New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[mamba]

Um... I presented a fork in the OP.

You see, this is what WotC doesn't want - other folks taking their ideas and not giving due credit

I was referring to my ‘fork in the road’ post because that had the conditions for 1.1 I would be ok with (while my first post had the conditions if there were just one OGL)

Those were pretty close to your OP, I did include VTT with print and PDF however

 

[Velderan]

The biggest issue I have with the leaked draft is the section that allows WotC to use content created under OGL royalty-free. I'm not sure how to adjust it though because it sounds like it's there to protect WotC from accidentally infringing on 3rd party OGL content, I'd like to see something a little closer to the creator's side on protecting their rights to IP content they've created.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The biggest issue I have with the leaked draft is the section that allows WotC to use content created under OGL royalty-free. I'm not sure how to adjust it though because it sounds like it's there to protect WotC from accidentally infringing on 3rd party OGL content, I'd like to see something a little closer to the creator's side on protecting their rights to IP content they've created.

Indeed, and what's particularly concerning is that whilst today that may well genuinely be intended to just "protect WotC", we've seen WotC change their mind completely on this stuff over the course of an edition before. It took what, seven years from the evangelism and optimism of Ryan Dancey creating the OGL to go to a situation where WotC were creating the GSL and attempting to poison-pill the OGL out of existence (a much more gentle attempt than this Death Star-esque deauthorization I admit). So even if WotC today, and Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford earnestly believe that this is merely a protection, how will they feel in say, 6-7 years, if the same people in charge are even there? When it's been long-established that WotC has the right to just take your stuff.

As an aside, I'd be just terminally unsurprised if Perkins, Crawford or both announce plans to leave WotC and work on their own RPG or whatever either in the next few months or just after 1D&D goes live in 2024, regardless of how OGL 1.1 goes. And oh look they're being replaced by some videogame designers who "love D&D", and "always wanted to work on a TTRPG" (I'm sure that's true, but that's beside the point) and just happen to have worked for Microsoft-connected studios!

What would make it acceptable? I think we need to swing it back to OGC, PI, and so on like in the existing approach, and not have the blanket WotC cutout here, because there's just too much chance of future abuse.

 

[Velderan]

As an aside, I'd be just terminally unsurprised if Perkins, Crawford or both announce plans to leave WotC and work on their own RPG or whatever either in the next few months or just after 1D&D goes live in 2024, regardless of how OGL 1.1 goes.

I had a thought on this exact topic, but this is a + thread so I'll find another thread to post the bit I was wondering about that.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not against a royalty but only on profits.

I am even okay with it being GP% and not NP% if the thresholds are not removable.

15% GP royalty if over 1 million dollars US seems fair.

 

[Olrox17]

I'm not against a royalty but only on profits.

I am even okay with it being GP% and not NP% if the thresholds are not removable.

15% GP royalty if over 1 million dollars US seems fair.

To be honest? If the only difference between the old OGL and the new was royalties (fair royalties, that is), I would support it.
I know it may sound harsh to some people, but the way Pathfinder exploited third edition D&D to actively compete against 4e while paying no royalties whatsoever to the IP owners always seemed a bit...unfair to me.

The crap they're trying to pull according to the leaks, however, is wholly indefensible.

 

[p_johnston]

The biggest issue I have with the leaked draft is the section that allows WotC to use content created under OGL royalty-free. I'm not sure how to adjust it though because it sounds like it's there to protect WotC from accidentally infringing on 3rd party OGL content, I'd like to see something a little closer to the creator's side on protecting their rights to IP content they've crecreated

So obligatory IANAL, but i have heard discussions in other places that wording like this in licensing is not uncommon to protect against possible lawsuits if they develope something similiar to something else independently.

For example MCDM uses the new license and reports to WOTC "hey we're making a new Tavernkeep and shop owners expansion" Right as WOTC had already started to develop Elminsters guide to Tavernkeeping. Without that clause despite the products being developed in isolation it could lead to lawsuits.

Not saying i trust WOTC with that kind of language, just pointing out that it appears not to be them making crap up to steal stuff so much as them using standard language to protect themselves.

 

[mamba]

The more I think of it, the less I believe they will let 1.0 just continue on. At this point I am very much in the ‘let’s see what Paizo does’ camp. Nothing (I expect) WotC is willing to do will make a difference to my decision any more

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest? If the only difference between the old OGL and the new was royalties (fair royalties, that is), I would support it.
I know it may sound harsh to some people, but the way Pathfinder exploited third edition D&D to actively compete against 4e while paying no royalties whatsoever to the IP owners always seemed a bit...unfair to me.

The crap they're trying to pull according to the leaks, however, is wholly indefensible.

If the royalties were less wildly excessive (25% of revenue is enough to destroy the profitability of almost any company across a whole swathe of industries, not just RPGs) it would make sense.

Paizo/Pathfinder is a bit of a red herring here because you're focusing on them, but ironically they're the sort of company less likely to be impacted badly by royalties, because they have enough oomph to actually negotiate with WotC on this (which is what is happening), and potentially get a much better deal. It'll be smaller companies who manage to do one big Kickstarter or have a real hit product who get totally nailed by this, not Paizo.

The wildly excessive values for the royalties (again 25% revenue is NUTS - 25% profit you could argue, sure, but that's more like 3-7% revenue on a good day when it comes to RPGs) are I suspect largely to ensure WotC could force all the bigger 3PPs to the negotiating table.

I'd be slightly unsurprised if WotC's comeback on Monday is just changing the values downwards in line with whatever they've negotiated with Paizo etc., but still aiming to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a (which is the biggest problem).

 

[Scars Unseen]

The more I think of it, the less I believe they will let 1.0 just continue on. At this point I am very much in the ‘let’s see what Paizo does’ camp. Nothing (I expect) WotC is willing to do will make a difference to my decision any more

I believe that if it comes to that, they'll have a hard fight in court with no guarantee of victory. I also believe if it comes to that, it'll cause catastrophic damage to the tabletop industry. Which is why my terms of "acceptable" have to include publicly reaffirming the evergreen nature of the OGL as conceived when WotC first got the IP.