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

[Oofta]

We already did at huge length. That you didn't bother to read it doesn't mean we need to repeat it for you. No-one else is claiming this. It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to claim no-one has explained to you.

There have been literally thousand of posts. Believe it or not, I haven't read every one. The only thing I've seen stated repeatedly is that WOTC wants to destroy 3PP and that they've shown that they're basically the second coming of Hitler. Yet nobody explains why, they just jump to the conclusion that WOTC will give a **** and shut you down if you publish a mod.

Yes, they can change the contract with 30 days notice. If they can get revoke the 1.0a version (that's up to the courts to decide) they can revoke any version. They can, in theory, shut anyone down. It would not be in their best interest to do so outside of extreme examples like a NuTSR. Old content is not going to be removed, people would still have a grace period of 6 months to wrap things up and publish under 1.0a, they just won't be able to use the 1.0a in the future. They've always been able to copy the majority of things published and they have not so there's no reason to believe they will in the future.

See? That wasn't hard. An entire paragraph. Phew. My fingers are about ready to fall off! I'm not saying I support the decision, I think it was a mistake. I also don't think WOTC is putting the bootheel of the corporation on the throats of every individual who publishes material either.

If you're just going to respond "You're wrong!" don't bother.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They've always been able to copy the majority of things published and they have not so there's no reason to believe they will in the future.

Stuff like this is why people can't be bothered to argue with you.

It's already a moot point.

WotC already dropped it. So why are you bringing it up? I can't even tell if you just don't know, or you think there's some reason to bring up a moot point.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really draw much distinction between any of these companies - they are all trying to turn a profit and be competitive. I'm not interested in turning this into a pro wrestling situation of heels and babyfaces. If someone makes something I want at a reasonable price, I will buy it unless it was derived from criminal or otherwise unconscionable behaviour. The OGL situation doesn't come remotely close, in my books.

As far as I'm concerned there healthy profit, and unconscionable profit which is when the desire for profit turns to greed and harms people. What WotC is doing may not be killing people like drug companies do, but it is going to bankrupt some, cause some to lose homes and others hardship or even failure to be able to provide for their families. That's unconscionable in my book.

 

[Maxperson]

That was quite the screed that ignored (and conveniently didn't quote) my second sentence where I state that the OGL 1.0a is likely not [edit ] enforceable revocable [/edit] I'm talking about the proposed OGL 2.0 as it stands now. I think it would have little or no impact. The silly hyperbole theories have been things like "The only reason to publish a new edition is to force the sale of DndBeyond because they were too successful!" Tell me how buying DDB for $146 million is "forcing" anyone to sell? How an updated version to the game that's been out for a decade, that could use some updates, that corresponds with a 50th anniversary wasn't going to happen anyway?

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.

 

[Oofta]

Stuff like this is why people can't be bothered to argue with you.

It's already a moot point.

WotC already dropped it. So why are you bringing it up? I can't even tell if you just don't know, or you think there's some reason to bring up a moot point.

I'm discussing the potential OGL 2.0, which I have stated repeatedly in every post since it was announced.

There are many people that say it changes nothing and I'm simply trying to explain why I'm taking a wait and see stance.

I was addressing my thoughts on future spending and why because that's the forum topic.

You're the one insisting on arguing with me and telling me that I'm wrong without explanation.

 

[halfling rogue]

I haven't bought anything from WotC since 2019. That was just Saltmarsh. Before that I hadn't bought anything since 2017.

The only thing on the horizon that even piqued my interest a little was the future Phandelver product, only because Lost Mines was so good. If they bring Rich Baker back for it, I might consider it. In all likelihood however, even if they bring him back, I'll wait to hear the feedback before buying anything.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm discussing the potential OGL 2.0, which I have stated repeatedly in every post since it was announced.

I'm so confused.

That element isn't in the potential OGL 2.0.

 

[Maxperson]

left

left

Left right left!

 

[Maxperson]

That element isn't in the potential OGL 2.0.

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.

They said that they will be removing royalties. I believe them on that. To say that and then put the royalties in would be even worse than having left them in. 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.

And that's with what we do kinda, sorta know based on their statement. 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.

 

[Umbran]

There have been literally thousand of posts. Believe it or not, I haven't read every one.

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.

See? That wasn't hard. An entire paragraph. Phew. My fingers are about ready to fall off!

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.

 

[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.