Why We Should Work With WotC

[FormerLurker]

You’re mistaken. Wizards have made specific representations about that in the past. And who who knows what cool CRPGs we could get from indie studios with the OGL 1.0(a) going forward?

Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?

A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.

One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.

Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasn't studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used.

Open Game License:Frequently Asked Questions

Open Game License: Frequently Asked Questions -- Version 2.0 -- January 26, 2004

web.archive.org

Computer software =/= video games.
By software there they meant character builders, encounter builders, and similar online tools.

As many, many people have pointed out, how do you allow "all the recipients [...] to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application" if it's an automated video game that represents a class features as automated effects.

It's a hurdle and a big reason why we haven't seen many OGL video games (or any?) in the past 20 years, indie or otherwise. If we didn't get many before, why would it change in the future?

 

[Remathilis]

If these are their actual goals, I think a D&D compatibility license with an official-looking Badge of Approval is the way to go. Even the CCA didn't actually ban non-compliant works by threat of lawsuit, forcing publishers to pulp their comics. The distributors that were part of the association simply refused to distribute non-compliant material.

There's no need to go nuclear to achieve this.

That was when comic distributors like Diamond had monopolies on how comics are distributed. The internet has made that all but irrelevant. You can distribute your game using alternatives, even if DTRPG or Kickstarter refuse. In a world of viral marketing, print on demand, PDFs and various payment processing, cutting off access isn't as easy as it used to be.

The d20 STL didn't stop the Book of Erotic Fantasy, so I don't see how a Badge of Good Behavior will help. They want something to use in a C&D letter as an actual stick and the stick is "we will pull your right to make this look like a D&D product with owlbears and magic missiles, stop this".

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Computer software =/= video games.
By software there they meant character builders, encounter builders, and similar online tools.

As many, many people have pointed out, how do you allow "all the recipients [...] to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application" if it's an automated video game that represents a class features as automated effects.

It's a hurdle and a big reason why we haven't seen many OGL video games (or any?) in the past 20 years, indie or otherwise. If we didn't get many before, why would it change in the future?

For a computer game specifically, it's trivial to comply with that. Add a text file.

 

[FormerLurker]

This is my take.

WotC has announced their biggest goal is control over what is attached, even peripherally, to the D&D brand. Royalties, claiming IP, none of that was as important as having the power to control what is considered "D&D compatible". WotC wants to avoid some potentially controversial product proudly displaying "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" and them having no recourse. They are doing their very best to move the game from "Satanic Panic of the 80's" to "quirky storytelling game of Let's Pretend" and sell it to teens and parents who watched Stranger Things and think Chris Pine is dreamy. They don't want some Hard R product muddying that water.

You can see it in there licencing model: the closer the game looks to D&D, the more control they have. The CC stuff is as broad as can be; you can make an RPG with it, but not really a D&D-looking one. The lack of races, classes, spells, and monsters (you know, the stuff that people associate with the game) is done to stop another Pathfinder game taking all their game elements and making a clone. If you want access to all those game elements; you have to agree to WotC's content moderation (which looks like the standard is "don't make us look bad"). Need D&D's actual IP? DM's Guild gives you the actual ability to use it, but with even tighter restrictions (and some revenue to boot).

So, like you, I believe the fight to keep 1.0a is a bit of lost cause. I don't know what the WotC "nuclear option" (deauthorize 1.0a and replace it with... nothing?) but I have a hard time believing there is any path forward that ends with 1.0a surviving. WotC right now is negotiating what it would take to get enough people to accept its demise and replacement. Fight for 1.0a, but if WotC's hard stance is no, then the fight must be on making 1.2 the best it can be for us. We still have the ability to mold 1.2 farther in our favor. If the line is 1.0a or death, we're getting death. If the line is 1.2 but we demand further concessions, we have a good chance of getting those.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I echo this 100%

I wish we could keep the 1.0a, but we need to think ahead to a realistic future with the 1.2 and debate how to make that better.

 

[BlueFin]

I have no problems waiting to see what they come out with. We should give them a chance to make things right. I tend to not say things like "You are dead to me" unless they ruined their chance.

A cover to the Golder Vault book might be a start.

Well, for many of us, they have ruined their chance. It seems to me that folks who write this kind of stuff (“give them a chance to make it right”), more or less in defence of wotc, forget (or don’t even know) that this is not the first time they have tried this (ie. 4e’s GSL).

To continue Monte Cook’s analogy, if someone tries to shoot you, and the gun jams, there is no giving the shooter a chance to “make it right” - they have shown their desire and intent and that is what you respond to.

 

[FormerLurker]

For a computer game specifically, it's trivial to comply with that. Add a text file.

How do you access a text file on a PS5?

Plus it needs to be accessible to a "reasonable person." Ask your parents or a preteen to find a specific text file for a computer game on your hard drive sometime.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

How do you access a text file on a PS5?

Plus it needs to be accessible to a "reasonable person." Ask your parents or a preteen to find a specific text file for a computer game on your hard drive sometime.

For a computer game specifically. If you can't find a file on your hard drive, you're not a "reasonable person".

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

That was when comic distributors like Diamond had monopolies on how comics are distributed. The internet has made that all but irrelevant. You can distribute your game using alternatives, even if DTRPG or Kickstarter refuse. In a world of viral marketing, print on demand, PDFs and various payment processing, cutting off access isn't as easy as it used to be.

The d20 STL didn't stop the Book of Erotic Fantasy, so I don't see how a Badge of Good Behavior will help. They want something to use in a C&D letter as an actual stick and the stick is "we will pull your right to make this look like a D&D product with owlbears and magic missiles, stop this".

And you think this degree of censorship is even remotely reasonable? You're not only defending the CCA here, you're arguing that WotC needs to have dictatorial power that surpasses theirs because we have the internet.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

And your goal is???

My position is that we can't move forward by looking backwards. WotC isn't going to change their mind on the OGL 1.0a. Nothing that's been said over the last month or fortnight or week seems to have budged them. It's a non-starter.
So rather than setting myself up to lose by focusing on the one thing that won't change, I want to focus on what changes I can make. Dwelling on what can't be changed and is inevitable is just setting oneself up for disappointment.

I wrote this on Thursday expecting the announcement on Friday, but WotC released early. I didn't choose to only do minor edits.
The VTT I talk about elsewhere. That's a different issue and that policy is some straight up BS.
And video games were never part of the original OGL anyway. Even Pathfinder's video game efforts radically change the rules.

I have no interest in licensing material from WotC under any new terms. I’m interested in keeping my rights to all the OGC under current terms and with the licensing structure intact. This position is inclusive of your concerns, but yours are exclusive of mine. So the common ground here is to fight for the status quo.

If WotC and I were negotiating this privately, I think I’d happily throw the entire 5e ecosystem under the bus just to keep the 3.5 SRDs under the old terms. Probably the VTTs too. So we really shouldn’t let them divide us like that.

 

[raniE]

This is my take.

WotC has announced their biggest goal is control over what is attached, even peripherally, to the D&D brand. Royalties, claiming IP, none of that was as important as having the power to control what is considered "D&D compatible". WotC wants to avoid some potentially controversial product proudly displaying "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" and them having no recourse. They are doing their very best to move the game from "Satanic Panic of the 80's" to "quirky storytelling game of Let's Pretend" and sell it to teens and parents who watched Stranger Things and think Chris Pine is dreamy. They don't want some Hard R product muddying that water.

Nobody gets to do that under the OGL 1.0a. Proclaiming “compatible with Dungeons & Dragons” was explicitly forbidden. This is therefore a non issue. We went through this with Book of Erotic Fantasy and we have had dozens of hard R or NC-17 or XXX books released under the OGL since. None of them have had any negative effect on D&D because they can’t, because the OGL says you can’t use someone else’s product identity or say you’re compatible with a game.