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......

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.