1. DLP Flash Christmas Competition + Writing Marathon 2024!

    Competition topic: Magical New Year!

    Marathon goal? Crank out words!

    Check the marathon thread or competition thread for details.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice

Dungeons and Dragons - OGL 1.1

Discussion in 'Gaming and PC Discussion' started by Thaumologist, Jan 7, 2023.

  1. Thaumologist

    Thaumologist Fifth Year ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    142
    Location:
    Wrexham, Wales
    High Score:
    2000
    News is currently appearing all over my screen from a multitude of different sources, across multiple different platforms.

    As a very brief breakdown, the Open Game License 1 allowed anyone to publish material for Dungeons and Dragons, so long as it didn't use Wizards of the Coast's trademarked items, and make money of this. But anything you write gets included in what other people can then write about - if you include a statblock, that monster is now part of the OGL.
    You could write an adventure featuring Player Characters fighting floating-eye-demons and their chimeric gladiator-pets in Medieval-ville; but you couldn't write an adventure feating PCs fighting Beholders and Owlbears in the Forgotten Realms.

    If I recall correctly, there's restrictions on what information you have to keep public when using the OGL1, which is why the Pathfinder rules and statblocks are all generally available online. Feel free to correct me on this, it's a half-remembered fact from a few years ago. I have a copy of the pathfinder rule book, but I mostly use the online resources, because it's a LOT easier to have multiple pages to skip through, and it's searchable.

    So what's going on?

    Hasbro wants more money (Surprise!), and they feel that DnD is currently undermonetized. To fix this, WotC is moving to the OGL1.1

    This has a few changes. But worse, is that it modifies the current OGLstating it is “no longer an authorized license agreement.” Which is very strange, because they have previously stated that they couldn't do that

    Now, in their genoristy after changing the contract, WotC is apparently saying you don't need to worry about money, unless your income from the OGL is more than $750,000, in which case you owe them 20%, less if it's through Kickstarter

    Personally, I found this Reddit thread kind of helpful in breaking some stuff down.
     
  2. Blorcyn

    Blorcyn Chief Warlock DLP Supporter DLP Silver Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,466
    Location:
    UK
    Shit. I can only imagine this is a panicked response ((using a divination)) to my beginning a pbp on DLP. They’re scrambling.

    ONE D&D and it’s plan to be the micro transaction edition sounds shit in principle but I’ve literally not looked into what it changes even at all.

    The licence agreement change sounds shit for things like Critical Role and Kobold Press etc. How much will this pull the rug out from under them?
     
  3. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
    My hunch is this is about their eventual Virtual Tabletop and removing competitors as well.
     
  4. Thaumologist

    Thaumologist Fifth Year ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    142
    Location:
    Wrexham, Wales
    High Score:
    2000
    For Critical Role, it'll only make a difference to any splatbooks they put out - I doubt WotC is going to try and make arguments over items published under OGL 1.0/1.a. Whether they quibble over selling after 1.1 becomes standard, I can't say.

    I don't think it would make any different to the monetisation of streaming the game, though. And depending on how it's argued, I guess you could go with the 750k per person at the table, not per the whole table.
     
  5. Stealthy

    Stealthy Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    375
    Between the hefty royalty (25% on all revenue over 750k, or 20% if it's off kickstarter, which is absurd) and claiming the rights to republish and sublicense all content sold under the new OGL, this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to kill off professional third party publishers, as well as abolishing competition for their VTT, D&D Beyond, etc etc. They will probably (try to) make a separate agreement with Critical Role, but I imagine Roll20, Paizo, Koboldpress are all targeted.

    I remember reading about how burning bridges with third parties helped sink 4th edition. And obviously a huge part of 5e's success has been the thriving third party community. But I guess greed will do what greed does.
     
  6. TheWiseTomato

    TheWiseTomato Prestigious Tomato ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,064
    Location:
    Australia.
    High Score:
    3694
    I don't think this is going to work out as well for them as they hope.
     
  7. yargle

    yargle Professor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2019
    Messages:
    458
    Gender:
    Male
    Whelp, this is going to be a shitshow.
     
  8. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
  9. DrSarcasm

    DrSarcasm Headmaster

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,031
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Apparently that site is "making unsubstantiated claims and passing them off as fact" according to someone in another server.
     
  10. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
    I mean everyone is operating off of rumors and leaks at the moment. So yes. WOTC hasn't released anything really official.
     
  11. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
    Here's a Great Video basically explaining what the original OGL was and what is at stake here for those unfamiliar.

     
  13. Lamora

    Lamora Definitely Not Batman ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    116
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    High Score:
    1072
    Jesus Christ, Paizo just elbow-dropped WotC.

    They've conglomerated an Open RPG Creative (ORC, lol) License with other big RPG creators (Green Ronin, Chaosium, etc.) and are going to pass it over to an independent non-profit in perpetuity. The 'OpenGaming' discount for Pathfinder books during the time is just the icing on the cake.

    The most poignant part is that Pathfinder 2E was apparently created with absolutely zero OGL 1.0 trademarks deliberately just in case this happened. WotC got read like Hooked on Phonics fucking years in advance.

    I'll leave this here.

    upload_2023-1-13_0-32-31.png
     
  14. DrSarcasm

    DrSarcasm Headmaster

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,031
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    [​IMG]

    That last point, that the main thing that leadership is looking at is DnDBeyond subscription stats, is relevant because WotC has hidden the unsubscribe button to try to dissuade people from using it.
     
  15. FlyingOctopus

    FlyingOctopus Third Year

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    So as someone that hasn't played D&D and only knows it because of reputation, how would WotC actually enforce any of this?

    From what I understand they don't actually own a lot of D&D right? They don't own dragons or goblins, dungeons, demons, orcs, wizards, druids or magic etc. so how could they stop someone from playing a homebrew game that just changes some relevant names around a bit?
    Are they going to go around and knock on people's doors and check their basements to see if their game is all up to code?

    Another point is that if it's going to subscription based how are they going to stop a Netflix situation where multiple people are sharing one subscription account?
    Hell after they're so obviously fucking over their community, how are they going to stop someone from just leaking all the paywalled content all over the net?

    It seems to me that there's just been no thought put behind any of this at all from WotC but I might be horribly wrong.
     
  16. DrSarcasm

    DrSarcasm Headmaster

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,031
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    From a Discord I'm on, where we design DnD stuff. Warning, it's a pretty big word wall, but from a presumably reliable expert given the last line.

    Llamadom — 01/09/2023 5:03 AM
    > At least in American law, theres a few statutes there kinda impeding on here
    > 1) Since WotC has gone on for 23 years without "enforcing" the OGL at all, theyre argument of using the OGL to "counteract NFTs and third party competitors", or them stating it wasnt meant to be used for anything except PDFs is kinda null and void, bc people have gone off their continuous behavior of not enforcing it. Its why alot of companies are so aggressive about protecting their IP; if they dont, by this statute, its assumed the company or rights holder gave their permission to do it if they continuously dont enforce
    >
    > 2) Bc WotC was getting a mutually beneficial relationship with the OGL 1.0 (They get attention in the common eye from the exposure and thus free advertising and expansion of their game, and 3rd parties get to make a living), it makes it hard for them to argue the OGL 1.0 is in bad faith to revoke (ie, the license is no longer beneficial to both parties, or the licensee is doing something to infringe on the license). The courts gonna be asking "well, why do you feel its not beneficial for you?", and unless WotC has a good argument other than they feel people are making money off their IP they dont get, this falls flat and can be seen as monopolistic. Best they can do is argue on a case by case basis to revoke OGL usage from certain actors, but full sweeping the whole OGL be a bit impossible
    >
    > 3) The Statute that you cant copyright generic ideas, and most game mechanics fall here. Stuff like Strength, Dex, d20, they cant copyright that. Hell, you cant copyright "a game in space where you race someone to the finish line, avoiding asteroids and other obstacles (one of the cases that created this statute)." So depending on how much of 5e youd rule is general mechanics (most of which are the only things alot of big companies use), WotC has no grounds to enforce (edited)
    >
    > Itd depend on how "similar" the court would rule WotC 5e/OGL items are with other systems that use the OGL. And itd go beyond a few names or mechanics, itd have to show considerable overlaps. Otherwise, it can be argued these other works are transformative, and are using the "general" mechanics to make something more creative (Why like Call of Cthulhu, despite having OGL elements, be fine here. Its so different)
    >
    > 4) Less a statute, but American Law REALLY doesnt like when people's rights and ability to operate are changed so drastically. So the new OGL could be argued to be anti-competition/monopolistic, revoking the rights of holders without proper notice, in bad faith, etc

    Tangerine — 01/09/2023 5:16 AM
    > In theory at least on the last part, in practicality US anticompetitive law has a history behind it of being fairly toothless and in favour of the big fish doing as the big fish does. The feasibility of holding any kind of ownership of the system itself is an interesting one, though far as I am aware a lot of companies to whom that would be relevant (e.g. Paizo, Green Ronin, etc.) the OGL is above all kind of a tool of convenience for letting third parties create stuff for them without needing their own legal framework for making that work? That's at least the situation as far as I'm understanding it
    >
    > At least the argument that revoking OGL 1.0a in favour of 1.1 being a monopolistic move is a real easy one to make, because flat on its face their biggest gain out of it is whole-sale control of anything under it.

    Llamadom — 01/09/2023 5:19 AM
    > Anticompetitive Law is pretty toothless....when the American Govt doesnt have a piece of the pie, lets be real here. 'xD
    > But theres alot of instance of the FTC getting involved with highly predatory monoplistic moves. I mean, theyre trying to stop ActiBlizz/Microsoft merger rn for this reason, despite the overall support in the community except Sony. WotC move is just a onesided monopoly move, whereas the ActiBlizz case is a bit more nuanced

    Llamadom — 01/09/2023 5:21 AM [Response to Tangerine's post]
    > Thats another statute: protection of past rights despite changing agreements.
    WotC has all the right to make a new OGL with new terms to agree to, thats fine by the law. The icky part is them trying to basically retroactively gain access to material or assets that previously they had no right to have when they were formulated
    >
    > Its the whole "You cant be tried for a crime you did that wasnt a crime when you did it" clause (i forget the greek), but applied to IP rights
    >
    > A IP holder cant decide to gain access to your material you made when before it was completely their own when the IP holder gave up their right originally. Why Blizz couldnt claim DotA (the map, not the game), which would have gave them an argument to have rights over DOTA (the game), since that game would have then been made off something Blizz owned
    >
    > Also a weird legal protection where like
    > A fan artist can have their art taken down for making money and for IP infringement, but that IP holder cant then resell it to make that money bc they only own the IP, not the art that depicts the IP (edited)
    >
    > It deadlocks the creative work, bc neither individual have the right to publish that piece

    Tangerine — 01/09/2023 5:26 AM
    > And I imagine that before a court, Wizards' attempt to say that they can in fact actually retroactively update and end 1.0a in favour of 1.1 would fall flat. Especially considering 1.0a explicitly protects itself from being superseded like that. But I'm no lawyer ... though wonder if/when folks like LegalEagle decide to go all out on this story, bet some of them have been scrambling a bit to keep up with the craziness, heh

    Llamadom — 01/09/2023 5:27 AM
    > Yeahh its the icky part
    > Bc while OGL 1.1 revokes it and calls it 1.0a unauthorized
    > 1.0a says you can use any authorized license version
    > so its a kinda....cyclical thing. 1.1 tries to revoke 1.0a, but 1.0a says you can use any version
    > And theres no real statute on whether a future license can unauthorize a previous one
    > You can update a license, but this is different than that
    > But even then, even IF they have the right to revoke 1.0a, the other statutes still kinda stand, bc 1.0a was the license most of these works were created under, and thus should be protected as if they still were under that license
    > Itd be like....
    > If you had a blue character, then the next week they changed the license to say "no blue characters" and you immediately lost your license
    > Without proper and REASONABLE (big thing here) notice
    > And even then
    > You didnt agree to those terms, so they cant enforce it without giving you a chance to change it in a reasonable manner
    > Which you could argue, with alot of these businesses operating in high function under the old OGL
    > WotC cant give them a reasonable procedure to comply/expect them to comply in this situation

    Tangerine — 01/09/2023 5:32 AM
    > Wouldn't be surprised if a court ruling over a lawsuit brought over this, a product sticking with 1.0a over 1.1, basically were to rule that 1.0a still stands and that there is nothing Wizards can do about it. But good question who'd be willing to play chicken and gamble over such a situation. Though then again, imagine some people are probably setting themselves on taking that fight back at Wizards if 1.1 goes into effect.

    Llamadom — 01/09/2023 5:34 AM
    > Yeah:
    > Theres no legal issue with WotC making a new license, that fine. A bit issue of whether they can revoke an old license for the future, if they can argue its not beneficial to them (in more than just money).
    > The biggest case here is whether revoking OGL 1.0a means all old OGL uses must comply with OGL 1.1, or face legal trouble or cant operate
    > And whether OGL 1.0a is basically public domain at this point, considering WotC's lack of enforcement and oversight for the past 23 years (and even if they can protect most of the stuff in the OGL from being public domain, based on how general the mechanics are ruled) (edited)
    > Which honestly, The 3rd party developers kinda have the advantage here big time. Very few cases rule in the big companies favor here
    > If it gets enough buzz, I could even see some govt intervention here, especially if anti-consumer and competition practices get brought up
    > Especially with the current FTC....the head rn is big time anti monopoly, anti trust. Most of my friends in the legal department said they wouldnt be surprised if this gets enough attention
    > Especially with how large Hasbro is
    > (Sorry for word wall. IP/copyright law is one thing I follow alot of 'xD and I got a few legal friends whove been following the story too and gave their whole legal two sense, at least from an American law perspective)
     
  17. Stealthy

    Stealthy Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    375
    https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

    update from WotC. There’s an aggressive amount of corporate gaslighting, but underneath that they’re claiming they will roll back on the controversial measures in OGL 1.1 including royalties and WotC getting a free sub-license to all OGL material

    friend pointed out that there’s no mention of perpetual or irrevocable or Wizards ability to alter the document with limited notice. So I’ll be looking out for that when they drop the revised 1.1
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2023
  18. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
    Can I just say mad respect for Paizo alliterating their license as ORC.
     
  19. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400


    Legal Eagle video.
     
  20. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    4400
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2023
Loading...