The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Hussar]

I keep thinking about this and how this is the biggest departure from the previous implementation of the OGL. WotC trying to decide who gets to make money off open content, as support for their games, seems really predatory in comparison to the original intent of the OGL.

Yes, because they are being predatory for distinguishing between some random guy who is banging out stat blocks on Reddit and a company, making tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars per year based on something WotC owns.

Note, the ONLY thing they've said that someone who is making a living off of the OGC has to do is report their sales. That's it. Oh, and include some sort of compatibility badge or something like that so people understand that this is a D&D product, even if it's not official. No one, other than a tiny, tiny fraction of creators has to pay anything.

This is a definition of predatory that I was previously unaware of.

 

[pemerton]

This is a definition of predatory that I was previously unaware of.

I've got no particular stake in this OGL/SRD issue: if I was to play D&D, it would be either AD&D or 4e and I have all the material I need on my bookshelf.

For producers of OGL-licensed material, I can see that a change in the terms on which they access their market is undesirable. But in commercial and legal terms they don't have an entitlement against WotC that it continue to license future works on the same terms as previous ones.

 

[Hussar]

I've got no particular stake in this OGL/SRD issue: if I was to play D&D, it would be either AD&D or 4e and I have all the material I need on my bookshelf.

For producers of OGL-licensed material, I can see that a change in the terms on which they access their market is undesirable. But in commercial and legal terms they don't have an entitlement against WotC that it continue to license future works on the same terms as previous ones.

"I don't like it" =\= predatory either though.

No one, when they were making the OGL, could have predicted the following 20 years. They wrote the OGL based on the previous 20 years. Which, fair enough. But, at the time of the OGL, we're talking a tiny, tiny, niche product with a miniscule industry.

Now, they're talking about WotC hitting that billion dollar mark. IOW, it's mainstream. Which means that the exigencies of the market are very, very different. Like I said, a company could produce an OGL program that generates content - a module creation engine. This isn't some far away in the future thing. This is plausible in the very near future. Suddenly, that company basically yoinks D&D away from WotC with the killer app.

That's the kind of thing they are trying to protect against, IMO.

 

[see]

Also, I'm not sure about the definition of "carrot" in this scenario.

I mean, there might not be any carrots in reality. But sticking to the hypothetical scenario where I'm running this for WotC (as a hypothetical employee under the limits that are pretty much listed under the stuff that was posted to D&D Beyond), I'd be sure to toss in a few.

After all, ultimately, WotC is operating under the constraint that 3PPs, now and forevermore, can use the universe of Open Game Content that already exists under the OGL 1.0a. 3PPs (including new start-ups) will have to prefer working under the OGL 1.1 to get them to take it up, which means there's a natural limit to how bad the deal can be. If WotC wants people to report revenue and potentially pay royalties, they are going to have to offer something to make that worthwhile.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"I don't like it" =\= predatory either though.

No one, when they were making the OGL, could have predicted the following 20 years. They wrote the OGL based on the previous 20 years. Which, fair enough. But, at the time of the OGL, we're talking a tiny, tiny, niche product with a miniscule industry.

Now, they're talking about WotC hitting that billion dollar mark. IOW, it's mainstream. Which means that the exigencies of the market are very, very different. Like I said, a company could produce an OGL program that generates content - a module creation engine. This isn't some far away in the future thing. This is plausible in the very near future. Suddenly, that company basically yoinks D&D away from WotC with the killer app.

That's the kind of thing they are trying to protect against, IMO.

I'm not entirely sure predatory is the right word either... I don't know if the OGL was good or bad overall, but it has been the way things have worked for 22 years. changing it now going forward doesn't look great. Now maybe that is something that has to be done going forward no matter the look, but it looks bad.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, because they are being predatory for distinguishing between some random guy who is banging out stat blocks on Reddit and a company, making tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars per year based on something WotC owns.

Note, the ONLY thing they've said that someone who is making a living off of the OGC has to do is report their sales. That's it. Oh, and include some sort of compatibility badge or something like that so people understand that this is a D&D product, even if it's not official. No one, other than a tiny, tiny fraction of creators has to pay anything.

This is a definition of predatory that I was previously unaware of.

The OGL was designed so anyone could produce whatever they wanted in an open environment with no input from or responsibility to WotC (or, importantly, whoever buys it).

Changing that now because some people at WotC see money on the table or some 3PPs doing too well or whatever is predatory. Also petulant.

The OGL wasn't intended to be WotC magnanimously letting people play in the D&D sandbox so long as they didn't get too big for their britches. It was designed to protect D&D for corporate BS. And it exactly served its purpose the last time WotC tried to circumvent it, giving rise to Paizo and Pathfinder.

Hopefully it does so again if WotC pushes forward with this not-GSL and 1D&D is received in a manner it deserves because of it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The OGL was designed so anyone could produce whatever they wanted in an open environment with no input from or responsibility to WotC (or, importantly, whoever buys it).

Changing that now because some people at WotC see money on the table or some 3PPs doing too well or whatever is predatory. Also petulant.

The OGL wasn't intended to be WotC magnanimously letting people play in the D&D sandbox so long as they didn't get too big for their britches. It was designed to protect D&D for corporate BS. And it exactly served its purpose the last time WotC tried to circumvent it, giving rise to Paizo and Pathfinder.

Hopefully it does so again if WotC pushes forward with this not-GSL and 1D&D is received in a manner it deserves because of it.

question (and an honest one not arguing for or against). Given that we know they are doing this, would it be better for us the consumer for it to work for WotC and still get good main line consistent community, or for it to blow up on WotC and us get a fractured PF/4e situation again?

I see pros and cons on both sides

 

[Art Waring]

Oh, and include some sort of compatibility badge or something like that so people understand that this is a D&D product, even if it's not official. No one, other than a tiny, tiny fraction of creators has to pay anything.

I have pointed this out twice already...

The creators badge is a direct callback to the d20 STL, which was trademarked by wotc, and then later revoked. That means that whatever you publish under the 1.1 ogl has an expiration date, while anything published under the 1.0a ogl can remain in the marketplace indefinitely.

Maybe its not about the money, maybe I want what I create to last beyond my lifetime and not to be bound to another companies trademark.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No one, when they were making the OGL, could have predicted the following 20 years. They wrote the OGL based on the previous 20 years. Which, fair enough. But, at the time of the OGL, we're talking a tiny, tiny, niche product with a miniscule industry.

But I think it is fair for those who participate in a niche hobby and industry to comment if they think the original spirit of the OGL is in jeopardy here. Obviously anything we say is speculation as all we have are bulleted descriptions of their intentions with the OGL, and some comments made by Hasbro regarding monetization of D&D. There is plenty of room for misinterpretation here. But it is a hobby with dedicated fans and small publishers who put out books using the OGL. It is certainly their right to do what they want, but people don't have to like it. And it is also the right of fans to comment, and for publishers to object if they think having to report their income to WOTC or potentially give royalties to them is something they find unappealing. I also think a reaction is pretty understandable given the original spirit of the OGL (and how it came on the heels of concern over D&D being lost forever because the IP holder doesn't publish it, as well as on the heels of concern about the corporate behavior of TSR at the time: which had angered a lot of gamers). That may not be what is going on here. I don't have a crystal ball. But I do share a lot of peoples' sense that big changes will be underway and they may be changes a lot of people won't like.

I'm with Pemerton here in that I don't have a lot of investment in what direction this goes (I usually run/playt 2E or basic, and I have all the books I need to do that). I also generally play a lot of other games besides D&D (so I am not always running things with the d20 system). But in terms of the culture of the hobby, which I think is important, and I think is shaped by whoever controls D&D, I think it is important for people to express concerns they have.

 

[Reynard]

question (and an honest one not arguing for or against). Given that we know they are doing this, would it be better for us the consumer for it to work for WotC and still get good main line consistent community, or for it to blow up on WotC and us get a fractured PF/4e situation again?

I see pros and cons on both sides

Without any evidence, I assert that the worst thing that could have happened to D&D has happened: it has found enough success to attract the attention of the corporate suits. It is possible that their involvement won't ruin it, but I doubt it.

As to your question: I have no idea what would be "best" but if WotC puts out a not-GSL, that will be where I draw the line. I won't buy the new edition/revision and won't support companies that sign up. And if a Paizo appears to "keep 5E alive" I will support them. I don't even especially like 5E, but I really, really like the OGL and what it has done for the gaming community and industry, and my own freelance work, for the past 20 odd years and trying to kill it is, for me, a slap in the face to D&D fans.