We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[Random Task]

Random Task said:
Similarly Chaosium would be better off having published Delta Green as a branch of Call of Cthulhu, and not allowed it to go off and make someone else successful while being hard to distinguish system and background wise from CoC.



I'm not sure what you're going for here.

Allowing strong competitors using your IP is not the best thing for your business. See also the IBM PC and the Mac clone era.

 

[Staffan]

I don't think it's "backdoor" -- I think Hasbro is making all the big guys offers they can't refuse. But Mercer liking that tweet at least suggests, even if it's some wishcasting on my part, that he might be inclined to refuse anyway.

I believe the people to talk to, at least formally, would be Travis Willingham and Marisha Ray as CEO and Creative Director, respectively. Matt Mercer may run the game, but not the company.

 

[tomBitonti]

So, I’m finding the text re: Revoking the prior license to be confusing.

The problem that I’m having is the appearance of a factual declaration in a license agreement. Then I have two problems. First, the contents of the license are conditional. Would that, bizarrely, make the de-authorization a fact only for those who accepted the new license? Second, the statement is not of the form of an agreeable proposition. For example, “the licensee agrees to cease use of prior versions” is an agreeable proposition. (“Agreeable” meaning can make an agreement over. Not, “pleasant”.)

My best “logical” sense is that a ”de-authorization” of one of the license versions would have to be done directly by the License issuer as an independent statement.

Absent a clear definition of “authorized” and absent clearly defined steps to change the “authorization” state of a license version, the word appears vacuous. Can such a momentous consequence (the prevention of the use of earlier versions) be tied to it?

To be clear, what is being attempted seems clear. And lots of folks, myself included, pointed to “authorized” as a possible problem point. I’m just having a problem with the “how it is being done”-ness.

TomB

 

[dbolack]

Allowing strong competitors using your IP is not the best thing for your business. See also the IBM PC and the Mac clone era.

Pagan wasn't exactly a strong competitor when they started Delta Green. For that matter, neither was Chaosium. And Greg just wasn't that kinda dude.

 

[Ondath]

While not exactly Critical Role themselves, Aabria Iyengar, who was the DM for the spinoff campaign Exandria Unlimited and appears in multiple actual play shows (including Dimension 20) tweeted this:


This is giving me hope that the bigger AP folks are actually not very happy with OGL v1.1, which might be the only group with enough influence to make WotC reconsider.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It wasn't a play test to begin with, but it makes me want to participate in the surveys even more.

Make use of the free text commentary to express that revoking the OGL would have an impact on you reception of One D&D

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

While not exactly Critical Role themselves, Aabria Iyengar, who was the DM for the spinoff campaign Exandria Unlimited and appears in multiple actual play shows (including Dimension 20) tweeted this:


This is giving me hope that the bigger AP folks are actually not very happy with OGL v1.1, which might be the only group with enough influence to make WotC reconsider.

Aabria and Brennan just announced a new non-D&D actual play show in late December, which feels suggestive.

 

[overgeeked]

Abriya and Brennan just announced a new non-D&D actual play show in late December, which feels suggestive.

Worlds Beyond Number.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

I'm not sure I agree with the claim, but I really hope Mercer believes it.

That claim was a big part of why the OGL was originally created. The belief, espoused by Ryan Dancey in particular, that "network externalities" drove the popularity of D&D.
It was discussed a lot on the "Gentleman's Agreement" pre-3.0 OGL discussion email group in 1999, which I was part of.
The idea was that more people knowing D&D rules meant more people played D&D. And, therefore, if you could make those rules even MORE commonly known, the biggest company with the biggest market share (WotC) would be the one that benefits the most from network growth.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

But again, what could compel that? If I don't agree to v1.1 — if I just act like v1.1 doesn't exist and go about my merry way publishing under v1.0 — what could stop me?

First, a Cease and Desist.
Then, a lawsuit Hasbro can afford, and you likely cannot.
("You" being any 3pp publisher of course, myself very much included.)