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.

 

[eyeheartawk]

and nothing so far has indicated said 'oh a whim' other then tin foil hat "They MIGHT someday" conspiracies

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

Therefore, considering their contractual shenanigans about Dragonlance and Gale Force Nine, and also them literally trying to revoke the OGL right now, this very moment, I'd say it's a eminently reasonable concern.

Calling it a conspiracy just...ignores reality.

 

[Scottius]

Yeah. I've seen people present that they don't actually care so much about the function of the license any more - if it isn't 1.0a (or 1.0b, clearly irrevocable), they just aren't going to go along.

However, I think WotC and D&D have grown to the point where there are some legitimate business concerns that none of us or them could reasonably have been able to predict 20 years ago, and it should be okay to make some changes for that.

I think it should be okay for WotC to present us with a license that is functionally the same as v1.0a for 3pp commercial print, pdf (or some version of "static electronic files" to allow, say, searchable online rules compendiums), VTT play and actual play streams, with other uses explicitly carved out of it.

WotC should be allowed to explicitly reserve movie, TV, and streaming media rights. They can have traditional videogame rights. Those are all endeavors large enough that we should allow WotC to handle licensing them on a case-by-case basis. I think it would be good for us to let WotC own those things. The 3pp and tabletop community doesn't need those rights in an open license. Any party ambitious enough to want to go into those spaces should have to negotiate for those right separately.

Unfortunately, previous versions of the OGL are still ambiguously open on these points - the definition of "use" is too broad - such that closing those licenses is the only way to carve out these spaces for WotC.

I strongly disagree with this take. Paizo shouldn't have to give up their opportunity to make a video game, movie, or series for Pathfinder just because WOTC decided to try and go back on their word. Same if say Kobold Press wanted to do the same with Midgard.

It's not like it's a theoretical argument here. Pathfinder already has two computer RPGs out there. And it's not like WOTC didn't know this would happen. They explicitly talked about how to use the OGL with publishing a video game when they first released the OGL.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Also, lots of players want to see D&D succeed, myself included. But part of my picture of success is a thriving ecosystem of third-party creators. WotC has lost nothing from me to third-party publishers. I own everything WotC has published for 5e in D&D Beyond and also bought a good number of their books in physical form.

there are vocal posters on this board that have for months said they are ONLY playing 3rd party retroclones and or 3rd party changes to 5e.
There is a thriving community called the OSR that live off the games being 1e retroclones (or BEIM retroclones)

WotC didn't loose anything from me. There is not 1 book or product that I didn't buy that I would have if not for the 3pp.

My 3pp content I can name off the top of my head are 3 monster books (2 from green ronin) the 5e middle earth books, the new 5e journey system from that for more generic use, and about $100 worth of DMs guild content... (plus the 2 starter sets I just bought to donate). Oh, and Mutants and Masterminds stuff, I do have a bunch of taht. I have 2 retroclones 1 of 2e (that ended up not even fulfilling the kickstarter fully) and 1 of 4e that I paid for an 1 of 4e that is free on these boards... and like 2 or 3 back in 4e days and hundreds of products in 3.5

not 1 cent of that money would have gone to anything WotC cause I normally buy the stuff from them first then with left overs going to 3pp

BUT I am not the fear WotC has, and by the sounds of it neither are you... my buddy who just came back during covid to 5e left when I started 4e to go to pathfinder... he still buys PF books all the time, and owns 1 wotc product since the book of 9 swords came out (last wotc thing he bought before the 5e phb) he has 0 plans to ever buy any more wotc products... but he sure is fine buying path finder stuff... so WotC is looking at him as lost sales.

 

[Dausuul]

yeah, I hope this means a lot of fine tuning going into this

Oh, I'm sure there will be. The question is what the fine-tuning is optimizing for.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

This.

WotC should be allowed to explicitly reserve movie, TV, and streaming media rights.

But how would that even work?

What can WotC realistically even reserve there? If they want to claim IP, they should claim IP, and they should be very clear about what they're claiming is their IP, instead of vaguely waffling, which is all they've done so far. If they think they own X or Y, they should say so. Currently, all they say they own is this:

The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, EverChanging Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.

Sorry about weird formatting.

That's not a whole lot. I don't think anyone has a huge problem if they want to claim they own this stuff. If they're claiming they own more, though, let's hear exactly what it is.

Because it's not like a movie, TV, or streaming show is going to be using mechanics from the OGL, is it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I said 1.2, just check what you quoted. My main point is that it is not in the current draft.

It is a process, and what is important, IMO, is the final draft. Less so, how we got there.

I refuse to believe that past behavior is meaningless. As has been said, they were very clear in the 1.1 about what they want, and I've seen nothing that proves to me that what they want has changed.

 

[Clint_L]

I'll be blunt: the issue here is going to be how much we want to fight for the right of very specific 3pp, digital content creators, to make Dungeons and Dragons content that could compete with WotC's own. That's really where Hasbro are drawing their line in the sand (that and possibly media content as well). They are basically saying, "Look, we let Pathfinder happen once, and we were lucky to get away with it. We do not want the same thing to happen again where someone is using our own IP to compete against us in the digital space."

OB1 has argued that the way out is for WotC to pull a 4e and just abandon 5e to 3PP. I don't see WotC doing that because the last time they tried something very like that, Pathfinder happened.

WotC's stance with OneD&D is "we've created a version of the game that is extraordinarily popular. We've cracked the code. We'll concede sharing 5e in the print space if we have to, because of a deal that we made 20 years ago that our current executives really wish hadn't happened. It turns out getting rid of it for all the little books and spin-off games 3PP make isn't worth the backlash. But we'll be damed if we are abandoning 5e, or sharing it at anything more than a basic level in the digital areas that we have identified to our shareholders as vital to the survival of Hasbro as a whole."

That's the fight. Most 3PP are potentially collateral damage.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That's the fight. Most 3PP are potentially collateral damage.

Yeah. That and all the currently circulating works upon which OGC is based on that would become unavailable as there are significant amounts of orphaned works after 23 years.

 

[Steampunkette]

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.

Not at all! I didn't respond sooner 'cause I went AFK to prep my hair for cutting.

New chapter coming up in the life of Steampunkette. Time for a new style and color. I'm thinking Blue or Purple rather than brown.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

I agree... the fact that they backed down just the other day on multi things (like the royalties) shows that they are worried about public backlash... so the past behavior makes me think in the future they will at least need a plausible excuse to do anything.

Therefore, considering their contractual shenanigans about Dragonlance

how did that end again... oh right the company caved and let the book go

Calling it a conspiracy just...ignores reality.

calling there past bad acts up without ALSO looking at the fact that they back peddle the minute we speak up shows that you are cherry picking