OGL v1.2 Survey Feedback: 'Hasn't Hit The Mark'

WotC has shared some of the (still ongoing) survey feedback following the release of the Open Game License v1.2 draft last week.

We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3.

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here

The linked FAQ (no, not THAT linked FAQ, the one where they say the original OGL cannot be revoked, I think we're supposed to ignore that one!) indicates that recent rumours about $30 subscriptions and homebrew content are false. They also say that they will be revising the 'harmful content' morality clause in the recent OGL draft, which in practice gives WotC power to shut down competitors at will.

You can still take the survey here until Feb 3rd.

 

[TheSword]

The funny thing about this whole debate is that the only company WotC has actually taken to court to try and shut is NuTSR who we actively revile on these boards for being disgraceful.

They haven’t tried to shut down a single operator or competitor that I can see… despite many competitors cloning their works (albeit under license that was given for free to the community).

They’re still offering a free license.

They were tried and executed by the twitter-storm/you-tube crowd in under a week without releasing a single official statement.

It’s very hard for me to see WotC as evil, or untrustworthy in these circumstances.

 

[dave2008]

The one thing that has become absolutely clear is that WotC will be a bad actor and throwing their weight around when they think they benefit from that.

The problem is assuming anyone will be a good actor.

 

[Art Waring]

It's all about reputation and good faith. If Wizards goes through with trying to destroy the OGL - whether they actually can succeed or not - nobody should trust them to keep their word on any contract or license they offer in the future. Because their reputation is only getting worse with every one of these actions they take.

It is truly unfortunate that they have chosen this path, because up to now, regardless of anything else they may have done, their continuing use of the OGL was helping to maintain their positive reputation. So much to the point of becoming monolithic within the industry (both in size and reach).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

yeah, and we have several that tell you the opposite. Chances are it actually is irrevocable, just like your purported future license would be, but for all licenses there is only one way to find out for sure…

on the internet alone (no IRL) I have seen both takes, with slightly more siding on the WotC can't win side... BUT there is a large middle ground were someone on one side or the other admits it could go either way.

Now In Real Life the few lawyers I know (most non gamers) have all told me that without serious research the best they can say is it depends on how well the arguments go, and that a BIG IF it actually makes it to trail.

Much like the few fields I know in real life, I find that people online like to over simplify these things and try to present 'black and white facts' when it is really 'shades of grey nuanced'

If WotC claims it has found a dubious legal loophole in that new license and will withdraw it, then someone has to step up and get this settled in court or it is factually withdrawn, just like what is happening now.

the thing is, that a dubious loophole is pretty much what EVERYONE says this is... but being a loophole doesn't mean it wont work. We must (and anyone fronting money to take this to court especially must) prepare ourselves that WotC/Hasbro may win.

So no, that new license will not be much safer than 1.0a already is. In the next 20 years practices of contract writing will continue to change, creating new uncertainties where right now there are none that WotC can then try to squeeze through to invalidate the new license (just like what is happening with 1.0a right now).

this... 100% this. There is no such thing as an unbreakable chain, or unpickable lock.
There is no such thing as a unbreachable armor
there is no such thing as forever contract once someone TRIES to break it.

There are touch chains, there are locks that take a long time to pick, there are armors that are super tough and there are contracts built to last... however no one designing ANY of them can EVER truly predict how things will change 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years later.

The one thing that has become absolutely clear is that WotC will be a bad actor and throwing their weight around when they think they benefit from that.

this also... if anything we know that WotC is acting like a bully

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Absolutely agree. That's why the ORC is looking to be the most promising so far, because it will not be controlled by any ttrpg companies. A neutral third party is indeed important to keeping the open gaming community healthy and free from outside interference.

lets say that tomorrow Disney comes in and buys Piazo... they 5 years from now deiced (as Hasbro has now) to shut down open gaming either some what or all together... what is to stop them from buying that third party?

Now I don't think Disney will, or would... To be honest based on what I know about really big bully behavior form the mouse I keep jokeing they would just go buy some senators and house members and change the laws anyway...

 

[eyeheartawk]

They haven’t tried to shut down a single operator or competitor that I can see… despite many competitors cloning their works (albeit under license that was given for free to the community).

Have you read any of the drafts Wizards' themselves have released? You can't tell me this isn't about eliminating potential competitors for their upcoming VTT, for example.

They’re still offering a free license.

GSL was free too. The OGL they want is a hollow PR gesture providing cover.

They were tried and executed by the twitter-storm/you-tube crowd in under a week without releasing a single official statement.

A. That crowd turned out to be right.

B. Not releasing a statement for so long is whose fault?

It’s very hard for me to see WotC as evil, or untrustworthy in these circumstances.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC and a huge number of 3PPs have all found the OGL sufficiently well-written and legally binding for them to do business under it for over two decades. There's no fundamental reason for that to no longer be the case.

Yup. The entity who thinks the 1.0a is a poorly-written document isn't someone using the license, it's the entity who drafted it.

 

[mamba]

The funny thing about this whole debate is that the only company WotC has actually taken to court to try and shut is NuTSR who we actively revile on these boards for being disgraceful.

and who are not using the OGL, so changing the OGL over this accomplishes nothing

They’re still offering a free license.

because they have no new license in place yet

It’s very hard for me to see WotC as evil, or untrustworthy in these circumstances.

then I guess you were asleep for the last month or so where WotC showed us they are willing to break contracts, promises and trust if they believe doing so benefits them

 

[mamba]

The problem is assuming anyone will be a good actor.

to a degree yes, but then where does that leave us? Do you think you stand a better chance with any other big company when they want to screw you over?

If the assumption is that anyone is out to get you and will use their money and power to squash you, that does not leave a lit of options to enter into a contract with a big corporation.

If this were the default assumption of humans, chances are we could not even form societies, because that does require a lot of good faith assumptions

 

[Steampunkette]

The funny thing about this whole debate is that the only company WotC has actually taken to court to try and shut is NuTSR who we actively revile on these boards for being disgraceful.

They haven’t tried to shut down a single operator or competitor that I can see… despite many competitors cloning their works (albeit under license that was given for free to the community).

They’re still offering a free license.

They were tried and executed by the twitter-storm/you-tube crowd in under a week without releasing a single official statement.

It’s very hard for me to see WotC as evil, or untrustworthy in these circumstances.

"A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.
C. For clarity, nothing contained in this Section impacts Your agreement that Our Licensed Content, Unlicensed Content,
and anything else You are not otherwise expressly authorized to use, under the terms of this agreement or any other
agreement, remains Our sole property."

If I signed 1.1 they literally had the right to take Paranormal Power in it's entirety, republish it as "The OneD&D Psionics Handbook" without paying me a red cent for my words and I would have had no legal recourse to challenge it based on the OGL 1.1 I agreed to.

In what world is that trustworthy or good? Like the fist clause, A, gave them coverage for doing something "Substantially Similar" and it being challenged in court... But clause B just gives them the outright right to use your work without paying for it.

That's not even getting into the fact that the OGL 1.0a is meant to be a perpetual evergreen document ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT, that WotC is now trying to weasel out of. Showing that they'll break a contract that was meant to be unbreakable if they like.

Let's say they release OGL 1.5a. And we sign it. And 3 months later go "Nah, now we're going to make 1.6a." and 6 months later "Here comes OGL 2.21, which means you have to work for us directly as an unpaid intern and all your creative works belong to us!"

Like... They're untrustworthy. There's no longer an understanding of good faith in their contracts if they're looking to break the contract they made to be unbreakable.