New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Enrahim2]

There are two layers of acceptability in this context. One is what I would consider publishing new content under, the other is what would not significantly alter my consumer patterns.

As for the first I think a requirement would be anything that do not give wizards any clear priveleged rights to my content compared to others, and would make me confident that this state wouldn't change. 1.0a had that property, but due to the legal confusing being displayed recently it do not anymore. Hence for me to be interested in contributing to an ogl project in the future, the lisence would have to at the very least adress those legal ambiguities now brought to light.

As for not changing my consumer patterns, I am much more accepting. In this regard nothing in the leaks from the draft seemed unacceptable to me as I read "deauthorized" as simply refering to the section 9 formulation. In this interpretation the formulation would have no other effect than preventing use of 1.1 material in 1.0a publications. This would be something I would find completely reasonable and acceptable from a consumer perspective.

The leaked term seemingly granting wizards effectively exclusive unlimited use of 1.0a content in a 1.1 non-static electronic setting would worry me, but likely not change my consumer pattern before wizard actually started abusing it, like putting tome of beast creatures behind pay wall on D&D beyond without atributing or paying royalties to kobold press.

As such it currently seem very unlikely the new ogl is anything I would accept from a creator perspective, but I still sincerilly hope it will be something I can accept from a consumer perspective.

 

[Olrox17]

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.

I'm not saying your argument is completely invalid, but the Steam comparison might be flawed.
When a 3d party store sells, say, a digital copy of Crusader Kings 3, that's not Steam's IP being sold, it's Paradox Games'. There is no lost revenue for Steam there. Steam offering a Steam key for that purchase loses them no money, it just has the positive effects you listed. It's basically just good advertising for their own store.

Does Steam allow third party stores to sell Valve games, like Portal, with no royalties? Because that would be a more accurate comparison.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'm not saying your argument is completely invalid, but the Steam comparison might be flawed.
When a 3d party store sells, say, a digital copy of Crusader Kings 3, that's not Steam's IP being sold, it's Paradox Games'. There is no lost revenue for Steam there. Steam offering a Steam key for that purchase loses them no money, it just has the positive effects you listed. It's basically just good advertising for their own store.

Does Steam allow third party stores to sell Valve games, like Portal, with no royalties? Because that would be a more accurate comparison.

It's not meant to be a 1:1 analogy. There are substantive differences beyond what you brought up. The point is that both got as big as they did because they have relationships with potential competitors that ensure that even sales toward other stores/publishers lead customers back to them. When people buy from Greenman Gaming, Valve benefits even though they don't get any money from the transaction. The same holds true for WotC because it keeps the majority of publishers in D&D's orbit instead of an entirely incompatible system like PbtA. With an industry with profit margins as thin as tabletop publishing, demanding royalties would disrupt that relationship.

 

[Olrox17]

It's not meant to be a 1:1 analogy. There are substantive differences beyond what you brought up. The point is that both got as big as they did because they have relationships with potential competitors that ensure that even sales toward other stores/publishers lead customers back to them. When people buy from Greenman Gaming, Valve benefits even though they don't get any money from the transaction. The same holds true for WotC because it keeps the majority of publishers in D&D's orbit instead of an entirely incompatible system like PbtA. With an industry with profit margins as thin as tabletop publishing, demanding royalties would disrupt that relationship.

I'd say that really depends on how high the royalties are, and whether they are based on revenue or profit.
I believe the concept of royalties itself wouldn't be a dealbreaker for the new OGL. The dealbreakers are the ability for WotC to change terms at will, the ability for them to swipe your content without paying you a dime, and the annihilation of the old OGL.
Remove those, tone down royalties and add some carrot to the new OGL deal, and it would be a workable agreement.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'd say that really depends on how high the royalties are, and whether they are based on revenue or profit.
I believe the concept of royalties itself wouldn't be a dealbreaker for the new OGL. The dealbreakers are the ability for WotC to change terms at will, the ability for them to swipe your content without paying you a dime, and the annihilation of the old OGL.
Remove those, tone down royalties and add some carrot to the new OGL deal, and it would be a workable agreement.

Let me just say: I'm not opposed to Hasbro trying to put royalties into an agreement for editions going forward. Just like with the GSL, publishers can decide whether it's worth it or not. But I am 100% against any attempt to tamper with or revoke the existing OGL by any means at all. The OGL up to 1.0a stays as is untouched, and anyone can create content using it for editions and content up this point as the OGL allows. That's the bare minimum of "acceptable."

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The greed monster is here. Giving it the finger isn't making it go away.

We will have to feed it or it makes D&D worse.

 

[reelo]

The greed monster is here. Giving it the finger isn't making it go away.

We will have to feed it or it makes D&D worse.

If there's anything Fantasy RPGs and literature have taught me, it's that monsters can be defeated.

 

[Minigiant]

If there's anything Fantasy RPGs and literature have taught me, it's that monsters can be defeated.

Okay? The greed monster is defeated. Then what?

1DND fails. Visibility of D&D plummets as their is no big player in the fantasy TTRPG market. And the fantasy TTPRG market and community collapses because their is no one pushing D&D to the mainstream to bring new people in and everyone losses money. Mass layoffs and everything shrinks?

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Okay? The greed monster is defeated. Then what?

1DND fails. Visibility of D&D plummets as their is no big player in the fantasy TTRPG market. And the fantasy TTPRG market and community collapses because their is no one pushing D&D to the mainstream to bring new people in and everyone losses money. Mass layoffs and everything shrinks?

But those things don't happen overnight. The industry would have time to move on and gravitate towards other products and deal with market shrinkage; some writers/publishers would move on, others would stay with their game of choice. The key difference here is Choice, and Blame. They can choose how to go forward, and "Generalized market factors" can't drive up enough hate as a corporate entity.

1.0 Staying honestly doesn't seem like a big ask for wizards. If Modern D&D is such a major brand that that being behind the times in 1.x-5.0 is of no consequence to them, why repeal 1.0? And if it's not, then these publishers, if moving on due to market shift, can publish their own competing systems on their own merits or find new employment during the game's decline over a period of years, rather than next week.

Personally, I'd want the 1.1 OGL to be opt-in only. You sign up? You can't make 1.0 stuff. WotC's IP is theirs, that is fair. Does that make the licence good? No; not for me, anyway, but I'd accept it; As it is now, I've decided never to buy another Hasbro product again, and warn all future gamers of the company's bad practices until the day that I die. I am petty like that.

 

[Minigiant]

But those things don't happen overnight. The industry would have time to move on and gravitate towards other products and deal with market shrinkage; some writers/publishers would move on, others would stay with their game of choice. The key difference here is Choice, and Blame. They can choose how to go forward, and "Generalized market factors" can't drive up enough hate as a corporate entity.

1.0 Staying honestly doesn't seem like a big ask for wizards. If Modern D&D is such a major brand that that being behind the times in 1.x-5.0 is of no consequence to them, why repeal 1.0? And if it's not, then these publishers, if moving on due to market shift, can publish their own competing systems on their own merits or find new employment during the game's decline over a period of years, rather than next week.

Personally, I'd want the 1.1 OGL to be opt-in only. You sign up? You can't make 1.0 stuff. WotC's IP is theirs, that is fair. Does that make the licence good? No; not for me, anyway, but I'd accept it; As it its now, I've decided never to buy another Hasbro product again, and warn all future gamers of the company's bad practices until the day that I die. I am petty like that.

The thing is 1.0 was a huge gimme to the D&D consumers. If we ask for OGL 1.0 back, we have to give WOTC/Hasbro something in return for all the lost potential profit we are cutting from them and the allowance of other companies to use 1.0 to compete with them.

Unless someone else is willing to pumping millions into matketing for a D&D clone, a failling 1dND makes the entire D&D ecosystem shrinks. And we lose a lot of what we have gained in 5e. People go back to video games, football, or TV as their main hobbies and the remainers lose.

I always felt that the 5e "Focus on pushing Core books, nostaglia adventures, and half-done supplements" was not sustainable for a modern capitalistic corporation. I was just waiting for something to come. No We as acommunity have to make a counter-offer.

And it can't be "Everything stays the same."