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.

 

[Jer]

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).

I think the initial release was a huge boost to Wizards rep back in the day. I think the continued support for it allowed them to coast on residual goodwill. And I think that the OGL created a market where even when you're not buying Wizards' supplemental products because they aren't speaking to how you want to play the game, you're still playing D&D, you're still introducing new people to the game who might buy their products, and you're still a potential "get" if they start to publish things that you might be interested in.

Contrast that with players playing some other game - if you aren't interested in what Wizards is publishing and you find yourself in a group playing Vampire, then you are completely out of their ecosystem. New people you bring into the game are learning Storyteller/Storypath mechanics and buying White Wolf or Onyx Path products instead of Wizards. Switching back to D&D might not happen at all even if Wizards starts publishing something you might be interested in because now you're invested in different mechanics and have different ideas for the games you want to run.

Even if you switch to another D&D-like game based on D&D mechanics - like you switch over to Pathfinder or 13th Age - that's still better for Wizards than you leaving the D&D community altogether. If you're playing Pathfinder you might still care about adventures or settings that Wizards produces. Even if you're playing Mutants and Masterminds, the core mechanic of the game means it's easier to switch back to playing D&D if your group decides they're done with supers for now. If you're playing Vampire or Mutant Year Zero neither of those things are probably true.

The thing that Wizards seems really myopic about is that the entire OGL/SRD enterprise was both about building trust and building and keeping a community of players together in their game. Keeping people in the D&D tent even if they're closer to the flaps or the edge than in the middle of the tent.

 

[dave2008]

"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.

That is why we need better contract language.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That is why we need better contract language.

And we're relying on an entity who has proven time and again to not act in good faith in regard to agreements to not just draft this, but to adhere to them?

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Move One D&D onto a closed license, make enough changes to the game that an SRD conversion from existing SRDs would prove difficult, even if this means losing 5e compatibility, and compete against 5e clones with it's new system.

They could go back to a cleaned up version of 4E and the GSL. I'd at least make some people happy, and It would better align with their VTT ambitions.

 

[dave2008]

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

Many a deal / contract has been made on the assumption that everyone is out for themselves. The tool we use to fight that is quality contract language. I am not a divorce lawyer, but I have a friend who is and she says this is basically an everyday occurrence.

 

[TheSword]

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


because they have no new license in place yet


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

Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it 3 things. They tried to change the terms of a contract. They didn’t break it, because they haven’t actually taken action invalidating the contract (trying to get people to agree to an alternative is not breaking a contract). There was push back from the other parties, they are now in a period of negotiation to try and find common ground. Maybe they will find a sweet spot that ticks all the boxes maybe they won’t but I’d bet all the money in my pockets that some people will be happy with what comes out.

The drafts we have seen of the new license are free. They are proposing to replace a free license with a free license. Please don’t act like this is them putting the rent up or trying to force people out of business.

 

[dave2008]

And we're relying on an entity who has proven time and again to not act in good faith in regard to agreements to not just draft this, but to adhere to them?

I can't speak for you, but I am not.

 

[mamba]

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.

anything can always go either way, the question is probability.

IANAL, but since the lawyers disagree, and they manage to do so about basically anything, what I am left with is precedence, and I am not aware of any precedence that did not go against WotC. Sure, there probably is plenty out there that I have not even seen, otherwise the lawyers would agree for once, but I still would go by that right now.

Another indicator to me is that WotC is not even attempting to revoke it, i.e. they are not making the argument that it [s not irrevocable. They instead attempt to deauthorize it, which at best is poorly defined and dubious.

Now I assume WotC has good lawyers and looked into this a lot more than any of us commenting, including the lawyers on both sides of this discussion, so if they rather go with deauthorization over revocation, then I must assume that they have good reasons for that. One of those reasons being that they know that revoking 1.0a has such a slim chance that they rather try this approach. At least that is my take on it.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I can't speak for you, but I am not.

How so? You're advocating for better language on the new OGL, who else has the power to draft it? In any version of the OGL that comes out it would be WotC who authors the language and would be expected to abide by the agreement in good faith.

 

[Clint_L]

At this point, I think there is only one way out of this for WotC.

Release all existing Wizards SRDs to a CC license and make no alterations to the current OGL.

Move One D&D onto a closed license, make enough changes to the game that an SRD conversion from existing SRDs would prove difficult, even if this means losing 5e compatibility, and compete against 5e clones with it's new system.

I think that is definitely one option.

Another is keeping backwards compatibility but opening up DnDBeyond to 3PP and making that their walled garden. Go with carrot rather than stick.