New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[MonsterEnvy]

no, because then they just put it into 1.1a 6 months after 1DD is out, and the whole thing starts again. They have zero credibility now

Why would they do that after changing their mind, their credibility is not suddenly zero.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why would they do that after changing their mind, their credibility is not suddenly zero.

Doesn't have to be 0. Just has to be diminished.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I'm not convinced we need the word irrevocable in the license. I suspect WoTC don't have the power to revoke the terms of v1.0a. I suspect they will require publishers to sign up for v1.1 if they want to publish material compatible with OneDnD. The terms of the new licence will require them to sign away their rights to use the old licence. Alternatively, they could lean on copyright law and remove the ability to freely distribute copies of the OGL v1.0a. This would make it impossible for anyone to comply with the terms of the license, rendering the point moot. It is unclear whether they could do that as the license creates an implied right to distribute copies of the OGL.

 

[Scars Unseen]

WOTC wrote the OGL for the case if it died. WOTC knew that it couldn't be killed only wounded because everyone else was so much smaller.

My point was that OGL allow 3.5e to live.
It wasn't intended for someone to use 3.5e to make 3.75e, 3.8e, or 3.9999e and compete with 3.5e or the eventual 4e. Especially not for free.

The man who spearheaded the OGL would disagree with you. Quote for emphasis:

Ryan Dancey

I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners.

I always wondered if some 3rd party would become a success by iterating on (rather than revising) D&D. Paizo, I'm pleased to say, appears to be well on the way to doing that. They have also embraced the "open source" concept of community-lead improvements. Having thousands of designers work on a game has got to produce a better result than a mere handful, provided the system of editorial control can be sorted (and it seems Paizo has done a great job on that front too.) The OGL, of course, is a virtual requirement for that to have happened.

My point is that WOTC never saw the d20 D&D like games as being competition. Until 4e split the community and PF cropped up.

The OGL was designed shortsighted. Almost no major corporation would create an OGL like OGL 1.0, today.

On the contrary: the OGL was designed long sighted, as it was intended to prevent exactly the kind of corporate trampling of the market that Hasbro is attempting right now.

I think Ryan and Peter and the other decision-makers definitely contemplated the OGL being used for complete games, and that was part of its intent. I don't think their intent was for competitors to use the OGL and the Open Game Content they released under it to clone any version of D&D. If that was their intent, why weren't character creation rules designated as Open Game Content? In my view, their intent was always, "Make whatever you want, as long as we're selling Players Handbooks!"

100% spot on. See the link above for Dancey's own words on the topic.

The core thing is as a community we have to argee to what we offer WOTC.

Because WOTC is beholden to Hasbro and Hasbro must provide for its investor and shareholders. Legitimency, legality, goodnesss, and decency are not the core of this.

The truth is WOTC as nice to give us the the OGL 1.0. And the D&D community fostered a community and mindset for it. So much so that we didn't realize how good we had it. The OGL 1.0 is not we'd see in most other industries.

WOTC/Hasbro is getting greedy. Twice. IF we as a community don't offer WOTC/Hasbro something they can show their shareholders, they won't listen to us. IF someone wished on a star and give D&D so some other company like Paizo, they'd eventually get greedy too if they are the tip top. The compromise must eventually be made or we'll get something like the potential new OGL.

Something has to be fed to the greed monster eventually.

WotC wasn't "nice" about anything. Ryan Dancey et al were trying to save the game from extinction, which it was pretty damn close to after TSR bit it. They had the foresight to understand that a corporation can't be guaranteed to be a good or reliable custodian forever, and that if D&D was going to be guaranteed to live on not just in name, but in form and spirit, it would only be the community itself that could be trusted with it. This is now the second time that Hasbro has attempted to subvert that intention, so it seems like it was effort well spent.

The OGL was written so that when the greed monster comes knocking, we can give it the finger.

 

[Olrox17]

WotC wasn't "nice" about anything.

Seriously? The WotC leadership at the time wasn't just nice, it was super nice. It was stupidly nice, nice beyond the economical interest of their own company. We all owe a debt of gratitude to them, they somehow managed to steer a company into making a choice that hurt its own self interest and favored the community. If that isn't nice, I don't know what is.

 

[Greg K]

This is a (+) thread. If you aren't interested in talking about what we'd find acceptable in a new license, please find another discussion.

We are talking a lot about what isn't acceptable. But, let us think in terms of a counter-offer.

1) No OGL is revoked. Create the OGL v1.0b - it is the same as v1.0a, but includes the extra words that make it clearly irrevocable. The SRD for 3e, 3.5, and 5e remain under the OGL (and now can be used under the irrevocable license).

This definitely.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Seriously? The WotC leadership at the time wasn't just nice, it was super nice. It was stupidly nice, nice beyond the economical interest of their own company. We all owe a debt of gratitude to them, they somehow managed to steer a company into making a choice that hurt its own self interest and favored the community. If that isn't nice, I don't know what is.

I disagree, at least in the context of the post I quoted. What they did was self-serving in that they were taking a brand that - while well known - was in a pretty bad place at the time. They wanted it to grow (because late 90s TSR revenue sure wasn't enough to justify the purchase), and they came up with a plan that was both effective and cost effective. While obviously paling in comparison to 5E numbers, they were wildly successful compared to where they started. The OGL was enormously in their economical interests, and therefore wasn't something they did because they were "nice." It's just that we're so used to "comically evil" from corporations that long term planning that benefits more people than just themselves looks weird.

The OGL was and is highly beneficial to WotC in anything other than a "maximize quarterly profits at the expense of all else" viewpoint. You can argue that specific people in the organization at the time had the community in mind, and I give them full credit for that. But the OGL 100% would not have been written if WotC and Hasbro the corporations hadn't stood to benefit from it.

 

[Yaarel]

I view the OGL as a "symbiotic" business contract. It is self-sustaining (selfish) and generous (altruistic) at the same time.

The OGL is a wise longterm strategy.

It establishes an enduring ecosystem, rather than a predatory exhaustion.

 

[Olrox17]

It's just that we're so used to "comically evil" from corporations that long term planning that benefits more people than just themselves looks weird.

I would say that "supremely and utterly selfish" is the standard I expect from a corporation, with "comically evil" being a path further down the road they often take. A corporation that allows people to make money off their properties with no royalties and no questions asked? That's above and beyond what you could expect from a company in terms of generosity and niceness.

The OGL was and is highly beneficial to WotC in anything other than a "maximize quarterly profits at the expense of all else" viewpoint. You can argue that specific people in the organization at the time had the community in mind, and I give them full credit for that. But the OGL 100% would not have been written if WotC and Hasbro the corporations hadn't stood to benefit from it.

Yeah, I will argue that people in the organization at the time had the community in mind, and I do give them full credit for that. They managed to fool a company into gifting their stuff to the community, they are chaotic good heroes.

 

[Scars Unseen]

A corporation that allows people to make money off their properties with no royalties and no questions asked? That's above and beyond what you could expect from a company in terms of generosity and niceness.

It's similar to how Steam works with third party storefronts. Anything sold on the Steam store itself, Valve gets a cut from, but other storefronts can sell Steam keys without having to pay Valve at all. Why would they do this instead of only selling Steam compatible games on their own site? Because it means that wherever people are buying their games, they're playing them on Steam. So Steam grows in the public gaming mindset, and eventually Steam libraries get so big that a lot of gamers don't want to use any other platform. And the more people playing on Steam's platform, the more people shop on their own store.

The OGL has a similar effect. Other publishers make money off of the D&D name, yes, but the name grows, far outstripping that of any of their competitors, which translates into sales. The only time that wasn't true was the last time they tried to kill the OGL. The combination of a industry that grew around a relatively open standard and a D&D that decided it didn't want to be part of that open industry resulted in D&D suffering, not the industry. Note that D&D came right back to the OGL in 5E.

So letting others use (some of) their IP without royalties made the industry grow around them, and having it grow around them benefitted them vastly more than a normal licensing set up would have. In fact, they kind of got screwed over when they did engage in normal licensing when they sold Atari exclusive game publishing rights.