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

[mhd]

Legal inception: Is a there a copyright on a license, i.e. could people just create the Open Shmaming License, with the revocation clauses removed, so that previous licensor not tainted by D&D OGC could just move on?

 

[overgeeked]

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

It's certainly not the best game out there, but I'd argue that it's mostly name recognition. Which Mercer himself is at least in part responsible for.

 

[God]

LOL.

WotC can eat a bag of ________.

 

[dbolack]

My guess is that it's just risk mitigation. They're more confident they'd be able to collect their share from products released through Kickstarter. But I'm just speculating.

I'm thinking a backdoor contract between them.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm thinking a backdoor contract between them.

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.

 

[Random Task]

View attachment 271353

I unfortunately don't believe that. The OGL was a tactical error that allowed Paizo to grow and flourish using familiar D&D IP. D&D now doesn't need the OGL and all the D20 come along games and third party stuff to be successful. I don't think D&D 5th edition took off because of the OGL.

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.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Which tweet? EDIT: NM saw it, fast threads.

 

[DarkCrisis]

LOL.

WotC can eat a bag of ________.

Dice!

 

[Greg Benage]

I don't think D&D 5th edition took off because of the OGL.

There wasn't even an SRD when it took off.

 

[Jack Daniel]

no, it cannot. Worst case (which also us where this is headed) you cannot publish anything new under 1.0

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?

Clearly, the company to watch in the coming days will be Paizo. They're the biggest fish in what is still basically the retro-clone pond (regardless of PF2e's status as a new game). If Paizo doesn't want to accept any new version of the license or enter into any new agreements or contracts with WotC, what could possibly stop them from continuing to publish PF2e material under the OGL v1.0a forever?

I can't think of a single thing that would accomplish that (without litigation, of course).