after Mordenkainen specifically? I sure don't, because none of the games I've run have ever been set in any real D&D setting. It's always been homebrew stuff for me and my groups.
I guess in this hypothetical product you basically want to provide all the Tabletop RPG Comfort Food that D&D has accumulated over the years. So even though there's no reason to have these antiquated particulars, you probably want to include it or something basically indistinguishable from it.
Quote from: Zelen on January 06, 2023, 11:00:48 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Halfling is probably fine because the term has a lot of precedent in other works. Tolkien uses it, and it's hundreds of years old. The D&D conception of "halfling" is about as generic as they come, and there's really no unique features to their portrayal you can't find elsewhere. I'm not even sure why they are in D&D besides the historical baggage of Tolkien emulation, plus a different racial statpackage.
In my opinion almost all "Product Identity" things are like this. Does anyone care if there's a spell named after Mordenkainen specifically? I sure don't, because none of the games I've run have ever been set in any real D&D setting. It's always been homebrew stuff for me and my groups.
I guess in this hypothetical product you basically want to provide all the Tabletop RPG Comfort Food that D&D has accumulated over the years. So even though there's no reason to have these antiquated particulars, you probably want to include it or something basically indistinguishable from it.
Nope, Halfling IS D&D, Tolkien uses Hobbits, which is why TSR had to change it from cuz the Tolkien state went after them.
But there's an alternate name: Mitjan, means middle in Catalan. Or use Pundit's monkey people from Arrows of Indra.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 09:53:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Or some of us get together, make the SRD AND then launch a crowdfunding campaign to publish it.
To be fair, I already have a non-OGL system ready to go and just need to finish out the artwork for it to be ready to go (scheduled completion on that is presently March). Its about as distinct from D&D as Palladium Fantasy is which, by my estimate, is probably sufficient as Kevin had the OGL pegged as a potential trap decades ago and refused to let his system get entrenched in it.
Ruins & Realms (my game system) probably has enough mechanically similar that it could be a framework to build off in various directions, but I have zero interest in involving myself in crafting a direct D&D-alike. The entire point of my project was I pretty much despised 5e and wanted a system that would deliver the experience I wanted it to provide instead (it still plays a lot like WotC-era D&D at the table, but the mechanics for getting there are quite different). There will be a "Free Systems License" for it (I want people to make and sell adventures and their own supplements for it), but none of the Creative Commons ones are quite the right fit so I'm going to need a custom one drafted.* In the meantime I'm all about getting feedback on the draft rules for those who inquire and want a heads up on what the content of my FSL-backed SRD will be when the license is good to go.
Frankly, given the news, I'd say the cleaner the break from anything connected to D&D the better. If you're in the OGL camp, I'd suggest looking long and hard at the portions of your products that are truly unique and independent from anything derived from WotC and how you might be able to incorporate those into a framework that's built different enough to not really look like D&D anymore.
I know a lot of the OSR is based on getting quite close mechanically to the TSR editions, but in this case saving the spirit might require dumping parts of the letter of the rules unless you want to pay your double tithe to WotC (the threshold for which I expect to drop to somewhere closer to that 50k reporting requirement as soon as Hasbro figures out the best balance of fees vs. the cost of paperwork and people they'll need to manage it).
* I need to protect art (as anything I licensed from others I have no right to redistribute), trade dress/logos (for obvious reasons) and the proper names of characters and places (in part because several were created by friends who let me use them for the book, but I don't feel belong enough to me to just give away for others to do with as they please... but also because I want a tiny part of the world I created to remain mine... its a planet, I don't think keeping an area about the size of Indiana for my own adventure modules is too much to ask in exchange for letting others use a 260,000 word game document I've spent the better part of a decade and dedicated to my father who passed away recently; which is another story intimately connected to the years long development of Ruins & Realms I'll save for another time).
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 11:44:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 09:53:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Or some of us get together, make the SRD AND then launch a crowdfunding campaign to publish it.
To be fair, I already have a non-OGL system ready to go and just need to finish out the artwork for it to be ready to go (scheduled completion on that is presently March). Its about as distinct from D&D as Palladium Fantasy is which, by my estimate, is probably sufficient as Kevin had the OGL pegged as a potential trap decades ago and refused to let his system get entrenched in it.
Ruins & Realms (my game system) probably has enough mechanically similar that it could be a framework to build off in various directions, but I have zero interest in involving myself in crafting a direct D&D-alike. The entire point of my project was I pretty much despised 5e and wanted a system that would deliver the experience I wanted it to provide instead (it still plays a lot like WotC-era D&D at the table, but the mechanics for getting there are quite different). There will be a "Free Systems License" for it (I want people to make and sell adventures and their own supplements for it), but none of the Creative Commons ones are quite the right fit so I'm going to need a custom one drafted.* In the meantime I'm all about getting feedback on the draft rules for those who inquire and want a heads up on what the content of my FSL-backed SRD will be when the license is good to go.
Frankly, given the news, I'd say the cleaner the break from anything connected to D&D the better. If you're in the OGL camp, I'd suggest looking long and hard at the portions of your products that are truly unique and independent from anything derived from WotC and how you might be able to incorporate those into a framework that's built different enough to not really look like D&D anymore.
I know a lot of the OSR is based on getting quite close mechanically to the TSR editions, but in this case saving the spirit might require dumping parts of the letter of the rules unless you want to pay your double tithe to WotC (the threshold for which I expect to drop to somewhere closer to that 50k reporting requirement as soon as Hasbro figures out the best balance of fees vs. the cost of paperwork and people they'll need to manage it).
* I need to protect art (as anything I licensed from others I have no right to redistribute), trade dress/logos (for obvious reasons) and the proper names of characters and places (in part because several were created by friends who let me use them for the book, but I don't feel belong enough to me to just give away for others to do with as they please... but also because I want a tiny part of the world I created to remain mine... its a planet, I don't think keeping an area about the size of Indiana for my own adventure modules is too much to ask in exchange for letting others use a 260,000 word game document I've spent the better part of a decade and dedicated to my father who passed away recently; which is another story intimately connected to the years long development of Ruins & Realms I'll save for another time).
That's fair, I'm also working on some stuff, but I'll try and work on the other thing too. Mechanics are safe, it's the IP that's the problem.
Quote from: King Tyranno on January 06, 2023, 06:36:58 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 05, 2023, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 05, 2023, 06:37:49 PM
If a small group of woke folk on twitter can get companies to make bad decisions imagine what will happen when the entire OSR (players included) get pissed at Hasbro for destroying their niche games. How hard would it be to position this as Hasbro the bully? I bet cable news would even cover the dust-up. Hasbro wouldn't want any part of that when they have a lifestyle brand to launch. They'll ignore the the original OGL and bet it all that enough will following into 3.1 virtual land.
All people have to do is consistently portray Hasbro as being anti-labor, anti-artist, anti-writer and anti-worker. Just keep launching it on them. Go to Reddit and pose as a leftist and start stirring up the idiots there against Hasbro. Just start riling up the public and give them a good cash rich target taking anti-consumer action and just watch them burn it down. The left is a circular firing squad and its easy to use them.
This is unbearably naive. You're making the false assumption that SJWs actually in any way believe what they say. When history has shown them to be hypocrites and liars. They are pro corporation every single time it matters. Because at the end of the day they want to be in control. They won't be. That's their fallacy. But they cheer for anything that reduces the rights of the individual
The people on rpg.net, Reddit, etc. are every bit as much up in arms about this as the people here...
The only real exception are news who don't know what the OGL is.
WotC has graduated to the same mental position as GW has in my mind. From just somewhat generic corpo money grubby to actively hostile to its own audience.
I also upgrade the people who will be supporting it from 'Apathetic' to 'Masochistic Sheep'.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: Zelen on January 06, 2023, 11:00:48 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Halfling is probably fine because the term has a lot of precedent in other works. Tolkien uses it, and it's hundreds of years old. The D&D conception of "halfling" is about as generic as they come, and there's really no unique features to their portrayal you can't find elsewhere. I'm not even sure why they are in D&D besides the historical baggage of Tolkien emulation, plus a different racial statpackage.
In my opinion almost all "Product Identity" things are like this. Does anyone care if there's a spell named after Mordenkainen specifically? I sure don't, because none of the games I've run have ever been set in any real D&D setting. It's always been homebrew stuff for me and my groups.
I guess in this hypothetical product you basically want to provide all the Tabletop RPG Comfort Food that D&D has accumulated over the years. So even though there's no reason to have these antiquated particulars, you probably want to include it or something basically indistinguishable from it.
Nope, Halfling IS D&D, Tolkien uses Hobbits, which is why TSR had to change it from cuz the Tolkien state went after them.
But there's an alternate name: Mitjan, means middle in Catalan. Or use Pundit's monkey people from Arrows of Indra.
No. Tolkien has already used the word, "Halfling" in his books before, and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has Halflings as a race as well. So do Halflings belong to D&D, belong to Warhammer, or do they belong to the Tolkien Estate? The answer is they belong to nobody, just like Dwarves and Elves.
Quote from: amacris on January 06, 2023, 08:23:26 PM
I wish you were right, but unfortunately I believe you are wrong. :(
By the misfortune of having studied law, I have a wide network of attorneys in my contacts. I already consulted with one of the top IP lawyers in the United States about this issue and the situation is grim. The attorney I spoke to is personally familiar with Hasbro and he said that Hasbro's litigation war chest is absolutely huge and they are out for blood. He said to expect them to litigate to win back their IP rights with a courtroom battle lasting 3-4 years. I asked him if I could fight back with a $100,000 GoFundMe and he literally laughed. He said it would cost $500,000 simply to get through pre-trial motions and $2-3M to see it through to completion. Hasbro will utterly bury any opponent in motions. The expense alone makes it impossible for anyone at all to fight this except the likes of Paizo. He stressed this over and over in the call: It doesn't matter how good my argument is because I will never get to make that argument. I'll be bankrupt before then.
Moreover, Wizards doesn't even need to litigate. It just needs to persuade Kickstarter and DriveThruRPG that the bread is buttered on their side. Then they can simply have my game, Pundit's game, anyone's game they don't like, shut off from the crowdfunding and distribution we need to be viable. They can do the same on YouTube, just as music companies and Nintendo do, on anyone they want to tread on. We already know how platforms behave in the face of corporate bullies. It will happen in our industry, too, if we're not careful.
I asked what my options were, given this dire situation, and he said "try not to let them notice you." Well, they've already noticed me. "Release anything you can before the new license drops." Well, what about my future product? "Never use the OGL and SRD again in the future and hope they don't care enough to sue you anyway."
The attorney I spoke to is a gamer, has impeccable credentials, and is a trusted friend of 20 years; he has no reason to lie to me or dissuade me. So, based on the advice of the best expert I know, I believe the situation is quite dire. I wish it were a case of crying wolf, but there is literally a wolf and it's here to feast.
I wish I had better news but that's the cold splash of water I got in my face yesterday.
That certainly sounds grim! So your friend thinks that while Hasbro know they have a weak case re revocation of the 1.0 OGL, but are willing to terrorise the 3PPs into acquiescing, so their case never actually gets decided in court?
This probably wouldn't work here in England because of "loser pays winner's costs" combined with "no win no fee". In the USA the only solution for the good guys seems to be a crowdfunded defence and hopefully some pro bono representation and/or funding from interested parties like the open software licence guys.
Strategically it does seem possible that WotC-Hasbro can nuke everything, with most or all 3PPs deciding it's just not worth it. They'll leave a scorched wasteland behind. They seem to think they are Microsoft and that people will still use their product no matter how hated they are. Personally I don't think they are even Games Workshop. D&D thrives on a creative community that WoTC now seems determined to destroy. The rights they assert, I think in the end are worth much less to them than the lush gaming ecosystem they are setting out to annihilate.
I'm extremely happy on WotC doing the license change personally. I want WotC to burn themselves down to the ground and I'll piss on their ashes of a company. WotC was a net good for D&D maybe a decade ago, but now they are censorious dicks more concerned with creating a game that a mother would read her 3 year old to put to sleep rather than a game that appeals to at least 12 and up with fun content, good stories and action without Seattle politics. At the rate WotC is going with the D&D License, they should just rename it to ANTIFA Morals Appropriate Thought Game (formerly known by the white supremacist super racist terminology Dungeons (white cis hetero oppressive term) and Dragon (clear white supremacy term linked to the KKK).
We might get lucky and see Paizo, Kobold, Goodman, Troll Lord, Necrotic Gnome, Chaosium etc all work together and build a new game system with a collective license to fix the OGL issue. I for once would rather play something new than anything being pushed out by the talentless race hires that WotC is shoveling. Just go to Kobold Press tome of beasts and compare it to the monster manual, what is more fun? Tome by a wide shot.
I just want to see companies peel away from D&D and do something new. And frankly if WotC can go bankrupt and they have to sell the D&D License, my God please, please make it happen. I don't want D&D in the hands of a bunch of crazed leftist racist communists. Don't support people who will put you in camps.
Quote from: amacris on January 06, 2023, 08:23:26 PM
I wish you were right, but unfortunately I believe you are wrong. :(
By the misfortune of having studied law, I have a wide network of attorneys in my contacts. I already consulted with one of the top IP lawyers in the United States about this issue and the situation is grim. The attorney I spoke to is personally familiar with Hasbro and he said that Hasbro's litigation war chest is absolutely huge and they are out for blood. He said to expect them to litigate to win back their IP rights with a courtroom battle lasting 3-4 years. I asked him if I could fight back with a $100,000 GoFundMe and he literally laughed. He said it would cost $500,000 simply to get through pre-trial motions and $2-3M to see it through to completion. Hasbro will utterly bury any opponent in motions. The expense alone makes it impossible for anyone at all to fight this except the likes of Paizo. He stressed this over and over in the call: It doesn't matter how good my argument is because I will never get to make that argument. I'll be bankrupt before then.
Moreover, Wizards doesn't even need to litigate. It just needs to persuade Kickstarter and DriveThruRPG that the bread is buttered on their side. Then they can simply have my game, Pundit's game, anyone's game they don't like, shut off from the crowdfunding and distribution we need to be viable. They can do the same on YouTube, just as music companies and Nintendo do, on anyone they want to tread on. We already know how platforms behave in the face of corporate bullies. It will happen in our industry, too, if we're not careful.
I asked what my options were, given this dire situation, and he said "try not to let them notice you." Well, they've already noticed me. "Release anything you can before the new license drops." Well, what about my future product? "Never use the OGL and SRD again in the future and hope they don't care enough to sue you anyway."
The attorney I spoke to is a gamer, has impeccable credentials, and is a trusted friend of 20 years; he has no reason to lie to me or dissuade me. So, based on the advice of the best expert I know, I believe the situation is quite dire. I wish it were a case of crying wolf, but there is literally a wolf and it's here to feast.
I wish I had better news but that's the cold splash of water I got in my face yesterday.
Thank you.
I am aware that this would be the case if it ever came to litigation. I guess I was just hopelessly optimistic that we still had judges who were principled and patriotic enough to recognize the intent of the OGL is meant to be permanent and binding, and smack down Hasbro's attempt to weasel out of that agreement. I guess it's just another one of those days to swallow a black pill with my morning coffee. :(
Quote from: Effete on January 07, 2023, 08:17:04 AM
I guess I was just hopelessly optimistic that we still had judges who were principled and patriotic enough to recognize the intent of the OGL is meant to be permanent and binding, and smack down Hasbro's attempt to weasel out of that agreement.
The point of Lawfare is to ensure the case never actually gets to the point of a judge ruling on it. You destroy the other side with legal costs, before a judge has the chance to throw your case out of court. The judges can all be pillars of moral integrity, yet this tactic still succeed. :(
Quote from: S'mon on January 07, 2023, 08:29:51 AM
Quote from: Effete on January 07, 2023, 08:17:04 AM
I guess I was just hopelessly optimistic that we still had judges who were principled and patriotic enough to recognize the intent of the OGL is meant to be permanent and binding, and smack down Hasbro's attempt to weasel out of that agreement.
The point of Lawfare is to ensure the case never actually gets to the point of a judge ruling on it. You destroy the other side with legal costs, before a judge has the chance to throw your case out of court. The judges can all be pillars of moral integrity, yet this tactic still succeed. :(
Right, but judges also reserve the right to deny the submittal of motions. Then there's things like Procedural Dismissals. It's just depressing to see how we truly live in a plutacracy.
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:38:50 AM
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.
They could also reach to the EFF for help fighthing this since if WotC gets it's way it would impact Open Source Software.
But I bet Baizuo will cut a sweet deal with WotC and leave everybody else to hang.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:35:58 PM
But I bet Baizuo will cut a sweet deal with WotC and leave everybody else to hang.
And because the left loves censorship they probably approve even if it kills them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:35:58 PMBut I bet Baizuo will cut a sweet deal with WotC and leave everybody else to hang.
Eh I think unless the WOTC deal is: 'No fees on anything you do, and 100% security for realzies', I don't think Paizo will take, and I don't think WoTC would offer that. That might actually be very smart of WotC if they did (getting the potentially biggest opposition onto their side), but I don't see Hasbro as willing to make smart moves like that.
Anything worse than in the single-digit percentage, and anything less than 100% security would at best be a slow death.
Doing a livestream about the OGL thing right now so click over. (It'll be archived, so you can view it anytime.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pk1aA1UNJE
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:36:44 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 11:44:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 09:53:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).
Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.
Or some of us get together, make the SRD AND then launch a crowdfunding campaign to publish it.
To be fair, I already have a non-OGL system ready to go ... [cut to avoid repeating text wall] There will be a "Free Systems License" for it (I want people to make and sell adventures and their own supplements for it), but none of the Creative Commons ones are quite the right fit so I'm going to need a custom one drafted.*
That's fair, I'm also working on some stuff, but I'll try and work on the other thing too. Mechanics are safe, it's the IP that's the problem.
I think I've got a workaround on my license issue. I'll just cut and paste the text of my material, less any material I wish to keep as product identity, into a separate document and release that under a Creative Commons open license. Not sure if I should put that out significantly ahead of my actual books, but if anyone wants to jump ship for a non-OGL rules document that's at least got some "in play feel" similarity to D&D, then having it out there if WotC drops the bomb (or shortly thereafter) might give some other smaller publishers like I'm hoping to become an option to retool towards where most of the work has already been done.
Sounds like the 13th is going to be the day of Reckoning so I'll probably hold off on a release until at least then, but I'll be getting the document ready just in case.
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PMWhat advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
This is my next question, too. And how easy is it to split a book into bits of public domain and copyright?
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.
Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."
If that's too much to ask then I shouldn't be releasing it at all.
As an alternative view to Alexander Macris comment (amacris) the folks over in the open source land has been grappling with the kind of stuff Wizards trying to pull for decades.
For folks who are interested here is an analysis of GPL version 2 which unlike version 3 doesn't contain the term irrevocable. Since the one of the sources for the OGL was the current GPLv2 it may be relevant.
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 (https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4)
I recommend looking at section 7.4.1 which among other things talks about the sublicensing clauses that the OGL has as well.
More specifically, the part on the downstream license grant
Quotethe recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." (GPLv2§6). So in this step, the contributor has granted a license to the downstream, on the condition that the downstream complies with the license terms.
That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2§4).
Thus, anyone downstream of the contributor (which is anyone using the contributor's code), has an irrevocable license from the contributor. A contributor may claim to revoke their grant, and subsequently sue for copyright infringement, but a court would likely find the revocation was ineffective and the downstream user had a valid license defense to a claim of infringement.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.
Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."
Yup. That's CC Attribution ("CC-BY"). You could also choose to release under CC-BY-SA which is "Share Alike", meaning that whoever uses your work also has to release under CC-BY-SA and share their material with the world.
A potential problem with CC is releasing a mix of non-open and open content in the same work. It's easy if you fully own everything. But if someone uses your "Share Alike" work and then closes off a bunch of their stuff, it could be seen as violating the intent of the "Share Alike" clause.
The WotC OGL is different from Creative Commons in that it explicitly encourages a mix of closed and open material. And the closed stuff is even more closed than usual - because by using "Product Identity" someone would be not just violating copyright, they'd be violating the terms of the license. Most of the open-source licenses don't have this, because it can extremely hinder open source development.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:38:50 AM
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Plus, there's the added factor that the text of the OGL itself is not Open Gaming Content. So including the text of the OGL is a clear violation of WotC's copyright and if you can't reproduce the OGL text, you can't satisfy the conditions of the OGL.
You might be able argue that the OGL was authorized when you first published it, but this won't help anyone who publishes OGL content post release of 1.1. And even this doesn't help with the case that reprinting the OGL text is a copyright violation as WotC can just announce that this is no longer allowed (and you'd have a hard time arguing against this as it says right there in the OGL text that all rights are reserved).
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Because of Section 13
Quote13. 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.
- The OGL has an explicit termination clause. Deauthorization is just another way of terminating the license
- The second sentence stands on it's own. Which means all licenses for the works based off of the original work still exist.
The older version of the GPL and other open licenses has variants of this clause. Designed to prevent the situation that is now happening.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.
QuotePlus, there's the added factor that the text of the OGL itself is not Open Gaming Content. So including the text of the OGL is a clear violation of WotC's copyright and if you can't reproduce the OGL text, you can't satisfy the conditions of the OGL.
The OGL is copyright to prevent anyone from simply using it for themselves without any intention of being part of the wider licensure. It's not "Open Content" because if it was, it would be subject to modification (as per the license) by anyone using it. It's also exempt from the usual protections of copyright law because the text itself says the entire license must be reproduced verbatim when used. Basically, WotC's copyright is only there to ensure that THEY ALONE reserve the right to modify the terms.
QuoteYou might be able argue that the OGL was authorized when you first published it, but this won't help anyone who publishes OGL content post release of 1.1. And even this doesn't help with the case that reprinting the OGL text is a copyright violation as WotC can just announce that this is no longer allowed (and you'd have a hard time arguing against this as it says right there in the OGL text that all rights are reserved).
As I mentioned, the text of the OGL waives many of the standard protections of copyright by citing that it must be reproduced as a condition of the license. The only time those protections may be enforced is if the text is reproduced absent a lisensure (but even then Fair Use for educational or commentary purposes may still apply). Wizards reserves the rights because only they can modify the terms.
It'd be like if you gave a cop consent to search your car or house. You can't then try to sue them for a 4th Amendment rights violation, since you already waived that right when you gave consent. You might claim you consented under-duress, but then you have to prove the cop pressured you under color-of-law. But simply being ignorant of your rights is not a defense.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
For who?
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.
Public Domain IS open, but here's the thing, lets say someone finds an obscure piece of work and incorporates it on his own, only those who know the original would have the knowledge that it was incorporated, plus we have fuckers keeping ppl from using lots of stuff from HPL, ERB and others even after their works have entered public domain.
So, a license that is EXPLICIT about it being open is a good idea IMHO.
Quote from: jhkim on January 07, 2023, 08:45:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.
Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."
Yup. That's CC Attribution ("CC-BY"). You could also choose to release under CC-BY-SA which is "Share Alike", meaning that whoever uses your work also has to release under CC-BY-SA and share their material with the world.
A potential problem with CC is releasing a mix of non-open and open content in the same work. It's easy if you fully own everything. But if someone uses your "Share Alike" work and then closes off a bunch of their stuff, it could be seen as violating the intent of the "Share Alike" clause.
The WotC OGL is different from Creative Commons in that it explicitly encourages a mix of closed and open material. And the closed stuff is even more closed than usual - because by using "Product Identity" someone would be not just violating copyright, they'd be violating the terms of the license. Most of the open-source licenses don't have this, because it can extremely hinder open source development.
Nope, you CAN close your own stuff that's not a derivative of CC By/CC By SA (CC0 is basically public domain).
For instance, I release some game art (as I have done) in OpenGameArt under CC By SA, you can use my art in a closed source game, you can mix my art with art under copyright, what you can't do is to close the art I released under those licenses.
The trick is (in the case of TTRPGs) to explicitly and precisely define exactly what IS under CC By/CC By SA.
Which, IMHO, can be done by writting:
With the exception of the art (whose IP is (c) the artist and is used with license), logos, brand name, proper names, (add what you want to not make open content) everything else in this wortk is under CC By.
I have seen TTRPG stuff like that before, mainly from Spain and Brazil.
Edited to add a free/downloadable example of a game put under CCBySA with propietary/closed stuff mixed and kept as such:
You need to scroll down to find the link to download the pdf.https://davidcollinsrivera.com/#stardrifter (https://davidcollinsrivera.com/#stardrifter)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:16:56 AM
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.
If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:16:56 AM
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.
If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.
I care about being credited for my work.
If me granting you free use of the fruits of my labors in exchange for the simple act putting a line giving me credit for my work isn't generous enough for you then you can rightly fuck off.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:16:56 AM
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.
If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.
If anyone mixes "questionable content" with my stuff released under CC By SA is their problem not mine, the license doesn't make me responsible of how you use the material. In the same way that manufacturing a frying pan doesn't make me responsible of you killing someone with it.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Oh, I hope it isn't that open-and-shut, and from other discussions I've seen, I
suspect it isn't as slam dunk as you may fear.
- There's a discussion over on ENWorld were a number of lawyers with experience in IP/Contract law are really tearing into things. I've learned more about contract law than I'd ever suspect just from reading the discussions. One in particular ('bmcdaniel') posts are pure gold (starting on page 8 ), and took a lot of the nightmare scenarios out of my head. Of course any lawsuit is a knife-fight, and trying to pre-guess the outcome is a fools game.
- There are plenty of other countries where WoTC's tactics of nuclear lawfare simply won't work. A number of English lawyers are quite convinced of this, and I'd suspect a lot of EU countries have similar laws. Not sure about the Australians or other countries though.
- While a bit of a superman scenario, it isn't impossible that the EFF wouldn't get interested/consulted in this. They are quite competent, as shown by wins against much larger corporations and governments (Oracle, Viacom,etc.)
- I have no doubt the larger companies have "break in case of WoTC emergency" plans in place. The larger ones certainly have good legal advice, and have probably Table-Topped/War Gamed this kind of scenario out. Furthermore, I have no trouble believing that Paizo was well aware of OGL weaknesses, as shown by a Reddit post (about a year ago) from a Design Manger of PF2E. The post was quite clear that Paizo had discussions about dropping the OGL when PF2E came out. I don't see how those kind of discussions would happen if they thought the OGL was comfortably safe and secure.
I just hope this was a trial balloon, and WoTC/Hasbro now tries to pass it off as a simple misunderstanding. That said, there is no way WoTC/Hasbro wasn't aware of the implications and impact on the gaming community of just the hint of such an action. I've heard all non-OGL licenses are now being re-evaluated (such as Monte Cooks) in light of recent events.
Keep your chin up, it may not be all doom and gloom. :)
Quote from: Effete on January 08, 2023, 03:48:00 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.
That's key.
Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.
However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:37:48 PM
I care about being credited for my work.
If me granting you free use of the fruits of my labors in exchange for the simple act putting a line giving me credit for my work isn't generous enough for you then you can rightly fuck off.
You care. So use the cc then. You don't have to be rude about it. There are lots of share software that ask for credit nicely without a license demanding it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 03:04:38 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 08, 2023, 03:48:00 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.
That's key.
Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.
However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.
Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:37:48 PM
I care about being credited for my work.
If me granting you free use of the fruits of my labors in exchange for the simple act putting a line giving me credit for my work isn't generous enough for you then you can rightly fuck off.
You care. So use the cc then. You don't have to be rude about it. There are lots of share software that ask for credit nicely without a license demanding it.
So, how is you wanting my stuff distributed in public domain without a credit requirement (just a pretty please no one has to abide by) any different than the demand of the new OGL 1.1 that you grant WotC a perpetual irrevocable world-wide royalty free license to use all your work without even crediting you for it?
I considered your ask to be extremely rude and entitled and responded appropriately.
My question literally started with "If you didn't actually care about credit " and it was not addressed to you personally so your reaction seems a bit over the top.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 03:04:38 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.
That's key.
Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.
However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.
Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.
[/quote]
I would agree with that, contingent on what your product is and what it turns out is actually encompassed by Wizards IP. Like you say, we can theory-craft about it all day, but until it gets into court, we probably won't know what is and is not safe. Personally, I haven't published my own game, and if I did, it has next to nothing to do with D&D, so I don't think I'd even bother with the OGL.
However, if I was one of the many OSR publishers concerned about this, I'd be taking a serious look at what exactly I'd have to excise from my game to be 100% safe. I expect we will see slight redactions and language tweaks in a lot of new printings of OSR games, from people hedging their bets, and I think a lot of people would be wise to consider removing the OGL from their products, but if I ran a company that published OSR games, I wouldn't set about gutting my game until I start seeing some legal decisions handed down.
....
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/323642657_724652488912072_7051136952019179539_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=7v435nM8dN8AX93j2AB&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AfCkylbBBR8j7-CuObkVgEs6o5Cg4fM2h4MENHciuLtLfA&oe=63BFF7F3)
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 03:04:38 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.
Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.
That's key.
Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.
However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.
Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.
I would agree with that, contingent on what your product is and what it turns out is actually encompassed by Wizards IP. Like you say, we can theory-craft about it all day, but until it gets into court, we probably won't know what is and is not safe. Personally, I haven't published my own game, and if I did, it has next to nothing to do with D&D, so I don't think I'd even bother with the OGL.
However, if I was one of the many OSR publishers concerned about this, I'd be taking a serious look at what exactly I'd have to excise from my game to be 100% safe. I expect we will see slight redactions and language tweaks in a lot of new printings of OSR games, from people hedging their bets, and I think a lot of people would be wise to consider removing the OGL from their products, but if I ran a company that published OSR games, I wouldn't set about gutting my game until I start seeing some legal decisions handed down.
[/quote]
Waiting to see what the evil corp will do isn't the smart move. The smart move is to protect your bussiness from them.
Someone pointed out an interesting bit.
Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.
Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
Go ahead, WotC. Poke the fucking Mouse. I fucking dare you.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 05:05:31 PM
My question literally started with "If you didn't actually care about credit " and it was not addressed to you personally so your reaction seems a bit over the top.
Perhaps I misread your intent, because for me our conversation began with...
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?
To which I replied...
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 07:31:27 PM
Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.
Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."
If that's too much to ask then I shouldn't be releasing it at all.
And in response you said...
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 01:13:35 PM
If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.
Which, to me, implied that regardless of my reason for wanting a Creative Commons license that I should give away even the right to credit for my work because that would be better for you.
Do you see how that sequence could be construed as rude and entitled?
If that was not your intent, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2023, 06:08:08 PM
Someone pointed out an interesting bit.
Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.
Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
Go ahead, WotC. Poke the fucking Mouse. I fucking dare you.
Hasbro vs Disney, now that would be a kaiju battle if ever there was one.
Quote from: WeatherDave on January 08, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
- There are plenty of other countries where WoTC's tactics of nuclear lawfare simply won't work. A number of English lawyers are quite convinced of this, and I'd suspect a lot of EU countries have similar laws. Not sure about the Australians or other countries though.
Australia is pretty similar to England afaik, being derived from early 20th century English legal culture. Pemerton is Australian & he's not indicated otherwise. The USA is a bit of an outlier.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 08, 2023, 06:20:44 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2023, 06:08:08 PM
Someone pointed out an interesting bit.
Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.
Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
Go ahead, WotC. Poke the fucking Mouse. I fucking dare you.
Hasbro vs Disney, now that would be a kaiju battle if ever there was one.
"Let them fight!"
I would be rotting for the total destruction of both.
But my money would be on them joining forces against the plebs instead of killing each other... Saddly.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2023, 06:08:08 PM
Someone pointed out an interesting bit.
Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.
Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
Go ahead, WotC. Poke the fucking Mouse. I fucking dare you.
I don't think so--I think they used the d20 SWRPG as a baseline, and I believe copyright to that rests with Lucasfilm. No OGL involved.
....
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/323263833_490230576564059_5570102440309843903_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=V3KOTYan8NAAX-swihN&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AfD_ICQioqbzc2FPd2ptxwRdDRON7ZbocbMhlprKAWmK6A&oe=63C111E6)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 06:11:08 PM
Which, to me, implied that regardless of my reason for wanting a Creative Commons license that I should give away even the right to credit for my work because that would be better for you.
Do you see how that sequence could be construed as rude and entitled?
If that was not your intent, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
That was not my intent. I was asking questions to the thread, not specifically in response to any of your comments. I tend to quote at least a snippet of a comment if I'm responding to someone.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2023, 06:08:08 PM
Someone pointed out an interesting bit.
Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.
Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
Go ahead, WotC. Poke the fucking Mouse. I fucking dare you.
I don't think so--I think they used the d20 SWRPG as a baseline, and I believe copyright to that rests with Lucasfilm. No OGL involved.
Well, IF like WotC is pretending, anything created under the OGL now is their property or has to go away, that would taint the SW brand and not just on TTRPG/CRPGs
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2023, 06:08:08 PM
Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.
Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
I don't think so--I think they used the d20 SWRPG as a baseline, and I believe copyright to that rests with Lucasfilm. No OGL involved.
Well, IF like WotC is pretending, anything created under the OGL now is their property or has to go away, that would taint the SW brand and not just on TTRPG/CRPGs
But the Star Wars d20 RPG was originally published by WotC in 2000, and didn't use the OGL. It does use the d20 System, but that's not via the OGL. WotC owns the d20 System and produced the Star Wars RPG as fully closed. Presumably the KotOR game licensed the Star Wars d20 system also via private agreement. The derivation is:
(D&D 3rd ed)
|
+---(via private licensing)---> Star Wars RPG
|
+--------> d20 SRD ---(via OGL)---> third-party d20 OGL products
As far as I know, WotC never produced any commercial products that used the OGL, so none of their products would be affected if the OGL v1.0a were to become invalid.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 07:50:27 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 06:11:08 PM
Which, to me, implied that regardless of my reason for wanting a Creative Commons license that I should give away even the right to credit for my work because that would be better for you.
Do you see how that sequence could be construed as rude and entitled?
If that was not your intent, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
That was not my intent. I was asking questions to the thread, not specifically in response to any of your comments. I tend to quote at least a snippet of a comment if I'm responding to someone.
Then please accept my apology.
No worries. Misunderstandings happen all the time on the internet. I'm just glad it's cleared up.
Quote from: jhkim on January 08, 2023, 08:00:43 PM
As far as I know, WotC never produced any commercial products that used the OGL, so none of their products would be affected if the OGL v1.0a were to become invalid.
There were two--
Monster Manual II included a couple OGC monsters at the book, and much of
Unearthed Arcana was open content under the OGL. But when the most recent product is old enough to vote ... :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 08:15:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 08, 2023, 08:00:43 PM
As far as I know, WotC never produced any commercial products that used the OGL, so none of their products would be affected if the OGL v1.0a were to become invalid.
There were two--Monster Manual II included a couple OGC monsters at the book, and much of Unearthed Arcana was open content under the OGL. But when the most recent product is old enough to vote ... :)
Thanks for the correction, Armchair Gamer. I stand corrected, but I also don't think it would affect WotC at all to drop the PDFs of those two 3E products, which would be required if the OGL v1.0a were invalidated. And the Star Wars RPG material would not be affected at all.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM
Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.
Yup. Regardless of which way the court's decision goes, everybody should jump ship and give the OGL the axe. Hasbro/WotC has already played their hand and shown that they are anti-consumer and want to treat their supporters like shit. Doesn't matter of they backpedal, they done fukked up.
Quote from: Effete on January 09, 2023, 12:37:47 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM
Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.
Yup. Regardless of which way the court's decision goes, everybody should jump ship and give the OGL the axe. Hasbro/WotC has already played their hand and shown that they are anti-consumer and want to treat their supporters like shit. Doesn't matter of they backpedal, they done fukked up.
Which makes me really GLAD I started changing stuff on my (hopefully) soon to be finished first game to differentiate it from D&D while retaining broad compatibility with the OSR. But I won't even market it as such.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:38:50 AM
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.
Paizo, and any of the large indie publishers are more likely to compromise with Wizards than put up much of a fight. Wizards is going to negotiate separately and individually with each one. Divide and conquer. The rest of the small publishers will have no choice but to quit or go along with the OGL 1.1.
We fans will be the most screwed. The 3rd party publishers had gotten really good at creating fantastic content far beyond the quality of anything WotC has done in years. The party is over.
Quote from: thornad on January 09, 2023, 05:22:38 AM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:38:50 AM
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.
Paizo, and any of the large indie publishers are more likely to compromise with Wizards than put up much of a fight. Wizards is going to negotiate separately and individually with each one. Divide and conquer. The rest of the small publishers will have no choice but to quit or go along with the OGL 1.1.
We fans will be the most screwed. The 3rd party publishers had gotten really good at creating fantastic content far beyond the quality of anything WotC has done in years. The party is over.
Yes. Unfortunately, the party is over. Even if WOTC backpedals, no one will trust them anymore. WOTC has stirred the shit pot, and now they get to lick the spoon!!!
Quote from: WeatherDave on January 08, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
There are plenty of other countries where WoTC's tactics of nuclear lawfare simply won't work. A number of English lawyers are quite convinced of this, and I'd suspect a lot of EU countries have similar laws.
I agree. I can only assume that WotC considers the EU market to be inconsequential for them, so it doesn't matter if D&D simply withers and dies here.
The complete radio silence from Hasbro/WotC at this point is the most amusing thing to me. We're on day five of the leak. One would think with the way social media is blowing up against them Hasbro/WotC would have released some sort of statement by now.
This leads me to the conclusion that this whole OGL 1.1 idea was basically the collaboration of a bunch of first stage thinkers; people who never even consider that their plans won't go exactly as they imagine them; and the lack of response is because they were completely blindsided by the leak and backlash (first stage thinking is everyone just bows down and accepts their terms) and are now scrambling both to find someone to blame ("it wasn't me" says everyone involved) and how to maintain the plan when it's all blowing up in their faces.
They probably didn't even consider this would turn the outrage machine against them... coming from video games they don't understand that the primary component of an RPG is the grey matter of the player base and their product is really just a convenience so each GM doesn't need to make their own system. You can control access to a video game. You can't control access to people's own imaginations as they sit face to face at a table with pens, papers and dice.
Nor that looking like a bully against everyone's favorite 3pp (and everyone playing a version of D&D probably has one... the core is probably the weakest of material for 5e) isn't a look that inspires people to want to support you.
Nor that the 3pp would behave like rational actors in the face of such a shitshow and instead of preparing to fork over money to WotC would immediately start taking steps to abandon even the 1.0a OGL.
Wait til they realize that, because their entire system is based on "roll and add" based mechanics and subtraction of resource points that any other VTT doesn't actually NEED a D&D specific plugin to run D&D on it. It's about 10 seconds to add "/roll 1d20+5" as a macro called "my attack roll" to a VTT like Foundry.
Hell, you could probably make a "character sheet" for Foundry that's just a header line, a dozen slots for "resource points" you can name/assign values to, a score or so of "action checks" you can assign names and a dice roll+mod and optional "target passive value" to and a number of "passive value" slots set up similarly combined with the basic target function and run just about about any version of D&D from that super generic framework with all of Foundry's functionality and free and clear of all WotC's microtransactions.
The point being... the silence from WotC is deafening. The lack of outright denial says 1.1 probably WAS the plan. The lack of "well, the cat's out of the bag so all you 3pp have until the 13th to comply" means they really were NOT expecting this degree of backlash and are scrambling to salvage as much of the plan as possible.
Because what happens when you launch an MCU-ish movie in an era of MCU-fatigue without diehard fans to hype it? What happens when you launch a VTT and no one signs up? What happens when all those planned for royalties turn out to be a goose egg after you spent all that money on the infrastructure to manage it?
As outraged as we are, don't think for a second this is going as planned for Hasbro/WotC right now either.
Quote from: thornad on January 09, 2023, 05:22:38 AMWe fans will be the most screwed. The 3rd party publishers had gotten really good at creating fantastic content far beyond the quality of anything WotC has done in years. The party is over.
This is precisely why Hasbro needs to get rid of the OGL. They are competing with superior products that don't pay any license fee for the privilege.
I've heard this same statement multiple times from many people which is why I think Hasbro will go scorched Earth to get rid of the OGL any way possible. Despite any hashtags on Twitter or Change.org.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:07:01 AM
The complete radio silence from Hasbro/WotC at this point is the most amusing thing to me. We're on day five of the leak. One would think with the way social media is blowing up against them Hasbro/WotC would have released some sort of statement by now.
Keep in mind it was just a "rumor" on Thursday. Became a full blown fire on Friday. Then started to become a raging inferno on Saturday. I think up to this point the community was inside WoTC's decision-action loop. But I would consider it unusual if we don't hear something by the end of the day Monday or at the latest Tuesday.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:07:01 AM
They probably didn't even consider this would turn the outrage machine against them... coming from video games they don't understand that the primary component of an RPG is the grey matter of the player base and their product is really just a convenience so each GM doesn't need to make their own system. You can control access to a video game. You can't control access to people's own imaginations as they sit face to face at a table with pens, papers and dice.
Or the fact that unlike Triple A videos games we don't need a staff of a hundred to make a product that can compete as a RPG against whatever the biggest publishers can product. Often one person can do it in the time they have for a hobby.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:07:01 AM
As outraged as we are, don't think for a second this is going as planned for Hasbro/WotC right now either.
I said else Hasbro/Wizards is fighting with the last war's general. For the most part, rest of the industry and hobby has moved on and adapted to the changes that the internet and digital technology have wrought.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 09, 2023, 09:10:43 AM
This is precisely why Hasbro needs to get rid of the OGL. They are competing with superior products that don't pay any license fee for the privilege.
Unfortunately for the current management, their predecessors thought otherwise and tried to immunize D&D from any type of destruction like the one caused by the demise of TSR. Their foresight is being put to the test for the first time.
Quote from: estar on January 09, 2023, 09:29:19 AM
I said else Hasbro/Wizards is fighting with the last war's general. For the most part, rest of the industry and hobby has moved on and adapted to the changes that the internet and digital technology have wrought.
I'd take it one stage further and suggest they're fighting a land war with the last war's admiral in charge. They WANT ttrpgs to behave like video games because their hires know how to monetize a video game. They don't really understand the market and so have gravely miscalculated the effects of their actions.
"We hit them a full barrage, why aren't they sinking?"
"It's a fort, sir. They don't sink."
Quote from: hedgehobbit link=topic=45691.msg1239239#msg1239239 date=quote author=thornad link=topic=45691.msg1239226#msg1239226 date=1673259758]We
This is precisely why Hasbro needs to get rid of the OGL. They are competing with superior products that don't pay any license fee for the privilege.
The woke don't see quality. They see alternate voices to the one true word! Such voices must be censored to avoid confusing the faithful.
One could say this was inevitable once they went woke.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:42:07 AM
Quote from: estar on January 09, 2023, 09:29:19 AM
I said else Hasbro/Wizards is fighting with the last war's general. For the most part, rest of the industry and hobby has moved on and adapted to the changes that the internet and digital technology have wrought.
I'd take it one stage further and suggest they're fighting a land war with the last war's admiral in charge. They WANT ttrpgs to behave like video games because their hires know how to monetize a video game. They don't really understand the market and so have gravely miscalculated the effects of their actions.
"We hit them a full barrage, why aren't they sinking?"
"It's a fort, sir. They don't sink."
I've been wondering for years how much a corporate culture informed by MtG has impacted WotC's handling of D&D, and the new shift in management (and the loss of Winninger, who was in the industry before WotC
existed, I believe) is probably only compounding the disconnect.
Quote from: Chris24601
This leads me to the conclusion that this whole OGL 1.1 idea was basically the collaboration of a bunch of first stage thinkers; people who never even consider that their plans won't go exactly as they imagine them; and the lack of response is because they were completely blindsided by the leak and backlash (first stage thinking is everyone just bows down and accepts their terms) and are now scrambling both to find someone to blame ("it wasn't me" says everyone involved) and how to maintain the plan when it's all blowing up in their faces.
They probably didn't even consider this would turn the outrage machine against them... coming from video games they don't understand that the primary component of an RPG is the grey matter of the player base and their product is really just a convenience so each GM doesn't need to make their own system. You can control access to a video game. You can't control access to people's own imaginations as they sit face to face at a table with pens, papers and dice.
I suspect you are probably right. Although I can see Cynthia Williams as Emperor Palpatine in the WoTC Death Star steepling her fingers and cackling
"Everything is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen!" ;D
I've watched a bunch of videos about narcissists recently. Current WoTC behaviour seems very reminiscent of what I saw described. Eg the OGL 1.1 is a vicious attack on the 3PP community, which includes verbiage about what a poor little victim WoTC is, those big bad 3PPs stealing their IP. There's some serious gaslighting being attempted.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the WOTC and Hasbro company meetings right now. I'd love to have an opportunity to hear it all. I bet it is getting "festive", up in there.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 09, 2023, 10:08:57 AM
The woke don't see quality. They see alternate voices to the one true word! Such voices must be censored to avoid confusing the faithful.
One could say this was inevitable once they went woke.
Sometimes the screeds on this board feel like intentional blindness. Y'all know your characterisations of the "woke" are a bunch of hooey, right?
My relatively woke players have had a lot more fun in Dwimmermount and Runewild, both 3p campaigns, than in any WotC product. Without me hitting them over the head with "Sandbox! OSR!" they're starting to put the pieces together about open-ended location-based campaigns having more _potential_ for some kinds of good play than poorly-written adventure paths or tonight's-five-room-dungeon-fiat.
Roll for Combat (A channel by some RPG Industry veterans) apparently has the license, and has posted it for your perusal.
Link: https://youtu.be/Sj5dsiDXeUw
Here's a hell of a line for you from Page 2 of the document:
"What if I don't like these terms and don't agree to the OGL: Commercial? That's fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project."
I'll just post the leaked file here. Why go anywhere else
Holy C*ap. I'm an ignoramus when it comes to anything legal, but even my uneducated eye seems some real OMG's in that document. Like Page 2:
"What if I don't like these terms and don't agree to the OGL: Commercial? That's fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project."
I take it to mean Pathfinder, Wayfarers and anything else that uses 1.0a of the OGL. As others have suggested, that perhaps means that since WoTC has the copyright on that OGL, you can't even publish it since it's been unauthorized.
wow... maybe (as someone else has said, that's all bluster), but I can't see how that doesn't show their intent.
Quote from: WeatherDave on January 09, 2023, 03:11:32 PM
Holy C*ap. I'm an ignoramus when it comes to anything legal, but even my uneducated eye seems some real OMG's in that document. Like Page 2:
"What if I don't like these terms and don't agree to the OGL: Commercial? That's fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project."
I take it to mean Pathfinder, Wayfarers and anything else that uses 1.0a of the OGL. As others have suggested, that perhaps means that since WoTC has the copyright on that OGL, you can't even publish it since it's been unauthorized.
wow... maybe (as someone else has said, that's all bluster), but I can't see how that doesn't show their intent.
I'd have to ask a lawyer, but I don't know that you can retroactively change the existing Ts&Cs unilaterally and have the other party just have to take it. At the very least, If I were one of the bigger 3pp, I'd publish a list of upcoming products for the next 2 years and put the ogl into a "draft" of each product's title sheet so you've established prior intent *before* the OGL 1.1 gets vomited out officially.
Well, someone just told me that WotC "explicitly chose Washington State as to be the governing law of the contract. Washington State has a statutory Good Faith and Fair Dealing requirement for all contracts. Several things within OGL1.1 make it clear that it is not operating in good faith."
This raises two questions:
1.- Is the OGL 1.0 ALSO under Washington State governing law of the contract. ?
2.- If so, trying to revoke it wouldn't break Good Faith and Fair Dealing?
These threads really need to be consolidated.
Also: Is it just me, or is WotC really releasing the 1.1 OGL on Friday the 13th?
You just can't make this stuff up...
Quote from: Jaeger on January 09, 2023, 06:07:03 PM
These threads really need to be consolidated.
Also: Is it just me, or is WotC really releasing the 1.1 OGL on Friday the 13th?
You just can't make this stuff up...
Oh, the timing on this is delightful!
The big DnD movie is coming out soon......
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/321989112_1502689576886221_1195766467427925940_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=GuFrKv-IenQAX8Fcf7L&tn=Yuz9QFTVGubbup9-&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AfAup8lZP3pUFYUmbF6xgP8Hs8bibamlIZvDk8X-6uo7xg&oe=63C26B0C)
Trying to get through the document now and I'm stuck on this paragraph:
QuoteWhy is Wizards of the Coast updating to OGL 1.1 and subdividing it into Commercial and Non-Commercial terms? A lot has changed since the old OGL was launched, and that means the old license has some unintended applications we need to fix. For example, when we released OGL 1.0a, YouTube, apps, blockchain, crowdfunding, and other now every-day technologies and distribution channels didn't really exist in the way they do today. OGL wasn't intended to fund major competitors and it wasn't intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.
Is it just me or is this the weakest, stupidest reasoning ever?
WTF difference does crowdfunding make when the OGL was designed to merely let people share ideas within a larger gaming framework? If I raised 50,000 on GoFundMe or refinanced my mortgage for a home-equity loan, what in the absolute fukken difference is that to WOTC?? It just sounds like they're salty that other developers have been more savvy and/or efficient at putting out a quality product than they were, so now they just want to pull the rug out from under them, then charge them a fee for falling on the floor.
The fact that they see other products as "competitors" and not as a cohesive gaming community is really all you need to know about these pricks. And let's be clear, the "competition" only started when WOTC tried pulling this same shit back with 4e. Pathfinder was only successful because people hated the direction DnD was going. And they're doing it all over again, only this time they're gaslighting you and trying to say you weren't using the OGL the right way. I really hope we see a repeat of TSR.
Yea, I think you are right; Hasbro/WoTC sees everyone else in the gaming community as an existential threat, so they are treating them as such. Pure Microsoft thinking there regarding open licenses, which shouldn't surprise anyone as how many recent hires at WoTC / Hasbro are former 'Microsoftians'. Plus, lets not forget that Hasbro stockholders are PO'ed that their stock prices are falling, and OGL 1.1 is a way to get some of that sweet, sweet money from Critical Roll and Kickstarters. And as a bonus, WoTC gets you to sign over complete, irrevocable rights to anything they have graciously allowed you to publish (remember, they can deny you from publishing anything under 1.1). And to top it all off, they they can use those waivered rights as they see fit, for no money, even licensing it out to another company. <sarcasm>Sweet deal there.<\sarcasm>
Plus there's enough FUD in the "Comments" section of that leaked document to scare idiots into signing, because Friday the 13th (date deadline in the document) is right around the corner!
Can you imagine having a Kickstarter due to land in 2 months after having spent $$,$$$ on it? If you don't sign, you'll have to fight WoTC in court, and if you do, you sign away all your rights. Holy C*ap what a bunch of bas*ards.
To a certain extent, competition existed from day 1. Remember how the 3.0 MM didn't come out until sometime after the PHB did? So White Wolf (under their S&S line) rushed out a hardcover monster called the Creature Collection.
I don't think WOTC was happy about it, especially as it was done under the OGL 1.0 and the gentlemen's agreement of the 3.0 SRD (which was never officially released), but they didn't change anything when they did release it officially as 1.0a and the 3.5 SRD.
Because their goal was to suborn their competition, turning them into tools to grow D&D as a brand because WOTC did not plan to have the aggressive release schedule that TSR in the latter days did. Which is something the new WOTC has done, releasing things fairly sparsely. They aren't really competing with anyone in terms of D&D content, because they aren't meeting the appetite for material.
My only guess is that their whole reasoning is more about digital stuff. NFTs somehow. When they mention Web 3, they mean NFTs and some mysterious profit from blockchain. Kickstarter is the same way (though I have no idea how blockchain will help them), which presumably is why they are in kahoots.
Quote from: JeremyR on January 09, 2023, 11:21:57 PM
To a certain extent, competition existed from day 1. Remember how the 3.0 MM didn't come out until sometime after the PHB did? So White Wolf (under their S&S line) rushed out a hardcover monster called the Creature Collection.
Of course. The nature of a free market is based on competing products and ideas. Which is why I think one of the original goals of the OGL was too promote "healthy competition" by allowing game designers to share ideas while also protecting their own IPs. The early 2000s saw a huge boom in the rpg market, with products popping up all over the place, and most of them pointed right back to DnD/d20 Modern. All thanks to the OGL. Version 1.1 rips that spirit completely away.
The biggest difference is that the OGL 1.0a was separate from the SRDs. A publisher could, if they wanted to, create an entirely original game system, and then release parts of it under the OGL. It probably wouldn't be compatible with DnD, but then the terms of the license forbid mentioning compatibility anyway. Here's what the new OGL says (emphasis mine):
QuoteC. Licensed Works
For a work to be a Licensed Work under this OGL: Non-commercial, it must meet all four of the following:
i. it qualifies as a covered works as defined in Section I.B;
a. it contains both Licensed Content and Your Content,
b. it does not contain Unlicensed Content; and
c. it contains the text of this OGL: Non-Commercial within the body of the work.
To clarify, "Licensed Content" means stuff in Wizard's SRD. So now you NEED to make derivative content, at least to a minimal degree. Granted, this may be just a single item and you'd technically be in compliance, but the intent seems to be that they want you to only make material for their game. They've already claimed that people were using 1.0a the wrong way... you think if you use the bare minimum amount of Licensed Content they won't say you're exploiting a loophole and using the new license wrong?
Also, I know it's just a draft, but I like the fact that the first item is listed with "i." but then instead of going to "ii." it changes to "a." The fukken retard who wrote that forgot what format they were using in the span of a sentence. They didn't even start the second item off with "b.", they started over with "a." That's a special kind of stupid.
But I digress...
QuoteMy only guess is that their whole reasoning is more about digital stuff. NFTs somehow. When they mention Web 3, they mean NFTs and some mysterious profit from blockchain. Kickstarter is the same way (though I have no idea how blockchain will help them), which presumably is why they are in kahoots.
This is the part that confuses me. Why does WotC care how people use the content that they put out for free? The new OGL is very clear it only applies to actual games and supplements in a written or static digital format. If someone took the SRD statblock for a goblin and made an NFT from it, who cares? Or more specifically, why does WotC care? I suspect it's because it doesn't help them sell books (although I'm not sure any definitive data exists to suggest it doesn't), and that's just a pathetic reason. It screams of control freaks who want to dictate how you use their free content.
I think WOTC is trying to squash the "Printed", or "Analog" portion of D&D. They want to escape from being trapped in a book on your shelf. They don't believe their future lies in Print. They believe their future lies in "Digital". They also want to DOMINATE the Digital expression of D&D.
They must believe that if their Digital expression looks good enough, they will quickly rebound from the bad press about OGL1.1 now.
I hope they are wrong, about that.
WOTC cannot be trusted. Anyone who trusts them and adopts this license is a fool and deserves what they will get.
It's possible this license is a Poison Pill to get people to move off the concept of an OGL permanently, to force people to either seek custom licenses with WOTC or get out of the D20 game entirely. Make a license so bad, it kills off Open Gaming forever.
That, at least, would be a comprehendible goal, and from their POV, desirable.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 09, 2023, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: thornad on January 09, 2023, 05:22:38 AM
We fans will be the most screwed. The 3rd party publishers had gotten really good at creating fantastic content far beyond the quality of anything WotC has done in years. The party is over.
Yes. Unfortunately, the party is over. Even if WOTC backpedals, no one will trust them anymore. WOTC has stirred the shit pot, and now they get to lick the spoon!!!
Quote from: Effete on January 09, 2023, 10:30:28 PM
Trying to get through the document now and I'm stuck on this paragraph:
QuoteWhy is Wizards of the Coast updating to OGL 1.1 and subdividing it into Commercial and Non-Commercial terms? A lot has changed since the old OGL was launched, and that means the old license has some unintended applications we need to fix. For example, when we released OGL 1.0a, YouTube, apps, blockchain, crowdfunding, and other now every-day technologies and distribution channels didn't really exist in the way they do today. OGL wasn't intended to fund major competitors and it wasn't intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.
Is it just me or is this the weakest, stupidest reasoning ever?
WTF difference does crowdfunding make when the OGL was designed to merely let people share ideas within a larger gaming framework? If I raised 50,000 on GoFundMe or refinanced my mortgage for a home-equity loan, what in the absolute fukken difference is that to WOTC?? It just sounds like they're salty that other developers have been more savvy and/or efficient at putting out a quality product than they were, so now they just want to pull the rug out from under them, then charge them a fee for falling on the floor.
The fact that they see other products as "competitors" and not as a cohesive gaming community is really all you need to know about these pricks. And let's be clear, the "competition" only started when WOTC tried pulling this same shit back with 4e. Pathfinder was only successful because people hated the direction DnD was going. And they're doing it all over again, only this time they're gaslighting you and trying to say you weren't using the OGL the right way. I really hope we see a repeat of TSR.
It's an envious, fixed pie mentality. Someone, somewhere is making money using the OGL, and this somehow cuts into WotC's profits, cuz there's a fixed amount of cash and that money would have definitely made it to WotC's coffers had those other people not ran a Kickstarter or whatever, as opposed to it being saved or spent on something else. So WotC's needs a cut of that revenue (not even profit, but the dollar amount they saw listed at the crowdfunding campaign), like most Kickstarters don't end up loosing money or making razor thin margins after all that money gets blown paying for artists, writers, printing and fulfillment.
It's pure greedy entitlement.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 09, 2023, 06:07:03 PM
These threads really need to be consolidated.
Yeah, I don't get why everyone needs to start a need thread to post their reaction to this shitshow, bring new info or ask questions directly related to this.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 09, 2023, 05:15:18 PM
Well, someone just told me that WotC "explicitly chose Washington State as to be the governing law of the contract. Washington State has a statutory Good Faith and Fair Dealing requirement for all contracts. Several things within OGL1.1 make it clear that it is not operating in good faith."
This raises two questions:
1.- Is the OGL 1.0 ALSO under Washington State governing law of the contract. ?
2.- If so, trying to revoke it wouldn't break Good Faith and Fair Dealing?
Aren't they based out of Seattle, WA? Or am I misremembering?
That being said, I strongly suspect WotC and Hasbro are banking on being able to fight litigation through sheer attrition and spinning bullshit rather than any legal claim.
My observation of the morning is, given their clear intent to stifle competition, if these are the terms Hasbro releases then companies incorporated in more pro-small business states than Washington (ex. Florida, Texas) might find value in reaching out to their state attorney general's office about anti-competitive business practices (hell, given the "you have one week to comply or else" I'd even argue extortion).
The little guys may not have the resources to fight, but a state AG looking to make a name for themselves defending small businesses against a monopolistic corporation trying to crush competition and innovation? They'd have the resources of their state government (not to mention criminal lawsuits are a whole different beast) to smash into Hasbro's face.
I'm sitting right now on a conclusion which says: yes, it's about the money that's being made by 3PP off the old OGL... but what it's about at the heart of the matter is HASBRO's ESG score. I said it before in another thread, and I'll say it here. HASBRO is more interested in protecting their stock value and bending knee to mentally ill people than their loyal customers... AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT... I'd like to remind you of what happened between them and the Hickmans just two years ago.
Here's a capsule of that to refresh your memory: https://www.polygon.com/2020/10/19/21523673/dragonlance-authors-weis-hickman-sue-wizards-of-the-coast-dungeons-and-dragons
The Destroyers ain't through destroying.
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
Crush the competition by declaring them *phobes and *ists
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
Because the ESG pours money into the corporation as long as they push the woke agenda, and we're talking about billions.
In the case of big bussinesses it's not
Get woke go broke
It's the other way around:
Go broke, Get woke
Because then the ESG pours and unending stream of money into them.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 10, 2023, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
Crush the competition by declaring them *phobes and *ists
I think the heart of it is re-establishing 100% dominance over the brand for monetization purposes, especially in the digital world. The political angle you mention is a just a perk, imo.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
Because the ESG pours money into the corporation as long as they push the woke agenda, and we're talking about billions.
In the case of big bussinesses it's not
Get woke go broke
It's the other way around:
Go broke, Get woke
Because then the ESG pours and unending stream of money into them.
Pretty much. The commentary in the leaked doc mentioned the need to shut down problematic content in multiple places. Playing morality police to cancel opposing voices is clearly a part of the agenda... whether it's primary or secondary to wringing money out of past content creators is fairly irrelevant because clearly the OGL1.1 approaches it as a case of "why not both?"
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
ESG is a metric, if not the primary metric, for stock value these days. I won't comment on that any further because I'm not an economics guy.
Look back at what pushed WOTC to dirty deal with the Hickmans two years ago. They were pushed by the mentally ill left to get rid of certain "problematic" elements in the game, and they tried to break the deal with the Hickmans. That didn't end well.
Rather than have their brand sullied by people who are
not mental, WOTC needs to get its property until its total control. It keeps 3PPs in business, but their material is completely subject to WOTC's approval. Read that OGL 1.1 with this in mind, and it makes perfect sense.
Lose some valuable customers? Hey, there's always more customers... and the prices of the books and other material will go up because the Wokies will pay it in order to keep a "good thing" going.
Now let me throw something else in: YT is overrun with lawyers giving their opinions as to whether or not the 1.0a can be revoked. That's just that:
opinions. All attorneys have opinions until a judge rules.
Prediction (and I hope I'm wrong): at least Paizo, and probably other larger 3PP like FGG will sign onto 1.1. They'll have to do it.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Prediction (and I hope I'm wrong): at least Paizo, and probably other larger 3PP like FGG will sign onto 1.1. They'll have to do it.
Without some special provisions I'm not sure they can afford to sign on and give away such a huge percentage of their gross.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
ESG is a metric, if not the primary metric, for stock value these days. I won't comment on that any further because I'm not an economics guy.
I haved advised institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc) via my job on the trading floor of a major investment bank for 20 years. In my experience, it's barely a top ten consideration. YMMV.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 10, 2023, 12:23:22 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Prediction (and I hope I'm wrong): at least Paizo, and probably other larger 3PP like FGG will sign onto 1.1. They'll have to do it.
Without some special provisions I'm not sure they can afford to sign on and give away such a huge percentage of their gross.
Who knows? I'm not privvy to anything going on up there, but it may be a case of "half a loaf." Bill Webb has been ass deep in the OGL since the beginning. Can he walk away now?
Can Paizo?
I dunno. We'll see.
So far I haven't heard of a single third-party indicating they'll be signing onto the OGL1.1. Paizo's said the OGL for PF2e was a formality (i.e. they're not going to get roped into the 1.1 travesty). Frog God and Kobold Press have indicated similarly.
So, what happens when you release a predatory license intended to capture all third-party content to enrich yourself and no one steps into the trap?
All that goodwill nuked, all that potential free supporting content that would have encouraged spending on their core products gone, with nothing to even show for it.
I mean, we're still waiting on Critical Role I guess, but at this point it looks like damnably near every major third party creator is saying "sayonara" to the OGL and support for D&D.
Even Kickstarter only engaged to extent that they were seeking better terms for those who might use the OGL1.1, not that they'd play policeman looking for enough similarities in Non-OGL Kickstarters to SRD material to report them to Hasbro/WotC.
Similarly, unless Hasbro buys it outright, I don't see OneBookShelf/DTRPG wanting to play IP policeman for WotC on whether all the Non-OGL producers are sufficiently different from WotC's IP (if Hasbro bought them then every non-D&D product would need to find a new distribution company anyway).
Basically, what we're seeing right now is a reverse bandwagon effect, as more people abandon D&D proper the pressure mounts for others to do the same. At the rate things are moving by the time WotC actually officially releases the new OGL1.1 there might not be any companies left for them to try and extort with it.
ETA: This is also why I have argued that this whole 1.1 debacle was organized by a bunch of first stage thinkers. A huge part of 5e's appeal was the huge body of generally superior 3rd party content that non-the-less required WotC's core products to function. If the 3rd parties abandon D&D entirely they'll have only their in house designers and developers to produce content and they've already demonstrated they don't have the capability to keep the sort of schedule they'd need to match what the third parties have been providing them... and they're going to be in competition instead of working in unison with companies that produce better quality content... and they didn't see even the prospect of that coming.
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
ESG is a metric, if not the primary metric, for stock value these days. I won't comment on that any further because I'm not an economics guy.
I haved advised institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc) via my job on the trading floor of a major investment bank for 20 years. In my experience, it's barely a top ten consideration. YMMV.
I hope you're correct and I'm wrong.
Given WOTCs recent past actions, I tend to think I am right... or at least it's about public perception if not outright stock value.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Prediction (and I hope I'm wrong): at least Paizo, and probably other larger 3PP like FGG will sign onto 1.1. They'll have to do it.
Nope. Paizo and the other big 3pp who have way too much invested in the old OGL will cut backroom contracts that won't use the OGL at all. The more I read the leaked OGL, the more I agree that it's a poison pill. Read the section about Other Products. WotC straight up says they will take your content and use it however they damn well please, without paying you a red cent. There is no longer any "Product Identity" to secure your IP ; it's Their Content and Your Content, and all of Your Content becomes part of the upstream license.
Here's the other thing... Licensed Content only applies to the SRDv5.1.
The entire 3.5 SRD is now classified as Unlicensed Content, meaning Paizo would NEED to strike a custom agreement if they want to continue using the content and selling old books.
The entire thing is designed to put the smaller companies under their thumb until they "level up" to Expert Tier and pay WotC enough royalties to earn a custom contract. Calling this an "Open Gaming" license is a farce. It's highly restrictive and designed to establish a boy's club where only those loyal to WotC can get deals that don't fuck them sideways.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 12:33:34 PM
ETA: This is also why I have argued that this whole 1.1 debacle was organized by a bunch of first stage thinkers. A huge part of 5e's appeal was the huge body of generally superior 3rd party content that non-the-less required WotC's core products to function. If the 3rd parties abandon D&D entirely they'll have only their in house designers and developers to produce content and they've already demonstrated they don't have the capability to keep the sort of schedule they'd need to match what the third parties have been providing them... and they're going to be in competition instead of working in unison with companies that produce better quality content... and they didn't see even the prospect of that coming.
No kidding. I only stuck with 5E as long as I did because of third party content. And that was a GM building and running my own campaign settings for the game. Without third party, I suspect I would have run a couple of concurrent campaigns of about 18 months, and then moved on to something else.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:34:34 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
ESG is a metric, if not the primary metric, for stock value these days. I won't comment on that any further because I'm not an economics guy.
I haved advised institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc) via my job on the trading floor of a major investment bank for 20 years. In my experience, it's barely a top ten consideration. YMMV.
I hope you're correct and I'm wrong.
Given WOTCs recent past actions, I tend to think I am right... or at least it's about public perception if not outright stock value.
He is correct.
So many around here read the earnings, saw tons of cash on hand, massive stock buybacks, and continued dividend growth/support, and still thought Hasbro was a company in trouble. They were wrong.
ESG does not move the needle. None of this OGL nonsense has moved the needle. Who Hasbro has sitting inside meeting rooms with fund managers, and what they are saying about the next 18 months is moving the needle. Selling off that entertainment company they purchased would move the needle. Would they like to have a bigger slice of ESG funds? Sure, they want to be in as many funds as possible. And yes, Vanguard is typically a top two institutional owner, but ESG funds are not flagship products yet, and likely won't be.
Long-term is a different story. If Hasbro makes another 4e mistake, and let's face it, they are on that path right now, that changes things. This is a hobby, and if it fails to maintain its momentum and attract new blood, it will fall apart for them. Investing in 300 developers for a virtual table top only makes sense if the hobby continues to grow at the present rate.
The more who divorce themselves from the OGL, even if Hasbro does a complete 180 on this, the better off this hobby will be. D&D was best when it was a door to the hobby, not the entire room.
I do not see WotC as being able to revoke OGL 1.0a.
Quote9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated
versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to
copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under
any version of this License.
I don't see anyone at all using OGL 1.1 except
Only if they release a 6th edition D&D (One D&D) SRD licensed under OGL 1.1
Which in effect would kill most, if not all, 3rd party content for the new D&D.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:34:34 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
ESG is a metric, if not the primary metric, for stock value these days. I won't comment on that any further because I'm not an economics guy.
I haved advised institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc) via my job on the trading floor of a major investment bank for 20 years. In my experience, it's barely a top ten consideration. YMMV.
I hope you're correct and I'm wrong.
Given WOTCs recent past actions, I tend to think I am right... or at least it's about public perception if not outright stock value.
Yeah, I mean, there's definitely a corporate desire to seem "ESG" among all companies, but actual investors pulling the trigger never ask me about it. They want fundamentals on growth, margin, cash flow, M&A, share repo, leverage etc
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
Knowing how more and more stuff is becoming "problematic" to the woke, this this contract is a disaster in the making for anyone who signs on to it.
Quote from: Leaked OGL Draft
Comments:
We know this may come off strong, but this is important: If You attempt to use the OGL as a basis to release blatantly
racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory content, or do anything We think triggers
these provisions, Your content is no longer licensed. To be clear, We want to, and will always, support creators who are
using the OGL to help them explore sensitive subjects in a positive manner, but We will not tolerate materials We
consider to be in any way counter to the spirit of D&D. Additionally, You waive any right to sue over Our decision on
these issues. We're aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these
clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We're more than open to being convinced that
We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us.
Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 01:07:17 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Prediction (and I hope I'm wrong): at least Paizo, and probably other larger 3PP like FGG will sign onto 1.1. They'll have to do it.
Nope. Paizo and the other big 3pp who have way too much invested in the old OGL will cut backroom contracts that won't use the OGL at all. The more I read the leaked OGL, the more I agree that it's a poison pill. Read the section about Other Products. WotC straight up says they will take your content and use it however they damn well please, without paying you a red cent. There is no longer any "Product Identity" to secure your IP ; it's Their Content and Your Content, and all of Your Content becomes part of the upstream license.
Here's the other thing... Licensed Content only applies to the SRDv5.1.
The entire 3.5 SRD is now classified as Unlicensed Content, meaning Paizo would NEED to strike a custom agreement if they want to continue using the content and selling old books.
The entire thing is designed to put the smaller companies under their thumb until they "level up" to Expert Tier and pay WotC enough royalties to earn a custom contract. Calling this an "Open Gaming" license is a farce. It's highly restrictive and designed to establish a boy's club where only those loyal to WotC can get deals that don't fuck them sideways.
All excellent points. Thank you.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 12:33:34 PM
I mean, we're still waiting on Critical Role I guess, but at this point it looks like damnably near every major third party creator is saying "sayonara" to the OGL and support for D&D.
Critical Role and others could just as easily give the finger to WotC by switching to playing another RPG.
If these streaming games are as popular with new players as some say, whatever they play might become competitive with D&D.
Just noticed this in their introduction...
QuoteA lot has changed over the last half century, including the rise of the internet, apps, Web 3, and even virtual TTRPGs.
LOL
Quote from: VisionStorm on January 10, 2023, 07:58:09 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 09, 2023, 06:07:03 PM
These threads really need to be consolidated.
Yeah, I don't get why everyone needs to start a need thread to post their reaction to this shitshow, bring new info or ask questions directly related to this.
Let the threads go where they go. Having one giant mega-thread means we'd have to read one giant 500 page thread, and could cause people to forget what they read (due to thread size).
Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 12:33:34 PM
I mean, we're still waiting on Critical Role I guess, but at this point it looks like damnably near every major third party creator is saying "sayonara" to the OGL and support for D&D.
Critical Role and others could just as easily give the finger to WotC by switching to playing another RPG.
If these streaming games are as popular with new players as some say, whatever they play might become competitive with D&D.
If Hasbro/WotC hasn't cut a deal already with CR, then they truly are a pack of phenomenal idiots.
Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 12:33:34 PM
I mean, we're still waiting on Critical Role I guess, but at this point it looks like damnably near every major third party creator is saying "sayonara" to the OGL and support for D&D.
Critical Role and others could just as easily give the finger to WotC by switching to playing another RPG.
If these streaming games are as popular with new players as some say, whatever they play might become competitive with D&D.
I've never actually watched Critical Role, but I'm familiar with it. I'm curious though, is it popular BECAUSE of 5e, or because it's supposedly entertaining to watch? I always hear how Mercer's overly-dramatic performances set a high expectation for new GMs and a skewed view of an actual game, but how many subscribers actually play the game?
Anyway, I guess what I'm really asking is if CR simply starts playing something else, how much of their fan base will stick around? Legitimate question, not rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 12:33:34 PM
I mean, we're still waiting on Critical Role I guess, but at this point it looks like damnably near every major third party creator is saying "sayonara" to the OGL and support for D&D.
Critical Role and others could just as easily give the finger to WotC by switching to playing another RPG.
If these streaming games are as popular with new players as some say, whatever they play might become competitive with D&D.
I've never actually watched Critical Role, but I'm familiar with it. I'm curious though, is it popular BECAUSE of 5e, or because it's supposedly entertaining to watch? I always hear how Mercer's overly-dramatic performances set a high expectation for new GMs and a skewed view of an actual game, but how many subscribers actually play the game?
Anyway, I guess what I'm really asking is if CR simply starts playing something else, how much of their fan base will stick around? Legitimate question, not rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
people watch it to be entertained not to learn how to play D&D. Learning to play is what folks do AFTER they've watched CR.
That would be amazing blow-back if Critical Role changed games and the audience numbers stayed the same or increased. It might actually be time for them to release their own game named after the tv show, and see if it gets traction.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 10, 2023, 02:47:08 PM
That would be amazing blow-back if Critical Role changed games and the audience numbers stayed the same or increased. It might actually be time for them to release their own game named after the tv show, and see if it gets traction.
Rumor has it that they may go Pathfinder.
Well, AFAIK, Kobold Press is the first to raise their fist at the changes, via their "Project Black Flag"
- This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).
- In particular, Deep Magic Volume 2 will remain fully compatible with the 5E rules. We are working with our VTT partners to maintain support for digital platforms.
- As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.
Got these from Kobold Press website, and Twitter.
Quote from: WeatherDave on January 10, 2023, 03:17:04 PM
Well, AFAIK, Kobold Press is the first to raise their fist at the changes, via their "Project Black Flag"
- This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).
- In particular, Deep Magic Volume 2 will remain fully compatible with the 5E rules. We are working with our VTT partners to maintain support for digital platforms.
- As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.
Got these from Kobold Press website, and Twitter.
From The Guide to Woke Companies:
Yellow"Kobold Press Chapter 2 of "Guide to Gamemastering" has a whole section telling the reader to "check your privilege" and the whole thing kind of reads like a gender studies course or something. Actively disparages cis white males. Also known to charge writers for the chance to write for them, and then prides themselves on paying them a penny per word. However the book is an anthology from various authors and freelancers, so maybe being this even handed in a book is a good thing? Placed here because of their motivation for including such a scolding article is a bit weird."
I'll wait and see what exactly is their black flag project and what license do they use, I'm disinclined to give them money just because of past actions tho.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 10, 2023, 01:49:52 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on January 10, 2023, 07:58:09 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 09, 2023, 06:07:03 PM
These threads really need to be consolidated.
Yeah, I don't get why everyone needs to start a need thread to post their reaction to this shitshow, bring new info or ask questions directly related to this.
Let the threads go where they go. Having one giant mega-thread means we'd have to read one giant 500 page thread, and could cause people to forget what they read (due to thread size).
Similar could be said about having around a dozen different threads dealing with essentially the same topic. "Where did I last post? On which thread did I saw that last bit of info drop?" There's even multiple threads dealing with OSR games that use the OGL, and then a separate thread asking which games in general (not just the exalted OSR) use the OGL. Are multiple threads asking about games using the OGL necessary?
Anyways, RE: CR, this is a golden opportunity for them to feature games other than D&D on their streams. I've heard that Matt Mercer may have his own game in the back burner and this could be the chance for him to promote his own game and leave D&D in the dust. If that's the case, I wish him the best of luck, cuz if anyone could help liberate the hobby from the D&D/WotC stranglehold it's CR.
They're one of the few people with enough mass appeal to bring other RPGs to the masses. But the silence is deafening. I really hope they don't sell out, cuz the future is bleak, but with great opportunity.
This latest move by WotC is so over the top 3pps everywhere will be forced to act. The terms they're setting up would make it impossible for anyone to do well selling OGL game without going under and becoming indebted to WotC in the process. I already sorta knew this intuitively, but seeing it in black and white really brings it home...
https://twitter.com/HoundsongGames/status/1612634286930251777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1612634286930251777%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 10, 2023, 02:47:08 PM
That would be amazing blow-back if Critical Role changed games and the audience numbers stayed the same or increased. It might actually be time for them to release their own game named after the tv show, and see if it gets traction.
Rumor has it that they may go Pathfinder.
Didn't they start on PF?
Quote from: VisionStorm on January 10, 2023, 04:10:59 PM
Anyways, RE: CR, this is a golden opportunity for them to feature games other than D&D on their streams. I've heard that Matt Mercer may have his own game in the back burner and this could be the chance for him to promote his own game and leave D&D in the dust. If that's the case, I wish him the best of luck, cuz if anyone could help liberate the hobby from the D&D/WotC stranglehold it's CR.
I have a separate thread on this - but I think it's also fine if they keep to D&D 5E, but broadcast clearly about the problems of the OGL 1.1. They could feature more third-party material for D&D, and have nothing about any new WotC products. That means they'll still be watched by the biggest segment (5E players), and the anti-WotC message is thus spread more widely.
Quote from: jhkim on January 10, 2023, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on January 10, 2023, 04:10:59 PM
Anyways, RE: CR, this is a golden opportunity for them to feature games other than D&D on their streams. I've heard that Matt Mercer may have his own game in the back burner and this could be the chance for him to promote his own game and leave D&D in the dust. If that's the case, I wish him the best of luck, cuz if anyone could help liberate the hobby from the D&D/WotC stranglehold it's CR.
I have a separate thread on this - but I think it's also fine if they keep to D&D 5E, but broadcast clearly about the problems of the OGL 1.1. They could feature more third-party material for D&D, and have nothing about any new WotC products. That means they'll still be watched by the biggest segment (5E players), and the anti-WotC message is thus spread more widely.
Honest question: Is WotC paying you or are you doing this for free?
CR is publicity for D&D, and you think giving them more of it is perfectly fine while WotC is busy trying to fuck the hobby in the ass with a sahuaro cactus sideways!
Regarding Critical Role - apparently Matt Mercer is currently running an arc wherein the gods of the setting (one of the only remaining elements of the CR setting with a connection to D&D) are under existential threat by something or other... i.e. Mercer may be cutting out the last things WotC might be able to claim to skate free and clear of WotC's grip.
We'll apparently know in a few weeks with the existing gods getting eaten (or whatever it is that's the threat) and getting replaced by new ones (the Vox Machina/campaign 1 PCs ascending? Nature goddess/Death god (very Hades/Persephone), Forge god, War god, Sun goddess, Huntress god, Arts/Music god sounds like a decent pantheon) likely indicating they're NOT continuing their association with WotC/D&D going forward.
That'd pretty much be the last nail in the coffin for the OGL1.1 being able to capture ANY meaningful third party creators in WotC's net.
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 10, 2023, 11:40:07 AM
Curious, why do you say ESG the heart of this?
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail...
Quote from: estar on January 09, 2023, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:07:01 AM
The complete radio silence from Hasbro/WotC at this point is the most amusing thing to me. We're on day five of the leak. One would think with the way social media is blowing up against them Hasbro/WotC would have released some sort of statement by now.
Keep in mind it was just a "rumor" on Thursday. Became a full blown fire on Friday. Then started to become a raging inferno on Saturday. I think up to this point the community was inside WoTC's decision-action loop. But I would consider it unusual if we don't hear something by the end of the day Monday or at the latest Tuesday.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:07:01 AM
They probably didn't even consider this would turn the outrage machine against them... coming from video games they don't understand that the primary component of an RPG is the grey matter of the player base and their product is really just a convenience so each GM doesn't need to make their own system. You can control access to a video game. You can't control access to people's own imaginations as they sit face to face at a table with pens, papers and dice.
Or the fact that unlike Triple A videos games we don't need a staff of a hundred to make a product that can compete as a RPG against whatever the biggest publishers can product. Often one person can do it in the time they have for a hobby.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 09:07:01 AM
As outraged as we are, don't think for a second this is going as planned for Hasbro/WotC right now either.
I said else Hasbro/Wizards is fighting with the last war's general. For the most part, rest of the industry and hobby has moved on and adapted to the changes that the internet and digital technology have wrought.
Well today all we heard was a message from DNDBeyond which said along the lines of, "Yeah we know you have questions, please stand by"
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
That's it.
THAT is what they've managed to put together as a response to the firestorm after SIX days (four business days).
That is NOT how any organization that has any idea what they're going to do responds to something like this.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
That's it.
THAT is what they've managed to put together as a response to the firestorm after SIX days (four business days).
That is NOT how any organization that has any idea what they're going to do responds to something like this.
Maybe (yeah if you believe that I have a bridge in San Fran for sale) they are busy making their new non open licence into a less shitty turd.
Or they are so sure the shitstorm will blow away that they only have to wait it out.
Nope, I was wrong. Deleted.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:11:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
That's it.
THAT is what they've managed to put together as a response to the firestorm after SIX days (four business days).
That is NOT how any organization that has any idea what they're going to do responds to something like this.
Maybe (yeah if you believe that I have a bridge in San Fran for sale) they are busy making their new non open licence into a less shitty turd.
Or they are so sure the shitstorm will blow away that they only have to wait it out.
At best, it blows over only for their most diehard fans who will continue their DDB subscriptions. But even their members on the forums are saying they've unsubscribed over this. The negative bandwagon effect is going depress new signups too.
At this point they've already lost virtually every relevant 3rd party they'd hoped to capture in their net and all the competing VTT's like Foundry they hoped to kneecap are going to have a host of non-OGL options that will be D&D adjacent to choose from for players who don't want to join D&D's microtransaction-laden VTT.
They lost the element of surprise and no one steps into a pit trap they know is there.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:11:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
That's it.
THAT is what they've managed to put together as a response to the firestorm after SIX days (four business days).
That is NOT how any organization that has any idea what they're going to do responds to something like this.
Maybe (yeah if you believe that I have a bridge in San Fran for sale) they are busy making their new non open licence into a less shitty turd.
Or they are so sure the shitstorm will blow away that they only have to wait it out.
At best, it blows over only for their most diehard fans who will continue their DDB subscriptions. But even their members on the forums are saying they've unsubscribed over this. The negative bandwagon effect is going depress new signups too.
At this point they've already lost virtually every relevant 3rd party they'd hoped to capture in their net and all the competing VTT's like Foundry they hoped to kneecap are going to have a host of non-OGL options that will be D&D adjacent to choose from for players who don't want to join D&D's microtransaction-laden VTT.
They lost the element of surprise and no one steps into a pit trap they know is there.
Plus Kobold Press already said they want to be the next Paizo, their black flag project is nothing but 5e with the serial numbers filled off.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:43:19 PM
Plus Kobold Press already said they want to be the next Paizo, their black flag project is nothing but 5e with the serial numbers filled off.
Yup!
The obvious allusion to piracy is also no accident, I assure you. Kobold Press, it seems, is openly challenging WotC. It would be interesting to see which way the tide goes on this. ;)
Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:43:19 PM
Plus Kobold Press already said they want to be the next Paizo, their black flag project is nothing but 5e with the serial numbers filled off.
Yup!
The obvious allusion to piracy is also no accident, I assure you. Kobold Press, it seems, is openly challenging WotC. It would be interesting to see which way the tide goes on this. ;)
Given that I despise WotC and everything they stand for... I'll be rooting for KP
Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:43:19 PM
Plus Kobold Press already said they want to be the next Paizo, their black flag project is nothing but 5e with the serial numbers filled off.
Yup!
The obvious allusion to piracy is also no accident, I assure you. Kobold Press, it seems, is openly challenging WotC. It would be interesting to see which way the tide goes on this. ;)
I interpreted the black flag as total war with no quarter given (25%??? See what I did there?), but you're probably right.
Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:43:19 PM
Plus Kobold Press already said they want to be the next Paizo, their black flag project is nothing but 5e with the serial numbers filled off.
Yup!
The obvious allusion to piracy is also no accident, I assure you. Kobold Press, it seems, is openly challenging WotC. It would be interesting to see which way the tide goes on this. ;)
As it is, Kobold Press might actually have to change their branding, because the concept of a kobold being a dog/reptile small biped is very much a D&D thing, not like the kobolds of folklore which are German mine spirits/faeries.
But I'll be rooting for them.
Quote from: JeremyR on January 10, 2023, 08:30:01 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:43:19 PM
Plus Kobold Press already said they want to be the next Paizo, their black flag project is nothing but 5e with the serial numbers filled off.
Yup!
The obvious allusion to piracy is also no accident, I assure you. Kobold Press, it seems, is openly challenging WotC. It would be interesting to see which way the tide goes on this. ;)
As it is, Kobold Press might actually have to change their branding, because the concept of a kobold being a dog/reptile small biped is very much a D&D thing, not like the kobolds of folklore which are German mine spirits/faeries.
But I'll be rooting for them.
Perhaps, but then that may also become part of the challenge. DnD is such a large share of the market (50-60%) and so ubiquitous, many aspects of their IP have slipped into the public awareness. The next step is pushing these ideas into the Public Domain. I am entirely in favor of diluting WotC's claim to simple gaming concepts and terms.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 08:25:39 PM
I interpreted the black flag as total war with no quarter given (25%??? See what I did there?)...
Ooo, that's a deep cut! I like it.
New hashtag I saw on the D&DBeyond forums of all places;
"It's time to #EnD&D."
People on their own forums are proudly announcing they've canceled their subscriptions over this and are calling for an end D&D as a brand.
And all WotC can muster after six days is "please stand by."
We are rapidly approaching the level of farce.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:11:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
That's it.
THAT is what they've managed to put together as a response to the firestorm after SIX days (four business days).
That is NOT how any organization that has any idea what they're going to do responds to something like this.
Maybe (yeah if you believe that I have a bridge in San Fran for sale) they are busy making their new non open licence into a less shitty turd.
Or they are so sure the shitstorm will blow away that they only have to wait it out.
Hasbro would be foolish to wait things out. They can't wait out the shitstorm. There's a very large subset of the TTRPG industry that uses the OGL, to the point that OGL gaming is an industry itself.....and Hasbro just chose to maliciously and ruthlessly destroy this industry in the most ridiculous, heavy-handed, and petty way possible.
Even if Hasbro tones down its aggressively evil bullshit, few people will trust them now. Few people would dare. Even ordinary DMs would start to worry about putting up D&D content on their personal blogs, because they'd be forced to worry about DMCA takedowns.
Hasbro has really, really fucked up....but we probably won't know how badly they've fucked up for a few years.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 11, 2023, 01:51:07 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 07:11:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
That's it.
THAT is what they've managed to put together as a response to the firestorm after SIX days (four business days).
That is NOT how any organization that has any idea what they're going to do responds to something like this.
Maybe (yeah if you believe that I have a bridge in San Fran for sale) they are busy making their new non open licence into a less shitty turd.
Or they are so sure the shitstorm will blow away that they only have to wait it out.
Hasbro would be foolish to wait things out. They can't wait out the shitstorm. There's a very large subset of the TTRPG industry that uses the OGL, to the point that OGL gaming is an industry itself.....and Hasbro just chose to maliciously and ruthlessly destroy this industry in the most ridiculous, heavy-handed, and petty way possible.
Even if Hasbro tones down its aggressively evil bullshit, few people will trust them now. Few people would dare. Even ordinary DMs would start to worry about putting up D&D content on their personal blogs, because they'd be forced to worry about DMCA takedowns.
Hasbro has really, really fucked up....but we probably won't know how badly they've fucked up for a few years.
Yeah, but like I said before here on another thread regarding the shitstorm: Greed makes people dumb.
re: Hasbro waiting things out.
Yea, I'm in agreement, it would considerably foolish. But how far down that path do they go? My largest fear is that WoTC moves to 'nuclear strike' all non-OGL 1.1 material from store-fronts, such as DtRPG. I could see WoTC sending them a 'nice' letter stating that as of (some date), all OGL material that isn't under OGL 1.1 is now considered "unlicensed content", and the producers of that content have no rights to it. Therefore, it and all similar material should now be removed from sale.
I mean really; if this is as much a pure-power-play at it seems, why not try and level 90% of the "competing" material at one fell swoop.
Quote from: WeatherDave on January 11, 2023, 11:35:58 AM
re: Hasbro waiting things out.
Yea, I'm in agreement, it would considerably foolish. But how far down that path do they go? My largest fear is that WoTC moves to 'nuclear strike' all non-OGL 1.1 material from store-fronts, such as DtRPG. I could see WoTC sending them a 'nice' letter stating that as of (some date), all OGL material that isn't under OGL 1.1 is now considered "unlicensed content", and the producers of that content have no rights to it. Therefore, it and all similar material should now be removed from sale.
I mean really; if this is as much a pure-power-play at it seems, why not try and level 90% of the "competing" material at one fell swoop.
They can try, but forewarned is forearmed and all the third parties are already in motion to protect themselves. Good luck dropping an OGL-based cease and desist on DtRPG for Delta Green when they've already pulled the OGL from their products.
That's where this radio silence followed by a "please stand by" now 22 hours ago isn't helping WotC if their goal was a nuclear strike. They were hoping to use fear coupled with a very tight time scale to essentially bully third parties into compliance with the OGL1.1... but with the notice and knowledge that the actual 1.1 release isn't officially released its turned the dangerous kind of fear (where you make stupid choices in the heat of the moment) into the productive "this is an unaffordable risk we must plan to avoid" kind of fear... the kind of pressure of impending threat that motivates decisive and effective actions to resist rather succumb.
Basically, whoever the leaker was is a hero who has probably saved more than a few smaller publishers from making disastrous fear impulse moves by giving them the time to consider other options.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
D&D Beyond @DnDBeyond · 6h
We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/6pJNYBYSMFod2/giphy.webp)
This is the most entertainment I've gotten out of WOTC in years.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:23:41 PM
(https://i.giphy.com/media/6pJNYBYSMFod2/giphy.webp)
This is the most entertainment I've gotten out of WOTC in years.
Wizards fucked themselves...big time. They basically pissed off enough people that the D&D brand might actually be damaged enough to cost them financially, which means Hasbro might pull the plug and gut the whole thing. Which would be hilarious.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 11, 2023, 01:51:07 AM
...
Hasbro would be foolish to wait things out. They can't wait out the shitstorm. There's a very large subset of the TTRPG industry that uses the OGL, to the point that OGL gaming is an industry itself.....and Hasbro just chose to maliciously and ruthlessly destroy this industry in the most ridiculous, heavy-handed, and petty way possible.
Good. Best thing for the hobby since 1977.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 11, 2023, 01:51:07 AM
Even if Hasbro tones down its aggressively evil bullshit, few people will trust them now. Few people would dare. Even ordinary DMs would start to worry about putting up D&D content on their personal blogs, because they'd be forced to worry about DMCA takedowns.
We can Dream.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 11, 2023, 01:51:07 AM
Hasbro has really, really fucked up....but we probably won't know how badly they've fucked up for a few years.
These are all beautiful and wonderful things.
My only fear is that the WotC suits will pivot in a few years due to the outrage, and hire devs to pivot to a true 6e, and people will come running back to lick the hand that feeds...
Please WotC suits, please hold the course!
Quote from: Jaeger on January 11, 2023, 12:46:36 PM
Good. Best thing for the hobby since 1977.
The hobby is the people who play it. Not everyone in the hobby is going to be thrilled by D&D imploding. Hell, as much as I detest the last two editions and WotC as a whole, I don't want to see D&D
die.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 11, 2023, 12:46:36 PM
Good. Best thing for the hobby since 1977.
The hobby is the people who play it. Not everyone in the hobby is going to be thrilled by D&D imploding. Hell, as much as I detest the last two editions and WotC as a whole, I don't want to see D&D die.
D&D won't die permanently... the reincarnation spell exists for a reason. ;D
Seriously though, what the hobby really needs is for "D&D" to become akin to "Kleenex"... just a term under which many similar yet unique brands can exist and consumers are free to migrate to whichever genuinely offers a better product (or at least the right set of features for them).
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 12:58:59 PM
Seriously though, what the hobby really needs is for "D&D" to become akin to "Kleenex"... just a term under which many similar yet unique brands can exist and consumers are free to migrate to whichever genuinely offers a better product (or at least the right set of features for them).
I like this, because I think D&D has long been a broad tent holding together numerous different playstyles, if not altogether different hobbies, and breaking up the Leviathan might allow for people to find things that better suit their specific needs.
It's already near certain that C&C, Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy, and ACKS will survive in some form, among others, and Kobold will probably be able to latch on to a lot of the audience that 5E specifically serves. If one doesn't worship at the altar of the Brand, this shouldn't cause too much disruption--and really, given WotC's track record with their IP, how many people want their specific stuff anyway? :)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 12:58:59 PM
Seriously though, what the hobby really needs is for "D&D" to become akin to "Kleenex"... just a term under which many similar yet unique brands can exist and consumers are free to migrate to whichever genuinely offers a better product (or at least the right set of features for them).
I've been gaming since the early 90s. I can't remember a time this wasn't already
pretty much the case. If you're talking very specifically about "Six stats, armor and hitpoints, 4-10 classes, Vancian magic and Tolkien races with some level of rules cross-compatibility" we've been there since the 3.x era.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 12:53:35 PM
The hobby is the people who play it. Not everyone in the hobby is going to be thrilled by D&D imploding.
IP Lemmings gonna lemming.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 12:53:35 PM
Hell, as much as I detest the last two editions and WotC as a whole, I don't want to see D&D die.
Impossible.
A game that gets close enough to "D&D" will rise up and the hobby will rally around it.
Most likely scenario:
Baizuo will still be around, but slowly dwindle over time. I expect PF2 to linger on for quite a while.
The hobby will coalesce around the nearest 5e clone that gives them what they want, and is supported.
Unfortunately, the only companies that are currently in place to pull this off by 2024 have all virtue signaled in one way or another... But the future is unknown.
But make no mistake; WotC D&D will still be around a while. Most 5e players have no idea that all this OGL controversy is even going on...
There will be a 3 way fight for player networks going forward for at least ten years. This will be a good thing for the hobby.
And that is assuming that WotC doesn't pivot to a revised 6e+OGL, causing people to come running back to the one true brand.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 12:58:59 PM
Seriously though, what the hobby really needs is for "D&D" to become akin to "Kleenex"... just a term under which many similar yet unique brands can exist and consumers are free to migrate to whichever genuinely offers a better product (or at least the right set of features for them).
I've been gaming since the early 90s. I can't remember a time this wasn't already pretty much the case. If you're talking very specifically about "Six stats, armor and hitpoints, 4-10 classes, Vancian magic and Tolkien races with some level of rules cross-compatibility" we've been there since the 3.x era.
Right, but in this case, WotC D&D dying is a big part of what makes that becoming a genuine umbrella possible. Once there is no longer a "one true trademarked version" taking up half the marketplace then its easier for people looking for "D&D" to be channeled towards whichever rules system best fits their needs rather than to the corporate micro-transaction laden VTT that literally has "D&D" plastered onto it.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 11, 2023, 01:20:38 PM
I like this, because I think D&D has long been a broad tent holding together numerous different playstyles, if not altogether different hobbies, and breaking up the Leviathan might allow for people to find things that better suit their specific needs.
This would be ideal.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 11, 2023, 01:20:38 PM
It's already near certain that C&C, Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy, and ACKS will survive in some form, among others, and Kobold will probably be able to latch on to a lot of the audience that 5E specifically serves. If one doesn't worship at the altar of the Brand, this shouldn't cause too much disruption--and really, given WotC's track record with their IP, how many people want their specific stuff anyway? :)
I suspect a lot. Like really a lot.
The outrage is working against them now, but people are fanatically loyal to their fave RPG IP in RPG land.
Fanatically. It is beyond all reason.
That is why I really hope that the WotC suits are so tone deaf that they stay the course and do not waver!
If WotC pivots anytime in the next 5 years, they can turn back the dial the same way they did pivoting from 4e to 5e.
It would be fun to see WotC who is having financial troubles try to sue everyone that didn't scrub content sufficiently enough.
I would not be surprised to hear a few months from now that some big wigs were forced to resign over this but they kept it quiet.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 02:17:20 PM
It would be fun to see WotC who is having financial troubles try to sue everyone that didn't scrub content sufficiently enough.
I would not be surprised to hear a few months from now that some big wigs were forced to resign over this but they kept it quiet.
"WotC" may be having financial problems, but
Hasbro still has deep legal pockets.
Live stream with Ryan Dancey explaining the history of OGL 1.0a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg
Quote from: DocJones on January 11, 2023, 03:35:36 PM
Live stream with Ryan Dancey explaining the history of OGL 1.0a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg
It was very good, well worth catching.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 03:27:41 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 02:17:20 PM
It would be fun to see WotC who is having financial troubles try to sue everyone that didn't scrub content sufficiently enough.
I would not be surprised to hear a few months from now that some big wigs were forced to resign over this but they kept it quiet.
"WotC" may be having financial problems, but Hasbro still has deep legal pockets.
Corret, it's a question of how much are they willing to sink on this and how sure is it they'll end up losing in court plus all the negative press this will garner their life brand.
Quote from: S'mon on January 11, 2023, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: DocJones on January 11, 2023, 03:35:36 PM
Live stream with Ryan Dancey explaining the history of OGL 1.0a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg&t=1s
It was very good, well worth catching.
Dancey says something really interesting at
1:37.45 in:Lucasfilm has a perpetual license to the game mechanics of the WotC Star Wars RPG.
Theoretically then, they could release an OGL based on the d20 star wars game mechanics that they own, and wotc couldn't do a thing about it...
Am I missing something?
Quote from: Jaeger on January 11, 2023, 07:49:11 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 11, 2023, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: DocJones on January 11, 2023, 03:35:36 PM
Live stream with Ryan Dancey explaining the history of OGL 1.0a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg&t=1s
It was very good, well worth catching.
Dancey says something really interesting at 1:37.45 in:
Lucasfilm has a perpetual license to the game mechanics of the WotC Star Wars RPG.
Theoretically then, they could release an OGL based on the d20 star wars game mechanics that they own, and wotc couldn't do a thing about it...
Am I missing something?
It's a theoretical possibility...but consider who owns Lucasfilm now.
I don't believe WotC can cancel their OGL 1.0a license as a matter of contract law. Estoppel based on their published statements would prevent them from asserting it is revocable.
For twenty plus years they have been promoting this license as permanent. See archive of their OGL FAQ from August 2021 (https://web.archive.org/web/20210828200622/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20%2Foglfaq%2F20040123d). The FAQ has since been removed.
QuoteA: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied, modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain permanently Open.
Also pretending they hadn't considered the license applied to all sorts of other medium is clearly false per their own FAQ
QuoteQ: Is Open Gaming restricted to just RPGs?
A: No, not at all. Most Open Game Licenses are content-neutral. You could use them to distribute a board game, a card game, a miniatures game, or any other kind of content you are interested in.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 11, 2023, 07:49:11 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 11, 2023, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: DocJones on January 11, 2023, 03:35:36 PM
Live stream with Ryan Dancey explaining the history of OGL 1.0a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg&t=1s
It was very good, well worth catching.
Dancey says something really interesting at 1:37.45 in:
Lucasfilm has a perpetual license to the game mechanics of the WotC Star Wars RPG.
Theoretically then, they could release an OGL based on the d20 star wars game mechanics that they own, and wotc couldn't do a thing about it...
Am I missing something?
Yeah, but why would Disney care one way or the other? They probably don't even know they own the license, since it's EA that makes SW video games now (and they haven't used the d20 SW rules since KOTOR2, which is what, 15 years ago?)
Beyond that, the d20 SW rules are not really like the D&D 3.x rules other than the basic mechanics, which are probably not copyrightable to begin with. There's no D&D spells, no D&D classes ( I guess the Noble is akin to the Aristocrat and Scoundrel the Rogue), the skills are different, no D&D monsters.
Quote from: DocJones on January 11, 2023, 08:00:09 PM
I don't believe WotC can cancel their OGL 1.0a license as a matter of contract law. Estoppel based on their published statements would prevent them from asserting it is revocable.
For twenty plus years they have been promoting this license as permanent. See archive of their OGL FAQ from August 2021 (https://web.archive.org/web/20210828200622/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20%2Foglfaq%2F20040123d). The FAQ has since been removed.
QuoteA: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied, modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain permanently Open.
Also pretending they hadn't considered the license applied to all sorts of other medium is clearly false per their own FAQ
QuoteQ: Is Open Gaming restricted to just RPGs?
A: No, not at all. Most Open Game Licenses are content-neutral. You could use them to distribute a board game, a card game, a miniatures game, or any other kind of content you are interested in.
WOTC isn't a single person, or even a continuous group of people. There are new people in charge and they have decided otherwise. And they have an army of lawyers to use if they choose to.
Hell, even in the TSR days they unleashed their lawyers (and Sean Reynolds) on people and Hasbo is probably 100x as big.
Looks like Paizo are working on making a new RPG open license?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xXTR2HOxjs
Deleted, it was old news.
Quote from: danskmacabre on January 11, 2023, 09:25:06 PM
Looks like Paizo are working on making a new RPG open license?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xXTR2HOxjs
I need to find another source for this besides listening to Tenkar scream through his nostrils for ten minutes like an MS patient with his nuts in a vise.
People've been pointing a lot at the 25% cut and the 'we own your stuff for free' part, but not as much on the whole 'we can cut you off for any reason or no reason' part. Now picture with me: You are the owner of a major RPG production company. You have dozens of books using the OGL, scores of employees. One day, JK Rowling calls you. She wants your company to make the only Harry Potter licensed RPG in the world. You accept.
Three hours later, approximately 14,000 tweets, 95% from bots, have been @ to Wizards of the Coast about how your company is literally murdering trans people. By the end of the day, your OGL has been revoked due to your being 'on the wrong side of history, also yikes', according to their press release.
Your company is now out of business and all of your employees are out of work.
Quote from: Valatar on January 11, 2023, 11:52:22 PM
Your company is now out of business and all of your employees are out of work.
How do you figure?
If your company was that successful that JK Rowling reached out to you (and not Wizards) to do an exclusive license, you probably have a fairly loyal fanbase. You still own all the material you published, you just can't use WotC's IP anymore. So... just make you own system and re-release your material as a spiritual "2nd edition."
In fact, that would be the smartest thing you could do, since the OGL 1.1 has no provisions for protecting certain types of content. So if you had a license to Harry Potter and published under the OGL, WotC automatically gets access to the Harry Potter IP. The OGL even says that no other license can change the terms of the OGL.
Your example is silly, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with it. Your conclusion is not consistent with the facts.
Actually, this is a good point. Even if people sign up for 1.1, Wizards will forever and ever miss out on the Licensed d20 games bucks. I know Green Ronin made a Thieve's World d20 game, and I'm sure there were others.
In their quest to grab all the cash they can, they ensured entire publishers will never make "6e" compatible licensed games.
Morons.
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 12:17:22 AM
In fact, that would be the smartest thing you could do, since the OGL 1.1 has no provisions for protecting certain types of content. So if you had a license to Harry Potter and published under the OGL, WotC automatically gets access to the Harry Potter IP. The OGL even says that no other license can change the terms of the OGL.
Quote from: Valatar on January 11, 2023, 11:52:22 PM
People've been pointing a lot at the 25% cut and the 'we own your stuff for free' part, but not as much on the whole 'we can cut you off for any reason or no reason' part. Now picture with me: You are the owner of a major RPG production company. You have dozens of books using the OGL, scores of employees. One day, JK Rowling calls you. She wants your company to make the only Harry Potter licensed RPG in the world. You accept.
Three hours later, approximately 14,000 tweets, 95% from bots, have been @ to Wizards of the Coast about how your company is literally murdering trans people. By the end of the day, your OGL has been revoked due to your being 'on the wrong side of history, also yikes', according to their press release.
Your company is now out of business and all of your employees are out of work.
You are correct. The uncertainty aspect is certainly the primary reason for every major third party content creator dropping the OGL1.0a like its a radioactive hot potato to go their own way... and why even dropping the OGL1.1 for now won't be nearly enough to bring them back. They already tried this crap once with the GSL and had to walk that back to regain their dominance and many people let them because it looked like they'd learned their lesson. But now have a pattern of ill-intent where it is clear their apology tour with 5e was nothing more than a PR stunt to get back into the hobby's good graces so they could try AGAIN.
Fool us once, shame on you. We were kind hearted enough to forgive you. Trying to fool us twice? Shame on Hasbro/WotC and they've lost good faith that your apologies are anything other than PR spin and damage control so you can hold on and try again.
Very few companies have the cash laying around to cease all sales with no advance warning and pivot to rewrite their entire product line also with no advance warning. If they knew the hammer was going to drop several months in advance, sure, but the OGL only specifies a 30 day notice.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 12, 2023, 12:26:26 AM
Fool us once, shame on you. We were kind hearted enough to forgive you. Trying to fool us twice? Shame on Hasbro/WotC and they've lost good faith that your apologies are anything other than PR spin and damage control so you can hold on and try again.
I think what you were trying to say was:
"Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me, I can't get fooled again." - Famous Texas saying
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 12, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Actually, this is a good point. Even if people sign up for 1.1, Wizards will forever and ever miss out on the Licensed d20 games bucks. I know Green Ronin made a Thieve's World d20 game, and I'm sure there were others.
In their quest to grab all the cash they can, they ensured entire publishers will never make "6e" compatible licensed games.
Morons.
Morons? Maybe. Although it's entirely possible the new OGL is designed to be a poison pill. I mean, it is so incredibly bad in so many different ways, the real morons are the ones who sign up. We already know about the "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" upstream license of ALL Your Content (with no "Product Identity" clause to protect your IP), and the ability to terminate your license for badwrongthink, but also read the section on Indemnity. If you find yourself in a lawsuit, WotC can unilaterally decide to come to your defense, and you need to pay all of their attorney costs and court fees. Like... what?! Even if you don't want their help, too bad! They'll decide what's good for you.
It's so bad I would think it was a joke if WotC didn't stay silent about it for last six days.
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 12:51:41 AM
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 12, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Actually, this is a good point. Even if people sign up for 1.1, Wizards will forever and ever miss out on the Licensed d20 games bucks. I know Green Ronin made a Thieve's World d20 game, and I'm sure there were others.
In their quest to grab all the cash they can, they ensured entire publishers will never make "6e" compatible licensed games.
Morons.
Morons? Maybe. Although it's entirely possible the new OGL is designed to be a poison pill. I mean, it is so incredibly bad in so many different ways, the real morons are the ones who sign up. We already know about the "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" upstream license of ALL Your Content (with no "Product Identity" clause to protect your IP), and the ability to terminate your license for badwrongthink, but also read the section on Indemnity. If you find yourself in a lawsuit, WotC can unilaterally decide to come to your defense, and you need to pay all of their attorney costs and court fees. Like... what?! Even if you don't want their help, too bad! They'll decide what's good for you.
It's so bad I would think it was a joke if WotC didn't stay silent about it for last six days.
that right there in bold. I don't see anything in OGL v1.1 that would be enticing to any company, large or small, to sign onto it.
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.
C. For clarity, nothing contained in this Section impacts Your agreement that Our Licensed Content, Unlicensed Content,
and anything else You are not otherwise expressly authorized to use, under the terms of this agreement or any other
agreement, remains Our sole property.So, in other words, you can make all the retro-clones you want under the new OGL...BUT WoTC has the power to sell, promote, and distribute said work or not. and even though you own it, they can use your product in any way they like "perpetual, irrevocable".
Who in the hell would agree to this?
Quote from: DocJones on January 11, 2023, 03:35:36 PM
Live stream with Ryan Dancey explaining the history of OGL 1.0a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg
This was by far the most informative, enlightening, and entertaining take on the whole ordeal. Ryan Dancey is a very savvy individual and extremely well spoken. He articulates what the license can and cannot be and do and what their intentions are.
He states that the lawsuit to come when OGL1.1 drops COULD be resolved quickly due to it being a copyright lawsuit and those CAN get ruled on quickly. That part was interesting along with the fact WOTC is not stupid enough to go after 4th party licensed IP (tolkein, star wars, marvel, etc) because thats trademark territory and the law is VERY clear on trademark infrigement and less so on copyright law.
Worth listening to the whole 2 hours as there are vital nuggets of Info scattered everywhere
Designed so that only buy me a beer level publishers or those with special deals would even consider signing on to OGL 1.1.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 12, 2023, 07:42:07 AM
He states that the lawsuit to come when OGL1.1 drops COULD be resolved quickly due to it being a copyright lawsuit and those CAN get ruled on quickly.
Which is exactly what I said from the start, when everyone else was parroting the "lawfare" talking point.
QuoteThat part was interesting along with the fact WOTC is not stupid enough to go after 4th party licensed IP (tolkein, star wars, marvel, etc) because thats trademark territory and the law is VERY clear on trademark infrigement and less so on copyright law.
Yeah. Even though the language of the leaked OGL is ambiguous enough that it MAY, technically give access to 4th party IP, I doubt WotC would try to pursue that. What IS more troubling is 2nd party IP (i.e. - "Your Content"), which seems to have far fewer protections under this agreement. Are you really going to take Hasbro/WotC to court to wrest back your campaign idea or a character name/description? That's where the "lawfare" becomes real.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 09, 2023, 06:07:03 PM
These threads really need to be consolidated.
Also: Is it just me, or is WotC really releasing the 1.1 OGL on Friday the 13th?
You just can't make this stuff up...
I have been wondering who thought THAT was a good idea as well.
If anything were to make a person believe in superstitions. THIS!
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
Who in the hell would agree to this?
That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.
Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.
Insider leak claims WOTC execs think we're a bunch of cows fit only for milking. Subscription cancellations are being monitored right now with the ambience in the office that they might have fucked up.
Lesson to take away from all this: never let anyone named Williams anywhere near D&D.
Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
Who in the hell would agree to this?
That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.
Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.
Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
Who in the hell would agree to this?
That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.
Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.
Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.
They could do that, or worse - they could cut your license by claiming wrongthink on your part, meaning you can't make it anymore and they can AND you have no recourse.
Quote from: Fergurg on January 12, 2023, 01:10:50 PM
They could do that, or worse - they could cut your license by claiming wrongthink on your part, meaning you can't make it anymore and they can AND you have no recourse.
Well, you'll still own your content, meaning you can just use it again somewhere else. But, yeah, the fact that WotC would have a permanent, irrevocable license to it means they functionally own it too. And they can pump it full of wokeness, potentially damaging your own brand. That last part may potentially be actionable, though, and may cause a court to order WotC to relinquish all rights to your content. It'll be a long, drawn-out battle for sure, but could be one of the few ways out of the shitty deal.
Of course, if someone were stupid enough to sign on in the first place, maybe they deserve what they get.
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.
Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.
Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.
Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.
What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
Text of the ostensible leak below.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 12, 2023, 12:35:54 PM
Insider leak claims WOTC execs think we're a bunch of cows fit only for milking. Subscription cancellations are being monitored right now with the ambience in the office that they might have fucked up.
Lesson to take away from all this: never let anyone named Williams anywhere near D&D.
Hi,
I'm an employee at WotC currently working on D&D Beyond (DDB) and with D&D
business leaders on the health of the product line. If you want I can provide proof of
this.
I'm sending this message because I fear for the health of a community I love, and I
know what the leaders at WOTC are looking at:
- They are briefly delaying rollout of OGL changes due to the backlash.
- Their decision making is based entirely on the provable impact to their bottom
line.
- Specifically they are looking at DDB subscriptions and cancellations as it is the
quickest financial data they currently have.
- They are still hoping the community forgets, moves on, and they can still push
this through.
I have decided to reach out because at my time in WotC I have never once heard
management refer to customers in a positive manner, their communication gives me
the impression they see customers as obstacles between them and their money, the
DDB team was first told to prepare to support the new OGL changes and online
portal when they got back from the holidays, and leadership doesn't take any
responsibility for the pain and stress they cause others. Leadership's first
communication to the rank and file on the OGL was 30 minutes on 1/11/23, This was
the first time they even tried to communicate their intentions about the GL to
employees, and even in this meeting they blamed the community for over-reacting.
I will repeat, the main thing this leadership is looking at is DDB subscription
cancellations.
Hope your day goes well,
[name redacted]
P.S. I will be copying and pasting this message to other community leaders.
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:41:26 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!
BTW, thanks Daddy Warpig. Just heard about this, and it has been independently confirmed this person is a WoTC employee.
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:41:26 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!
BTW, thanks Daddy Warpig. Just heard about this, and it has been independently confirmed this person is a WoTC employee.
Absolute Clownshoes at WOTC
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.
Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.
Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.
Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.
What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.
But there was no clause for WotC to outright cancel your licence for whatever "reason", there also wasn't anything about THEIR licence granting them perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, sub-licenseable, royalty free rights to your shit.
Why do you keep simping for the megacorp? Aren't you a "progressive"?
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.
I've got 1.0a open in another window and I'm not seeing anything in it granting Wizards access to your work. Unless I'm somehow getting eye-glaze from the legalese and overlooking it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 12, 2023, 03:23:38 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.
Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.
Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.
Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.
What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.
But there was no clause for WotC to outright cancel your licence for whatever "reason", there also wasn't anything about THEIR licence granting them perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, sub-licenseable, royalty free rights to your shit.
Why do you keep simping for the megacorp? Aren't you a "progressive"?
You probably need to reread what was said. Or double-check your definition of simping. There was nothing complementary being said.
Quote from: Valatar on January 12, 2023, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.
I've got 1.0a open in another window and I'm not seeing anything in it granting Wizards access to your work. Unless I'm somehow getting eye-glaze from the legalese and overlooking it.
Re-reading the text of v1.0a, I agree that the language isn't clear, but it is the basis on which *any* Open Game Content - including the SRD - is used. The v1.0a is viral. It talks about "contributors" and "users" - rather than speaking about WotC and licensees.
The open content of any work published using the OGL v1.0a is fair game for other people to copy. By using the license and indicating your open content, that means your own open content can be used by anyone else - including WotC. If this wasn't true, then no one could use the SRD itself.
I earlier thought WotC never used this in commercial publications - but a poster pointed out they did it in the Monster Manual II for 3E and one other book. They reprinted the Razor Boar and Scorpion Folk from White Wolf's Creature Collection (see pages 220 and 221 of MMII). You can look up that book for exactly how it was done. In a sidebar on page 220, they say:
QuoteOver the long term we hope to use more and more material created by the independent pool of d20 System designers and publishers, just as they are using the Open Content material created by Wizards of the Coast. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we're all able to partake of the shared design resources that operate under the Open Gaming License.
As we continue to add Open Game Content to the pool of available material via the System Reference Document, we hope to help the d20 System evolve and constantly become more fun to play, easier to work with, and the centerpiece of a rewarding hobby. It is our pleasure to share those objectives with all the other publishers who have joined us in this great Open Gaming adventure.
EDITED TO ADD: I'm not quoting this to say that I believe it. The point is that they used other people's content, and had plans to use more. It turns out they didn't, but I'm sure that was from strategic reasons.
WoTC cancels announcement - https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-ogl-announcement-wizards-of-the-coast-1849981365?fbclid=IwAR2hp2OgRG27aNkdn72O9o8p6HN9GVBFXp2C-gtu3Z-Jdr6q-YRUEa4w13U
It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.
Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.
What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.
Yeah, I know this already. I've pointed it out at least three or four times over the last few days. Are you one of those people that says "dropped something" when someone definitely knows they dropped something?
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 05:25:44 PM
It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?
Are you sure you weren't banned from RPG.net for posting the same stupid one-liner in multiple threads?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 12, 2023, 02:44:40 PM
Text of the ostensible leak below.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 12, 2023, 12:35:54 PM
Insider leak claims WOTC execs think we're a bunch of cows fit only for milking. Subscription cancellations are being monitored right now with the ambience in the office that they might have fucked up.
Lesson to take away from all this: never let anyone named Williams anywhere near D&D.
I'm sending this message because I fear for the health of a community I love, and I
know what the leaders at WOTC are looking at:
- They are briefly delaying rollout of OGL changes due to the backlash.
- Their decision making is based entirely on the provable impact to their bottom
line.
- Specifically they are looking at DDB subscriptions and cancellations as it is the
quickest financial data they currently have.
- They are still hoping the community forgets, moves on, and they can still push
this through.
The part in bold makes me laugh. 8)
Hasbro just nuked the entire OGL TTRPG industry, with implied threats of weaponized lawfare used against content creators.....and with the additional unspoken implication that they might also use highly weaponized deplatforming tactics even against ordinary normies posting D&D content on their shitty blogs.
People will not forget or move on, because they can't. Who would be dumb enough to trust Hasbro now? Nobody with three or more functional brain cells would use their shitty closed OGL 1.1. This clusterfuck affects everything in the 3rd party publisher OGL industry, and probably has huge unknown ramifications for all open source material in the computer gaming industry, and we still don't know how this will affect non-OGL TTRPG gamers and companies. Hasbro's current behavior indicates that it's very likely that they will attempt to engage in subtle weaponized deplatforming tactics against all non-OGL games on Kickstarter, DriveThruRPG, IndieGoGo....and possibly even on YouTube and Facebook.
Essentially, Hasbro just
(unofficially) declared war against the entire gaming industry and hobby. ::)
Hasbro's ruthless
(and hilariously stupid) attack against both TTRPG content creators and gamers is the biggest news in the tabletop gaming industry in the past 23 years. They cannot wait this out, but they will foolishly try. It's not even just the fact that these people are scheming and evil that makes this situation so ridiculous, but it's also obvious that they don't understand TTRPGs.....nor do they really understand the hobby and industry surrounding it. Hasbro just made an enormous tactical mistake that they will not fix, and I'm glad.......because
this is how a monopoly dies. ;D
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 12, 2023, 06:19:03 PM
The part in bold makes me laugh. 8)
Hasbro just nuked the entire OGL TTRPG industry, with implied threats of weaponized lawfare used against content creators.....and with the additional unspoken implication that they might also use highly weaponized deplatforming tactics even against ordinary normies posting D&D content on their shitty blogs.
People will not forget or move on, because they can't. Who would be dumb enough to trust Hasbro now? Nobody with three or more functional brain cells would use their shitty closed OGL 1.1. This clusterfuck affects everything in the 3rd party publisher OGL industry, and probably has huge unknown ramifications for all open source material in the computer gaming industry, and we still don't know how this will affect non-OGL TTRPG gamers and companies. Hasbro's current behavior indicates that it's very likely that they will attempt to engage in subtle weaponized deplatforming tactics against all non-OGL games on Kickstarter, DriveThruRPG, IndieGoGo....and possibly even on YouTube and Facebook.
Essentially, Hasbro just (unofficially) declared war against the entire gaming industry and hobby. ::)
Hasbro's ruthless (and hilariously stupid) attack against both TTRPG content creators and gamers is the biggest news in the tabletop gaming industry in the past 23 years. They cannot wait this out, but they will foolishly try. It's not even just the fact that these people are scheming and evil that makes this situation so ridiculous, but it's also obvious that they don't understand TTRPGs.....nor do they really understand the hobby and industry surrounding it. Hasbro just made an enormous tactical mistake that they will not fix, and I'm glad.......because this is how a monopoly dies. ;D
Please. ::) The people WotC declared war on, basically, the subset of OSR publishers that use the OGL, Paizo, and people putting out content for 5E. Not "gamers". "Gamers", as in the average rank-and-file dice slinger, are fickle sheep who, I promise you, will forget this in a few weeks or months, or won't care to begin with. They only care right now, the ones that do, because that's the current zeitgeist within the community. And people who don't primarily exist within the OGL ecosystem either as gamers or publishers don't really care anyways.
And really, monopoly? Look, I'm no fan of WotC. Not by a longshot. I haven't given them a dime since before 4E dropped. But to the extent they are a monopoly, it's on their own IP. Which... like it or not... is fair. But they certainly don't have a monopoly on the RPG market.
This sucks, but tone down the hyperbolic raving, please?
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 12, 2023, 06:19:03 PM
Hasbro just nuked the entire OGL TTRPG industry, with implied threats of weaponized lawfare used against content creators.....and with the additional unspoken implication that they might also use highly weaponized deplatforming tactics even against ordinary normies posting D&D content on their shitty blogs.
People will not forget or move on, because they can't. Who would be dumb enough to trust Hasbro now? Nobody with three or more functional brain cells would use their shitty closed OGL 1.1. This clusterfuck affects everything in the 3rd party publisher OGL industry, and probably has huge unknown ramifications for all open source material in the computer gaming industry, and we still don't know how this will affect non-OGL TTRPG gamers and companies. Hasbro's current behavior indicates that it's very likely that they will attempt to engage in subtle weaponized deplatforming tactics against all non-OGL games on Kickstarter, DriveThruRPG, IndieGoGo....and possibly even on YouTube and Facebook.
Essentially, Hasbro just (unofficially) declared war against the entire gaming industry and hobby. ::)
Hasbro's ruthless (and hilariously stupid) attack against both TTRPG content creators and gamers is the biggest news in the tabletop gaming industry in the past 23 years. They cannot wait this out, but they will foolishly try. It's not even just the fact that these people are scheming and evil that makes this situation so ridiculous, but it's also obvious that they don't understand TTRPGs.....nor do they really understand the hobby and industry surrounding it. Hasbro just made an enormous tactical mistake that they will not fix, and I'm glad.......because this is how a monopoly dies. ;D
I have to pretty much agree with you on that! WoTC just brought nuclear fire down on their own position. Many others will be burned, but I think they're going to be incinerated.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 06:30:49 PM
Please. ::) The people WotC declared war on, basically, the subset of OSR publishers that use the OGL, Paizo, and people putting out content for 5E. Not "gamers". "Gamers" are fickle sheep who, I promise you, will forget this in a few weeks or months, or won't care to begin with. They only care right now, the ones that do, because that's the current zeitgeist within the community. And people who don't primarily exist within the OGL ecosystem either as gamers or publishers don't really care anyways.
WoTC hope you are right! Certainly the white hot rage will die down eventually. But have you seen ANY social media? It's EVERYWHERE. From OSR grognards to Ginny Di cosplayers, EVERYONE is furious. This 'subset' covers everyone on social media with any interest in D&D.
Quote from: S'mon on January 12, 2023, 06:33:54 PM
WoTC hope you are right! Certainly the white hot rage will die down eventually. But have you seen ANY social media? It's EVERYWHERE. From OSR grognards to Ginny Di cosplayers, EVERYONE is furious. This 'subset' covers everyone on social media with any interest in D&D.
And if anything does sway WotC, it might be the influencer backlash. It could happen. I'm just not holding my breath. I've been in several communities where "OMG, THIS IS IT, THEY PISSED TOO MANY PEOPLE OFF, THIS IS THE END FOR THEM!!!" outrages flared up, lasted at most a month or two, and then... people went back to playing their games or consuming their merch or whatever was at issue.
Paizo just announced their intention to legally contest any attempt from WotC to deauthorize the old OGL and make their own open license, along with several other publishers already on board. With or without WotC backpedaling at this point, the face of RPGs is going to change.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v
Quote from: S'mon on January 12, 2023, 06:33:54 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 06:30:49 PM
Please. ::) The people WotC declared war on, basically, the subset of OSR publishers that use the OGL, Paizo, and people putting out content for 5E. Not "gamers". "Gamers" are fickle sheep who, I promise you, will forget this in a few weeks or months, or won't care to begin with. They only care right now, the ones that do, because that's the current zeitgeist within the community. And people who don't primarily exist within the OGL ecosystem either as gamers or publishers don't really care anyways.
WoTC hope you are right! Certainly the white hot rage will die down eventually. But have you seen ANY social media? It's EVERYWHERE. From OSR grognards to Ginny Di cosplayers, EVERYONE is furious. This 'subset' covers everyone on social media with any interest in D&D.
Yeah, but on the flip side, they sell D&D children's books at Walmart (the one I looked at was about a vegan owlbear). Social media is small compared to the real world, no matter how important some people think it is.
The Gizmodo reporter who brought us the initial leak did a follow-up article on the cancelled livestream today. Insiders told her the OGL for the announcement was now going to be called OGL 2.0, but the backlash has been so severe they're holding off in hopes it dies down.
Quote from: Valatar on January 12, 2023, 06:47:32 PM
Paizo just announced their intention to legally contest any attempt from WotC to deauthorize the old OGL and make their own open license, along with several other publishers already on board. With or without WotC backpedaling at this point, the face of RPGs is going to change.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v
Okay.
Now it's getting interesting.
Although I'm trusting your word on what they said at the moment, their website appears to have been wacked.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 06:55:16 PM
Quote from: Valatar on January 12, 2023, 06:47:32 PM
Paizo just announced their intention to legally contest any attempt from WotC to deauthorize the old OGL and make their own open license, along with several other publishers already on board. With or without WotC backpedaling at this point, the face of RPGs is going to change.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v
Okay.
Now it's getting interesting.
Although I'm trusting your word on what they said at the moment, their website appears to have been wacked.
Archived version:
https://archive.md/leaSw (https://archive.md/leaSw)
Shots fired! Shots fired!
Paizo just announced they're prepared to go to court and that they're creating a new open rpg license to be irrevocable. They've apparently gotten the law firm that created the original OGL to shepherd this new license. Which also seems to imply that those folks would be more than happy to file affidavits or testify...
Their website crashed, but here's the announcement once it comes back up:
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v
EDIT: and I see I've been ninja'ed on this... That's what I get for going to eat dinner mid-post...
Quote from: JeremyR on January 12, 2023, 06:49:13 PM
Yeah, but on the flip side, they sell D&D children's books at Walmart (the one I looked at was about a vegan owlbear). Social media is small compared to the real world, no matter how important some people think it is.
The funny thing about that is this all started because WotC isn't getting enough money because only DMs really buy the product so they hope to get player money through micro transactions and stuff. Most of the online D&D community are DMs. They are force multipliers as each DM has a table full of players.
Quote
In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
Those are several of the big 3PP who are onboard already with this license. Plus it being owned by the OG law firm that wrote up the OGL you know it's going to be solid.
WOTC has found a way to make the entire RPG industry of which they spent 20+ years cultivating and helping grow D&D into instant competitors all in the matter of a week,
That takes a special level of stupidity to make happen.
Quote from: Valatar on January 12, 2023, 06:47:32 PM
Paizo just announced their intention to legally contest any attempt from WotC to deauthorize the old OGL and make their own open license, along with several other publishers already on board. With or without WotC backpedaling at this point, the face of RPGs is going to change.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v
So now Paizo, is considered to be among the good guys? Two Thumbs Up, at the Irony of That. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend now.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
So now Paizo, is considered to be among the good guys? Two Thumbs Up, at the Irony of That. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend now.
You can say what you want about their politics, but they were basically founded because there was a market WotC was abandoning, both on the consumer side and on the publisher side. This is... pretty much true to form for them.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
So now Paizo, is considered to be among the good guys? Two Thumbs Up, at the Irony of That. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend now.
We allied with the Soviets against the Germans in WW2. The enemy of my enemy is useful if he's attacking my enemy. War makes strange bedfellows.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
Quote from: Valatar on January 12, 2023, 06:47:32 PM
Paizo just announced their intention to legally contest any attempt from WotC to deauthorize the old OGL and make their own open license, along with several other publishers already on board. With or without WotC backpedaling at this point, the face of RPGs is going to change.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v
So now Paizo, is considered to be among the good guys? Two Thumbs Up, at the Irony of That. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend now.
Considering Paizo will not own the license (called ORC by the way, and who doesn't love owning an ORC) and it's going to the Azura Law Firm who wrote the OGL 1.0 to begin with, I have a feeling it will be in decent hands.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 12, 2023, 07:56:33 PM
Quote
In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
Those are several of the big 3PP who are onboard already with this license. Plus it being owned by the OG law firm that wrote up the OGL you know it's going to be solid.
WOTC has found a way to make the entire RPG industry of which they spent 20+ years cultivating and helping grow D&D into instant competitors all in the matter of a week,
That takes a special level of stupidity to make happen.
Greetings!
A special kind of stupid indeed! Fucking amazing--and sad. I've seen now that Paizo, Kobold Press, Frog God Games, Troll Lords--all of them, and more, are coming together to resist WOTC.
"It does not seem that the war has developed to Japan's advantage." --Paraphrase of Emperor Hirohito commenting after suffering enormous defeats throughout the Pacific War.
Let WOTC burn in the napalm! It is so pathetic and sad. At one point here in recent years, WOTC was riding high on probably the largest and greatest renaissance in gaming. Record popularity, huge explosion of creativity, genuinely diverse market, and continuously expanding and growing. All the while, most everyone giving praise and shoutouts to WOTC--and driving business and gamers to WOTC, in addition to themselves.
All flushed down the toilet in a fucking week, because the fucking morons at WOTC are too stupid to understand or even care about gaming and D&D--and driven by their stupid greed and desire to control everything and everyone in gaming.
Fuck WOTC!
Geesus. I'm gonna light up a cigar. Everytime I think about these idiots running WOTC it just boggles me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping dragon and fill him with terrible resolve."
- Isoroku Yamamoto
I did some of my part. I haven't given money to WotC since the horrible Ravenloft release. But today I put some geepees down on some Frog God stuff with their sale. I'm excited.
Hell, I might even be convinced to buy something from Paizo.
This is comedy gold. WotC has just fucked themselves six ways to Sunday and they have no way to fix it.
I'm done with 5e completely. Switching over to pf2e ASAP. Yes Paizo is woke but doesn't bleed into the books from what I can tell so just gonna separate the art from the artist here.
Paizo seems to put so much more effort into their books and adventures than WotC and at the very least I dont have to worry about them going full Saturday morning cartoon villain mode like WotC.
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well.
Only that which you designated as open content.
Many of the products I've seen use it for the purpose of using WotC's SRD via the OGL, and not putting their own content under OGL.
What an excellent development! Gotta hand it to Paizo for getting other publishers on board before announcing.
And the timing, just a few hours after WotC scuttles off into the corner with a canceled announcement, is the coup de grace.
I was wrong about WotC knowing what they were doing. Turns out they're just dumb fuck cowards and bullies after all.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 12, 2023, 10:34:29 PM
Hell, I might even be convinced to buy something from Paizo.
This is comedy gold. WotC has just fucked themselves six ways to Sunday and they have no way to fix it.
What the most bizarre thing about all of this is that even if everything worked out as WotC intended their increased profits would be relative pcoket change, barely a blip on Hasbro's annual profit projections. And they were willing to set their brand on fire over that? The blind hubris is just astounding.
And as for relatively casual fans picking up on this, well casual fans like their YouTube videos and the YouTube algorithm rewards anger and controversy like nothing else so every single D&D youtuber (and even a bunch of non-D&D youtubers, have seen this shit pop up in all kinds of random places) is getting told by YouTube's algorithm: yell about WotC being dumb and you'll get views and money.
This isn't going to die down easily even if WotC backs down and eats crow. NOBODY, NOBODY is in WotC's corner of this, rpg.net, Reddit and all the rest are full of pitchfork mobs just as much as here. The famously ban-happy rpg.net mods are handing out thread bans for defending WotC.
I was completely wrong about how the major 3PPs would react to this, and I'm happy that I was wrong.
Quote from: Daztur on January 13, 2023, 12:03:37 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 12, 2023, 10:34:29 PM
Hell, I might even be convinced to buy something from Paizo.
This is comedy gold. WotC has just fucked themselves six ways to Sunday and they have no way to fix it.
What the most bizarre thing about all of this is that even if everything worked out as WotC intended their increased profits would be relative pcoket change, barely a blip on Hasbro's annual profit projections. And they were willing to set their brand on fire over that? The blind hubris is just astounding.
And as for relatively casual fans picking up on this, well casual fans like their YouTube videos and the YouTube algorithm rewards anger and controversy like nothing else so every single D&D youtuber (and even a bunch of non-D&D youtubers, have seen this shit pop up in all kinds of random places) is getting told by YouTube's algorithm: yell about WotC being dumb and you'll get views and money.
This isn't going to die down easily even if WotC backs down and eats crow. NOBODY, NOBODY is in WotC's corner of this, rpg.net, Reddit and all the rest are full of pitchfork mobs just as much as here. The famously ban-happy rpg.net mods are handing out thread bans for defending WotC.
I don't think WOTC/Hasbro even cares about the tabletop business. They want to monetize the IP and they want to do it digitally. They want to sell subscriptions (only place the game comes into the matter), they want to sell Vegan Owlbear NFTs and don't want to deal with possible competition in that space from others.
The 1.1 is designed to put the bigger 3pp out of business. There is no way they could survive giving 25% of their net to WOTC (or just 20% in the rumored revision). WOTC knows this, as their profit margin seems to be like 15%. They want to avoid any possible combination in the digital space by getting rid of the people who possibly could compete, even slightly.
As of now, Goodman Games believes they are in the clear; and they plan to continue doing what they do for the hobby. Good to hear that.
https://goodman-games.com/blog/2023/01/12/a-comment-on-the-ogl/
You will see many of these 3PP create "sub-companies" who will most definitely sign the OGL to produce official D&D crap.
Because that's where the 6e era money will be.
As for the legality of the OGL, don't worry about lawyers. Lawyers don't matter. Judges matter and more importantly, previous rulings from appeals courts or higher courts matter the most.
It would be fun to see a 3PP company bring the OGL perpetuity argument to the US Supreme Court.
I see Chaosium signed up to Paizo's plan. Presumably to inject their unique interpretation of the meaning of "open".
Good job for Paizo making this initiative.
However I still won't support them in any way.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 07:58:59 PMSo now Paizo, is considered to be among the good guys? Two Thumbs Up, at the Irony of That. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend now.
Nahh, they all deserve each other, honestly. Paizo et al basically told a lot of us to go fuck ourselves and that they didn't need our support. I will continue to abide by their wishes.
Looks like WoTC are planning to double down on Jan 16th with "OGL 2.0" (hat tip: estar/Rob's blog).
According to this leak/rumour https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613671192250155009.html WoTC are now planning to say on January 16th that existing published OGL 1.0 material is ok, but anything new has to use the new evil OGL 2.0 - OGL 2.0 will remain a trap, so this looks like confirmation that new products will need to be de-OGL'd.
Quote from: S'mon on January 13, 2023, 06:08:30 AM
Looks like WoTC are planning to double down on Jan 16th with "OGL 2.0" (hat tip: estar/Rob's blog).
According to this leak/rumour https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613671192250155009.html WoTC are now planning to say on January 16th that existing published OGL 1.0 material is ok, but anything new has to use the new evil OGL 2.0 - OGL 2.0 will remain a trap, so this looks like confirmation that new products will need to be de-OGL'd.
So, let me get this straight:
1. The WoTC Nazis make OGL v1.1.
2. TTRPG community loses their shit and bands together.
3. WoTC Nazis respond by RENAMING it OGL 2.0, but don't change the content.
they really think we're all this stupid? Fuk em!
KEEP CANCELLING YOUR SUBS TO D&D BEYOND FOLKS! That's the real indicator they just shit the bead!
Quote from: blackstone on January 13, 2023, 07:32:29 AM
Quote from: S'mon on January 13, 2023, 06:08:30 AM
Looks like WoTC are planning to double down on Jan 16th with "OGL 2.0" (hat tip: estar/Rob's blog).
According to this leak/rumour https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613671192250155009.html WoTC are now planning to say on January 16th that existing published OGL 1.0 material is ok, but anything new has to use the new evil OGL 2.0 - OGL 2.0 will remain a trap, so this looks like confirmation that new products will need to be de-OGL'd.
So, let me get this straight:
1. The WoTC Nazis make OGL v1.1.
2. TTRPG community loses their shit and bands together.
3. WoTC Nazis respond by RENAMING it OGL 2.0, but don't change the content.
they really think we're all this stupid? Fuk em!
KEEP CANCELLING YOUR SUBS TO D&D BEYOND FOLKS! That's the real indicator they just shit the bead!
As I hear it, the cancellations were coming in so fast and hard it crashed the D&DB website, forcing them to patch it... and remove the unsubscribe button.
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 13, 2023, 03:01:06 AM
You will see many of these 3PP create "sub-companies" who will most definitely sign the OGL to produce official D&D crap.
Because that's where the 6e era money will be.
As for the legality of the OGL, don't worry about lawyers. Lawyers don't matter. Judges matter and more importantly, previous rulings from appeals courts or higher courts matter the most.
It would be fun to see a 3PP company bring the OGL perpetuity argument to the US Supreme Court.
LOL, 6e era money.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 13, 2023, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: blackstone on January 13, 2023, 07:32:29 AM
Quote from: S'mon on January 13, 2023, 06:08:30 AM
Looks like WoTC are planning to double down on Jan 16th with "OGL 2.0" (hat tip: estar/Rob's blog).
According to this leak/rumour https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613671192250155009.html WoTC are now planning to say on January 16th that existing published OGL 1.0 material is ok, but anything new has to use the new evil OGL 2.0 - OGL 2.0 will remain a trap, so this looks like confirmation that new products will need to be de-OGL'd.
So, let me get this straight:
1. The WoTC Nazis make OGL v1.1.
2. TTRPG community loses their shit and bands together.
3. WoTC Nazis respond by RENAMING it OGL 2.0, but don't change the content.
they really think we're all this stupid? Fuk em!
KEEP CANCELLING YOUR SUBS TO D&D BEYOND FOLKS! That's the real indicator they just shit the bead!
As I hear it, the cancellations were coming in so fast and hard it crashed the D&DB website, forcing them to patch it... and remove the unsubscribe button.
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 13, 2023, 03:01:06 AM
You will see many of these 3PP create "sub-companies" who will most definitely sign the OGL to produce official D&D crap.
Because that's where the 6e era money will be.
As for the legality of the OGL, don't worry about lawyers. Lawyers don't matter. Judges matter and more importantly, previous rulings from appeals courts or higher courts matter the most.
It would be fun to see a 3PP company bring the OGL perpetuity argument to the US Supreme Court.
LOL, 6e era money.
This is interesting if they removed the unsubscribe button. Are you expected to send an email or call someone to unsubscribe? IANAL but I'm betting that not providing a way to cancel a subscription (especially if it is a paid one) is unlawful. While it would be a bit of a hassle, if I were a paying subscriber and they did that, I'd be on the phone reporting my credit card lost.
Quote from: JeremyR on January 13, 2023, 12:53:54 AM
I don't think WOTC/Hasbro even cares about the tabletop business. They want to monetize the IP and they want to do it digitally. They want to sell subscriptions (only place the game comes into the matter), they want to sell Vegan Owlbear NFTs and don't want to deal with possible competition in that space from others.
The 1.1 is designed to put the bigger 3pp out of business. There is no way they could survive giving 25% of their net to WOTC (or just 20% in the rumored revision). WOTC knows this, as their profit margin seems to be like 15%. They want to avoid any possible combination in the digital space by getting rid of the people who possibly could compete, even slightly.
If you are right they really screwed up big. They could have re-written OGL 1.0a to ensure that digital products were not included but otherwise it stays the same (and gotten good will from everyone), and then made an OGL 2.0 strictly for digital (that would mostly screw the 3pp) and the with their money and head start they could have easily dominated the VTT space. They could have had it all, including a vibrant table-top market in case VTT and the lifestyle brand fail and they are forced to crawl back. As is they burned the bridges and built up a lot of ill will before their movie and lifestyle brand launched which seems daft to me.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 08:25:22 AM
This is interesting if they removed the unsubscribe button. Are you expected to send an email or call someone to unsubscribe? IANAL but I'm betting that not providing a way to cancel a subscription (especially if it is a paid one) is unlawful. While it would be a bit of a hassle, if I were a paying subscriber and they did that, I'd be on the phone reporting my credit card lost.
I don't think they removed the unsubscribe button, that's far too technical and crafty for DNDBeyond and goes beyond the level of stupidity/lawsuit land.
The reason I'm aiming for is that the influx of UNSUBSCRIBERs overwhelmed a low end part of the site and it merely crashed out and the link/redirect was not working from certain areas. the direct link to the url was working minutes after the outrage began as that's when i unsubb'd
I put less stock in nefarious activity and more into neglegence.
Quote from: S'mon on January 13, 2023, 06:08:30 AM
Looks like WoTC are planning to double down on Jan 16th with "OGL 2.0" (hat tip: estar/Rob's blog).
According to this leak/rumour https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613671192250155009.html WoTC are now planning to say on January 16th that existing published OGL 1.0 material is ok, but anything new has to use the new evil OGL 2.0 - OGL 2.0 will remain a trap, so this looks like confirmation that new products will need to be de-OGL'd.
This would seem to be an even more legally dubious position than the original attempt to just deauthorize 1.0a. Contract law is usually not friendly to trying to
modify an existing contract. Either the contract is valid, or it isn't. But if that leak is correct, they're basically trying to remove the "perpetual" part of the license now, without actually invaliding the whole thing. That... doesn't work, to my non-lawyerly understanding of such things.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 13, 2023, 08:34:00 AM
Quote from: JeremyR on January 13, 2023, 12:53:54 AM
I don't think WOTC/Hasbro even cares about the tabletop business. They want to monetize the IP and they want to do it digitally. They want to sell subscriptions (only place the game comes into the matter), they want to sell Vegan Owlbear NFTs and don't want to deal with possible competition in that space from others.
The 1.1 is designed to put the bigger 3pp out of business. There is no way they could survive giving 25% of their net to WOTC (or just 20% in the rumored revision). WOTC knows this, as their profit margin seems to be like 15%. They want to avoid any possible combination in the digital space by getting rid of the people who possibly could compete, even slightly.
If you are right they really screwed up big. They could have re-written OGL 1.0a to ensure that digital products were not included but otherwise it stays the same (and gotten good will from everyone), and then made an OGL 2.0 strictly for digital (that would mostly screw the 3pp) and the with their money and head start they could have easily dominated the VTT space. They could have had it all, including a vibrant table-top market in case VTT and the lifestyle brand fail and they are forced to crawl back. As is they burned the bridges and built up a lot of ill will before their movie and lifestyle brand launched which seems daft to me.
So here's the deal. I don't know that they could prevent VTT competitors, OGL or not.
The front-end is an expression of the math sitting inside the backend of a VTT. The math is all open content in the sense that it can't be considered IP or copyrightable, as far as I'm aware. If a VTT were to present a configuration menu to allow you to mathematically describe game mechanics and for you, the user, to configure their expression, I can't see how WotC or any other publisher could stop them.
That is - you get a menu that allows you to define and enter attributes (so you could call one strength, or muscles, or brawn, for example and define the allowable range of values). Another menu allows you to define (1d20 + ((10-Attrib)/2) as the controlling mechanic, etc.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 09:39:47 AM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 13, 2023, 08:34:00 AM
If you are right they really screwed up big. They could have re-written OGL 1.0a to ensure that digital products were not included but otherwise it stays the same (and gotten good will from everyone), and then made an OGL 2.0 strictly for digital (that would mostly screw the 3pp) and the with their money and head start they could have easily dominated the VTT space. They could have had it all, including a vibrant table-top market in case VTT and the lifestyle brand fail and they are forced to crawl back. As is they burned the bridges and built up a lot of ill will before their movie and lifestyle brand launched which seems daft to me.
So here's the deal. I don't know that they could prevent VTT competitors, OGL or not.
I've highlighted the main point regarding VTT. I'm not saying outright prevent competitors. Basically they move forward and allow others to join them (in a hobbled state) in the VTT world. One could try to catch up but money and head start and massive name recognition have a very, very large advantage.
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 13, 2023, 03:01:06 AMBecause that's where the 6e era money will be.
It all depends on how successful that will be. If 6e continues to rake in the green, then yes all will follow suit.
If not, then we will have some sort of 4e situation again.
Without the OGL 3pp will be able to claim compatibility with 6E (within reason), on tabletop products at least. I'm not sure how this would work in the VTT which will likely be a closed space.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 13, 2023, 10:12:27 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 13, 2023, 03:01:06 AMBecause that's where the 6e era money will be.
It all depends on how successful that will be. If 6e continues to rake in the green, then yes all will follow suit.
If not, then we will have some sort of 4e situation again.
I don't know how they expect anyone but the most bloated of whales to have money to spend on 3PP with the way WotC is planning to nickle and dime it's customers into the poorhouse. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/wayfinders-guide-to-eberron)
The biggest problem WotC is going to have in competing with other VTTs is if any system that uses ORC is close enough to D&D's mechanics it can sub in for D&D as a module to handle rolls, track damage, etc.
It's not derived from their SRD and so modules for that system could easily be released. Just include a "manual" setting for inputting custom values and "rename" option for attributes, skills, etc.
VTT's are not responsible for policing the games run on them (particularly ones like Foundry which don't even run on a specific server), so if someone happens to use the "Elder College Reborn" System Foundry module to run a game of 1e D&D, it's not like Foundry or Hasbro could do anything about it.
WotC's walled garden only works if they can shut down competition with better features from using anything D&D-like. The walled garden also won't be competing with other VTTs, but with MMO's. The value is in the freedom of GMs and players to create their own things... the closer WotC tries to manage what can be done in their walled garden, the more just playing an MMO with superior graphics and faster play will be the competition.
I think MMO and VTT will eventually merge. Neverwinter Nights has a multiplayer mode that allows you to real time GM for your friends. Yeah it's clunky but that game is ancient. It will only improve. The IRL and VTT divide will grow.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 13, 2023, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 09:39:47 AM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 13, 2023, 08:34:00 AM
If you are right they really screwed up big. They could have re-written OGL 1.0a to ensure that digital products were not included but otherwise it stays the same (and gotten good will from everyone), and then made an OGL 2.0 strictly for digital (that would mostly screw the 3pp) and the with their money and head start they could have easily dominated the VTT space. They could have had it all, including a vibrant table-top market in case VTT and the lifestyle brand fail and they are forced to crawl back. As is they burned the bridges and built up a lot of ill will before their movie and lifestyle brand launched which seems daft to me.
So here's the deal. I don't know that they could prevent VTT competitors, OGL or not.
I've highlighted the main point regarding VTT. I'm not saying outright prevent competitors. Basically they move forward and allow others to join them (in a hobbled state) in the VTT world. One could try to catch up but money and head start and massive name recognition have a very, very large advantage.
You don't think that the guys who sold DDB who've left and aren't supporting WotC know how to do a VTT? You don't think that they'll be able to "consult" with competitors even if they signed a non-compete (which is possibly to become null and void pending an upcoming SCOTUS case)?
It doesn't have to have a pre-populated dataset. It needs to work better. WotC doesn't do "better" in the digital arena.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2023, 10:48:06 AM
The biggest problem WotC is going to have in competing with other VTTs is if any system that uses ORC is close enough to D&D's mechanics it can sub in for D&D as a module to handle rolls, track damage, etc.
It's not derived from their SRD and so modules for that system could easily be released. Just include a "manual" setting for inputting custom values and "rename" option for attributes, skills, etc.
VTT's are not responsible for policing the games run on them (particularly ones like Foundry which don't even run on a specific server), so if someone happens to use the "Elder College Reborn" System Foundry module to run a game of 1e D&D, it's not like Foundry or Hasbro could do anything about it.
WotC's walled garden only works if they can shut down competition with better features from using anything D&D-like. The walled garden also won't be competing with other VTTs, but with MMO's. The value is in the freedom of GMs and players to create their own things... the closer WotC tries to manage what can be done in their walled garden, the more just playing an MMO with superior graphics and faster play will be the competition.
Yep. The question is - what features do roll20, Foundry, Fantasy Grounds, etc. have that are clearly better than whatever WotC does with one&D?
Statement by dndBeyond:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
It includes this statement: "The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 13, 2023, 11:21:57 AM
Statement by dndBeyond:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
It includes this statement: "The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."
Their dicks are already out of their zippers. Damage control too little, too late
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 10:56:51 AM
You don't think that the guys who sold DDB who've left and aren't supporting WotC know how to do a VTT? You don't think that they'll be able to "consult" with competitors even if they signed a non-compete (which is possibly to become null and void pending an upcoming SCOTUS case)?
It doesn't have to have a pre-populated dataset. It needs to work better. WotC doesn't do "better" in the digital arena.
I think anyone who was part of DDB that doesn't work of WotC probably has a non-competitive clause as part of the sale. I watched Microsoft screw with hundreds of companies in the 90s and destroy companies that had better products. Microsoft didn't even have a product in some cases and their pile of money and dominance in the marketplace gave them victory after victory. WotC has hired Microsoft Execs, they know that game plan. I think money, Name Recognition, and the lead they have at creating a more immersive version of a VTT will be very difficult if not impossible to compete against.
I also think WotC shitting on their fans combined with an imperfect launch of the VTT could change all that, but I'm not holding my breath.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2023, 10:48:06 AM
The biggest problem WotC is going to have in competing with other VTTs is if any system that uses ORC is close enough to D&D's mechanics it can sub in for D&D as a module to handle rolls, track damage, etc.
It's not derived from their SRD and so modules for that system could easily be released. Just include a "manual" setting for inputting custom values and "rename" option for attributes, skills, etc.
VTT's are not responsible for policing the games run on them (particularly ones like Foundry which don't even run on a specific server), so if someone happens to use the "Elder College Reborn" System Foundry module to run a game of 1e D&D, it's not like Foundry or Hasbro could do anything about it.
WotC's walled garden only works if they can shut down competition with better features from using anything D&D-like. The walled garden also won't be competing with other VTTs, but with MMO's. The value is in the freedom of GMs and players to create their own things... the closer WotC tries to manage what can be done in their walled garden, the more just playing an MMO with superior graphics and faster play will be the competition.
Yep. The question is - what features do roll20, Foundry, Fantasy Grounds, etc. have that after clearly better than whatever WotC does with one&D?
Not being a walled garden
Not being full of microtransactions to bleed you dry
Not trying to take the power to run homebrewed adventures away from the GM (and if they don't do this then....)
Not trying to take the hombrewed adventures and publish them for profit without paying royalties
If someone needs more reasons than that then I don't know what to tell them.
Did WotC just blink?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
Maybe. The cyclonic levels of spin in that statement certainly make it feel that way. (And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)
When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind.
First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.
Translation: We wanted the ability to exclude people based on nebulous terms that only WE have the power to decide their meaning from one moment to the other while retaining the rights to their "hateful" works.
Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements.
Bullshit! This is the classic: We're hitting you for your own good.
And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Translation: We wanted to destroy what we see as competition and steal their works while driving them to the poor house.
It all comes down to this: They were caught with their pants down, are now trying to damage control, if any of this was true (especially the part of "it was only a draft so we could get feedback you guys!") they could have said so on day one, they didn't.
Also:
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build Translation: WE want to exclude those who don't toe the party line comrade!
and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. Translation: It's not really an openlicense since it includes both this restrictions plus anything else we manage to slip by the people.
Fuck WotC.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 05:25:44 PM
It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?
No need. wotc has been trying to self destruct for a very very long time.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 13, 2023, 11:35:37 AM
(And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)
I don't doubt that many of the woke rank-and-file employees supported this cash grab because of that reason.
Note it was only one or two leakers rather than dozens.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 13, 2023, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
Maybe. The cyclonic levels of spin in that statement certainly make it feel that way. (And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)
One of their goals? Their "first" goal. Big time spin.
You can tell they must be really sincere because they had "staff writer" to deliver this important message.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 13, 2023, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
Maybe. The cyclonic levels of spin in that statement certainly make it feel that way. (And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)
There's no maybe there, they were caught with their pants down.
Here's the thing that worries me:
Leading with the "Kick the bigots out!" might be enough to placate the SparkleTroll brigade, leaving us to hang.
Given Paizo's track record on the exclusionary language it's something to look out for in their propossed ORC license. Don't trust those motherfuckers not to try and put the same type of provissions in their "Open License".
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl
Perhaps, but definitely read the fine print of the "OGL2.0."
Rumor has it they'd try a PR stunt of "we heard you and are making changes" but that the OGL2.0 would still have all the toxic provisions of 1.1 in the legalese ("you own your stuff" was in the 1.1 too... it was the perpetual irrevocable worldwide royalty-free license part people were objecting to)... they're just hoping they do better with the bluff check this time.
They also doubled down on the "we're doing this to fight bigots" language so "we can cancel you anytime we want and there's you can do about it" will definitely still be in the 2.0 which means the FUD of opporating under it is still in place for third-parties... along with the registration requirements because how else will they know if you're being a bigot you bigot?
Maybe they've pulled back on the fluff text surrounding deauthorizing 1.0a... but only in the sense that they're now saying "you can still sell the old stuff, you just can't make anything more for it" instead of "after X date you can't even sell 1.0a material." They're still saying all new products even for established OGL properties must be made in compliance with their 2.0 license.
Also no word at all on "we can alter the deal at any time with 30 days notice" or "you can't sue us when we screw you over" nor "we can send our lawyers into any legal case you're involved in to represent our interests and then bill you for it."
No... this will be just as bad, they're just hoping enough lipstick on the pig will fool the rubes into laying down with it this time.
Me? I'd rather kiss an ORC.
From the D&D Beyond update:
Second, you're going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
You have to be really petty to write something like that.
What would happen if they kept OGL 1.0 but pulled the SRD. That would hamper creating any new 'clones' going forward.
Yep.
And even during all this blowup the woke were praising the "anti bigot" clauses and how that would really upset the Right wing.
Quote from: Omega on January 13, 2023, 11:48:30 AM
Yep.
And even during all this blowup the woke were praising the "anti bigot" clauses and how that would really upset the Right wing.
That is divide and conquer. They pissed off everyone and are trying to at least get the love from the woke.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 11:01:31 AM
Yep. The question is - what features do roll20, Foundry, Fantasy Grounds, etc. have that are clearly better than whatever WotC does with one&D?
What they already have.
Huh? You ask.
Because the plan is for the One D&D VTT to be a 3D immersive environment. Think Bioware's Neverwinter Nights but with better UI for VTT play and better graphics.
But...
Doing this this way the exactly the same as releasing a RPG and you HAVE to use Dwarven Forge. With the current set of VTTs, you can operate them at varying levels of automation and sophistication. Because they all remain true to the core concept of a VTT (whiteboard + text chat + RPG utilities like a dice roller) they have this flexibility.
The monstrosity that Wizards plans will not. Hence my analogy. Imagine a world where the only way you can play D&D face to face is with Dwarven Forge and minis. Not theater of the mind, no quick dry erase maps, etc. Just Dwarven Forge setups and minis every session.
I love my Dwarven Forge but not that much. And the result would be stifling and boring after a while. It good to mix things up for interest, and good for the flow of the campaign.
Quote from: estar on January 13, 2023, 11:50:28 AM
Imagine a world where the only way you can play D&D face to face is with Dwarven Forge and minis. Not theater of the mind, no quick dry erase maps, etc. Just Dwarven Forge setups and minis every session.
I love my Dwarven Forge but not that much. And the result would be stifling and boring after a while. It good to mix things up for interest, and good for the flow of the campaign.
My guess is all the we'll "take your IP" wording in the OGL1.1 was a very sloppy way of saying 'we will have tools that allow you to create 3d rooms and avatars and if you create anything great we want it to expand our toolset. Thus everyone builds the virtual world for WotC.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?
No, they are still claiming they can de-authorise OGL 1.0 and prevent future publications under it. This "You win! We all win!" stuff is just a tactical adjustment, like the Greeks leaving the wooden horse before Troy.
Quote from: Frey on January 13, 2023, 11:47:25 AM
From the D&D Beyond update:
Second, you're going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
You have to be really petty to write something like that.
The one time it was worth falling on the sword and being Humble they decided to go Smug. This line will be repeated over and over even though in the next paragraph they reiterate how they are Sorry for not listening, etc.
They are Sorry/NotSorry for getting caught.
Quote from: Frey on January 13, 2023, 11:47:25 AM
From the D&D Beyond update:
Second, you're going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
You have to be really petty to write something like that.
The back-peddling is so severe, they just gave themselves whiplash.
According to all the analogies being used, I don't think we can go with "rolled a 1". That insufficient. So far, scattered across multiple threads, we've got:
- Falling on their swords
- Whiplash
- Falling with their pants down
- Getting their dicks caught in their zippers
Let me know if I've missed any. Sounds like they are playing with those Role Master fumble tables.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 13, 2023, 04:27:48 PM
Let me know if I've missed any. Sounds like they are playing with those Role Master fumble tables.
Which inspires "broke their necks while tripping over an imaginary deceased turtle."
Like I said - it's too late. The Damage is Done (tm).
They're taking on water and trying to organize the deck-orchestra to get people to keep dancing. Too many people already started making moves away from them. It would be ludicrous to believe they're going to stop and just trust WotC to be acting in good faith.
It's like the a that pulls the revolver, sticks three bullets into the cylinder, spins it, and pulls the trigger on you and it went CLACK! Then while you're trying to get away, he swears it was a goof.
A lot of people have their livelihoods tied to this hobby, and these clowns at WotC are over there waving their gun around.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 13, 2023, 04:27:48 PM
According to all the analogies being used, I don't think we can go with "rolled a 1". That insufficient. So far, scattered across multiple threads, we've got:
- Falling on their swords
- Whiplash
- Falling with their pants down
- Getting their dicks caught in their zippers
Let me know if I've missed any. Sounds like they are playing with those Role Master fumble tables.
Mine was "spilled sticky soda on your DM's favorite classic game book because you were doing something stupid you shouldn't have been at the table."
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2023, 10:49:32 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 13, 2023, 04:27:48 PM
According to all the analogies being used, I don't think we can go with "rolled a 1". That insufficient. So far, scattered across multiple threads, we've got:
- Falling on their swords
- Whiplash
- Falling with their pants down
- Getting their dicks caught in their zippers
Let me know if I've missed any. Sounds like they are playing with those Role Master fumble tables.
Mine was "spilled sticky soda on your DM's favorite classic game book because you were doing something stupid you shouldn't have been at the table."
I thought it was chocolate sauce...
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 13, 2023, 04:27:48 PM
According to all the analogies being used, I don't think we can go with "rolled a 1". That insufficient. So far, scattered across multiple threads, we've got:
- Falling on their swords
- Whiplash
- Falling with their pants down
- Getting their dicks caught in their zippers
Let me know if I've missed any. Sounds like they are playing with those Role Master fumble tables.
What they've really done is come out with a new hat. A reference to The SImpsons Malibu Stacy company, when faced with criticism (and a better product), simply put out Malibu Stacy with a new hat.
In this case, the new hat is the anti-bigotry stuff, which addresses an issue that doesn't exist in any real form in the hobby (I mean, out of the 10000s of RPG books/pdf how many are genuinely racist/bigoted?), but will win over the woke crowd who see bigotry everywhere and love censorship
The core issue for me is them revoking the 1.0a OGL and thus with it all the material released. Even if they have an exception for past products still existing