A proposal for a multi-tiered license structure

[Charlaquin]

As a player. No reason. But dors not matter a lot.

As a 3pp, you need to decide: use the new OGL and profit from using D&D or doing other things that might be way less profitable.

In a different thread a 3pp said, that one of their books was sold 20 times as often with 5e as the same book with alternate rules.
I also do a guess and say LevelUp sold more often than WOIN.

So the question is: are the new conditions good enough to use or not.
I understood Morrus, that he wants OGL 1.0 or nothing, and I think he might be in a good position. Big publishers also should be able to do their own thing.

I don't think every small publisher will be in an equally good position.

All the more reason for us to band together against this in support of the smaller publishers.

 

[TheSword]

No, as long as main stream media keep reporting on it as wizards merely trying to update a licensing agreement, there is no chance.

If media had been reporting on wizards breaking promisses, former microsoft execs going after an open source community, and their disttastefull use of minority issues as a smoke screen for trying to establish a monopoly.. Then I think even people never having heard of D&D before might take up arms.

It’s not a monopoly. It’s not even close to a monopoly. MacDonalds being the only people able to serve a Big Mac isn’t a monopoly.

 

[TheSword]

By the time others are using the new system, the license issue will be resolved, one way or another. And I don't know that "the wider public" cares or will be meaningfully influenced anyway. You aren't going to get a significant number of people who don't play D&D to, say, boycott the movie over license issues.

By wider public I actually meant wider community. I should have been clearer. The other 9.95m people who play D&D without 3pp. I don’t believe they’re going to be swayed by claims that wizards are liars and deal breakers and how they have gone about the license change. It’s going to take merit on the license itself.

 

[Enrahim2]

It’s not a monopoly. It’s not even close to a monopoly. MacDonalds being the only people able to serve a Big Mac isn’t a monopoly.

No, but MacDonalds being the only profitable fastfood resturant would have been a monopoly?
Wizards establishing an exclusive platform for D&D play would not in itself constitute a monopoly - and noone has claimed so. What might cause this to be a move toward monopoly is if this makes the other existing commercial VTTs no longer economically viable - hence making them disappear.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All the more reason for us to band together against this in support of the smaller publishers.

I am not against fighting for the best outcome. However boycotting WotC forever seems like hurting small publishers too. A successful OneDnD edition will help them a lot more.

So we should fight for a good OGL 1.2.
Small publishers already accept even worse conditions in DM's guild.
So in the best case scenario, they get access to the official tools and original settings.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. I believe that revoking the OGL is illegal and unethical, and I won’t be buying D&D products any more if they do it. I know I’m far from alone in this.

Whether it is ethical depends on what they offer in its place.

If they offer something good, such that current users have little qualms about moving, its legality becomes moot - contracts are agreements, so long as the involved parties in the contract agree, there's no legal issue.

 

[Dreamscape]

Whether it is ethical depends on what they offer in its place.

If they offer something good, such that current users have little qualms about moving, its legality becomes moot - contracts are agreements, so long as the involved parties in the contract agree, there's no legal issue.

Given everything that has come out of WotC over recent weeks, that possibility seems somewhat... alternate reality?

 

[Umbran]

What might cause this to be a move toward monopoly is if this makes the other existing commercial VTTs no longer economically viable - hence making them disappear.

I don't expect that would hold up, either in court or as a news story. It is hard to claim WotC is trying to monopolize the VTT market before WotC actually has a VTT in the market. And the current license terms under discussion would cut off features that aren't even generally used in the market at this time.

 

[Umbran]

Given everything that has come out of WotC over recent weeks, that possibility seems somewhat... alternate reality?

I did note I was speaking optimistically.

Overall, though, this is to me more about being open minded enough to at least read what they offer before rejecting it.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t believe they’re going to be swayed by claims that wizards are liars and deal breakers and how they have gone about the license change. It’s going to take merit on the license itself.

Hot take: that's probably as it should be.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding - what the final license looks like is what matters in the long run.

 

[TheSword]

No, but MacDonalds being the only profitable fastfood resturant would have been a monopoly?
Wizards establishing an exclusive platform for D&D play would not in itself constitute a monopoly - and noone has claimed so. What might cause this to be a move toward monopoly is if this makes the other existing commercial VTTs no longer economically viable - hence making them disappear.

I think you misunderstand what a monopoly is. Dominating the market by being more profitable and popular than the competition isn’t a monopoly. A monopoly controls supply and prevents competition.

Wizards developing their own platform for their own game wouldn’t do this. Only if Wizards controlled the only means by which people could stream TTRPG or play online would it. And then only if other companies weren’t capable of developing their own platforms.

Train operators run monopolies because it’s the only way you can get from X to Y is by taking their trains and using their tickets. Water companies can have monopolies because if I want my water in the midlands I have to use Severn Trent Water Comapny. MacDonalds isn’t a monopoly though, neither is WotC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They have a monopoly on D&D though...
... after all, they bought this IP.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whether it is ethical depends on what they offer in its place.

I disagree. It’s unethical to break your word, even if you make a new, better promise after. Why would anyone believe you won’t the second promise when it becomes inconvenient too?

If they offer something good, such that current users have little qualms about moving, its legality becomes moot - contracts are agreements, so long as the involved parties in the contract agree, there's no legal issue.

Obviously not all parties agree. People want the option to stick with the old deal, as had been one of the conditions under which they agreed to it in the first place.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree. It’s unethical to break your word, even if you make a new, better promise after.

Absolutes in ethics are themselves frequently unethical.

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutes in ethics are themselves frequently unethical.

Ok? I am open to the possibility that there may be a valid exception, I just don’t think this is one.

 

[Jadeite]

They have a monopoly on D&D though...
... after all, they bought this IP.

They also have a D&D on Monopoly:

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So first off, let me say that I don't want the OGL 1.0(a) going anywhere. However, the sad reality is that we may not be able to stop that happening, and maybe the best we can do is negotiate the best version of a post-1.0(a) license we can get.

With that in mind, here's my proposal for a multi-tiered licensing structure:

Tier 1: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC-BY 2.0) - This would contain the basic rules for the game, minus specific elements such as races, classes, spells, and monsters - comparable to a Rules Compendium or Rules Cyclopedia - and be explicitly irrevocable.

Tier 2: Open Gaming License version 2.0 (OGL 2) - This would cover the specific rules elements such as race, class, spell, and monster stat blocks - but not the fictional concepts behind them. So a Mind Flayer's Tentacle attack, Mind Blast power, and Decerebrate ability would fall under this, but the concept of a Mind Flayer itself, along with the depiction of a purple squid-headed humanoid with 4 tentacles around a toothy maw, would not. This license would also be irrevocable but with more restrictions on how the content can be used.

Tier 3: System Trademark License version 2.0 (STL 2) - This is where you get to use all the D&D IP, including the stuff that was previously covered by the OGL. Sucks, but I don't think WizBro is budging on this one. Anyway, you abide by the terms (including a better version of the morality clause) and you get all this plus the Creator Badge. Violate them, and you can't print any more copies of the book with this tier of content - but you don't have to pulp existing inventory and can sell off what's left.

Tier 4: Dungeon Master's Guild - Either WizBro buys out the site, or they do their own version through Beyond and call it something else. Either way, this tier lets you use registered trademarks like Elminster, Mordenkainen, and Vecna, as well as first-party settings like the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer, exactly like now. And you only have to pay 5% of your gross revenue. However, you agree to let WizBro use everything you create - NPCs, monsters, spells, whatever - in future products, as long as they credit you for it.

What do you all think?

There Would have to be a clause somewhere in there that existing product lines can continue to be supported by new products, and tbh I’d need the CC part to have a little more than the current proposal. Enough to make a Solasta without having to build a new rules engine, basically.

Even just like the sidekick classes, the human species, a small set of very generic spells, and at least one feat and background.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Whether it is ethical depends on what they offer in its place.

If they offer something good, such that current users have little qualms about moving, its legality becomes moot - contracts are agreements, so long as the involved parties in the contract agree, there's no legal issue.

I heavily disagree with this (with a single exception, which I'll get to). Contracts in general are agreements, but the OGL was an open promise to the public in order to safeguard D&D as the authors of 3E saw it against any eventualities that would threaten it in the future, up to and including future corporate interference. Whether or not some or even most of the community ends up preferring 1D&D to previous editions is immaterial. That D&D will technically still exist as a game without the OGL is immaterial. Even if there are people who agree with some or all of the things that WotC/Hasbro are offering in a new OGL, that too is immaterial.

The pure and simple matter of the issue is that the OGL was written as a promise to the public to keep D&D openly available via the SRD to anyone wanting to publish, and nothing that is less open than the OGL is ethical within the context of that promise. The one and only acceptable alternative to the OGL is one that makes D&D more open and less subject to future corporate interference. That could take form as an update to the OGL that updates language to match updates the open licenses it was modeled after have gotten in the past couple of decades and nothing else or simply WotC releasing old editions to the public in their entirety via CC licenses.

But any renegotiation on what can and can't be done with past SRDs is completely unacceptable, especially when it's not really a negotiation in the first place, but rather a corporation repeatedly trying to weasel word and connive and force an unwanted, unjustified and indefensible result until they find the path of financially acceptably low protest. That's not the kind of fair dealing that can be attributed to a healthy contract.

 

[Haplo781]

I heavily disagree with this (with a single exception, which I'll get to). Contracts in general are agreements, but the OGL was an open promise to the public in order to safeguard D&D as the authors of 3E saw it against any eventualities that would threaten it in the future, up to and including future corporate interference. Whether or not some or even most of the community ends up preferring 1D&D to previous editions is immaterial. That D&D will technically still exist as a game without the OGL is immaterial. Even if there are people who agree with some or all of the things that WotC/Hasbro are offering in a new OGL, that too is immaterial.

The pure and simple matter of the issue is that the OGL was written as a promise to the public to keep D&D openly available via the SRD to anyone wanting to publish, and nothing that is less open than the OGL is ethical within the context of that promise. The one and only acceptable alternative to the OGL is one that makes D&D more open and less subject to future corporate interference. That could take form as an update to the OGL that updates language to match updates the open licenses it was modeled after have gotten in the past couple of decades and nothing else or simply WotC releasing old editions to the public in their entirety via CC licenses.

But any renegotiation on what can and can't be done with past SRDs is completely unacceptable, especially when it's not really a negotiation in the first place, but rather a corporation repeatedly trying to weasel word and connive and force an unwanted, unjustified and indefensible result until they find the path of financially acceptably low protest. That's not the kind of fair dealing that can be attributed to a healthy contract.

I don't disagree with you here - but from a pragmatic standpoint, we may not be able to save 1.0(a). I'd like to. I hope we can. But I don't think we get there by convincing WizBro. I think we get there through a long, expensive court battle. And I'm not sure any of the parties who really have a vested interest in getting there possess the wherewithal to weather such a fight. Or at least, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for them compared to just switching to ORC.

So rather than just letting D&D burn - maybe we try to negotiate a scenario where the forest can regrow after the fire.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I don't disagree with you here - but from a pragmatic standpoint, we may not be able to save 1.0(a). I'd like to. I hope we can. But I don't think we get there by convincing WizBro. I think we get there through a long, expensive court battle. And I'm not sure any of the parties who really have a vested interest in getting there possess the wherewithal to weather such a fight. Or at least, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for them compared to just switching to ORC.

So rather than just letting D&D burn - maybe we try to negotiate a scenario where the forest can regrow after the fire.

I'd rather let it burn and move to a different game. That's also part of negotiating: being willing to walk away from a bad deal.