D&D 5E Will you continue to give WotC D&D your $$$

[Ruin Explorer]

We don't actually what is in OGL 2.0. We only have the statement of WotC about what will be taken out, but until we see the actual OGL, things could change.

Sure.

Personally I'd be shocked if they doubled back on that because it would just start a whole new line of anger with WotC in that they blatantly lied.

However, they could very well charge 3PP by the word to use their content, or charge a flat fee of say $5000 per product, which would kill almost all 3PP like they want. Larger content producers like Paizo, Morrus and those who make hundreds of thousands or more could pay a $5000 fee, but those who make 10k, 15k, or even 50k wouldn't. Or there may be no base cost at all beyond what putting it up on DMsguild takes. We just don't know.

LOL they are not going to do that, because that would be pouring petrol directly on to the flames whilst holding the petrol can by your face. Like you said, that'd be worse, at this point, than having the royalties in the first place. They may be dumb, but they've clearly recognised there's a problem here. Reverse royalties aren't going to pass public muster. Even people who don't play RPGs would see that and be mad.

Not sure why you're talking about DM's Guild, that has literally nothing to do with any OGL. It's a whole separate and unrelated licence.

There are a lot of things that they didn't comment on that may or may not show up in the OGL 2.0 or show up in a different form than was in OGL 1.0a.

For sure, the biggest two being the biggest problems - that they're trying to deauthorize OGL 1.0a and trying to destroy the concept of OGC.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure.

Personally I'd be shocked if they doubled back on that because it would just start a whole new line of anger with WotC in that they blatantly lied.

LOL they are not going to do that, because that would be pouring petrol directly on to the flames whilst holding the petrol can by your face. Like you said, that'd be worse, at this point, than having the royalties in the first place. They may be dumb, but they've clearly recognised there's a problem here. Reverse royalties aren't going to pass public muster. Even people who don't play RPGs would see that and be mad.

I agree it would be stupid beyond belief, but we've all seen super stupid corporate decisions before. I doubt it will happen, but as everyone else is saying, I'm going to be waiting to see what the actual language says before making final decisions.

Not sure why you're talking about DM's Guild, that has literally nothing to do with any OGL. It's a whole separate and unrelated licence.

It was in reference to costs, not license.

For sure, the biggest two being the biggest problems - that they're trying to deauthorize OGL 1.0a and trying to destroy the concept of OGC.

 

[Oofta]

I'm so confused.

That element isn't in the potential OGL 2.0.

Then I have no idea what you're talking about. I've been addressing my thoughts on what I think about the proposed OGL 2.0.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Then I have no idea what you're talking about. I've been addressing my thoughts on what I think about the proposed OGL 2.0.

The proposed OGL 2.0, according to WotC, won't feature that element.

The OGL 1.1 leak did feature that element, but on Friday the 13th of last week, WotC said that it was entirely dropping both:

A) The royalties.

and

B) The whole and entire "You licence all aspects of your work to us forever for free" angle.

 

[Oofta]

The bolded is almost certainly incorrect. If you have been listening to the lawyers who have been talking on this site and others, you will have heard them mention that money, not correctness of position is often the deciding factor in cases. If OGL 2.0 comes out and still attempts to "deauthorize" OGL 1.0a, then WotC could go after the small content producers and strong arm them into losses or poor settlements.

Many smaller content providers won't produce content under those conditions, and many others will, but will be constantly stressed and worried about the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. That's not only not "little or no impact," but it's actually a very significant and negative impact.

There is nothing in the OGL 2.0 about royalties. How is it in WOTC's best interest to shut down peripheral materials that fill holes they themselves would not find profitable? There are many threats to small businesses. At this point I see no reason to believe that the odds of WOTC shutting down a 3PP is not as close to zero as it gets. Smaller publishers can sell thousands or even tens of thousands copies of a book and, for them, it would be a reasonable business model. For WOTC that doesn't work, as indicated by the relatively slow release of products over the past several years. They want to expand into areas other than publishing books to make a profit. If other companies provide support with niche products that they don't find profitable, it's still a win for them.

Maybe a year after the (potential) change WOTC will prove me wrong. I simply see no reason to assume the worst at this point. People fear change and the unknown. I get that. But I don't assume the absolute worst when there's no logical reason to do so.

Disclaimer: as always I think trying to revoke OGL 1.0a is a stupid move.

 

[Oofta]

The proposed OGL 2.0, according to WotC, won't feature that element.

The OGL 1.1 leak did feature that element, but on Friday the 13th of last week, WotC said that it was entirely dropping both:

A) The royalties.

I didn't mention royalties.

and

B) The whole and entire "You licence all aspects of your work to us forever for free" angle.

I may have missed that, so it goes back to the old OGL that unless it's PI it can be copied by anyone?

 

[Oofta]

Mod Note:
Sure. But that doesn't mean you can reasonably assert that everyone else is wrong or unsupported just because they didn't explain it to you, personally. It is a busy time, and if you don't want to put in the effort, at least approach it like you are asking folks for a favor to get you up to speed.




And the snark is not helpful. In fact, you should know full well that it is antagonizing. Knowingly antagonizing people in the middle of controversy is a good way to get the hairy eyeball from moderators.

Going forward, you might want to approach the discussions as if everyone is already anxious and frustrated, and treat them with a bit more care.

Apologies, I think a lot of people assume everyone understands why this is such a huge issue (with the potential OGL 2.0 changes). I disagree with what they're doing and I was simply trying to explain why I don't see as big an issue in hopes that others, if they want, could explain what I'm missing.

I didn't mean to belittle people's concerns in any way and sorry if it sounded like that.

 

[Maxperson]

There is nothing in the OGL 2.0 about royalties.

Fees are not royalties. I doubt they will include fees, but we don't know what is in OGL 2.0 and WotC has been known to make blunders. The recent one with the OGL only being the most recent.

How is it in WOTC's best interest to shut down peripheral materials that fill holes they themselves would not find profitable?

You should ask them. They are trying to shut them down. They were trying to do so with the leaked document, and they continue to try and do so by excluding the "deauthorization" from what they are removing with 2.0.

At this point I see no reason to believe that the odds of WOTC shutting down a 3PP is not as close to zero as it gets.

It's about asserting control and increased monetization. Perhaps WotC wants to put out more feats, items, etc. with an increased book schedule and don't want to compete with all the little guys on that front. Perhaps it's just another WotC bad decision.

Disclaimer: as always I think trying to revoke OGL 1.0a is a stupid move.

Which is what they are doing, but you seem to think that they won't make other stupid decisions. After a history of dumb moves, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that front.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I may have missed that, so it goes back to the old OGL that unless it's PI it can be copied by anyone?

I don't think that's likely because they don't mention OGC or PI. In the original OGL you can only copy OGC which isn't PI (it'd be very rare for something to be both at once but conceivably could happen).

So for example, I make a setting book which has some monsters, feats, and classes in it. Let's call the setting Ruinaria.

So under OGL 1.0a,

• ALL the mechanics are OGC - Open Gaming Content - so like statblocks of the monsters, the feats, the classes, that's all OGC. Anyone else putting the OGL 1.0a licence in their book/website/etc. can use that.
• You can use any SRD that's been declared OGC - which means the 3E, 3.5E and 5E SRDs, as well as various 3PP SRDs, but not 4E SRD.
• Now, if I say, declare the setting map to also be OGC, that also is, and anyone else can use that.
• If I say Krunkalan The Wizardbiter is Product Identity, and one of my spells is called Krunkalan's Biting Teeth, you can use the mechanics, but you can't call it Krukanlan's Biting Teeth without my permission (you'd probably just call it Biting Teeth).

And note, it's not just WotC, everyone could use this.

Under OGL 1.1 (Commercial)

• WotC could use literally everything in the entire book, and could, if they wanted to, licence it out to others.
• You can use the 5E SRD (only) - yes I know, 1.0a already let you use that and others. You cannot use others here.
• You can only put stuff in a PDF/ePub or print format.
• Additionally you promise not to be mad with or sue WotC if they make something similar to your stuff
• There is no OGC and no Product Identity. Nothing is shared with anyone but WotC. The entire concept is gone. No-one else can write for my setting via the OGL 1.1 (Commercial) unless WotC gives them permission (and WotC can give permission even if I don't want them to!). You might be able to separately licence it out with an entirely different licence, that's unclear.
• Now a lot of people were confused because the OGL 1.1 does refer to "what used to be" OGC and Product Identity, but if you read the actual clauses, it's talking solely about WotC's own OGC (the SRD) and Product Identity (the stuff excluded from the SRD, like Beholder). It has no provision for anyone else.

Hopefully that all makes sense? Apologies if not, I can clarify. Hopefully you can see how fundamentally the two licences do not operate on the same principles, for better or worse they're totally different designs.

(NB, the non-commercial licence does have a minor share-alike clause, but the non-commercial licence is basically pointless because the Fan Content Policy - FCP - already covers anything the non-commercial would, and even OGL 1.1 says the FCP is staying.)

Under OGL 2.0, we only have WotC's slightly vague Friday letter to go on. But we can guess, because that letter also doesn't mention OGC, share-alike, sharing, or Product Identity coming back. So the expectation is:

• You can use the 5E SRD (only)
• WotC doesn't own of your stuff, but you promise you won't get mad/sue them if they make something conceptually similar/nigh-identical to their stuff.
• There is no sharing of your stuff except if you arrange it through some entirely separate an unrelated licence of your own.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think that's likely because they don't mention OGC or PI. In the original OGL you can only copy OGC which isn't PI (it'd be very rare for something to be both at once but conceivably could happen).

So for example, I make a setting book which has some monsters, feats, and classes in it. Let's call the setting Ruinaria.

So under OGL 1.0a,

• ALL the mechanics are OGC - Open Gaming Content - so like statblocks of the monsters, the feats, the classes, that's all OGC. Anyone else putting the OGL 1.0a licence in their book/website/etc. can use that.
• You can use any SRD that's been declared OGC - which means the 3E, 3.5E and 5E SRDs, as well as various 3PP SRDs, but not 4E SRD.
• Now, if I say, declare the setting map to also be OGC, that also is, and anyone else can use that.
• If I say Krunkalan The Wizardbiter is Product Identity, and one of my spells is called Krunkalan's Biting Teeth, you can use the mechanics, but you can't call it Krukanlan's Biting Teeth without my permission (you'd probably just call it Biting Teeth).

And note, it's not just WotC, everyone could use this.

Under OGL 1.1 (Commercial)

• WotC could use literally everything in the entire book, and could, if they wanted to, licence it out to others.
• You can use the 5E SRD (only) - yes I know, 1.0a already let you use that and others. You cannot use others here.
• You can only put stuff in a PDF/ePub or print format.
• Additionally you promise not to be mad with or sue WotC if they make something similar to your stuff
• There is no OGC and no Product Identity. Nothing is shared with anyone but WotC. The entire concept is gone. No-one else can write for my setting via the OGL 1.1 (Commercial) unless WotC gives them permission (and WotC can give permission even if I don't want them to!). You might be able to separately licence it out with an entirely different licence, that's unclear.
• Now a lot of people were confused because the OGL 1.1 does refer to "what used to be" OGC and Product Identity, but if you read the actual clauses, it's talking solely about WotC's own OGC (the SRD) and Product Identity (the stuff excluded from the SRD, like Beholder). It has no provision for anyone else.

Hopefully that all makes sense? Apologies if not, I can clarify. Hopefully you can see how fundamentally the two licences do not operate on the same principles, for better or worse they're totally different designs.

(NB, the non-commercial licence does have a minor share-alike clause, but the non-commercial licence is basically pointless because the Fan Content Policy - FCP - already covers anything the non-commercial would, and even OGL 1.1 says the FCP is staying.)

Under OGL 2.0, we only have WotC's slightly vague Friday letter to go on. But we can guess, because that letter also doesn't mention OGC, share-alike, sharing, or Product Identity coming back. So the expectation is:

• You can use the 5E SRD (only)
• WotC doesn't own of your stuff, but you promise you won't get mad/sue them if they make something conceptually similar/nigh-identical to their stuff.
• There is no sharing of your stuff except if you arrange it through some entirely separate an unrelated licence of your own.

Thanks, and sorry if I was cranky earlier. Winter blahs.