D&D 5E I still want D&D and Beyond, but...

[Velderan]

Unless this line from WotC is a lie, they won't need to



People keep saying that Wizards wants to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, but their statement says the exact opposite.

According to the leaked FAQ for the 2.0 draft, they're still trying to make it impossible to use it past a certain point which isn't keeping consistent with their own FAQ that said creators could continue to use whichever license they like. WotC's statement doesn't exactly contradict the 2.0 FAQ leak either, it says "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" which doesn't mean people can continue to use OGL1.0a without threat of legal action going forward. How legit is that leaked info? I don't know, but considering WotC flat out lied in their statement about 1.1 just being a draft when it was attached to contracts for 3rd parties to sign I'm inclined to remain cautious of their position until the release something official.

 

[bedir than]

According to the leaked FAQ for the 2.0 draft, they're still trying to make it impossible to use it past a certain point which isn't keeping consistent with their own FAQ that said creators could continue to use whichever license they like. WotC's statement doesn't exactly contradict the 2.0 FAQ leak either, it says "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" which doesn't mean people can continue to use OGL1.0a without threat of legal action going forward. How legit is that leaked info? I don't know, but considering WotC flat out lied in their statement about 1.1 just being a draft when it was attached to contracts for 3rd parties to sign I'm inclined to remain cautious of their position until the release something official.

The 2.0 leak was from prior to their statement walking back 90-95% of what they attempted to do. It also hasn't reached the credibility that journalists are covering it.

 

[Velderan]

The 2.0 leak was from prior to their statement walking back 90-95% of what they attempted to do. It also hasn't reached the credibility that journalists are covering it.

Believe what you would like to believe, all I'm saying is WotC lied at least once for sure in their statement and the stance on OGL 1.0a isn't worded in a way that clearly says what they've been saying for years in their own FAQ is where they'll land. As I said, I'm not sure how legit the leak was but WotC hasn't exactly inspired confidence in it being completely false either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unless this line from WotC is a lie, they won't need to



People keep saying that Wizards wants to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, but their statement says the exact opposite.

That statement speaks to existing product. It says nothing about future product. If they intend to keep the 1.0a, They would have said so. It's what the people they were addressing actually want, after all.

 

[bedir than]

That statement speaks to existing product. It says nothing about future product. If they intend to keep the 1.0a, They would have said so. It's what the people they were addressing actually want, after all.

They are unable to remove it from usage if it exists at all.

They could have a new SRD release that isn't attached to it, but that isn't the same as de-auth.

 

[Velderan]

They are unable to remove it from usage if it exists at all.

They could have a new SRD release that isn't attached to it, but that isn't the same as de-auth.

Legally, whether they can or can't remove it has been debated both ways. It sounds like at least someone in WotC believes they could while Paizo doesn't seem to believe they could so it would come down to whoever makes the strongest argument in court I guess. Hopefully we don't get there and WotC lives up to their statement and does a better job on their next try.

 

[wingsandsword]

I think Hasbro is doing this, not WotC.

There's no real difference between the two.

WotC is a division of Hasbro. Both are managed by executives with no RPG industry experience. It's just different levels on a corporate org chart.

 

[dave2008]

There's no real difference between the two.

So I have been told several times. What I am referring to is the game designers at WotC vs the administrators at WotC/Hasbro who make decisions like the OGL change.

WotC is a division of Hasbro. Both are managed by executives with no RPG industry experience. It's just different levels on a corporate org chart.

I don't know if they have RPG industry experience, but I was recently (as in today on another thread) told the top brass at both is mostly "gamers."

 

[Micah Sweet]

They are unable to remove it from usage if it exists at all.

They could have a new SRD release that isn't attached to it, but that isn't the same as de-auth.

Clearly WotC doesn't agree with you, or they'd have just said they're not messing with the OGL 1.0a.

 

[bedir than]

Clearly WotC doesn't agree with you, or they'd have just said they're not messing with the OGL 1.0a.

The language they used doesn't indicate that 1.0a is changing. They, in fact, said the opposite.