1.1/Terms Signature Leak, it was a draft?

[dave2008]

It's not in the OGL 1.1, no-one ever said it was (or certainly not any journo or the like).

I have not heard any journalist take on this - I was just talking about tubers and people on these forums. And yes, many said it did (like just yesterday even).

This has been explained multiple times now. It was in an additional document with 1.1 - the terms sheet.
So this is a good example of a misunderstanding on your part, and you might want to think on that a bit before accusing others of misleading you. People are quite capable of misleading themselves.

Yes, I see were the confusion started most likely. Thanks to @Enrahim2 's post above. I made the mistake of not watching the video an going off what other people said. The exact behavior I am trying to correct now. It was less of a misunderstanding on my part and more of me reacting to incorrect paraphrasing. Again, I mistake I would like to correct.

Again, I am not asking for the OGL with the signature - but the document, whatever it is, that asked for signatures. I will clarify the OP again.

Sure, and that would be fun to see - and one day it might leak - but I'm confident in saying that because it was NDA'd and not hugely relevant, it hasn't. Further you seeing it yourself does not guarantee you will understand it very well. With no insult intended, you might well misunderstand it. Someone like @Snarf Zagyg or one of our other lawyers would be far more likely to have a valid understanding that you could achieve yourself.

Absolutely. But I have a better chance if a read it myself and then possibly with corroboration by a legal expert to clarify my understanding is correct.

EDIT - Additionally I'd note Kyle has hedged on this. He said both that draft documents can contain signature blocks and so on (technically correct, the best kind of correct), but he also did appear to admit that at least one party might have indeed signed this supposedly "draft" document, which destroys the idea that it was actually a draft in any meaningful sense of the word. He's been vague and that's his prerogative, of course.

Unless I misheard he said something like he could understand how someone could think a signature was required, but I don't think he said anyone signed it.

 

[Jer]

Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

Swift consumer action prompted Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast to to scrap licensing updates. The players aren't done yet.

gizmodo.com

This was exactly the story I was thinking of, I just couldn't remember who published it. Should have remembered it was Linda Codega's.

 

[dave2008]

I believe this is the most complete public primary source we have regarding the details surrounding the signable things comming with the ogl1.1 draft. Scroll to "term sheet". This was not the first source I am aware of mentioning that there were contract attached, but I believe it is the only one that expand on any details.

Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

Swift consumer action prompted Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast to to scrap licensing updates. The players aren't done yet.

gizmodo.com

Thank you for the link, you have been very help. However, I didn't find any primary source in that article - only that they had one.

I did find this interesting:

"It was expected that third parties would sign these Term Sheets. Noah Downs, a lawyer in the table-top RPG space who was consulted on the conditions of one of these contracts, stated that even though the sheets included language suggesting negotiation was possible,* he got the impression there wasn’t much room for change."

The article assumes these where final documents, yet claims they included language suggesting the document was negotiable. If it is negotiable, it is a draft. I realize that the lawyer didn't feel that way - but he says the language is there.

So it seems that one of the few outlets to say the have a primary source and talked to someone "in the room," that the contracts where negotiable and thus drafts.

* @Ruin Explorer, I guess this is the document / language I would like to see. I know I probably never will - but it would be nice!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unless I misheard he said something like he could understand how someone could think a signature was required, but I don't think he said anyone signed it.

I agree he didn't say anyone had, but the circumspect way he approached the issue to me was suggestive that someone might have, and even saying "Oh I can see how people thought they needed to sign it!" is quite a wild thing if it's supposed to be merely for feedback. I'm trying to figure out how one would even possibly mess that up that bad? I've sent out dumb emails requiring clarification before but good god nothing even 1/10th that confusing! I honestly would love to see the whole thing - like the email and its attachments/links, because I'm betting it's pretty threatening.

He also notes that were they did get feedback, they basically just said "Ok thanks 4 feedback" rather than saying "Okay we're taking this on board and we understand your issues". This is something close to my heart because I've been on both sides of it in my work. It is very important to acknowledge the actual concerns of stakeholders, even if you're ultimately going to override them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If it is negotiable, it is a draft.

No.

From a legal perspective, anyway. It just means that you might make another version. That is not at all the same thing as being a draft.

I've seen this countless times at work. We send out what is intended to be a final document to be signed, and there's not intended to be further negotiation, and we certainly don't consider it a "draft", but then the other side gets back as it like "Nah mate, we need you to change this!" and negotiation happens, even though it was intended to be final.

So I'd say from certainly from the perspective of a law firm, that sometimes "final" documents do get negotiated. Frequently even.

Sometimes things are even clearer - until you get to a certain point, it may be that every document has a bigass watermark with "DRAFT" on it, for example. That's a very good way to eliminate any misunderstanding. But that also doesn't mean that magically the moment that watermark disappears, all negotiation is over forever.

 

[dave2008]

No.

From a legal perspective, anyway. It just means that you might make another version. That is not at all the same thing as being a draft.

I've seen this countless times at work. We send out what is intended to be a final document to be signed, and there's not intended to be further negotiation, and we certainly don't consider it a "draft", but then the other side gets back as it like "Nah mate, we need you to change this!" and negotiation happens, even though it was intended to be final.

So I'd say from certainly from the perspective of a law firm, that sometimes "final" documents do get negotiated. Frequently even.

Sometimes things are even clearer - until you get to a certain point, it may be that every document has a bigass watermark with "DRAFT" on it, for example. That's a very good way to eliminate any misunderstanding. But that also doesn't mean that magically the moment that watermark disappears, all negotiation is over forever.

I have been in the same situation. I have sent out several "drafts" that is only a draft because I said so in the email. I don't usually sign those until I don't receive comment. I have also sent out final documents that needed to be revised. Trust me, I understand this.

However, the lawyer Gizmodo spoke to claimed the language of the term sheet itself suggested negotiation was possible. I'm not a lawyer, but why would you put that in there if you were not offering negotiation?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, the lawyer Gizmodo spoke to claimed the language of the term sheet itself suggested negotiation was possible. I'm not a lawyer, but why would you put that in there if you were not offering negotiation?

Without seeing the specific language it's hard to say, I would say. The lawyer might merely be referring to the "we might cut you a better deal if you contact us directly" language (which is present in the OGL 1.1 IIRC and may well have been reflected in the term sheet). It certainly doesn't imply it's a draft. The way you imply it's a draft is you say "This is just a draft" like you have, or stick a bigass DRAFT watermark on it. You don't like, just expect them to intuit that it's a draft because you have some language re negotiation. Indeed, having language re: negotiation potentially suggests that it's not really a draft, because it sort of presupposes they want to negotiate with you, and why would they?

 

[Enrahim2]

I have been in the same situation. I have sent out several "drafts" that is only a draft because I said so in the email. I don't usually sign those until I don't receive comment. I have also sent out final documents that needed to be revised. Trust me, I understand this.

However, the lawyer Gizmodo spoke to claimed the language of the term sheet itself suggested negotiation was possible. I'm not a lawyer, but why would you put that in there if you were not offering negotiation?

It was a term sheet. I would guess it contained some boxes with prefilled numbers and lists of extra benefits. Just the fact there being more space in the boxes than what was filled out might be an indication that extras could be added. However I think the first sentence in your quoted paragraph is more telling: It was expected to be signed. That likely leaves very little wiggle room for the big picture.

 

[dave2008]

I agree he didn't say anyone had, but the circumspect way he approached the issue to me was suggestive that someone might have, and even saying "Oh I can see how people thought they needed to sign it!" is quite a wild thing if it's supposed to be merely for feedback. I'm trying to figure out how one would even possibly mess that up that bad? I've sent out dumb emails requiring clarification before but good god nothing even 1/10th that confusing! I honestly would love to see the whole thing - like the email and its attachments/links, because I'm betting it's pretty threatening.

I am beginning to think it was hardcopy handed to people in a meeting. No digital trail at all maybe? I believe Morus said he couldn't go because of the late notice and a conflicting schedule. So he didn't have a copy of the documents.

It also important to note that Kyle said he was not in those meetings. He knows they happened and who they were with, but he wasn't in them (he claims). If all of the above is true, his statement rings more true. Doesn't mean it is, and is not a good look even if it is.

EDIT: Morrus confirmed the meeting was virtual.

He also notes that were they did get feedback, they basically just said "Ok thanks 4 feedback" rather than saying "Okay we're taking this on board and we understand your issues". This is something close to my heart because I've been on both sides of it in my work. It is very important to acknowledge the actual concerns of stakeholders, even if you're ultimately going to override them.

Yep, that is a failure to communicate. One I have perpetrated myself. I honestly think that is why I sometimes seem to side with WotC a bit. I have made the very mistakes they talk about. I have waited to long to make something "perfect" before I get back to my clients. I have sent drafts that shouldn't have been sent (or to the wrong people). S%^t happens. It is hard for me to blame someone for making the very mistakes I have made. However, I am not a billion dollar corporation, they should do better.

 

[dave2008]

It was a term sheet. I would guess it contained some boxes with prefilled numbers and lists of extra benefits. Just the fact there being more space in the boxes than what was filled out might be an indication that extras could be added. However I think the first sentence in your quoted paragraph is more telling: It was expected to be signed. That likely leaves very little wiggle room for the big picture.

Except that it appears to me that was simply based on the lawyers "impression." I could be wrong. Regardless, I think @Ruin Explorer has it correct. If they wanted it to be a draft, it could easily be clearly marked as draft. Maybe it was, but we don't know that and based on how Kyle has talked about it - I don't think it was noted as such.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am beginning to think it was hardcopy handed to people in a meeting.

The meeting was virtual...

Dude do you think WotC like, flew all the 3PPs to Cascadia and put them up in hotels and stuff for a meeting? Because they definitely did not lol. That's like a 6000 mile flight from the UK lol. Even from parts of the US it's extremely far (WotC are in Seattle).

 

[dave2008]

It was a term sheet. I would guess it contained some boxes with prefilled numbers and lists of extra benefits. Just the fact there being more space in the boxes than what was filled out might be an indication that extras could be added. However I think the first sentence in your quoted paragraph is more telling: It was expected to be signed. That likely leaves very little wiggle room for the big picture.

PS I updated the OP again to clarify my potential misinterpretation

 

[dave2008]

The meeting was virtual...

That is what I assumed. I just remember Morrus saying he couldn't attend and so didn't have the documents as he couldn't sign the NDA. Why would he not be able to sign the NDA unless it was in person. I could easily be miss remembering. Maybe @Morrus can clear up the question: was the 3PP meeting about the OGL with WotC to be in person or virtual? Sorry to summon you, but I didn't want to misquote you anymore than I may have.

EDIT: Morrus confirmed it was virtual.

Dude do you think WotC like, flew all the 3PPs to Cascadia and put them up in hotels and stuff for a meeting? Because they definitely did not lol. That's like a 6000 mile flight from the UK lol. Even from parts of the US it's extremely far (WotC are in Seattle).

I know - I drove from Seattle to Ohio last year. It took me 3 days.

FYI, strange fact, it is (currently) cheaper to fly to Europe from Seattle than from Ohio, even though Ohio is 2000 miles closer!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

FYI, strange fact, it is (currently) cheaper to fly to Europe from Seattle than from Ohio, even though Ohio is 2000 miles closer!

Huh. That's pretty weird. Flights to/from the US/Europe (including the UK) are often a bit weird though, as they try and fill them up, and depending on the timing. Flying to the US I believe at least pre-COVID the optimal booking time was 1 month before going, price-wise, and then there was another, lesser low even closer to flight time. And you sometimes find wacky routes are much cheaper - I know when my wife flew to the US last, flying to Dublin and then from there was cheaper than flying from any UK airport, even though like, no way is that cheaper in terms of fuel and wear and tear and so on. Some destinations on mainland Europe it was the same way - even though virtually all of them involved flying "the wrong way" (at least Dublin was arguably "the right way") and a significantly longer total flight distance.

Air travel - a goddamn eco-unfriendly mystery!

 

[Clint_L]

The only claim of this sorts i am aware of dnd shorts making is 3 minutes into this video: The exact phrasing is that ogl1.1 "was sent out to creators with a contract for them to sign". It is not clear from this video in isolation that he is refering to the separate improved deals, and hence if this video was the first time someone heard about this issue they could be forgiven to misconstrue that the contracts in question was the ogl1.1 itself. It was not. It however heavily indicate 1.1 was not meant to change as there were other clearly signable contracts based on the ogl1.1 premise.

I think DnDShorts got played by his supposed leaks, because he is not a journalist and did not perform anything like the proper diligence in trying to verify claims and taking unverifiable claims with a grain of salt. Put bluntly, he seems to have an unreasonable amount of trust in his leaks, even after they were demonstrably shown to have misled him.

The thing with leakers is that they always have an agenda. That's journalism 101. You have to be super cautious about relying on them, and check whatever you can. Anything that you can't verify has to be used very cautiously. Because leakers can and will (and in this case did) use a sympathetic media source to push their agenda.

 

[dave2008]

Huh. That's pretty weird. Flights to/from the US/Europe (including the UK) are often a bit weird though, as they try and fill them up, and depending on the timing. Flying to the US I believe at least pre-COVID the optimal booking time was 1 month before going, price-wise, and then there was another, lesser low even closer to flight time. And you sometimes find wacky routes are much cheaper - I know when my wife flew to the US last, flying to Dublin and then from there was cheaper than flying from any UK airport, even though like, no way is that cheaper in terms of fuel and wear and tear and so on. Some destinations on mainland Europe it was the same way - even though virtually all of them involved flying "the wrong way" (at least Dublin was arguably "the right way") and a significantly longer total flight distance.

Air travel - a goddamn eco-unfriendly mystery!

It is weird for sure!

I must also clarify that my wife (who does all of he flight booking) always looks for the flights with the least number of stops / shortest trip time vs the cheapest price. We are contemplating a move to Seattle and we have been making yearly trips to Europe the past 3 years so we were curious how much more that would set us back. We were happy to see it wouldn't!

 

[dave2008]

It was a term sheet. I would guess it contained some boxes with prefilled numbers and lists of extra benefits. Just the fact there being more space in the boxes than what was filled out might be an indication that extras could be added.

However, that doesn't really meet the definition of "the sheets included language suggesting negotiation was possible" to me. But we don't really know.

However I think the first sentence in your quoted paragraph is more telling: It was expected to be signed. That likely leaves very little wiggle room for the big picture.

I did want to clarify that IMO, the sentences following are meant to support the journalist claim that the document was expected to be signed. However, I don't think they do. The first sentence is not a declaration of fact. That being said, I have basically decided I am really no more knowledgeable than when I was before this exercise and I really need to give it up and move on!

 

[Enrahim2]

I think DnDShorts got played by his supposed leaks, because he is not a journalist and did not perform anything like the proper diligence in trying to verify claims and taking unverifiable claims with a grain of salt. Put bluntly, he seems to have an unreasonable amount of trust in his leaks, even after they were demonstrably shown to have misled him.

The thing with leakers is that they always have an agenda. That's journalism 101. You have to be super cautious about relying on them, and check whatever you can. Anything that you can't verify has to be used very cautiously. Because leakers can and will (and in this case did) use a sympathetic media source to push their agenda.

Somewhat off topic, but this video was made before the leaks directly to him as far as I am aware. Indeed I would guess it might have been the popularity of this particular video that might have prompted someone to make contact with him.

It is also worth adding that this claim that ogl1.1 came with separate contracts was well known to me by the time he made this video, so this information would in no way have to rely on any leaks directly to him, neither are they claimed to be so. It was merely a restatement of a well known fact to those following the situation closely.

 

[Morrus]

Maybe @Morrus can clear up the question: was the 3PP meeting about the OGL with WotC to be in person or virtual?

I wasn't going to travel to America for it. Yep, it was virtual.

 

[dave2008]

I wasn't going to travel to America for it. Yep, it was virtual.

Thank you for the clarification!