Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It's not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

​

 

[Nikosandros]

Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.

That has been explained by @Ruin Explorer. They have excised the links so as to make the leak less traceable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It feels like each individual license sent out like this in advance would have it's own links with a bunch of unique numbers attached, so that the identity of the leaker (and NDA violator) would be obvious?

That's how my law firm would have done it. Hell, I've literally sent stuff out like that before (albeit on behalf of a lawyer who was having some issues).

 

[Cadence]

A fine ending though (to both non-commercial and commercial):

"I. Review by Counsel. You agree that You have reviewed this agreement carefully and have had ample opportunity to obtain advice as to the meaning of the terms and agreements contained herein from such advisors, including attorneys, as You deemed appropriate or necessary."

 

[Stalker0]

That has been explained by @Ruin Explorer. They have excised the links so as to make the leak less traceable.

sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.

If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?

 

[Nikosandros]

sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.

If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?

We don't know why they haven't made a general release which was supposed to happen on the 4th. The rumor is that they might be changing it due to the reactions.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

As a long time gamer and a long time consumer of gaming products large and small, it's really a simple situation:

Embrace the suck and play by whatever guidelines and get whatever benefits come from it, or move onto a new system of your own design and work on building up a community. Does it suck? I'm sure, but we're decades past gaming being a niche industry at Gygax's table. Why is anyone surprised Hasbro is trying to get more money from WotC? They're doing the same with MtG. Why are people surprised that a corporation Corporations?

Businesses adapt, and I think if 3PP decide this OGL is egregious, I'm sure some other publisher would be able and happy to publish your home system if you can't get in with, say, Pathfinder.

OR is your issue that you won't have a built-in audience for 'the World's Largest Roleplaying Game'? Let's just be honest about it because there are plenty of designers out there who put out new work and have for decades with their own system, etc.

 

[darjr]

sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.

If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?

Possibly this is the nice one sent to vendors they wanted to entice? As some have guessed that some 3pp would get?

Note the HEAVY sarcasm.

 

[DMZ2112]

I have the luxury and privilege to not have an opinion about the industry impact of OGL 1.1 until Wizards has played their hand, but as a professional technical writer, I couldn't help myself but to say there's something really funny about the combination of capitalization to indicate legal keywords and the following statement:

Your brother doing Your chores for a week, whatever.

I'm glad to see that most of the colloquial writing we'd seen thus far seems to be from familiar-language "Comments" sections, although really, they go so far beyond familiar language that I'm expecting the author to offer me a joint between paragraphs. Ugh. Strong, STRONG "hello fellow keeds" vibes.

I hope someone out there has the self-awareness to be deeply embarrassed about this. Whoever you are, the world is a dumber place thanks to you.

Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo.

...Hold me. It's so cold, and it's getting hard to see. What's that... light? Gary? ...Gary, is that you?

To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,”

Clearly not! Ha!

 

[Princessmaker]

It feels like each individual license sent out like this in advance would have it's own links with a bunch of unique numbers attached, so that the identity of the leaker (and NDA violator) would be obvious?

Or possibly the comments, which have zero legal value, could be slightly different from each other. It's an old tactics to see who leaks it.

Canary trap - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cadence]

Sure

Or possibly the comments, which have zero legal value, could be slightly different from each other. It's an old tactics to see who leaks it.

Canary trap - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sure, but, as we've seen on here, there is always some doubt about leaked documents. A link to a web-page on wizards . com seems like it would be a lot harder to deny or disbelieve, and so might be worthy of some obvious protection so that it wouldn't be shared?