Foundry VTT Statement Update re WotC and ORC

[Steel_Wind]

Released this afternoon on Foundry VTT's Website here.

This morning, Wizards of the Coast shared a statement regarding their intention to update the OGL. We will leave a critique of this statement to others in the community, but we want to emphasize a few important notes.

The efforts made by the TTRPG community over the past two weeks are truly notable. Deep concern about the terms of OGL version 1.1 galvanized companies, creators, and gamers into a united cause. The community has leapt to the defense of creators who use the Open Gaming License (1.0a) to offer amazing content in diverse and creative formats. The powerful voice of the united TTRPG community has caused Wizards of the Coast to reconsider their direction - something that seemed very unlikely only a week ago.

It is important to celebrate the ground that has been recovered, but it is also essential to remain patient until we learn the actual terms of the offered license. Multiple clauses in the version 1.1 license which was previously intended for release were wholly unacceptable to the community of content creators; there was no singular problem with that document that is easily corrected. Wizards of the Coast faces a challenge to provide license terms which communicate mutual respect with the creators who consider that license.

The statement today from WOTC concedes that prohibitions on digital content, a broad grant of rights over creators' content, and attempted revocation of the 1.0a license were serious errors. This should have been clear all along, but your voices of opposition ensured that the message was received. Until the exact terms of the new license are confirmed it's impossible to say with certainty how they will affect creators. We can, however, comment on several items:

1. We believe that OGL version 1.0a is a license which cannot be revoked or "deauthorized". The creation of software and other digital products is unambiguously permitted under the OGL 1.0a. There is clear extrinsic evidence that Wizards of the Coast and the creators of OGL 1.0a had the same interpretation as we do. We are committed to supporting creators who publish works using the OGL 1.0a license. We will continue to support content for our platform created under OGL version 1.0a as long as the creator of that content has not foregone the rights to publish that content by agreeing to an updated OGL.
2. We intend to continue offering and improving upon our DND5E game system under OGL 1.0a using SRD version 5.1. Whether or not that project will accept the terms of a revised OGL and expand compatibility to additional 5th Edition or future One D&D content will depend entirely on the legal terms of the license. If we choose not to accept the updated OGL, we may support third-party creations that use it as long as there is legal authorization for us to do so.
3. This situation has irreparably damaged the trust that creators placed in Wizards of the Coast as the custodian of an open license used by countless companies and creators across an entire industry. Efforts are underway to author and establish an open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC) under the stewardship of a neutral and non-profit organization. We support this initiative, will be providing direct feedback to the team working on it, and we are excited that many of our partners have also committed to participate. We hope that creators throughout the industry use this opportunity to reconsider the licensing frameworks used for their content regardless of whether that solution is the ORC or a bespoke license suitable for that work.

Thank you all for your messages of support. Many of you have shared that the Foundry Virtual Tabletop software is more important to you than the game system that you play on it - that is incredibly humbling and gratifying for our team to hear. We are eager to put this situation behind us (to the extent possible) and return our full focus towards creating the best system-agnostic virtual tabletop we can possibly make.



With gratitude and in solidarity,
The Foundry Virtual Tabletop Team

 

[Steel_Wind]

1. We intend to continue offering and improving upon our DND5E game system under OGL 1.0a using SRD version 5.1. Whether or not that project will accept the terms of a revised OGL and expand compatibility to additional 5th Edition or future One D&D content will depend entirely on the legal terms of the license. If we choose not to accept the updated OGL, we may support third-party creations that use it as long as there is legal authorization for us to do so.

This is the thorny issue of keeping a 6th ed that is backwards compatible out of Foundry's (and other VTT's) hands. If you can't de-authorize a VTT, they can keep coming back through supporting other and near clone OGL based compatible systems -- they keep coming back and going like an Energizer Bunny.

Rather than freeze out a competitor with licensing and artificial barriers -- it is wiser to beat them at their own game and offer a markedly superior product.

And if WotC can't do that? So be it. It's a variant of the quote: "if it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth."

If their VTT can be destroyed by a competitor, it deserves to be destroyed by a competitor. I mean, WotC just spent $146m on DDB (146 MILLION -- for a RPG web-portal! That should gobsmack us all, daily) and will spend tens of millions more on developing that VTT. As others have noted, that is a major Marvel movie budget. You have a right to expect some eye-widening tech innovation for that kind of money.

If they can't beat one guy coding in his Philadelphia apartment, along with a few other employees distributed around the globe who co-ordinate via Zoom and Discord, and some programmers who work for free in the Linux community mode tradition? They deserve to be beaten. C'mon. This shouldn't be hard.

 

[DMZ2112]

If their VTT can be destroyed by a competitor, it deserves to be destroyed by a competitor. I mean, WotC just spent $146m on DDB (146 MILLION -- for a RPG web-portal! That should gobsmack us all, daily) and will spend tens of millions more on developing that VTT. As others have noted, that is a major Marvel movie budget. You have a right to expect some eye-widening tech innovation for that kind of money.

The comparison I drew at the time was to the recently completed purchase by Embracer Group of Perfect World Entertainment -- for $103 million. That's a purchase of the active MMOs Neverwinter, Star Trek Online, Champions Online, and Perfect World International, as well as the Torchlight series and the Remnant series, among many other titles.

So yes. Tech innovation out the wazoo. Expectations are high.

If they can't beat one guy coding in his Philadelphia apartment, along with a few other employees distributed around the globe who co-ordinate via Zoom and Discord, and some programmers who work for free in the Linux community mode tradition? They deserve to be beaten. C'mon. This shouldn't be hard.

Truth.

Although in their defense, Philadelphians are pretty badass.

 

[MarkB]

Rather than freeze out a competitor with licensing and artificial barriers -- it is wiser to beat them at their own game and offer a markedly superior product.

Why choose one, when they can do both?

WotC doesn't currently have a superior VTT product, and while they'd certainly like one, their track record on digital products is far from flawless. If they're going to pour that much money into creating one, it's hardly surprising that they'd want to hedge their bets by also squeezing out the competition.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Because just the hint of the true cost of trying to doing both caused them to remove the unsubscribe button on DDB last night; to stop their customers from walking away.

Turns out: You can't do both without eroding your brand and your sub-culture; and that erosion can be measured in dollars.

When you are staring with horse-eyes at the monetary cost and erosion of goodwill (I use that term in the GAAP sense of the word) at what this incorrect belief that they could have both was going to cost them, they blinked.

 

[Steel_Wind]

There is, of course, an easier path and something that shouldn't be hard either as a stop-gap while using it as a "defender brand". Just buy Foundry VTT, FFS, and contract the guy to stay on and provide non-competes in the usual manner, etc..

That would have been much wiser. Likely cheaper, too.

Had they simply done that, and then released a 1.1 OGL that simply removed VTTs from permitted products, going forward? Nobody would have said jack. It would have had a thread here, on DDB and rpg.net. Discord would barely have raised an eyebrow. Gizmodo wouldn't have bothered to write a sentence on it.

They could have got away with that entirely. Most of us wouldn't have noticed -- those that did notice would not have cared. A narrow majority of Foundry users would have CHEERED WotC ON. The story would have been about other games, like PF2, and whether the Foundry community would be allowed to keep on supporting a myriad of other game systems other than 5e.

It was the shopping cart of OGL 1.0a remorse druthers that started to pile up and caused this $hit-storm. The royalty demand did that. To what end?

 

[overgeeked]

In solidarity

There it is.

 

[Lojaan]

That was good.

 

[Matt Thomason]

There is, of course, an easier path and something that shouldn't be hard either as a stop-gap while using it as a "defender brand". Just buy Foundry VTT, FFS, and contract the guy to stay on and provide non-competes in the usual manner, etc..

That would have been much wiser. Likely cheaper, too.

Had they simply done that, and then released a 1.1 OGL that simply removed VTTs from permitted products, going forward? Nobody would have said jack. It would have had a thread here, on DDB and rpg.net. Discord would barely have raised an eyebrow. Gizmodo wouldn't have bothered to write a sentence on it.

They could have got away with that entirely. Most of us wouldn't have noticed -- those that did notice would not have cared. A narrow majority of Foundry users would have CHEERED WotC ON. The story would have been about other games, like PF2, and whether the Foundry community would be allowed to keep on supporting a myriad of other game systems other than 5e.

It was the shopping cart of OGL 1.0a remorse druthers that started to pile up and caused this $hit-storm. The royalty demand did that. To what end?

Put like that, I'm very glad they did it the way they did, as this would have still killed VTTs other than Foundry. Far better everyone gets upset enough to fight the idea of it killing anything.

Which now worries me that their new plan is just the same, but to do it in increments so as not to upset too many people at once.

 

[Dausuul]

We are committed to supporting creators who publish works using the OGL 1.0a license. We will continue to support content for our platform created under OGL version 1.0a as long as the creator of that content has not foregone the rights to publish that content by agreeing to an updated OGL.

Whoa. Foundry is throwing down.

Well, I have all this money I'm not giving to DDB any more, and I'll probably want some electronic tools for whatever system I end up on. Guess it's time to mosey over to Foundry and see what they've got. And if they need some volunteer dev work, I might do some of that too.