Wizards of the Coast OGL Controversy - WotC Responds!

[Drazil100]

 

 

 

 

Since this was covered on WAN show but there doesn't seem to be a topic on it I figure I would post an update as it is SPICY

 

Initial Story

Leaks of a new version of the Open Gaming License 1.1 reveals Wizards of the Coast intent to revoke the original versions of the OGL and force people to update to the new version that is anything BUT open.

 

Quotes

Quote

A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website and by making public announcements of the changes through Our social media channels.

Quote

B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.

Quote

So moving forward, hugely successful businesses that generate more than $750,000 of annual revenue will also need to share some of that success with us by paying a royalty of 20 to 25% of the “qualifying revenue” they make in excess of $750,000.

 

 

Updates Since

Since the initial leak Wizards of the Coast has allegedly canceled several planned attempts to make a statement. It was leaked from an employee withing Wizards of the Coast that their strategy was to delay the rollout of OGL 1.1 and calling the community to action to cancel their Dungeons and Dragons beyond subscriptions as that was the quickest measure of financial impact the community could give Wizards of the Coast. Following this Wizards of the Coast failed to release their statement at the time they were supposedly scheduled to make one leading Paizo to make their own statement announcing a new Open RPG Creative Licence (ORC) and boldly stated that Pathfinder second edition uses no Wizards of the Coast copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics.

 

Also it was reported that during the mass movement to cancel subscriptions of DDB they patched it to hide the unsubscribe button and make it more difficult (though not impossible) to unsubscribe.  

Quote

-They are briefly delaying rollout of OGL changes due to the backlash.
-Their decision making is based entirely on the provable impact to their bottom line.
-Specifically they are looking at DDB subscriptions and cancellations as it is the quickest financial data they currently have.
-They are still hoping the community forgets, moves on, and they can still push this through.

Quote

We believe that any interpretation that the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a) were intended to be revocable or able to be deauthorized is incorrect, and with good reason.

 

We were there.

 

Paizo owner Lisa Stevens and Paizo president Jim Butler were leaders on the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards at the time. Brian Lewis, co-founder of Azora Law, the intellectual property law firm that Paizo uses, was the attorney at Wizards who came up with the legal framework for the OGL itself. Paizo has also worked very closely on OGL-related issues with Ryan Dancey, the visionary who conceived the OGL in the first place.

 

Paizo does not believe that the OGL 1.0a can be “deauthorized,” ever. While we are prepared to argue that point in a court of law if need be, we don’t want to have to do that, and we know that many of our fellow publishers are not in a position to do so.

Quote

...By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.

 

We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

 

 

WotC's Response
Wizards of the Coast put out a blog post today about their "intent" with the leaked "draft" of OGL 1.1 as well as what they intend to do going forward, stating that they are rewriting the license.

Quote

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Quote

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected. 

 

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities. 

Quote

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

 

 

My thoughts

I think any trust anyone had in Wizards of the Coast is completely broken at this point. They took a week to give ANY type of response and there were confirmed leaks from within their own company what they thought of the matter. The only thing that Wizards of the Coast could POSSIBLY do to undo the damage they have done is to make it so they legally CANNOT do this again which they will never do. I am looking forward to seeing what becomes of the new ORC license and can't wait. 

Also the balls on Paizo the challenge Hasbro / Wizards of the Coast head on and to assert that there is nothing infringing in Pathfinder 2nd Edition on such short notice. This is the leader we need in the open gaming market.

 

 

Sources

LMG's original coverage of this topic.

 

Leaked OGL 1.1
http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

Email leak from WotC employee

Paizo ORC Announcement
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License

 

Wizards of the Coast response
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

Edited January 14, 2023 by Drazil100
Added the wan show clip as a source on the main post for anyone wishing to see what was said last week.

[SansVarnic]

-= Moved to GD =-

Doesn't meet the guideline for Tech News.

[Drazil100]

Sorry for posting in the wrong channel. I wasn't sure if it should go there and decided to post there due to the fact it got covered on WAN Show last week and is a followup to that story. I will choose where to post more carefully next time. Thanks for moving this.

[C0stanza]

This whole thing is gonna be a mess. Even if Wizards’ argument falls through and old games don’t have to update their existing products to the new ogl we’ll still have to deal with how it impacts new content.

 

Are these small game companies gonna have to update their current games to new versions if they don’t wanna get milked by Wizards?

[Radium_Angel]

I'm of two minds:

 

One one hand: You're playing in someone else's sandbox, and worse, making money in it. It was only a matter of time before the sandbox owner wanted a piece of the action. Not surprised.

On the other hand: I've know about WotC scumbaggery for decades, so that it took them this long to unleash their full  asshole nature is somewhat surprising to me.

On the third hand: Glad the community pushed back, and someone has stepped up with an alternative solution, because it's only a matter of time before WotC/Hasbro try again, there is too much money at stake (in their eyes) to just walk away.

 

On the fourth hand: The d20 system blows. There are much better systems, way better systems out there. D20 only ascended because of the OGL which was a brilliant move to get the D20 system to ascend to the heights it is today. 

[C0stanza]

Regardless of what you think about OGL and d20, this is a real sad way for things to end up. Ever since 3rd Edition the OGL has helped foster this vibrant tabletop gaming ecosystem that everyone in my generation, including me, grew up with. Now its basically impossible to view it as anything other than a long con. Wizards let the entire community build products and expansions on what they tricked everyone into thinking was an open standard, only to turn around and try and use it as a trojan horse to get its competitors to pay royalties. Its such a terrible way to end a huge era in tabletop gaming.

 

On top of that we get that hilarious defense of it. Wizards needs to take a huge cut of profits and complete intellectual ownership of everything developed in the space because its concerned about hate speech? Being spoken to like I'm as stupid as Wizards seems to think I am is actually kind of humbling.

 

On an unrelated note, @Radium_Angel what are some of the better systems out there in your opinion. I've spent plenty of time playing ttrpgs but almost all of it was 3.5 (and some 5e). I'm curious as to what some of the good stuff out there is.

[Radium_Angel]

7 hours ago, C0stanza said:

I'm curious as to what some of the good stuff out there is.

Hero System (aka Champions) 4th edition. It was ruined by what else? Lawyers from 5th edition and up, but 4th edition is perfect. You build your character based on a set number of points. No random dice rolling. It started off for Superheroes but the system is flexible enough to do any genre (and there are rule supplements for Fantasy)

It is all math based, but it's all supremely logical. It's also one of the few game systems I've ever encountered that makes a difference between hit points, and stun. IOW, you can be bleeding to death, and still be conscious, or knocked out and not dead.

The only drawback to the game is prior to edition 5.0, supplements were few and far between (the company was only ever but a small handful of folks) so you generally had to come up with your own stuff. 5.0 is compatible with 4.0 so you can use the vast swath of stuff created for it with little to no modifications, but the spirit of the rules had been ruined from 5.0 onwards, so we never used it. They did have some great supplements published under the moniker of "The Ultimate xxx" (where xxx is Martial Artist, fighter, magician, etc) 

 

Our group played this system for decades.

[C0stanza]

I’ll definitely give Heroes 4th edition a look. I guess I’m in the market for a new system so I’ll read up on it while I shop around.

 

Gonna be interesting seeing how this develops. If/when the community moves off OGL where do we go? I know Paizo is trying to launch some new Open License but I haven’t played their games so I can’t vouch for quality and adoption is far from guaranteed. A bunch of unique systems would be cool but its hard to argue against the standardized d20 system’s effectiveness getting players into lots of games these past 23 years.

[Drazil100]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:09 PM, Radium_Angel said:

On the third hand: Glad the community pushed back, and someone has stepped up with an alternative solution, because it's only a matter of time before WotC/Hasbro try again, there is too much money at stake (in their eyes) to just walk away.

What makes you think their current attempt is over? 2 of the most important issues people had with 1.1 were that it would revoke 1.0a which their response doesn’t not address (at most it says existing products are unaffected) and the other thing was that they could change the terms on you with 30 day’s notice (which wasn’t even remotely talked about at all). 
 

1.0a is DEFINITELY being revoked. Whether they actually CAN is up to a court of law but they will say it until they aren’t allowed to say it and they will hide behind “we haven’t touched existing content” to make it sound like they are being reasonable. 

[Radium_Angel]

On 1/17/2023 at 11:41 AM, C0stanza said:

I’ll definitely give Heroes 4th edition a look. I guess I’m in the market for a new system so I’ll read up on it while I shop around.

 

Gonna be interesting seeing how this develops. If/when the community moves off OGL where do we go? I know Paizo is trying to launch some new Open License but I haven’t played their games so I can’t vouch for quality and adoption is far from guaranteed. A bunch of unique systems would be cool but its hard to argue against the standardized d20 system’s effectiveness getting players into lots of games these past 23 years.

Hero System (aka Champions) is math heavy, if you are bad at math or hate it, the game system isn't for you, on the other hand, you can create your character *exactly* the way you envision them, down to the smallest detail, with no randomness involved/needed. It's a breath of fresh air. 

 

1 hour ago, Drazil100 said:

What makes you think their current attempt is over?

I didn't say it was over, only that it was a matter of time before they try again.

[Drazil100]

They put out a new statement on dndbeyond.

Of note:

• They attached a name to this statement (Kyle Brink) who's account was created just before making this statement.
• The when referring to OGL 1.0a they continue to refer to content already published (past tense) and have not made any statement on what they intend to DO with 1.0a.
• They have not made ANY comment either in this statement or the previous one what they intend to do about the part of OGL 1.1 where they could change the terms provided they gave 30 days notice.
• They say there will be no royalty, financial reporting, or license-back requirements in the new OGL but that doesn't mean they can't sneak these into other agreements.
• THIS IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. All of what they have said means nothing until we see it in writing.

 

Quote

1. On or before Friday, January 20th, we’ll share new proposed OGL documentation for your review and feedback, much as we do with playtest materials.
2. After you review the proposed OGL, you will be able to fill out a quick survey–much like Unearthed Arcana playtest feedback surveys. It will ask you specific questions about the document and include open form fields to share any other feedback you have.
3. The survey will remain open for at least two weeks, and we’ll give you advance notice before it closes so that everyone who wants to participate can complete the survey. Then we will compile, analyze, react to, and present back what we heard from you.

Quote

Any changes to the OGL will have no impact on at least these creative efforts:

• Your video content. Whether you are a commentator, streamer, podcaster, liveplay cast member, or other video creator on platforms like YouTube and Twitch and TikTok, you have always been covered by the Wizards Fan Content Policy. The OGL doesn’t (and won’t) touch any of this.
• Your accessories for your owned content. No changes to the OGL will affect your ability to sell minis, novels, apparel, dice, and other items related to your creations, characters, and worlds.
• Non-published works, for instance contracted services. You use the OGL if you want to publish your works that reference fifth edition content through the SRD. That means commissioned work, paid DM services, consulting, and so on aren’t affected by the OGL.
• VTT content. Any updates to the OGL will still allow any creator to publish content on VTTs and will still allow VTT publishers to use OGL content on their platform.
• DMs Guild content. The content you release on DMs Guild is published under a Community Content Agreement with Dungeon Masters Guild. This is not changing.
• Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
• Your revenue. There will be no royalty or financial reporting requirements.
• Your ownership of your content. You will continue to own your content with no license-back requirements.

 

Roll For Combat who initially broke the OGL 1.1 story speculates that the reason they attached a name to this statement is to try to direct negativity away from the brand and onto a person. They speculate that the whole survey thing is an attempt to gain some control over the narrative and to stall for time until the mainstream press moves on from this story. They also speculate the reason the survey will be on dndbeyond is to try to force users back.

 

I personally think this statement is WAY better than their previous statement however my trust is already completely shattered. They will need to do a lot more than just this to regain my trust and if they EVER want me to trust them again they NEED to come out and say "we are never going to revoke 1.0a". That's the bare minimum. 

Source:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license

[C0stanza]

I agree that this statement is way better but the cat is kinda out of the bag as to what they really want from changes to the OGL at this point. Its hard for me to imagine them doing anything other than slow boiling us with small crappy changes over a longer period of time to get what they want without backlash.

 

Pretty clear to me, and more importantly anyone who’s based their business around the OGL, that relying on any legal document controlled by Wizards is a huge risk.

 

To be honest, I really wouldn’t wanna have my creative content live and die by a license controlled by community polls either (even if they were legitimate). 

[Drazil100]

46 minutes ago, C0stanza said:

I agree that this statement is way better but the cat is kinda out of the bag as to what they really want from changes to the OGL at this point. Its hard for me to imagine them doing anything other than slow boiling us with small crappy changes over a longer period of time to get what they want without backlash.

 

Pretty clear to me, and more importantly anyone who’s based their business around the OGL, that relying on any legal document controlled by Wizards is a huge risk.

 

To be honest, I really wouldn’t wanna have my creative content live and die by a license controlled by community polls either (even if they were legitimate). 

While I agree that it is definitely a risk all of these could be solved almost immediately if a court rules that they cannot deauthorize OGL 1.0a. If that happens then suddenly it doesn't matter what WotC's wants. The entire industry will become protected all at once and there will be nothing WotC will be able to do to touch anything using the old License. It also probably won't even be a very long case either as the ONLY question the court needs to decide is whether or not it can be deauthorized and there are MANY witnesses of what the original intent of the OGL was including Ryan Dancey who was the one who came up with the idea of an OGL.

 

Right now there is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of risk involved with the old license however if there is any silver lining it's that WotC has stated that existing content under 1.0a won't be affected so even if they do try to revoke the license they have made multiple statements saying old content is OK. The battle will be for the future of the open TTRPG community and not the past / present.

[C0stanza]

4 hours ago, Drazil100 said:

While I agree that it is definitely a risk all of these could be solved almost immediately if a court rules that they cannot deauthorize OGL 1.0a. If that happens then suddenly it doesn't matter what WotC's wants. The entire industry will become protected all at once and there will be nothing WotC will be able to do to touch anything using the old License.

This is true and is definitely the best case scenario. In this scenario the OGL is basically what it was originally meant to be regardless of what Wizards wants.

4 hours ago, Drazil100 said:

Right now there is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of risk involved with the old license however if there is any silver lining it's that WotC has stated that existing content under 1.0a won't be affected so even if they do try to revoke the license they have made multiple statements saying old content is OK. The battle will be for the future of the open TTRPG community and not the past / present.

In my opinion this still has the potential to be damaging to existing OGL products. Maybe the previously released content is alright, but do new expansions on that content need to use the new license? This could put a lot of games in a weird state where they might want to just release a new version that isn't based on d20 and work off that as a base.

[Drazil100]

1 hour ago, C0stanza said:

In my opinion this still has the potential to be damaging to existing OGL products. Maybe the previously released content is alright, but do new expansions on that content need to use the new license? This could put a lot of games in a weird state where they might want to just release a new version that isn't based on d20 and work off that as a base.

It is and it is still completely unacceptable. All I am saying is that at least WotC has clarified that existing products won't be caught up in legal garbage. Anyone publishing old content can at the VERY least continue publishing old content and stay in business while they figure out their next move rather than having to make the decision to drop out of the industry entirely due to fear of having to deal with a lawsuit.

I suspect a lot of creators are going to back out of making D20 content or work it to be compatible but not reference the SRD and knowing they won't get sued on old content will give them more time to comfortably figure stuff out.

[Drazil100]

WotC just put out another statement along with a draft of the new OGL (now 1.2)

Quote

1. We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.
2. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.

Creative Commons is a nonprofit dedicated to sharing knowledge, and it developed a set of licenses to let creators do that. The Creative Commons license we picked lets us give everyone those core mechanics. Forever. Because we don't control the license, releasing the D&D core rules under the Creative Commons will be a decision we can never change.

Quote

The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content.

The first thing of note Creative Commons is not just one license but a collection of licenses ranging anywhere from extremely permissive to extremely restrictive. I am told by a friend this is one of the good licenses but if anyone has insight let me know. 
 

Also the entire SRD isn’t going to be Creative Commons but only certain pages will be. I have no idea if this is a win based on the page numbers alone. 
 

Quote

• Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.

This is what I expected. There was no way they were not going to let 1.0a. On the one hand this is the least offensive reason to do it. On the other this is a “Think of the children” argument and these arguments should inherently not be trusted. Regardless of whether or not  they actually care about the children the almost certainly have other motives. 
 

I will need to read into this in more detail  at a later time. But wanted to update everyone here on this. 
 

Sources:

statement

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

 

OGL 1.2

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

[C0stanza]

I'm no lawyer but I have used Creative Commons 4 licensed material in games I've worked on and its very permissive. Generally it means you have to provide credit (I usually link the content and creator in a credits page) and indicate if changes were made. There's also some stuff in there about not making your attribution claim the creator endorses you.

 

Here's a link to the CC4 license page of the creative commons site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

 

I still generally don't like this. Having some pages of the SRD licensed separately than others is at best going to be confusing, plus I still don't like/trust the reasoning for any of the changes being made to the original OGL. Still, like @Drazil100 said, its good to get it in writing that they aren't going to send their lawyers after old OGL 1.0a content creators while they hopefully find a way to pivot to safer legal ground.

 

Looks like we're in for a long saga here. We're probably gonna have weekly(ish) PR updates from Wizards while we simultaneously see how each business that relies on OGL reacts to all this.

[Drazil100]

Ok I have taken the time to read the OGL and watch some videos and it's pretty bad.

First of all what they are putting under Creative Commons is something they can't actually copyright. It SOUNDS good but it doesn't really get us anything.
 

Quote

3. WHAT YOU OWN. Your Licensed Works are yours. They may not be copied or used without your permission. You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us: DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Open Game License Version 1.2 Page 2 of 3

 

(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief.

 

(b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.

The reason this is bad is that if WotC releases a product that appears to rip off your product and ends up competing with your product you can't make them stop. Additionally in the unlikely event you win (which 3b would make very difficult) you can't even stop them from selling the product.

 

Quote

6. WARRANTIES AND DISCLAIMERS. You represent and warrant that:

...

(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action

Quote

7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION

...

(b) Termination

(i) We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).

This is actually WORSE than OGL 1.1! The old version only covered hateful content while 1.2 covers content AND conduct. They have the ability to terminate anyone's license if say they dislike a tweet that person made and they are the sole arbiter of what is considered "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing"

 

Quote

5. YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT. You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available.

 

(a) You must clearly indicate that your Licensed Work contains Our Licensed Content under this license either by including the full text of this license in your Licensed Work or by applying the Creator Products badge in compliance with the then-current style guidelines.

 

(b) You may permit the use of your Content on any terms you want. However, if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license, you must include in the Licensed Work the attribution for Our Licensed Content found in the preamble to the applicable SRD, and make clear that Our Licensed Content included in your Licensed Work is made available on the terms of this license.

This I believe (correct me if I am wrong) is BETTER than even 1.0a. I think before you had to release your content under OGL however this lets creators release under whatever terms they want provided they make clear what content is covered under this license. Also creators have the option to not include the full text of this license provided they are using the Creator Products badge.

 

Quote

9. MISCELLANEOUS
...
(e) Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Class Action Waiver. This license and all matters relating to its interpretation and enforcement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and any disputes arising out of or relating to this license will be resolved solely and exclusively through individual litigation in the state or federal courts located in the county in which Wizards (or any successor) has its headquarters, and the parties expressly consent to the jurisdiction of such courts. Each party hereto irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action with respect to such a dispute.
...
(g) Waiver of Jury Trial. We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license.
(h) Review by Counsel. You should seek advice of counsel to make sure you understand this license. You agree that you had the opportunity to do so.

If you sign this you are giving up your right to participate in a class action and the right to a jury trial and you better be really careful that you have read and understand this before signing it cause 9h buried way down at the end of the document says that you had time to speak to a lawyer and can't argue that you didn't understand the terms of this license as an excuse.

 

 

Now if all that sounds bad I haven't even gotten to the Virtual Tabletop Policy...

 

Quote

What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game.

Basically "you are allowed to make a Virtual Tabletop (VTT) but you have to make it suck and not compete with our VTT that WILL have spell animations and maybe NFTs if we feel like it" (seriously why do they even remotely care about NFTs. Pretty much everyone is on the same page that NFTs are stupid)

 

Additionally "Your dining room table storytelling" is such a weird standard. I am SURE there are tons of creative, meme-worthy ways to "replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board" in a physical, in person, offline session of D&D. 
 

Quote

If you are a VTT owner or operator who supports OGL products on your platform, you have the same obligations for VTT content that any other website owner or operator has for copyrighted content under the DMCA.

This one is a little subtle at first glance but what I believe they are saying is that if any campaigns where the user generated content uses WotC IP illegally they will send a DMCA takedown and failure to comply with the takedown can result in the termination of your OGL 1.2 license.

Basically they can flood your service with DMCA takedown requests for what your users are doing, force you to shut down their campaigns, and if you don't comply you lose the right to host your VTT. Anyone who pays attention to YouTube should know how broken and ripe for abuse the DMCA system is and I do not believe for a second that WotC won't attempt to abuse this.

[Radium_Angel]

2 hours ago, Drazil100 said:

The reason this is bad is that if WotC releases a product that appears to rip off your product and ends up competing with your product you can't make them stop.

This is without a doubt the scummiest wording I've seen yet from them. It's a license to steal your work and get away scott-free.

WotC/Hasbro will never change.

[WildDagwood]

Haven't played D&D in a while, let alone have a group interested, but I'd be more inclined to play Pathfinder out of spite after this nonsense.

[Drazil100]

Something I forgot in my mad scramble to get that behemoth of a post out last night.

Quote

9. MISCELLANEOUS
…
(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.

Basically if a judge decides any part of this is unenforceable and for instance says this license can’t stop you from having a jury trial WotC has the ability to rip up the agreement before you go to trial against them stripping you of any benefits the license provides you. 

 

They don’t have to void the license either. If the license still protects them despite whichever parts are unenforceable being removed they are allowed to use the license as a defense. 
 

they basically can choose how they wish to screw you in court either with terrible license terms or by saying you legally can’t reference the SRD or publish your content anymore. 

[C0stanza]

Man the more you read about this the worse it gets. It'll be interesting to see if the new license that Paizo and a number of other creators are getting behind ends up existing, being any good, or enjoying widespread adoption. Its gonna have to be something that gets put together pretty quick if this new OGL is released anytime soon.

 

If nothing else, its good to see that there's been some actual backlash from the community on this. Now its a question of how much and how long its sustained for. This story has stayed in the news cycle for a week now which is longer than I thought it would.

[Drazil100]

2 hours ago, C0stanza said:

Its gonna have to be something that gets put together pretty quick if this new OGL is released anytime soon.

Funny enough I was currently watching the vod of a live interview with Paizo’s Chief Creative Officer Erik Mona on the ORC and while he said they want to be as speedy as they can their number one priority is to make sure the ORC license will stand the test of time. If they rush it even a little bit they stand the risk of accidentally creating a loophole that gets exploited 20 years from now like the term “authorized” in 1.0a.

 

He did say that they hope to get the first draft out sometime in February to creators/publishers in the group of people working on this. He suspects it will leak in the first 35 seconds, though he has stated that while he wants and intends to get the feedback of the open internet he thinks that the creators and publishers who are actually collaborating on this should have a moment to form their own opinions before the entire internet gives theirs. 

[Drazil100]

Wizards of the Coast just backed down ENTIRELY.

 

Quote

When you give us playtest feedback, we take it seriously.

Already more than 15,000 of you have filled out the survey. Here's what you said:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

Quote

The feedback is in such high volume and its direction is so plain that we're acting now.

1. We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.
2. We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
3. You choose which you prefer to use.

Note they are using the same CC license as they were planning for 1.2 which is a great CC license.

 

Their Statement:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
The SRD 5.1 published under CC
https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf

[Arika]

3 hours ago, Drazil100 said:

Wizards of the Coast just backed down ENTIRELY.

good. i was a stupid change. i feel they have already pissed away a lot of good will and customers