D&D Beyond Twitter Account says OGL will be addressed soon

[Umbran]

...and we'll probably have incipient brush-fire flame wars (calmed by Umbran's merciless gaze) for years to come.

Thank you. I needed that.

 

[Yora]

I would be amazed if there was any apology. More than likely, Wizards will say "this leak is false" and that "it was an unfinished draft that was never intended to go to publishers."

In that case they should have done that like a week ago.

I think the impact of all of this will only start become apparent a year after 6th edition actually is released. And it might be difficult to tell apart how much of the sales hit will be from bad PR or simply from people not caring about a slightly updated version of the game they've been playing for over 10 years.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I mean...they are Wizards/Hasbro, right?

Exactly.

 

[Enrahim2]

Best case: Full explanation of an intent that was obviously morally dark grey (hence belivable), but due to the extreme pushback they have decided the trust of the community is the most valuable thing, so in order to try to really heal the rift they shelve that plan, and are immediately starting work on cooperating with DMDave to draft up OGL1.0(b) based on his existing COOL draft and help forming an even wider trust than DMDave had prepared to handle it.

Realistic case: They "admit" they screwed up the legal formulation preventing 1.1 to be used with 1.0a so that it became possible to interpret the license as a revocation. They have struck a deal with certain big companies talking with them that they will not be contested on this formulation as long as they include a wording clarifying the scope of the word "authorization" in the document. They also will publish a 1.0b that is identical to 1.0a, but including "irrevokable", and a statement that indicate that it has never been or never will be "authorized" in the meaning of section 9a.

Worst case: They express understanding and concern for the situation. They explain that they are aware that the legalese in the document didn't actually match their intention (without specifying in what regard), and apologize for the mistake. However as the full document has been illegally published they have decided they cannot change it, as that would lead to confusion for those that might come across the leaked version. They will look into how to change it, but as there are at least one month notice required to modify it, they don't think any haste will help anyone, it should rather be done right this time. They finish by assuring us that they will of course will not enforce the OGL-1.1 in any way but the one they originally intended.

 

[Dausuul]

What do people think the best case, realistic case, and worst case are? Don't have to answer all three lol.

Personally:

Best case: Grovelling apology, "We hear you", and total reconsideration of approach to OGL 1.1, probably saying OGL 1.0a will remain in use, we'll come back with a licence for 1D&D material, but this was a big mistake and we're very sorry.

I think that's incredibly unlikely, but that's the best case I can see actually happening. Companies have done this sort of thing. Very rarely though.

(Also if it really is perceived internally as a massive screw-up, I would be unsurprised if Dan Rawson ends up mysteriously in another job in a year or so. Not Williams or Cocks though, they'd be too senior even though the buck arguably stops with them.)

Realistic case: Faux-apology, "We hear you" (except they obviously don't), some vague half-lies about how this was an "unfortunate leak" (yeah unfortunate for you!) and just a plain ol' Big Misunderstanding, even though we know from 3PPs that it wasn't. OGL 1.1 goes ahead except they make it clear it's just poison pill opt-in, they're not actually attempting to deauthorize 1.0a or ther other SRDs (even though their language strongly indicated they were lol).

That's pretty likely I think, and it'll be enough to pacify people who are normally WotC fans, but temporarily upset by this "beyond the pale" behaviour. People will pretend that "misunderstanding" explanation isn't absolute horse-poop, and we'll probably have incipient brush-fire flame wars (calmed by Umbran's merciless gaze) for years to come.

Worst case: Still a faux-apology, but this time one of those super-fake ones where they just apologise for "how you feel" and maybe for their failure to keep it secret, or that they "trusted the wrong people". No changes to the OGL 1.1, rather some "clarifications" which are actually 100% spin, and probably the dreaded claim that they "had to do this" to "fight the bigots" (without actually naming any or giving any examples at all, of something that hasn't actually been a major issue under the OGL), though even worst-case I don't think they'll lean TOO hard on that because it's a point of vulnerability. I think they still might clarify that it's opt-in, if only to prevent legal action, but won't clarify the status of other SRDs and may go ahead and remove them from the internet and so on (possibly even attempting to quietly DMCA people who keep them up).

I don't think it's likely to be that bad, but I think it's a lot more likely than the best case.

Re: signing it, hard to say if someone will, because that can play either way. But if they make Crawford or Perkins sign it (mere underlings of these more illustrious figures), I'll be pretty angry, because that's just not taking responsibility, and not having the buck stop with you.

For me, the best case is where they fix the ambiguities in the OGL 1.0a which allowed them to pull this crap in the first place. Specifically:

1. Insert the word "irrevocable" into the license.
2. Spell out that Wizards has the power to create new authorized versions of the OGL, but not to de-authorize old versions.

I don't really care that they tried to pull a repeat of the GSL. I mean, I do care, in that I think it's dumb and shortsighted on their part, but whatever. D&D will peak and crash again like it always does, they'll come crawling back to the OGL community to rebuild, the cycle closes and starts anew.

But trying to destroy the existing OGL, that's what has me canceling my DDB subscription and getting ready to delete my account.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

1. Insert the word "irrevocable" into the license.
2. Spell out that Wizards has the power to create new authorized versions of the OGL, but not to de-authorize old versions.

I would love to see that, it's just that it's outside what I believe a best-case scenario would actually entail.

 

[Scribe]

Learned this from Nerd Immersion where he mentions this and takes about the D&D Paramount+ tv show and Kobold Press' glove slap to WotC.

Cool, when do we hear from D&D leadership?

They have the ability to comment on a lot of things, but not this?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Cool, when do we hear from D&D leadership?

They have the ability to comment on a lot of things, but not this?

We had transparency with Ray Winniger, but he's gone and he seems ike the only one who cared about communicating with the community.

 

[Dausuul]

I would love to see that, it's just that it's outside what I believe a best-case scenario would actually entail.

Fair, I can't really imagine it happening either. At least not now.

If, as I expect, we do get another peak and crash in the next couple of years, and D&D once more sinks below the radar, perhaps the brand manager for the next edition will do it as a way to try and win back the 3PP community.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I would love to see that, it's just that it's outside what I believe a best-case scenario would actually entail.

You under estimate how toxic this has gotten, especially when they seemed uncomfortable with this to begin with. I'm still not convinced that members of WotC staff had nothing to do with the leak behind their bosses back.