Wizards of the coast is being greedy, What are your opinions?

WotC should go see their doctor about their heads being lodged so firmly in their rectums. This shit isn't new in the D&D realm and yet they refuse to learn. TSR acting the same way was a factor in it going out of business. And WotC tried something similar when they released 4e which they had to walk back due to backlash as well.

The level of myopia that corporate executives and shareholders display is honestly as impressive as it is baffling. They're so focused on short-term profits that they often manage to not only completely undermine long-term profits but the short-term ones as well meaning that they'd have made more money by literally doing nothing.

In what way?

• The original OGL is over 20 years old and well overdue for an update.
• A large part of what killed D&D e3/e3.5 was the creation of objectionable content that people then associated with WoC, so I can see why they would want to retain a little more control.
• No one is required to adopt the OGL unless they include copyrighted material from the SRD, but the actual mechanics of the game are not copyrightable. The new OGL cannot be unilaterally imposed--it requires agreement from both sides. In fact, it doesn't even seem like they can revoke the 1.0a OGL for already published works, only for new works.
• I see little impact on most independent creators, and Hasbro can't monetize materials created by others according to their own OGL. Yes, there is a provision that lets them use materials that have not been published physically or digitally, but it specifies that Hasbro/WoC cannot monetize those materials. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it's pretty clear that its main target is NFTs, not artwork or the like. The only exception is a very small number of corporate competitors, and I'm not sure I can really blame Hasbro for wanting to push back on those.

So, please help me understand: how does OGL 1.1 make them greedy?
(There are other things that do, which is one reason I'm not a fan of e5--aka, e2 revisited--but I don't understand the hate for the new OGL.)

Here's one pretty thorough analysis I found on it:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators

last edited at Jan 12, 2023 7:26PM

Yuki Kitsune posted:

In what way?

• The original OGL is over 20 years old and well overdue for an update.

Age is no argument for whether it needs to be updated. If it needs to be updated you need to have specific arguments for why.

• A large part of what killed D&D e3/e3.5 was the creation of objectionable content that people then associated with WoC, so I can see why they would want to retain a little more control.

You mean like the kinda racist winged monkeys I saw someone posting about on Twitter? Oh wait, that was WotC.

• No one is required to adopt the OGL unless they include copyrighted material from the SRD, but the actual mechanics of the game are not copyrightable. The new OGL cannot be unilaterally imposed--it requires agreement from both sides.

The entire point of the updated version is WotC being able to impose it on anyone making use of their materials in any form. Including content that is made to be compatible with their materials but doesn't actually include any kind of actual official D&D material.

In fact, it doesn't even seem like they can revoke the 1.0a OGL for already published works, only for new works.

Whether they can legally do so is up for debate but the 1.1 license explicitly declares the 1.0a version to be retroactively obsolete.

• I see little impact on most independent creators, and Hasbro can't monetize materials created by others according to their own OGL. Yes, there is a provision that lets them use materials that have not been published physically or digitally, but it specifies that Hasbro/WoC cannot monetize those materials. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it's pretty clear that its main target is NFTs, not artwork or the like. The only exception is a very small number of corporate competitors, and I'm not sure I can really blame Hasbro for wanting to push back on those.

Literally the first I'm hearing of them being unable to monetize it. Plus the entire fact that multiple confirmed employees have already leaked that it's upper management and Hasbro making a moneygrab kinda makes your argument seem even less likely.

So, please help me understand: how does OGL 1.1 make them greedy?
(There are other things that do, which is one reason I'm not a fan of e5--aka, e2 revisited--but I don't understand the hate for the new OGL.)

For someone who seems to have been looking for information before now you don't seem to have done a terribly thorough job. You can easily find info all over the place. Here's a decent one.

In addition, as I pointed out above: This is literally the same behavior that played a significant role in TSR going out of business and WotC buying the D&D franchise to begin with. As well as a significantly more egregious version of what they tried to do with D&D4e which also resulted in massive backlash. The community has repeatedly made it clear that they do NOT want this sort of monopolistic control over the community.

Yuki Kitsune posted:

In what way?

• The original OGL is over 20 years old and well overdue for an update.

Age is no argument for whether it needs to be updated. If it needs to be updated you need to have specific arguments for why.

As stated in the draft of the OGL, "the rise of the internet, apps, Web 3, and even virtual TTRPGs." Although, since the OGL pretty much says that apps, VTTs and the like all fall under FCP, I'm not sure how it's really addressed. More below.

• A large part of what killed D&D e3/e3.5 was the creation of objectionable content that people then associated with WoC, so I can see why they would want to retain a little more control.

You mean like the kinda racist winged monkeys I saw someone posting about on Twitter? Oh wait, that was WotC.

Sounds pretty tame compared to some of the things I recall. [Trying to look a few of them up. Will edit once found. Lord, forgive my browser history.]

• No one is required to adopt the OGL unless they include copyrighted material from the SRD, but the actual mechanics of the game are not copyrightable. The new OGL cannot be unilaterally imposed--it requires agreement from both sides.

The entire point of the updated version is WotC being able to impose it on anyone making use of their materials in any form. Including content that is made to be compatible with their materials but doesn't actually include any kind of actual official D&D material.

They can't impose it. I'm sure the WotC legal team is perfectly aware of this. It's a two-way agreement, where those who explicitly sign on to the license receive certain benefits in exchange for giving up certain fair use rights they have under copyright law.

In fact, it doesn't even seem like they can revoke the 1.0a OGL for already published works, only for new works.

Whether they can legally do so is up for debate but the 1.1 license explicitly declares the 1.0a version to be retroactively obsolete.

Correct only in the sense that it applies to materials that WotC published before the new OGL goes into effect. In other words, if someone in 2024 wants to sell a new product created from e3.5 rules and declares that they are publishing under OGL, it will automatically fall under OGL 1.1; they can't declare that it's under 1.0a simply because that's what was in effect when the SRD they are using was published. Per WotC's own declaration, "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

• I see little impact on most independent creators, and Hasbro can't monetize materials created by others according to their own OGL. Yes, there is a provision that lets them use materials that have not been published physically or digitally, but it specifies that Hasbro/WoC cannot monetize those materials. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it's pretty clear that its main target is NFTs, not artwork or the like. The only exception is a very small number of corporate competitors, and I'm not sure I can really blame Hasbro for wanting to push back on those.

Literally the first I'm hearing of them being unable to monetize it. Plus the entire fact that multiple confirmed employees have already leaked that it's upper management and Hasbro making a moneygrab kinda makes your argument seem even less likely.

I also stand corrected on them being able to use content. Content developers do not sign away any rights that would allow WotC to use their material, for profit or not. I've seen a lot of fearmongering on the line, "This license only applies to materials You create for use in or as roleplaying games and as game supplements and only as printed media and static electronic files such as epubs or pdfs." But the reason these are excluded is that they fall under WotC's Fan Content Policy, not the OGL.

So, please help me understand: how does OGL 1.1 make them greedy?
(There are other things that do, which is one reason I'm not a fan of e5--aka, e2 revisited--but I don't understand the hate for the new OGL.)

For someone who seems to have been looking for information before now you don't seem to have done a terribly thorough job. You can easily find info all over the place. Here's a decent one.

Please dial down your tone. There is no reason to get personal.
1. There is a lot of misinformation and high emotions swirling around currently.
2. The OGL is still in development with WotC requesting international community/industry feedback, so many of the current complaints are based on rough drafts and excerpts rather than a finalized license.
3. In the end, the community is still free to not accept the license, continue to create compatible content, and not report any of it to WotC. By using copyrightable materials (e.g., exact words and phrasing present in the SRD.)

The OGL stipulates 4 conditions that a work must meet in order to qualify as a license agreement.

In addition, as I pointed out above: This is literally the same behavior that played a significant role in TSR going out of business and WotC buying the D&D franchise to begin with. As well as a significantly more egregious version of what they tried to do with D&D4e which also resulted in massive backlash. The community has repeatedly made it clear that they do NOT want this sort of monopolistic control over the community.

E4 was an unmitigated disaster that ultimately died because it was a shit product. E3/3.5 was created with veteran players in mind, who wanted more freedom (which was also why the original OGL was envisioned), but this became difficult for novice players to get into. Since the player community was aging and shrinking, WotC tried to create something they thought would be more attractive to younger players, and completely missed the mark by trying to introduce elements from MMOs (what they considered their competitors) that simply didn't work in TTRPGs. There was also backlash because of the number of handbooks needed and the abbreviated life of e3.5 (Yes, e4 was a total cashgrab), and its GSL (a) didn't include any SRD game rules (which OGL1.1 has) and (b) required companies who switched to it to drop anything created on the old OGL, which was a major problem due to the aforementioned shortened life of e3.5. My hobby (or secondary job) is TTRPG development, and the only complaints about the e4 GSL I had encountered were from larger, corporate publishers. Small independents simply weren't interested in developing for the new version, which is one reason Paizo flourished. I suddenly see complaints all over the place, but I can't help wonder where these complaints were ten years ago.

My personal beef with e2 was that the fixed character progression forced you to buy expansion after expansion if you wanted any kind of variety in your characters, which is the model e5/1D&D has reintroduced. Haven't spent a penny on it and don't plan to. (The game I'm currently developing settled on a d6 system last year.)

I truly hope you are at least getting paid by WotC for this, going to bat for a company with 2 billion ethical issues this hard for free is just not a very good use of time imo.

arch99 posted:

I truly hope you are at least getting paid by WotC for this, going to bat for a company with 2 billion ethical issues this hard for free is just not a very good use of time imo.

Kind of a moot point anyways. WotC has walked back the 1.1 leak in a rather half-assed way (they walked back the most egregious parts and also make a rather hilarious claim about the publishing peoples' work without royalties bit not being intended to be used that way and never even crossing their mind) and people still aren't taking it well. And Paizo is already making significant strides at making a system-agnostic irrevocable license and has a lot of backing from major third-party content producers. At this point, WotC's best course of action would be to revoke the OGL1.1 in its entirety and take part in Paizo's creation of a license that doesn't suck. Otherwise they're just going to lose a significant amount of the marketshare for the TTRPG industry to publishers like Paizo which are far more third-party friendly.

At this point, WotC's best course of action would be to revoke the OGL1.1 in its entirety and take part in Paizo's creation of a license that doesn't suck.

You want them to... scuttle their own brand? (Also they can't revoke the OGL 1.1, since it hasn't been released)

Hylarn posted:

At this point, WotC's best course of action would be to revoke the OGL1.1 in its entirety and take part in Paizo's creation of a license that doesn't suck.

You want them to... scuttle their own brand?

The OGL isn't remotely their brand. Their brand is the core D&D ruleset along with whatever supplemental materials and campaign settings they publish. Paizo's license wouldn't actually harm their brand. No more so than the OGL1.0a has since it was first published back in 2000. As you might guess by the fact it's been place for almost a quarter of a century, it didn't exactly harm their brand at all.

What a lot of people trying to defend WotC don't seem to realize is that this is a very different industry than most. D&D campaigns hinge on the DM's creativity so it's only natural that even people who don't publish material will still create supplemental material over time. It's only natural that people who have put a great deal of time and effort into a setting might want to publish it for others to use. Or they might have a supplemental ruleset that expands upon the base ruleset or works around flaws in the basic ruleset. Why shouldn't they be able to publish those and make money off of them? They're not using someone else's work and selling it. They're expanding upon it in a similar way to game mods or romhacks. Mods in general can be sold, though few people tend to be willing to but them. Look no further than John Romero and and his SIGIL pWAD for Doom.

(Also they can't revoke the OGL 1.1, since it hasn't been released)

Bad wording on my part, I guess. What I meant is that they need to completely reverse ship on the OGL1.1. Paizo's ORC license is intended to serve the same purpose as the OGL1.0a license but with a few changes. First off, it's intended to be a system-agnostic license, meaning anyone can use it for any system. Secondly, it's also intending to include wording to avoid the issues the OGL1.0a has where the OGL1.1 license may be able to invalidate the older license.

It cannot invalidate the older license. The license itself specifies that it is subject to the laws of the state of Washington.

As the community has scrutinized Wizards of the Coast's past statements, it's become very clear that Wizards always thought of this as a contract with obligations for both sides (for instance their 2001 OGL FAQ v 1.0). Unlike a bare license without consideration, an offer to contract like this cannot be revoked unilaterally once it has been accepted, under the law of Washington (where they are located) and other states.

That's why this whole thing feels like a tempest in a teapot to me.

D&D campaigns hinge on the DM's creativity so it's only natural that even people who don't publish material will still create supplemental material over time.

Agreed.

It's only natural that people who have put a great deal of time and effort into a setting might want to publish it for others to use. Or they might have a supplemental ruleset that expands upon the base ruleset or works around flaws in the basic ruleset.

Agreed.

Why shouldn't they be able to publish those and make money off of them? They're not using someone else's work and selling it.

What are the 4 conditions that a work must meet in order to fall under OGL 1.1? If they are not using "someone else's work," (defined in the OGL as Licenced Content) then it is not subject to the OGL, so they wouldn't even be asked to report large revenues.

last edited at Jan 15, 2023 2:50PM