OGL v1.2 Survey Feedback: 'Hasn't Hit The Mark'

WotC has shared some of the (still ongoing) survey feedback following the release of the Open Game License v1.2 draft last week.

We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3.

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here

The linked FAQ (no, not THAT linked FAQ, the one where they say the original OGL cannot be revoked, I think we're supposed to ignore that one!) indicates that recent rumours about $30 subscriptions and homebrew content are false. They also say that they will be revising the 'harmful content' morality clause in the recent OGL draft, which in practice gives WotC power to shut down competitors at will.

You can still take the survey here until Feb 3rd.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get that point, and that is why I think a legal challenge would not up hold it (you can't deauthorize). However, I can only go by what the lawyers are saying today. And there is enough doubt among legal experts today that I think the language should be updated. Whether you call that 1.0b or 1.2 - I don't care.

Sure, but I think it’s imperative that the update not revoke 1.0a, otherwise there is no reason to believe the update won’t later be revoked on similarly dubious grounds. Like, by all means make a better-worded new version. But if you don’t keep your word to continue offering all previous versions, don’t expect anyone to agree to the latter versions. Fool me once and all that.

 

[Jer]

There are WAY too many people holding on to previous editions for this to be true... and that's before the entire thing going on right now on Tick Tok where a vocal number of PF2 players (Not all, I have very reasonable friends playing that game) saying "This is why D&D died the day pathfinder was born"

I didn't say everyone would - I said that some of them will. There's a chance.

If people leave D&D entirely for something like Forbidden Lands, there's less chance they'll come back to D&D. But I mostly play 13th age and for the first 5 years of 5e I didn't touch 5e. And yet I was willing to start playing 5e eventually and I was even buying 5e adventure books to adapt even when I wasn't playing it. If I were off playing GURPS or something I probably wouldn't have come back to it when I did.

That's the key - I didn't say it was good for Wizards, I said it was better. There's a portion of the market they will never be able to get back again when it fractures. But they have a better chance of getting back folks who go to Pathfinder vs folks who go off and start playing completely different games. (As we see from 5e - the folks who picked up 5e absolutely included Pathfinder folks who came back once Wizards started making a game they wanted to play again.)

 

[dave2008]

Are you actually attempting to say, because of a legal NDA, the 1.1 they sent to be signed does not exist, was not the attempted result by Wizards, and that you are going to ignore it wholly due to Wizards saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?"

No, I never said it didn't exist. That is the disinformation you are talking about - and you are spreading it.

I have followed this fairly close and read bout and read many leaks. However, I heard the original document was 9000 words and I have never seen the whole thing. Regardless, I am aware of its general intent and stipulations. They were bad, real bad.

Also, just because I was talking about OGL 1.2, doesn't mean I don't think 1.1 existed. I just wasn't talking about 1.1!

Thank you for being clear in your intent.

I am sorry I wasn't clear, because you seemed to misunderstand yet again. I hope the above statement is more clear.

1.1 was released. Not to you, but to people to be signed. Not discussed, signed. Drafts DO NOT GET RELEASED WITH REQUESTS TO BE SIGNED. EVER. An NDA is just them trying to STOP what is happening from taking place until it was done and dead.

It was released, never said it wasn't. I am still not 100% clear on the contents nor the requirement to sign. I have heard about it, but I have never seen anyone post those stipulations from the actual documents. That being said, I assumed people were being honest.

I stand by my statements. I also stand against your wording.

Which statements? The ones where you misrepresented what I wrote and my intent. Or that OGL 1.1 existed? I mean I agree on the later, but not the former!

Fact: OGL 1.1 was sent to publishers, under NDA, with requests to sign by the 13th. This makes it not a draft, but a finalized contract.

It certainly seems that way. However, there is lots of way it could have been a draft. Though, I assume it wasn't.

However, that has nothing to do with the fact I was talking about version 1.2! Why are you obsessed with my opinion of 1.1 when I wasn't trying to discuss it!

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but I think it’s imperative that the update not revoke 1.0a, otherwise there is no reason to believe the update won’t later be revoked on similarly dubious grounds. Like, by all means make a better-worded new version. But if you don’t keep your word to continue offering all previous versions, don’t expect anyone to agree to the latter versions. Fool me once and all that.

I don't mind if 1.0a remains, it is just not imperative IMO. I realize it is, currently, for some.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think discussions of morality are besides the point. The whole purpose of legal contracts is that you don't have to rely on someone else's morality. It doesn't matter to a 3PP that they have the moral high ground, it matters that they can pay themselves and their staff. Let's keep our eye on the prize: keeping 3PP sustainable through an enforceable contract.

yeah business and morality doesn't often mix...

 

[FoolishFrost]

No, I never said it didn't exist. That is the disinformation you are talking about - and you are spreading it.

I have followed this fairly close and read bout and read many leaks. However, I heard the original document was 9000 words and I have never seen the whole thing. Regardless, I am aware of its general intent and stipulations. They were bad, real bad.

Also, just because I was talking about OGL 1.2, doesn't mean I don't think 1.1 existed. I just wasn't talking about 1.1!

I am sorry I wasn't clear, because you seemed to misunderstand yet again. I hope the above statement is more clear.

It was released, never said it wasn't. I am still not 100% clear on the contents nor the requirement to sign. I have heard about it, but I have never seen anyone post those stipulations from the actual documents. That being said, I assumed people were being honest.

Which statements? The ones where you misrepresented what I wrote and my intent. Or that OGL 1.1 existed? I mean I agree on the later, but not the former!

It certainly seems that way. However, there is lots of way it could have been a draft. Though, I assume it wasn't.

However, that has nothing to do with the fact I was talking about version 1.2! Why are you obsessed with my opinion of 1.1 when I wasn't trying to discuss it!

Okay, I will acknowldge your original statement and its intent:
"The only public draft that was released."

I believe the conflict on my part was due to the terms of this sentence. Once the NDA was broken, and 1.1 was released, it was public. Regardless of intent of Wizards.

I was also misreading your statement as a statement the first was a draft as well. I literally blame my eyes.

Apologies. I retract my general argument on the subject. Would you rather I edit the posts, or leave them for public record, or add retractions per post?

 

[delericho]

Sure, but I think it’s imperative that the update not revoke 1.0a, otherwise there is no reason to believe the update won’t later be revoked on similarly dubious grounds. Like, by all means make a better-worded new version. But if you don’t keep your word to continue offering all previous versions, don’t expect anyone to agree to the latter versions. Fool me once and all that.

Absolutely. If they get away with revoking any version of the license, they can revoke any version of the license - and they all become worthless.

 

[rknop]

No, they need to make something that can pass legal muster. The OGL 1.0(a) wasn't that document.

People keep saying this, but it's probably wrong. Yes, OGL 1.0a doesn't say the license is "irrevocable". But, neither did the GPL v2, which was the gold standard for open licenses at the time. Nobody thinks the GPL v2 can be revoked on a whim the way Wizards is claiming they can do with the OGL. In their announcement about the ORC, Paizo said they were ready to defend the irrevocability if the OGL1.0a in court.

The word "irrevocable" wasn't standard in open licenses back then the way it is now. But there's an extremely good chance that legally, the OGL1.0a is. It's not perfect, because there's a small chance a judge will get it wrong, but even if not, ignoring C&D letters from bigger companies is risky, and defending yourself in court is expensive. But that's different from the OGL1.0a not passing legal muster.

 

[TheSword]

that... that is A take, I'm not sure I would go that far.

I would be saying differently if WotC wasn’t offering another free license in its place and seem willing to negotiate the terms of that license.

Also I will never blame someone for using an NDA in a contract negotiation in the age of twitter-tube.

WotC put forward a new license agreement and WotC asked some people to sign it. Those people said no then leaked it over the internet, and in the space of one week the 3pp community collectively went into nuclear meltdown attacking WotC directly and vociferously. “Burn it down” they said.

WotC didn’t say tough luck we’re doing it anyway. They didn’t start sending out the C&D letters, or start suing. WotC just said, ok, that clearly isn’t going to work - now what about this.

Folks might claim that WotC would never have given better terms were it not for the twitter-storm but we’ll never know because it never even reached the deadline.

I’m ok with all of this. Could they have handled it better, sure. They could have offered more generous terms. Yes. Then again it’s not the most sensible way of starting a negotiation. Could they have responded faster? Maybe but one week isn’t very long in a business with new leadership particularly over a contract negotiation. I suspect they were gearing decision-making to the January deadline and got sideswiped by the leak coming out of the blue. YouTubers don’t stick to the regular working week and indeed are paid to generate outrage. A regular business can’t compete with that.

 

[dave2008]

And that is the rub. And the direction that I want ENPublishing and my work to take going forward.

I will produce content for Level Up in the coming months and years. And with some very minor changes (names probably high on the list) it'll be compatible with 5e. And you'll be able to use it in your games.

Because even -if- they enshrine the 1.0a like I've suggested... I won't use it. I won't put my material going forward into it. Paranormal Power is the first and only book I intend to release under the OGL. I even offered Ryan Dancey a free PDF copy to mark the occasion (he mostly plays board games these days, though).

But publishers 5, 10, 15 years from now are more likely to tentatively get back into publishing under the OGL 1.0a than they would be to the 1.2a with the Sword of Damocles hanging from the whims of Corporate needing more profits in Q4 2025 being free to unilaterally change the agreement.

A wildfire has hit the 5ecosystem. Whether it regrows and flourishes, or gets paved over, is up in the air.

I do want to be clear that I completely support your position. It is not mine, but I get where you are coming from. I hope that wasn't lost in our conversation.