Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[ECMO3]

First, the OGL is likely not irrevocable. I've seen many people saying that, for some reason, Wizards of the Coast cannot revoke earlier versions of their license; that the license, once put out, can never be taken away, and that people and companies can keep making content for 5e forever.

I do feel it is necessary to point out that one of the architects and authors of the license (previous VP at WOTC) stated the opposite. Further FAQ posted by wizards in 2001 actually says that they can revoke it but also states that writers could ignore Wizards and continue to publish on it if they did.

Finally, there is a Lawyer who did a you tube video on one of the D&D podcasts. He actually wrote a PHD thesis about the OGL back in 2019. He stated he was not sure what revocation even means and that the license exists, WOTC can choose not to release further content under it but can not stop other creators from doing that.

Based on what this guy said, is what WOTC can do is not release further content under it (like they did for 4E) and instead release content under this new OGL 2.0 or whatever.

 

[clearstream]

I guess there are little doubt that WotC are planning to build out D&D beyond as a platform.

There are a few modes that may be interesting to think about: channel, platform, service, product. None of these have entirely settled definitions. Generally, I would say that a platform provides at least the tools (e.g. mechanics templates) to create content, and may be wedded to a channel for distribution. DMs Guild and RPGNow are examples of channels for distribution, and they are not platforms as I am defining them. Sometimes companies develop in-house platforms that are not available to other producers, for example videogames companies often develop in-house game tools and - if they are successful and depending on strategy - sometimes make those tools available to other producers to use under licence.

A service (more specifically software as a service or SAAS) generally offers a number of functions collectively facilitating some job that users want to do. It will likely also provide a data store so that states users have invested work in achieving can be preserved. I think DnDBeyond is most like a service. The boundary between product and service is ambiguous. What we call products tend to be more statically defined, while services tend to be expansive and evolving. Historically, we have owned products and licensed services. The 5th Edition Players Handbook is a product, but one can see that it also facilitates a job that users want to do. Possibly the store of data or user state is one of the key differences.

Contemplating these (partial) definitions: in order to provide a platform DnDBeyond must provide a mechanics layer that other producers can license for development. I do not think it is quite so clear that this is a necessary element of Hasbro's intent for DnDBeyond, although it might be. Whether it is or not, it is far from certain what will be the more successful strategy; e.g. whether enabling other producers to create products on DnDBeyond is the best or only pathway. (Enabling other producers comes with costs, as well as benefits.) I would say that a feature of successful platforms is that their owners have worked hard (and often over many iterations) to understand the right balance of retention of control and share in profits. With missteps along the way. Examples include Epic and Unity.

Even though it is also quite obvious that those at charge envision a much more closed platform strategy than the 5ed platform the only thing that matters is that they want to build a platform. And these people know a platform without creators are doomed.

I read this morning that they have backed away from the One Ring, in this Polygon article.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think it's time to put this to rest. The OGL and the SRD are dead, and what the courts will say about is of academic interest only.

The world have moved on. There is no chance of putting the genie back into the bottle.

 

[Enrahim2]

I think it's time to put this to rest. The OGL and the SRD are dead, and what the courts will say about is of academic interest only.

The world have moved on. There is no chance of putting the genie back into the bottle.

The problem is this go two ways. Many have invested too much in crating things only available for further use under the OGL. It is likely true that nothing truely original and valuable will ever be made under OGL ever again. The question is if large parts of the enormous value the community has contributed to that repository over the two last decades will ever be accessible for any relevant use again or not. The OGL is also a genie that is out of the bottle, and I don't think any of those can be easily put back.

 

[Enrahim2]

There are a few modes that may be interesting to think about: channel, platform, service, product.

I am aware, and I thought from all the fuzz that it was obvious that wizards want to make a platform. There has been a lot of talk about third parties making skins, assets and other content for the new VTT made available via micotransactions (where peresumably wizards take a cut). A company trying to make people create content for profit that can only be used in the scope of their software sound very much like a platform to me.

 

[Enrahim2]

I read this morning that they have backed away from the One Ring, in this Polygon article.

Couldn't find anything about the "one ring" i that linked article when searching. Is it not directly referenced to by name, or might it have been in the comments? That could be interesting, but it might also be read similar to that they want to keep the biggest and scariest players off their turf (which matches their stated goals with the OGL)

 

[clearstream]

Couldn't find anything about the "one ring" i that linked article when searching. Is it not directly referenced to by name, or might it have been in the comments? That could be interesting, but it might also be read similar to that they want to keep the biggest and scariest players off their turf (which matches their stated goals with the OGL)

The article is titled "D&D maker backs off new licensing rules that led to fan revolt" and another poster (in this or a related thread) likened events (aptly, I thought) to Sauron's deception with the rings / one ring.

 

[clearstream]

I am aware, and I thought from all the fuzz that it was obvious that wizards want to make a platform. There has been a lot of talk about third parties making skins, assets and other content for the new VTT made available via micotransactions (where peresumably wizards take a cut). A company trying to make people create content for profit that can only be used in the scope of their software sound very much like a platform to me.

That could be so. I'm suggesting that one can see DnDBeyond as a SaaS. The hinge, in a sense, is a license that facilitates using DnDBeyond as a platform.

The fact they have backed up makes me believe they do want other creators to produce for D&D, generally. And it seems reasonable to expect that such works would be usable with DnDBeyond, e.g. in conjunction with the features of a VTT. Implementing ones adventure in a DnDBeyond VTT would push it toward affording a platform.

The cases are a bit different from videogames, because achieving the mechanics in code is an additional step that TTRPGs do not have. I cannot play Epic's Fortnite unless I run Epic's code on their servers. But I can play 3.5e whether or not Hasbro supports it. These differences impact how we need to understand the modes I listed.

 

[pemerton]

I do feel it is necessary to point out that one of the architects and authors of the license (previous VP at WOTC) stated the opposite. Further FAQ posted by wizards in 2001 actually says that they can revoke it but also states that writers could ignore Wizards and continue to publish on it if they did.

Finally, there is a Lawyer who did a you tube video on one of the D&D podcasts. He actually wrote a PHD thesis about the OGL back in 2019. He stated he was not sure what revocation even means and that the license exists, WOTC can choose not to release further content under it but can not stop other creators from doing that.

Based on what this guy said, is what WOTC can do is not release further content under it (like they did for 4E) and instead release content under this new OGL 2.0 or whatever.

Yes. These various arguments have been set out at some length in this thread. The best posts are from @bmcdaniel, @S'mon, @Steel_Wind, and (if I may so) me.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think it's time to put this to rest. The OGL and the SRD are dead, and what the courts will say about is of academic interest only.

I disagree. Nothing about the OGL or the SRD (the content made OGC by WotC) has changed until a court says something, and that can only happen until after WotC sues someone causing such a case to arise. What has changed is the certainty of the lack of a court case associated with their use and, yes, that is significant, but I think something that will also change back to what the status quo has been for 23 years because WotC knows that they cannot make the change they would like (or at least would have liked) to make.

At least I hope so. Time will tell.

joe b.