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.

 

[Umbran]

then you are morally bankrupt

Mod Note:
We've told enough folks, enough times, for you to know you aren't supposed to be attacking or insulting people. You have chosen to anyway.

So, you are done in this discussion. On top of that, you've earned yourself a week off from the site. We hope you use the time to reconsider how you engage with your fellow users.

 

[dave2008]

On of my biggest gripes about the draft OGL 1.2 that I don't see many people talking about is that it's not even the same type of license as OGL 1.0a.

Actually a lot of people have commented, myself included, how the 1.2 draft is not an open license. In fact, I said so in my survey feedback. Snarf has a thread about legal language and OGL and one of the first things they say is that 1.2 is not an open license. A lot of people are making that distinction.

 

[DMZ2112]

The draft OGL 1.2, however, doesn't define any sort of Open Game Content or Product Identity mechanism. It's a specific grant from Wizards for the contents of the D&D SRD. There is no way for anyone else to release open content to the community or to build on what others have provided.

Woof, for all my talk about the OGL 1.0a facilitating the interdependent web of OGC, I did not make the connection that the OGL 1.2's focus on the SRD 5.1 would make that web impossible even while the license was active. Thanks for pointing that out.

Really, what Wizards wants is another GSL. They should start being honest about that sooner than later.

 

[DMZ2112]

WoTC: Although.....if I let the snake attack the baby, I can employ the use of Sneak Attack as it will be too focused on the infant to notice me. Therefore, the most optimal course of action is to let the child get eaten.

Ah, the old 'engaged with the baby' trick. Classic rogue. I hear this is why Sheila always kept Bobby around.

EDIT: Jebus, in the process of making sure I was remembering correctly that Sheila was Bobby's older sister, I've learned this apparently rings true. Bobby is canonically dead, devoured alive by Tiamat!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"Now that we've shot off most of our toes and it seems likely we'll need to use a walker for the rest of our lives, we're going to say that it's possible that our initial approach was misguided. That said, we think our original goal was not without merit and we stand by it. We thank you for your continuing feedback during this effort. Going forward, we'll be switching to a knife, instead. Now, please, stand back and put on your rain ponchos."

 

[Umbran]

But how would that even work?

I don't write intellectual property contracts for a living, but making rights specific happens every day. Like, if you get rights to make a book into a movie, you have rights to make a movie. You don't have rights to make a boardgame, or a videogame, or whatever. You just have the movie.

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.

You seem to be confusing IP (intellectual property) with PI (product identity). PI is IP, but not all IP is PI.

If they think they own X or Y, they should say so. Currently, all they say they own is this

No. Currently, they own, and have have copyright on, all of it. The OGL is allowing rights, but does not change ownership. That's kind of important.

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

If they aren't, what do you care if WotC reserves the rights? You're going to insist they allow rights you admit nobody's going to use?

But, just for the point - you've seen the recent Jumanji movies right? People playing a game are sucked into the game, and refer to the game mechanics. Jumanji didn't create that trope.

I can recommend the comic seiries/graphic novel Die, from Image Comics, written by Kieron Gillen - in which people from the real world are sucked into the magical world of their RPG, and refer to the game. The author wasn't referring to D&D - he created a fictional game for the purpose.

 

[Staffan]

Morally? The person who wrote didn’t have to live with it.

Forever is a long time and the industry has changed dramatically and if folks were still releasing pdfs and paper books. I don’t think it ever would have come up.

It took me a while, but I figured out the big thing bothering me about this argument.

Society has decided to pretend corporations are people. They have pretty much the same rights as people – they can own property, they have freedom of speech, etc.

Then we shouldn't absolve corporations from keeping promises made in the past even if those promises are no longer convenient for them. The corporation made that promise. The corporation should keep it. It doesn't matter that there's another person wearing the corporation mask now, because we still treat the corporation as the same person.

If we allow a corporation to wiggle out of promises made in the past, we should also deny them everything else that happened in the past. They bought something? Well, that was different people buying it and different people selling it, so the sale is no longer valid. They paid people to make books for them? Well, the people in charge of the corporation have changed, so those books should now be public domain.

You can see how ridiculous this is. The same goes for the argument that a promise made by other people in the same corporation, when empowered to speak for the corporation (like Ryan Dancey was), can be nullified when new people are in charge.

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.

 

[Jer]

Really, what Wizards wants is another GSL. They should start being honest about that sooner than later.

As someone (I think it was Snarf) pointed out to me, if they call it anything other than "OGL" then section 9 of the current OGL can't be applied and that's where their new claim that they can "deauthorize" the OGL comes from. So even though the license they've proposed isn't an open one by any way that folks who use open licensing understand the term, they have to call it the "Open Gaming License" anyway.

It's very cynical and clearly being done in bad faith.

 

[Haplo781]

They could go back to a cleaned up version of 4E and the GSL. I'd at least make some people happy, and It would better align with their VTT ambitions.

Don't tease me like that.

 

[eyeheartawk]

View attachment 273977