WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

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...

www.enworld.org

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[Morrus]

If the existing work is unaffected, the license is still valid, and you can still publish under it.

I don't know what that means, but I think we're not having the same conversation.

 

[rcade]

The fact that it was in a post from their official communication channel wasn't enough?

Not if you think that a corporate apology is more credible if it comes from an identified person in a position of authority.

 

[Haplo781]

I have read Kyle Brink's statement. There are no surprises in it. At this point, I am convinced of WotC's fundamental commercial plan:

Their Mission Objective : to sell subscriptions to 6e and its VTT on DDB at a recurring monthly rate for DMs and players alike, ideally resulting in recurring revenues to WotC from DMs and players like any extremely successful MMO would provide ("WoW money").

THAT is the objective. To assist them in achieving that goal:

1- No Competing VTTs: they don't want a VTT that can run 6e other than their own; and

2- No Competing 5e Ruleset: Either directly or as a way to boost a VTT to provide 6e compatibility. To more broadly assist their effort in moving people to 6e, they DO NOT want to be competing with a fork in 5e, published by Paizo, Kobold Press or another party in circumstances that raises the specter of PF1 and 2008 all over again. I am not sure they can actually legally avoid this, but that is what WotC wants to avoid just the same.

That is the minimum acceptable outcome to WotC. If you read what Kyle Brink wrote, and read it with a view to forward looking de-authorization of the OGL 1.0a (bearing in mind the 5.1 SRD was released under that license and has not yet been "cloned") this is where we all are; Brink's statement is in accordance with the above.

All of the rest of the crap that WotC has backed off on is an abandonment of what amounted to drubbing down the side of the couch looking for quarters. It seemed a modest income stream, given Hasbro's size, that would not increase WotC's net revenue from D&D in an amount so as to justify this pratfall and the attendant risks it has brought to their business plan to earn Billions with a B from the D&D property.

See, they tried this before with 4e, and whatever your feelings on the edition itself, it had a couple of things going for it:

1. It was designed for this kind of play
2. It didn't try to revoke the OGL
3. It took creative risks
4. VTTs weren't really much of a thing in 2008

If it hadn't been for several unforced errors (insulting existing players, screwing over Paizo, etc.) and a murder-suicide delaying their VTT launch indefinitely, 4e could have been a major success (and as a reminder, it initially outsold every previous edition, merely failing to meet Hasbro's outrageous sales goals.)

This is just "what if we made minor changes to 5e, slapped a VTT on it, and killed all competition rather than make a better product?"

 

[Maxperson]

You are useing a work search website to find out about an employee of a company you are mad at and shareing that information (including contact info) with others... that is cyber stalking.
It is the first lowest level of it... but it is

No it isn't. Not a single thing said was private. Literally anyone can sign up on Linkedin and see that contact info. It's the contact info that he wants the public to have and use.

 

[Sacrosanct]

While the last points are nice, as a 3PP, I'll repeat here what I've said elsewhere.

Too late. Trust is broken. ORC is going to be a thing. Horse is out of the barn.

I'll continue to push Bugbears&Borderlands OPEN (while still making the OGL 5e version available, no future support). I'll continue to collaborate on Project Phoenix with about a half dozen other publishers.

 

[Steel_Wind]

This could mean that you can do it, but it is restricted to those who pay for a DDB subscription that allows them to use it.

No way. They aren't letting a free to play competitor go up against their monthly sub fee VTT. They only have to live with what is out there now. The OGL 1.0a and what has been published under it is not something they can escape at this stage, so they have to live with it and work around it.

But going forward? They don't. If 6e is not under the OGL 1.0a, then a VTT won't be able to support it on the basis of an existing license if 6e is "different enough".

And I think at this stage, WotC has come to the design decision as a result of all of these events over the past few weeks that 6e will be less compatible with 5e than their marketing people would have preferred. They will break it just enough so it's not compatible with any 5.1 OGL based VTT rule set. From WotC's perspective, that will have to do.

 

[TheSword]

He's the Executive Producer of D&D - that means he is the top day-to-day decision-maker about D&D.

You think we shouldn't be allowed to look at information that HE WROTE and that HE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE? You're running accusing people of CRIMINAL ACTS for using LinkedIn? You think that's fine behaviour?

You are absolutely gaslighting and acting in bad faith, because you've never cared before about a LinkedIn.

Disagreeing with someone’s behavior is not gaslighting. Gaslighting keeps getting tossed about every time someone disagrees with someone else’s opinion. It’s a specific type of psychology abuse where you try and cause a person to feel insane. Do you think your use of the term is proportional?

@GMforPowergamers just seems to feel that posting an employee’s (not a celebrity or an influencer’s) CV on a public forum for the purpose of people who hate his company to pile on is a bit stalkerish. I haven’t decided if it is stalking but it’s definitely a bit creepy and bit distasteful.

I once had a customer unhappy with a decision to ban a member of his family (for actually stalking one of my employees). That customer went onto my linkednin and made notes on every job I’d posted on there and then came into my workplace with his notes and asked me to explain the gaps - suggesting that maybe I’d been in prison or intimating worse, threatening going to the papers - the things people think they are entitled to do to people in service jobs hey? The reality was I only go on linkedin when something interesting happens to someone else so the details were wildly out of date. The customer’s behavior was deeply unpleasant and made me feel very unsafe for a while though. My executive boss was very good about it though - travelled to see me in person, banned the customer for life and offered to report to the police… but of course all suits are ?@>{^<*$ right?

 

[Vaalingrade]

LinkedIn isn't "your socials", and it's not appropriate to claim it is.

Linked in is not social media.

Okay.

This guy is an extremely senior guy who, if he's the same as previous EPs of D&D, is the primary day-to-day decision-maker re: D&D.

So again, we're supposed to condone going after him on an assumption.

How about we wait for confirmation before turning the internet loose on him? Wasn't there supposed to be a video out today talking about the mastermind?

I'm mad too, but I'm not so far gone as to aim the lash at anything the moves without knowing whether it's a valid target. We as a group need to get a grip because it'd be real easy to screw around and do some crap that could get us labeled bad actors and possible rightly so.

 

[Scribe]

I'll never understand people riding to the rescue of rapacious corporations. Give them the benefit of the doubt! Don't talk about the people who agree (and are paid) to be their spokespeople! Be grateful for what they deign to give you!

WotC isn't paying you to do this. Stop being their unpaid comms interns and crisis managers.

I think its called "concern trolling". A few examples have been glaringly obvious over the past week.

 

[Malmuria]

I'll never understand people riding to the rescue of rapacious corporations. Give them the benefit of the doubt! Don't talk about the people who agree (and are paid) to be their spokespeople! Be grateful for what they deign to give you!

WotC isn't paying you to do this. Stop being their unpaid comms interns and crisis managers.

Ironically, this "open" OGL drafting process is just asking people to fill out more surveys. This on top of the hours of free playtesting the community gives them.