OGL Don't Give Ground

rcade

Hero
At what point is the fight over?
When everybody stops using OGL 1.0a. That's not a likely outcome, since there will always be small, amateur or not-for-profit publishers producing TTRPGs and related content. If they find something in an OGL 1.0a-licensed work they want to extend, they'll be doing that even if everybody bigger has moved on to the ORC or closed content.

Hasbro/WOTC has a history of abandoning closed license plans for D&D after a few years (d20 System Trademark License, Game System License). OGL 2.0 is a closed license.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

rcade

Hero
Really, their best bet at this point is to just release a 1.0b with the word "irrevocable," ask for suggestions on how to make sure it's extra-super-duper-for-realsies-this-time set in stone, and then make 6e actually significantly different with a GSL 2.0.
Hasbro/WOTC could publicly abandon its plans to modify the OGL, ask Ryan Dancey to set up the Open Gaming Foundation as a real organization and give the copyright of the current OGL to the foundation.
 

VenerableBede

Adventurer
So really, at this point? That's it for me. In my estimation, WotC and I are at the fork in the road where we exchange Mutual Screw Yous. It's not new to me -- it's happened twice before during my time as a gamer. Indeed, I have spent much more of the past 43+ years NOT playing D&D (and playing some other FRPG game system) than I have playing a D&D branded product. (Roughly only 1/3rd of that time actively playing some form of D&D branded game).
I actually don't see any dissonance between this response and not giving an inch. I'm largely in total agreement with everything you just shared.

WotC probably isn't persuadable on the non-negotiable stuff for the community, but that doesn't mean we need to stand outside WotC offices with pitchforks. Honestly, going somewhere else and having a great time sends a stronger message. For myself, I'm either playing Level Up or EZD6—I haven't run a game of 5e in years, and I haven't played a game of 5e that wasn't heavily hacked in years. I'm mildly miffed that I might lose some disposable income if the OGL issue prevents me from continuing to write for Level Up's Gate Pass Gazette, but "mildly miffed" isn't nearly in the ballpark of "spending more than a moment's energy on this particular concern." I also don't have a DnDBeyond subscription, never intended to get one, and I'm going to keep writing content for fun as the whim strikes me, whether or not I have an outlet to monetize that writing.

In essence, I think "fighting the good fight" for most people is literally just, when the situation comes up, saying "OGL 1.0(a) or nothing," and then getting on with their lives. Of course, I very intentionally avoided telling people how to stick it to WotC in my original post because I think most everyone's different methods are equally "right," at least for that individual, and it wasn't my goal to get everyone on a particular train looking to collide with WotC headquarters. I was just trying to do what I hoped was painfully obvious and raise the standard: OGL 1.0(a). We don't need WotC to carry on the spirit of the OGL 1.0(a); we sure as heck don't need Dungeons and Dragons as a brand to carry on a culture of sharing and creativity, or to have awesome adventures; so that standard for some people might be a literal, direct goal, while for others it's a mindset that, hopefully, will be carried on elsewhere (ORC, perhaps), and it would be nice if WotC decides to join in and play nice, but certainly not necessary.

I imagine this response isn't nearly as impassioned or combative as some might expect, based on my post that started off this thread, but I don't think this is a fight that needs to be combative. It's best fought by people with a firm commitment to the community and culture we love going where that culture is strongest and where we find the most enjoyment and collaboration. I think the people who are fighting for compromise (with WotC specifically) don't realize they are fighting for an environment that will actively stifle that, and will hurt them more than anyone else if they stay there. (Maybe. I, of course, don't know any of them personally. Perhaps they don't need the warning and enjoy standing in the shadow of surveillance.)
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
They could also make a new edition that is great and has everything you always wanted. They could actually make an online platform that is great and works for everyone. They could give me plastic houses and jetpacks we all were told were coming as well. Are people not going to play it if it is that cool?

I gather a lot of people here will still say no, never, where is my pitchfork. I also think that a lot of people will convert.

Of course, we will be back to the thread of the designers and if they look at the playtest feedback or have their blinders on.
I don't actually think they're capable of making a new edition that is great and has everything I want, and even if they were, I know they're not going to.
 

ECMO3

Hero
In my opinion we need to accept nothing less than a perpetual OGL 1.0a for the 5E SRD. A nice gesture would be to put the whole 5E SRD into creative commons or ORC as a show of good faith that they won't try to back out again.

Moving 5E (and 3E) to a new more restrictive license represents a breach of trust and a betrayal to the community.

Moving 5E out of OGL 1.0a is unworkable anyway because of the number of sublicensed products. Level Up for example is built off of OGL 1.0a and WOTC said existing products could still be published. So ENWorld can't build new Level Up products that leverage WOTC 5E content, but they can sell existing products. Now what if I am another 3rd party and I build supplements for Level Up? I am using OGL 1.0a, but I am sublicensing through a product that is not a WOTC product. Theoretically I can't use WOTC material going forward since they are pulling it, but I wasn't referencing WOTC material anyway, I was basing it off of ENWORLD material, that already exists, and that material is allowed to keep being sold!

That said, I think this argument is 5E specific. It is within WOTC's right to come up with a new closed "Open Gaming License" for ONE. And it is within the communities right to stay with 5E as many did with 3E/Pathfinder 15 years ago or so after WOTC published 4E under the GSL.
 
Last edited:

Clint_L

Hero
"there is no monopolization or attempted monopolization, "

It seem like almost everyone analysing the situation conclude that this is a move to try to ensure effective monopoly in the ttrpg digital tooling space?
They would be wrong (except that is not what everyone analyzing the situation has concluded). Hasbro is trying to control the digital tooling space for graphics intensive Dungeons and Dragons simulators. Which is their own IP. That is not remotely the same as trying to control all of VTT space. Another company could make their own VTT all day long, for example, and as long as they aren't using Hasbro's IP, Hasbro couldn't say "boo" about it. That is not a monopoly.
 





Steel_Wind

Legend
If Hasbro/WOTC carries out the legally dubious attempt to kill OGL 1.0a I'm done as a customer. I've enjoyed buying all the hardcovers and playing each new edition since 1979, but the company lying about the intent and purpose of the OGL to kill the open gaming commons is too much to abide.
I think you are done then. I believe this clever satirical passage from "How the Grinch Stole D&D" on reddit posted earlier this week is accurate:

"The Wizbro had been caught by this tiny Gamer daughter
Who’d got out of of bed for a cup of cold water
She stared at the Wizbro and said “WoTC, why
“Why are you taking our OGL? WHY?”

But, you know that old Wizbro was so smart and so slick,
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick
“Why, my sweet summer child,” the executive lied,
“There’s racisms on this OGL that I just can’t abide
“So I am taking it home, to Seattle, my dear,
“I’ll fix it up there. Then I’ll bring it back here.”

And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head.
And he got her a DDB survey, and sent her to bed.
And when Cindy-Lou Player went to bed with her survey,
He went to his attorney, and deauthorized the real OGL anyway."


This is where we are. And no, I don't think this "Grinch's heart" is growing in any manner, let alone anytime soon.
 


mamba

Hero
I would rather the next edition pull heavly from (and fix and rework) that edition, but I would settle for a good supported retro clone

Have you seen Orcus?
Ok, all this 4e talk makes me curious, the ‘original’ 4e or the 4e Essentials, which do you prefer? I sat out that edition (was not in TTRPGs at all), it looks like Essentials is a bit of rowing back towards the other editions though.
 

Haplo781

Legend
Ok, all this 4e talk makes me curious, the ‘original’ 4e or the 4e Essentials, which do you prefer? I sat out that edition (was not in TTRPGs at all), it looks like Essentials is a bit of rowing back towards the other editions though.
The non-martial e-classes were fine. The Mage was even a better wizard. And Essentials added a lot of great feats and items.
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
At the same time, I don't think WotC is meaningfully persuadable at this point. This isn't a negotiation, this is just a PR performance now. There's a BIG difference between the two.
This. I see no way to fight. I only see a new route ahead for myself, to rebuild, away from the mess of OGLs of any version.

I do not have the power to force them to change their mind on the things that are necessary for me to keep working under the OGL. They do, or they don't.

I do not have the money for a legal fight over something I believe I'm allowed to do but which they object to.

I do not see any worth to agreeing to 1.2 in its current form, only the opposite.

So they go that way, myself and potentially 1500+ other creators another way. It's not about revenge, it's not about anger (despite there being plenty of that), it's about incompatibility.
 

Enrahim2

Adventurer
They would be wrong (except that is not what everyone analyzing the situation has concluded). Hasbro is trying to control the digital tooling space for graphics intensive Dungeons and Dragons simulators. Which is their own IP. That is not remotely the same as trying to control all of VTT space. Another company could make their own VTT all day long, for example, and as long as they aren't using Hasbro's IP, Hasbro couldn't say "boo" about it. That is not a monopoly.
(I said  almost everyone, so you dont contradictates me)
Your statement had been right if the ttrpg space had been balanced with several similarly viable systems for digital tooling to cater to. However it is the fact that this is not the case that makes wizards move arguably a bid at  effective monopoly.

It is not clear if any of the current commercial VTTs would be able to handle the blow of loosing the majority of their current customers (if we assume the available roll20 statistics is representive). Also locking in customers in one market into a single choice in a different market appear to be the kind of stuff that antitrust authorities like to sniff at.. (as the systems market and the vtt market currently are currently quite independent)
 


Yes, I will share those conversion notes and PF2 Statblocks when complete.
Looking forward to that.

I had planned a DL1-14 5e conversion, but since we're still winding down our current 5e campaign I'm probably going to put that idea to the side and run the PF2e Beginner Box adventure with some follow-ups folks in the PF forum suggested to help learn running the game. I still very much so want to run DL1-14 for my group so just running a PF2e conversion would check that block for me.
 
Last edited:

Clint_L

Hero
(I said  almost everyone, so you dont contradictates me)
Your statement had been right if the ttrpg space had been balanced with several similarly viable systems for digital tooling to cater to. However it is the fact that this is not the case that makes wizards move arguably a bid at  effective monopoly.

It is not clear if any of the current commercial VTTs would be able to handle the blow of loosing the majority of their current customers (if we assume the available roll20 statistics is representive). Also locking in customers in one market into a single choice in a different market appear to be the kind of stuff that antitrust authorities like to sniff at.. (as the systems market and the vtt market currently are currently quite independent)
That's just not how a monopoly is defined. If you're hoping for legislative anti-trust intervention on this issue, you are not going to get it, is my point. It's not a useful strategy. Better to focus efforts on something attainable.
 

That's just not how a monopoly is defined. If you're hoping for legislative anti-trust intervention on this issue, you are not going to get it, is my point. It's not a useful strategy. Better to focus efforts on something attainable.
And even if you're wrong (which I don't think you are), it would likely take YEARS for the government to do anything meaningful which is far too late for whatever potential damage OGL1.0a no longer being an option causes. Kinda seems silly to think it's an option imo.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top