There's still plenty of RPGs out there that aren't d20 based. GURPS, Exalted, and Call of Cthulhu come to mind
New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)
There's still plenty of RPGs out there that aren't d20 based. GURPS, Exalted, and Call of Cthulhu come to mind
My preference would be to maintain the OGL as is but have them issue v1.0b with the language that it cannot be revoked or deauthorized or remove any of the rights or reserve any new rights that 1.0a didn't reserve.
If they want to have a OneD&D compatibility license where they can insert whatever reservations of rights and terminations clauses and royalty fees in that, then that's the appropriate place to do so. This can also allow them to restrict video games, novels, etc., which is appropriate in a compatibility license. This is also the place they can control their brand by preventing things they view as bigoted or otherwise unacceptable. I don't think those restrictions belong in the OGL that is licensing just the base rules mechanics and there's no real IP to protect in the SRD the OGL applies to that would dictate keeping it out of any medium. In regard to bigotry and everything that is in that vein I don't think it belongs in the basic OGL mostly because who is going to make that determination? If someone produces something the community sees a bigoted then the community will make that product fail. WOTC certainly shouldn't have any control over that in the OGL, they have shown they cannot be trusted as a steward.
For me Umbran's number 4 has me conflicted. I think caps might be a better solution, I can't make myself take the turn necessary to have the licensor take a piece of profits since those are easily written away as expenses, Hollywood has shown us how to do this for decades. The accounting is cleaner and better reportable as gross revenue. A smaller percentage and/or capped amounts that are predictable. but again, I think that should be in a compatibility license not the basic OGL license.
Since we are in a very different marketplace that we when the OGL launched or even when 4e came about I think WOTC could build an attractive walled garden to incentivize creators to enter into a compatibility license and get much of what they were trying to force down our throats but without the damage to an entire subindustry that helped make D&D the market beast it is today not to mention those creators that built upon the blocks to innovate into other directions than supporting D&D.
Gil
If they want to have a OneD&D compatibility license where they can insert whatever reservations of rights and terminations clauses and royalty fees in that, then that's the appropriate place to do so. This can also allow them to restrict video games, novels, etc., which is appropriate in a compatibility license. This is also the place they can control their brand by preventing things they view as bigoted or otherwise unacceptable. I don't think those restrictions belong in the OGL that is licensing just the base rules mechanics and there's no real IP to protect in the SRD the OGL applies to that would dictate keeping it out of any medium. In regard to bigotry and everything that is in that vein I don't think it belongs in the basic OGL mostly because who is going to make that determination? If someone produces something the community sees a bigoted then the community will make that product fail. WOTC certainly shouldn't have any control over that in the OGL, they have shown they cannot be trusted as a steward.
For me Umbran's number 4 has me conflicted. I think caps might be a better solution, I can't make myself take the turn necessary to have the licensor take a piece of profits since those are easily written away as expenses, Hollywood has shown us how to do this for decades. The accounting is cleaner and better reportable as gross revenue. A smaller percentage and/or capped amounts that are predictable. but again, I think that should be in a compatibility license not the basic OGL license.
Since we are in a very different marketplace that we when the OGL launched or even when 4e came about I think WOTC could build an attractive walled garden to incentivize creators to enter into a compatibility license and get much of what they were trying to force down our throats but without the damage to an entire subindustry that helped make D&D the market beast it is today not to mention those creators that built upon the blocks to innovate into other directions than supporting D&D.
Gil
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
How many experience points is it worth if we kill it?
And most of them are fantasy with a focus on dungeon crawler and heroic adventure.
And they also lack even 25% of the 3PP support.
62,000 XP
What we give them is continuing to use their product. We don't owe them anything. They can comply with the users' demands or they can wither and die
Zardnaar
Legend
If 6E was closed eg no OGL fair enough. Disappointed but not pissed.
1.1 fire and blood.
6E forward something close to OGL excluding electronic stuff (games, NFTs, VTTs etc pdf's are fine however) and language preventing a Pathfinder/Level Up type scenario unrevokable no poison pill regarding 1.0 is probably the bare minimum. Make what you want, electronic stuff is ours (except pdfs(no you can't clone our stuff is somewhat acceptable better than a closed system I suppose.
Royalties to use their VTT is fine, no cloning our stuff is also somewhat reasonable (6E forward, no poison pill basically).
1.1 fire and blood.
6E forward something close to OGL excluding electronic stuff (games, NFTs, VTTs etc pdf's are fine however) and language preventing a Pathfinder/Level Up type scenario unrevokable no poison pill regarding 1.0 is probably the bare minimum. Make what you want, electronic stuff is ours (except pdfs(no you can't clone our stuff is somewhat acceptable better than a closed system I suppose.
Royalties to use their VTT is fine, no cloning our stuff is also somewhat reasonable (6E forward, no poison pill basically).
Last edited:
AnotherGuy
Hero
This does not seem like a reasonable approach.
Looking at myself - I have not purchased any direct WotC product in at least 3 years, though they have earned monies from me from DMsGuild acquisitions. That could decrease as I start purchasing 3pp 5e compatible material through DriveThru or direct from the publishers which I have done and do. Then what good does it do WotC that I continue to use their product?
They need to safeguard their asset, most can understand this.
This is not me advocating the leaked license is the answer, this is me supporting the intention of this thread and that I'm understanding of WotC's predicament.
Michael Linke
Adventurer
In my uninformed opinion, "acceptable" would be if Hasbro made developers choose to either stick with 1.0 OR sign the documents to opt in to using 1.1 exclusively, along with incentives to actually make choosing 1.1 worthwhile.
reelo
Hero
Yes. Keep 1.0a as-is (with added "irrevocable" I would accept an 1.0b) for those us of that want to stick to the OSR, or create content for discontinued editions up to and including 5E, and offer a MASSIVELY SCALED-BACK 1.1 for use with OneD&D and up.
Similar Threads
