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.

​

 

[TerraDave]

It looks like something done by in-house council at the corporate/wotc level with little input from the d&d team, and limited understanding of the wider marketplace.

 

[Haplo781]

I'll note that it's another day beyond the 4th whe it was supposed to be released and yet it still isn't and radio silence continues.

Likely they're in full spin/damage control mode

 

[Charlaquin]

They would not have been. The way Paizo people have described it, the process went something like this.

• Hmm, Wizards sure are dragging their feet on revealing both the licensing agreement for the new edition and allowing that look into the rules they promised 3PPs. We should probably look into backup plans.
• Hey, they're having an open playtest of 4e at the D&D Experience in February. Let's send Jason Bulmahn over to check it out.
• Bulmahn, upon return: "Nope nope nope." That's not what we want to write for. We need to do something else, and right time to start working on it would be six months ago.
• Hey Jason, didn't you have a variant 3.5e rules set you were working on? Can we take that and expand to a full game?

Now, it's possible that if the GSL hadn't been so toxic, and if Pathfinder hadn't been such a success, the folks at Paizo might have changed their minds eventually. But the original decision to create the Pathfinder RPG (as opposed to the Pathfinder Adventure Paths) was not based on the GSL, but on the distaste Paizo folks had for 4e.

I hadn’t heard that. Good to know!

 

[Greg K]

Do they still publish PF1 material? If so, that would suck for them, yes. But again, didn't Paizo essentially use D&D's ruleset to build D&D's biggest competition? Is that really "fair" to D&D? Is it unreasonable for D&D's owners to have a problem with that?

Yes, it is fair. Maybe you were not around back when the OGL first came out. One of the intentions, as stated by Dancey (the VP at the time) was to keep 3e alive if owners changed it or took it off the market. The other was to create new games that kept people in the orbit of 3e. When people asked about republishing the SRD, they were told yes.

 

[Reynard]

Ironically, they only did that in the first place because WotC tried to get rid of the OGL. Had 4e been published under the OGL, Paizo would have been happy to just keep making 3rd party content for it. It was the GSL and its “poison pill” that made Paizo go “well, guess we’ll just keep making 3.5e then.”

That's not true, according to Lisa Stevens. The 4E system was not something they wanted to use.

 

[Xethreau]

I have compiled a fact-sheet on the OGL 1.1 in case anybody would like to read 3 pages instead of 15.

OGL 1.1 Fact Sheet

General The text leaked by Battle Zoo is a human-readable version of the actual license. The content of the document itself isn't legal text, but it is presumably all backed by real legal text. (p.1) OGL 1.1 divided between commercial and noncommercial. These facts have been previously reported ...

docs.google.com

 

[dave2008]

I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".

I don't think being able to cancel the license any time, stop you from selling your creations, and allowing them to sell your creations when you cannot is ever a good deal.

 

[darjr]

I mean, I agree that I liked the OGL as it stood - I think it's a better approach. The only part I don't get is the absolute vitriol against the new one. It's disappointing, for sure. But it strikes me more as "there goes that era of good times" rather than "here come the dark ages".

The folks abandoning the OGL and Monte Cook games looking to revise their license and one of the artchitects of 5e putting all his 5e stuff on sale to be pulled from the market by FRIDAY. To Russ accelerating the PDF schedule to yesterday for his book not due till March.

Did you not see any of this? That's just kinda the tip of the iceburg too.

 

[dave2008]

That's not true, according to Lisa Stevens. The 4E system was not something they wanted to use.

Which is funny because PF2 is basically a union of 4e and PF1.

 

[Reynard]

If Hasbro pushes ahead with this, I wonder if we will get a repeat of Pathfinder? Another company coming along making 'Totally not DnD' but with anything WotC can claim scrubbed out (and not using the OGL).

Preferably designed to snatch up 5e players which Pathfinder 2e still struggles with somewhat.

The conditions arent the same. 5E isn't being replaced by something controversial. If WotC's surveys are to be believed, the majority of engaged players like the changes. I have no doubt someone (or many someones) are going to try and create "the next Pathfinder" but it's not going to stick because for the vast majority of D&D players, there is no reason to leave. The percentage of ones upset about the OGL debacle is probably in the single digits. In our echo chambers like this one, it feels bigger, but remember there are MILLIONS of D&D players.