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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, you're right, it's not a fix, and I shouldn't have implied that it is. But it is possible to conceive of a pathway under CC to continued distribution of broken pieces that only rely on the SRD 3.5, even if they become closed content otherwise.


You'll get no argument from me there. But I didn't think it was likely for them to release any of the SRD 5.1 to a CC license, either. The attitude around here seems to be that the release was negligible, but I was genuinely surprised by how much was included.

Was it a token gesture, and likely covered by free use anyway? Sure. But we've been saying from the beginning that one of the greatest strengths of the OGL wasn't the rights it authorized, but rather the freedom from fear of litigation it guaranteed.

I would say one of the greatest strengths of the 1.0a was the huge breadth of material in its attached SRDs that is available for open use. THAT's what actually allows 3pps to make these products, and that's what I don't want to see disappear or br dramatically reduced.

That, and a reasonable legal assurance that 3pps can continue making product as they have for the last 20+ years, is what I want. Make a contract that allows that, and I will support it.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That, and a reasonable legal assurance that 3pps can continue making product as they have for the last 20+ years, is what I want. Make a contract that allows that, and I will support it.

That's the rub though, isn't it?

Short of adding irrevocable to 1.0a and transferring stewardship of the OGL to a third party, will any 3PP feel assured enough to publish as before under it?

I think getting anything short of that is failure in both a pragmatic sense but also a moral one.

 

[dave2008]

No, it wasn't a public draft. It was an attempt to intimidate publishers into giving up their existing rights by threatening them with something even worse than the contracts they were being asked to sign. Which is frankly a stronger counterpoint than a public draft would have been against the argument that Wizards hasn't done anything wrong yet.

I as never making an argument that WotC hasn't done anything wrong yet. Not even close.

 

[Steampunkette]

It’s called a different perspective. @GMforPowergamers and I clearly see things differently to you clearly.

From my own point of view it’s because you and others are focusing on what you thought you had in the past (permanance and complete freedom from WotC) instead of what is on the table in front of you: the ability to keep publishing for 5e with all the marketing and market benefits that gives you.

You’re also framing this as a question of survival when it is actually a question of compromise. There are some 3pp, who want this substantial relationship with 5e and absolutely no relationship with WotC. WotC are saying that isn’t going to be the case, but you absolutely can continue to publish. “If you want to publish for and benefit from our game - we come with the bargain.”

Ironically the more WotC is framed as the enemy and the evil empire - the harder this pill becomes to swallow. It’s almost become psychosomatic. The very fact that WotC want this seems to have become the reason they can’t have it!

If you've got all the freedom and permanence in the world, isn't any compromise by definition an assault on what you -have-?

Not "Had in the Past". Have -now-.

If you built your livelihood off making content for D&D, with a fanbase and a patreon and kickstarters and a webstore, and whatever... wouldn't you see someone who has decided to randomly go all Darth Vader and "Alter the Agreement" that is going to either undermine your business or outright destroy it, based on whether you bend the knee, as the bad guy?

Like. Knowing that not only are they trying to do it -now- but could also do it at -any- time in the future... could you reasonably sign on to that contract to give up what you have to gain nothing but the possibility of future harm to yourself and your company..?

Businesses require stability. 3rd party publishers need to know they can do their business without randomly getting a new one-sided contract they have no choice but to sign.

There's no give and take, here. There is only give. That's not compromise.

Which, y'know. Fine. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. All I can do is tell them "No. 1.0a is permanent, irrevocable, and any compromise from that is a nonstarter." And then regardless of what they decide... I'll be publishing under ORC or CC or whatever else.

Because WotC cannot be trusted to hold to their agreements. When it suits them, they'll change the rules. They've now shown that.

 

[dave2008]

Not at all! I didn't respond sooner 'cause I went AFK to prep my hair for cutting.

New chapter coming up in the life of Steampunkette. Time for a new style and color. I'm thinking Blue or Purple rather than brown.

I've always wanted to go blue, but I could never pull the trigger.

 

[Steampunkette]

I've always wanted to go blue, but I could never pull the trigger.

Dooooo iiiiit. But do it subtle-like.

When I dye my hair (I do it at home in my own bathroom) I always apply the dye, put the foil on, wrap my head up in foil, and then GO TO BED with foil on my head.

I wind up with the -darkest- blues and purples you've ever seen in your life. Where it's just -subtly- not black... But when hair falls in front of my eye and there's a light behind it -I- get to see how vibrant the color is.

Then, over the course of weeks, the color fades and grows lighter and more obvious. And at that point I'm sharing my colored hair with the world.

 

[beholdsa]

One of my biggest gripes about the draft OGL 1.2 that I don't see many people talking about is that it's not even the same type of license as OGL 1.0a.

That is, in OGL 1.0a, the license defines Open Game Content (stuff other publishers can use) and Product Identity (stuff they can't). And once content is released as "Open Game Content," everyone is on equal footing and legally treated the same way. Anyone can participate by releasing Open Game Content to the community.

The draft OGL 1.2, however, doesn't define any sort of Open Game Content or Product Identity mechanism. It's a specific grant from Wizards for the contents of the D&D SRD. There is no way for anyone else to release open content to the community or to build on what others have provided. There is no equal footing. It is not an open license!

In my mind, that is the minimum of what the license needs to do.

 

[eyeheartawk]

On of my biggest gripes about the draft OGL 1.2 that I don't see many people talking about is that it's not even the same type of license as OGL 1.0a.

That is, in OGL 1.0a, the license defines Open Game Content (stuff other publishers can use) and Product Identity (stuff they can't). And once content is released as "Open Game Content," everyone is on equal footing and legally treated the same way. Anyone can participate by releasing Open Game Content to the community.

The draft OGL 1.2, however, doesn't define any sort of Open Game Content or Product Identity mechanism. It's a specific grant from Wizards for the contents of the D&D SRD. There is no way for anyone else to release open content to the community or to build on what others have provided. There is no equal footing. It is not an open license.

That's been noted as one of the bigger problems with it. Just not in this thread, yeah, you're right about that.

 

[dave2008]

I refuse to believe that past behavior is meaningless.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest it was meaningless, just that what is most important to me is the end result. Now, that is not always the case, and it may not end up being the case here. But I am willing to wait and see a bit. I also refuse to be believe people / corporations can change.

As has been said, they were very clear in the 1.1 about what they want, and I've seen nothing that proves to me that what they want has changed.

In 1.1 they wanted royalties and to steal your stuff (not really - but they could under that version). So what does it mean that they rolled those back? That is clearly a change that I assume you are aware of. Do you believe they never really wanted those so that is not real change? If that is the case, how do we look at 1.1 and decided what they really want - you said it was very clear, but it is not clear to me (again, if the changes they made are not real changes).

 

[Weiley31]

get the baby to safety, but also, kill the snake.

WoTC: Although.....if I let the snake attack the baby, I can employ the use of Sneak Attack as it will be too focused on the infant to notice me. Therefore, the most optimal course of action is to let the child get eaten.

DM: