We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[JThursby]

In the video, Stephen and Mark both question the capability for Wizards to enforce any kind of forced de-authorization of 1.0a, both of them conclude that it is likely a scare tactic instead of something truly enforceable. That seems plausible, but I question why they would bother to try and scare publishers if they had no intention of pursing legal action, who would be fooled by it?

Furthermore, what is to stop one or multiple of their competitors from making their own license along similar lines? Does a game like Pathfinder really need the specific term "magic missile" for their game to succeed?

Ultimately, I really hope this leak turns out to be exaggerated or false, but given the existence of things like the GSL it isn't entirely implausible.

 

[Maxperson]

My TRUSTED SOURCES have leaked to me the new "OGL Restricted License" !!!!



My trusted source is Chat GPT.

The sad thing is, that was better than the writing shown on page 1.

 

[Art Waring]

I mean, it would absolutely make sense to anyone who didn't care about the impact on the RPG industry and didn't believe the bad PR they might accrue would be meaningful given D&D is laughably dominant.

Which may well apply to the various Microsoft bods running Hasbro and WotC right now.

Or not! We'll see.

I think it'd be weird if this much fuss was being made if there wasn't some basis for this, given the people involved, but who knows.

Well I don't know, I really hope this is not as bad as they are making it sound.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ultimately, I really hope this leak turns out to be exaggerated or false, but given the existence of things like the GSL it isn't entirely implausible.

Same. Aspects of this are feeling a bit unfortunately plausible though.

 

[Cadence]

MtG: Goes against years of saying the reserve list applies to gold bordered cards too and finally does reprints at $250 a pack.

DnD: Hold my beer.

?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Incandescent rage. I should not be surprised that a corporation would burn decades of goodwill for the bottom line. And yet: here we are.

With no proof it’s real and a lot of evidence it’s not

I despise this click bait naughty word.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In the video, Stephen and Mark both question the capability for Wizards to enforce any kind of forced de-authorization of 1.0a, both of them conclude that it is likely a scare tactic instead of something truly enforceable. That seems plausible, but I question why they would bother to try and scare publishers if they had no intention of pursing legal action, who would be fooled by it?

Briefly on this- litigation can be used for the in terrorem effect, not just for the merits of the case.

The best case, the most slam-dunk case, in the world might give you a ... what ... 90% chance of victory? Now, good lawyers could adjust that somewhat- really expensive and clever ones might tilt the odds a little more. But let's keep it at 80%.

Imagine you're a small company. Hasbro is suing you- none of the claims involve attorney's fees. If they win, you're ruined. But if you win ... you're still out all the money you paid your attorneys.

That is the unfortunate side of litigation. Money ... well, it can matter. The threat of litigation can force a lot of people to back down, even when they know they are right.

ETA- now, let's get back to the important stuff. Dragons, unicorns, and the perfidy of soulless, dead-eyed elves.

 

[Minigiant]

This is likely a misinterpretation do to the fact that this is likely second hand, or possibly even third-to fourth-hand information without any actual documentation to go with it. I am concerned about the 1.1, but not for reasons as severe as they claim.

Indeed it feels way too foolish for it not to be tainted info.

 

[see]

Apparently there's a difference between something with a perpetual duration and actively terminating something. In D&D terms, it's the difference between a spell with a duration of "permanent" and one that has a (D) notation after its listed duration (which in 3.5 meant that it was "dismissible" by the caster, who in this case is WotC).

Here's a quote from a law firm's website which talks about this:

I'd be a lot more worried about this if we didn't have Wayback Machine archives of WotC's OGL FAQs, both 1.0 and 2.0. As appeared in both versions of the FAQ:

Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

I believe the relevant legal term of art is "reasonable reliance".

 

[Clint_L]

You would have to be a moron to read that supposed "leak" and think it was legitimate. So either the people making the video are idiots or (more likely) they know it is ridiculous but are treating it seriously anyway to drum up fake outrage and get clicks.