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


log in or register to remove this ad


sigfried

Adventurer
I don't care how many sources they claim to have. There's no way that was written by lawyers for WotC.
Why Max? In life, when there are facts to be had, it's best to read them and then make the decision that makes the most sense, not the one you want to be true.

When Gizmodo got the same leak, they read about the special royalty rate for Kickstarter in the contract. They then contacted Kickstarter, who confirmed they'd negotiated that special rate. Kickstarter is not owned or controlled by WOTC, they have no way to lie or any other way to know about that value unless they indeed negotiated it with WOTC. And WOTC would not be negotiating with Kickstarter unless this contract not only existed but they were far along in getting ready to implement it.

The only conclusion that makes sense of those facts that the leaked contract and Kickstarter agree, is that it's the real deal.

The leak is legit. Whether WOTC backpedals or not remains to be seen. But WOTC has been fighting with magic players of late, and if you go ask them how responsive WOTC has been to their concerns, it will give you an idea of how likely they are to reverse direction on this.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Why Max? In life, when there are facts to be had, it's best to read them and then make the decision that makes the most sense, not the one you want to be true.

When Gizmodo got the same leak, they read about the special royalty rate for Kickstarter in the contract. They then contacted Kickstarter, who confirmed they'd negotiated that special rate. Kickstarter is not owned or controlled by WOTC, they have no way to lie or any other way to know about that value unless they indeed negotiated it with WOTC. And WOTC would not be negotiating with Kickstarter unless this contract not only existed but they were far along in getting ready to implement it.

The only conclusion that makes sense of those facts that the leaked contract and Kickstarter agree, is that it's the real deal.
Or else there's another contract that has the real language. Just because they're negotiating and a change is happening does not 1) make that claptrap legal writing by their lawyers, 2) mean the the change is even all that similar to what we see. Any significant change would spark negotiations.

That release being the real language is not the only conclusion that makes sense, but hey, feel free to believe it if you want.
 

sigfried

Adventurer
What were the five things?
Speculation but...

1. Make a new and radically different rule set
2. Have that rule set be seen as worse than the competition
3. Stop using the open license for that rule set
4. Charge a price that is not competitive with the alternative
5. Stop supporting the old rule set

About the only thing they could add to that would be to totally change their branding (which they didn't do).
 

sigfried

Adventurer
Or else there's another contract that has the real language. Just because they're negotiating and a change is happening does not 1) make that claptrap legal writing by their lawyers, 2) mean the the change is even all that similar to what we see. Any significant change would spark negotiations.

That release being the real language is not the only conclusion that makes sense, but hey, feel free to believe it if you want.
So how would the leakers know the terms of Kickstarter's negotiations if it wasn't in the contract?

Why do you think the language isn't real? Are you an expert in legal contract language?

I'll point out a few things about contracts and lawyers
1. Not all lawyers are good at their job
2. Lawyers make contracts based on their client's specifications, and stupid clients can make lawyers make stupid contracts
3. There is a strong movement among lawyers to write contracts in simple and plain language when possible under the philosophy that understanding of the law and contracts should be available to all. I can provide you links to this if you are interested.
4. WOTC has a well-established history of providing plain language contracts, even of including rather silly jokes in them.
 

kikai

Explorer
Imagine finishing an epic campaign to have the plot twist that the BBEGs are some ex-Microsoft, soul-less executives and a team of lawyers who are suing you in real life for daring to play the game you want to instead of the way they want you to.
like the ending of the Acquisitions Incorporated Storyline... I found it a bit weird, but now it looks a lot like foreshadowing
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So how would the leakers know the terms of Kickstarter's negotiations if it wasn't in the contract?

Why do you think the language isn't real? Are you an expert in legal contract language?

I'll point out a few things about contracts and lawyers
1. Not all lawyers are good at their job
As a paralegal, I'm well aware that some lawyers are bad at their job. Even bad lawyers, though, had to pass the bar and and years of law school. The errors bad lawyers make are typically omissions of things that should have been included, bad citations, accidental inclusion of wording from prior documents used as the base for the new document, and so on. Even the bad lawyers aren't going to write something like the third paragraph there.

Contracts, even ones written in plain language, need to be very specific. Vague writing like "...if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectional under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We're more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision." I mean, what the hell does that even mean? Not your guess mind you. Exactly what is the definition of "somehow stretch?" What is "too far?" What constitutes "pushback" or "bad PR?" What does "open to being convinced" mean?

Judges and juries need exacting language and definitions in order to figure out who will prevail in contract dispute. Hell, even well written contracts can have language that might be found to be too vague, which is why contracts include a severability clause.
2. Lawyers make contracts based on their client's specifications, and stupid clients can make lawyers make stupid contracts
Bad specifications, sure. But they will still write those bad specifications in a much cleared manner than the claptrap from page 1.
3. There is a strong movement among lawyers to write contracts in simple and plain language when possible under the philosophy that understanding of the law and contracts should be available to all. I can provide you links to this if you are interested.
Again, plain language =/= vague. Vague = dead contract. What is written on page one isn't clear enough.
4. WOTC has a well-established history of providing plain language contracts, even of including rather silly jokes in them.
I've seen a few of those. Even those were, outside of the clear jokes, written much more precisely than what we see here. What we see here isn't a joke.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
WotC?

I haven't. They've not been in a position to do so. I don't know if I've ever heard WotC officially comment on a specific 3PP product at all, have you?

But I'm talking about the behaviour of large, family-friendly US corporations. They tend to have a bit of a blind spot for racism unless it falls into very distinct shapes. WotC are a great example here with the Hadozee stuff slipping past dozens of eyes, many of whom had received training in how to spot racist stuff. They didn't spot it in their own product. If there are dozens or hundreds of 3PPs coming out, how likely do you think it is they'll spot it? I think it's unlikely. I think they're much more likely to spot stuff that might conceivably seen as "sexualized", which to a large fraction of the West (probably a minority but still plenty) is merely existing as an LGBTQ+ person, and I think any products which are LGBTQ+ friendly in an obvious way will be hyper-scrutinised by people looking for an excuse to say "this isn't sufficiently kid-friendly, why are you allowing this WotC?!". And knowing large corporations, they'll likely ask for it to be pulled without properly considering what they're doing.
The Hadozee is a good example, though. Even if they didn't spot it, as soon as someone did(and someone always will), then leapt into action and changed it. They changed orcs, Vistani and other things as well. I don't see why they wouldn't leap into action against a 3rd party once someone told them about the racism.
 

S'mon

Legend
What Ryan Dancey likely did NOT anticipate was where we are now where multiple people are using the OGL to create D&D clones that people can buy and play without any reference to D&D itself as currently in print, however. Which is exactly why the OSRIC guy, who's name slips my mind, had to deal with hasslin' from WOTC at the time, because that wasn't at all what they wanted the OGL to do. The whole existence of the OSR who ignores 5e and in fact disparages it in many instances was not the intent of the OGL at all. I can imagine why WOTC isn't thrilled with the actual result as opposed to the theoretical one.

Conversely, I buy a lot of OSR product and then run it using 5e rules. My players buy 5e books (real & virtual). IME OSR D&D supports 5e D&D. Eg I have OSR Stonehell, Barrowmaze and Arden Vul campaigns going, using 5e D&D rules. I also have a 5e Odyssey of the Dragonlords campaign, which was written for 5e. Functionally all those 3PP adventures/campaigns have the same effect for WoTC, they drive sales of WoTC's books like the PHB, Xanathar's, and even the MM.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top