15 ms·

Dungeons and Dragons’ new license tightens its grip on competition

222 points by ndiddy 4y ago

Macha 4y ago
I think this is interesting to software people because the OGL is clearly inspired by open source licenses, being mostly a permissive license but also borrowing the "or later" clause from GPL, which is herein being abused to try intimidate older license version users and secure additionally rights for Wizards themselves. I suspect it won't succeed if it ever does end up in a courtroom, but it does raise some interesting questions about where the line is. e.g. GFDL 1.3's Wikipedia can convert from GFDL to Creative Commons clause is arguably a similar claim to the idea that Wizards can now use OGL 1.0 content royalty free on the surface.
trynewideas 4y ago
The OGL was always, always, always a trap, and it's sad to see it snap shut. The time for Paizo and such to move on from it was with Pathfinder 2E, but they didn't, and now the depressing part happens. The other shoe to drop is the actual play community. Critical Role is all but in-house already and probably won't be affected, but smaller creators trying to monetize their 5E content are going to start feeling the noose tighten. > The original OGL granted “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System Resource Document) and directed that licensees “may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.” But the updated OGL says that “this agreement is…an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.” > The new document clarifies further in the “Warranties” section that “this agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.” The hinge of the trap in OGL 1.0a is the "any authorized version" part, here in its more full context:[1] > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Hasbro has the money to make legal challenges to that prohibitive, and no other company in the space has remotely similar resources. Good luck, suckers! 1: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
- Macha 4y ago
  So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 Their "this is not specific personalised advice, consult your own lawyer" thoughts were: 1. The license does not specify revocable or irrevocable, but it would be likely a court would find it to be irrevocable because: - other lanaguage in the license such as the perpetual term and the option to use later versions appears to anticipate it being non-revocable - the zection on termination only provides for breach of contract and protects sublicenses of the terminated work from being terminated unless the sub licenses were also infringing. The fact that it provides some grounds for terminatioj but "we have a new license" isn't among them hurts their argument. - There is mutual consideration and this is even spelled out in the contract as being consideration in terms of the derivative content being reciprocally licensed, plus the unspecified benefit to Wizards of having more complements to their product increasing its appeal. The licensee obviously gets the rights to use the covered content. - The 23 year usage of OGL 1.0a may constitute reliance especially when combined with past clarifying public statements where Wizards official documents and then-active employees indicated it was intended to be non-revocable. - Clauses in US law for copyright owners to terminate licenses require 35 yeara and do not affect sublicenses, so unlikely a court would assume a stricter unwritten standard of revocability than this However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content. They also touch on the idea of if Wizards could use others OGL 1.0a licensed content under 1.1 which imposes lesser restrictions on wizards than 1.1. They're vaguer on this point, but imply probably not as its too much of a deviation from the previous license and raise the reliance part again
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    That attorney makes clear they are not an IP lawyer. Here's an IP lawyer, who specifically works in gaming, who says the opposite: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
    - 4y ago
voakbasda 4y ago
I grew up on D&D in the 80s, but I will steer my kids away from it over these kind of shenanigans. The publisher is demonstrably untrustworthy of its fans.
- musicale 4y ago
  Does it make any sense for Wizbro to fight Paizo, or Green Ronin, or streamers, or Youtube, or roll20, or software based on the OGL? Is there any evidence at all that they are harming or cannibalizing D&D? Youtube/streamers are basically the gateway drug to TTRPGs, and roll20 allowed us all to keep (or start!) playing D&D during a global pandemic! Pathfinder is a thing, but D&D is still bigger than ever. (Though I wonder if Starfinder helped to provide incentive for reviving Spelljammer? I'm happy that both exist actually.) Maybe it's easier to hire lawyers than to focus on making more D&D products, video games, and licensed media that are actually good. In any case, it usually isn't a good idea to fight your fans/customers, because they are the lifeblood of your game (and company), as well as its biggest advocates.
philipwhiuk 4y ago
Not a lawyer but I don't see how you can revoke a perpetual license. If it expired after a period sure, but it doesn't, that's what perpetual means. So it'll be a problem for new products but not for stuff that was licensed under OGL 1.0 already
- Akronymus 4y ago
  They can't. They sure as hell are trying to/imply being able to, though.
- eadler 4y ago
  "perpetual" and "irrevocable" have two different meanings in licencing law.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- keypusher 4y ago
  From OGL 1.0: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive License with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/OGL%20License https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/OGL%20License From Gizmodo: One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license” Some more background on the terms: https://www.larsenlawoffices.com/can-terminate-perpetual-lic https://www.larsenlawoffices.com/can-terminate-perpetual-lic...
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    That part in section 9 doesn't say that it invalidates the part in section 4, though. Reading it strictly, claiming an earlier license is "unauthorized" would merely mean that you can't use the earlier license to redistribute content put out under the later license, not that you can't use the earlier license at all.
musicale 4y ago
I tend to think that the explosion of compatible d20 system RPGs in the 2000s was a good thing. The 5e OGL also seems to have been good for gaming, and for D&D as well. D&D is certainly bigger than ever. As I see it, D&D, Pathfinder, Green Ronin, etc. are all on team RPG; Wizards would do best to focus on expanding the hobby and making players happy, largely by producing high-quality D&D tabletop games and associated products, and supporting high-quality D&D-derived video games, movies, TV, novels, comics, etc..
alasdair_ 4y ago
After seeing what WotC did with the Android: Netrunner license (they pulled it just as the game became extremely popular), I’m not surprised they are doing the same thing to D&D. Building on top of a WotC-owned IP seems like a bad idea, since they will likely change the license once your product stqrts to get big.
- suprjami 4y ago
  I wonder if this will affect future WotC success, like how Google are reknowned for cancelling products so Stadia was doomed from day 1.
- lukifer 4y ago
  Strictly speaking, WotC didn't pull the A:NR license, they just declined to renew it when the six-year term was up. While we don't know the story, it seems a safe bet that the initial license was seen as a low-effort monetization of an idle property, which they didn't expect to become competition for the MtG cash cow. And while A:NR never became big enough to be a direct competitor (compared to Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh), I think they came to perceive minimal upside in subsidizing a successful LCG model, lest the market lose confidence in "luxury cardboard rectangles" as a speculative asset. Netrunner has continued as a fairly successful non-profit fan cooperative [0] since, but remains in a very legally shaky position (they've been working on cutting ties with the original IP as much as possible, but if Hasbro wanted to set an example, it might not matter). [0] https://nullsignal.games/ https://nullsignal.games/
barbariangrunge 4y ago
Step one: build up a huge ecosystem, companies that depend on this ecosystem. Step 2: revoke the old agreement and give 7 days to accept a new one. What an epic bait and switch
- notart666 4y ago
  Yep that's how a monopoly works.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Except Pathfinder is literally right there. Wizards of the Coast has no monopoly.
    - trynewideas 4y ago
      Percentage of games on Roll20 in Q1 2014:[1] Pathfinder: 24% D&D 5E: 20% In Q4 2021:[2] D&D 5E: 55% Pathfinder 1E+2E+Starfinder: 5% Pathfinder 1E, 2E and Starfinder all rely on OGL 1.0a content. 1: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2014/ https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-report-... 2: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-report-q4-2021/ https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-report-q4-2021/
      - crooked-v 4y ago
        The problem with using those numbers as-is as an indicator of game system popularity is that Roll20 sucks for non-5e systems and a lot of people have jumped ship to Foundry VTT [1], which has much better mechanical support for various game systems. [1]: https://foundryvtt.com https://foundryvtt.com
        LordDragonfang 4y ago
        A someone who currently plays in four weekly games, I don't know a single person that has actually switched from Roll20 to Foundry, despite me recommending it and everyone agreeing it's the superior product in many ways. Roll20 still has the overwhelming supermajority of the VTT market, Foundry is the Linux of VTTs.
footlose_3815 4y ago
Gygax rolls over in his grave
- panzagl 4y ago
  Ehh, I think you need to read some history on D&D/TSR- Gygax was happy to try to squeeze Arneson out, and to threaten other RPGs
  - TillE 4y ago
    I would specifically recommend "Game Wizards" by Jon Peterson. Gygax comes across as a pretty huge jerk, though Arneson isn't entirely sympathetic either.
LarryMullins 4y ago
I have never played D&D but I have some very limited experience with matrix games for wargaming, which I understand to be similar. Can somebody explain the scope of the ruleset(?) that was being licensed under this OGL license? How much would you need to change a game based on OGL licensed rules to make it independent of WotC? Specifically, what does this mean? > Much of the original OGL is dedicated to the System Resource Document, and includes character species, classes, equipment, and, most importantly, general gameplay structures, including combat, spells, and creatures. If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you? Or is this pertaining to games that specifically reference D&D documents in their rules?
- crooked-v 4y ago
  You can see pretty much the whole original SRD here: https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm Everything in the first two columns is the stuff from that turned into a nice web format. > If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you? There are plenty of games that already have those. In fact, there's an entire sub-genre of D&D-like game ("OSR") designed around directly emulating older editions of D&D, based on the fact that you can't copyright game mechanics themselves, just the text that expresses them.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    So what exactly have WotC managed to trademark here ? "Orc" would be trademarked for a RPG, but not a book, movie, video game ?? (Wait, is this why Game Workshop's Warhammer's are OrKs ?!) That is why Pathfinder might have issues, despite having replaced basically all the proper names and stories ??
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      "Orc" is Old English and is used in Beowulf. "Ork" is a 1990s idea of a cool spelling, like "magick". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
sidlls 4y ago
I prefer the Harnmaster rule system anyway. Too bad that system's creators/estates are in a slapfight with each other, too.
LarryMullins 4y ago
> "[The OGL 1.1] takes a strong stance against bigoted content, explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.” I'd just like to point out that such a license, if applied to software, would violate the zeroth essential freedom of free software, "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" And for good reason. That clause essentially gives WoTC the right to revoke your license at any time for essentially arbitrary reasons if they subjectively decide your content is one of those bad things. Where is the line between a game depicting discrimination and the game material being discriminatory? When Morrowind depicted racist slavemaster Dunmer who shout "N'wah" at you, and allowed the player to align themselves with such factions, was that a depiction of racism, or was the game material itself discriminatory? I think you could make good faith arguments in either direction. Normally finding the line between the two is up to everyone to decide for themselves, but in this new license, WotC gets to decide the line is wherever they want, whenever they decide to snuff you out. Even if the other terms of the new license were agreeable, this term makes the license a trap for any business that would compete with WoTC. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en
- tptacek 4y ago
  The D&D rules aren't free software, and WOTC has branding concerns that free software projects don't have. The intellectual property issues here are somewhere between those of Mickey Mouse and those of Linux.
  - rhdunn 4y ago
    Not all games and other material published under the OGL references/uses the WotC SRD (System Reference Document) or D&D material (beholders, magic missile, etc.). The license changes also affect any non-PDF content, which would include D&D/OGL game streams and YouTube videos, and virtual table tops publishing OGL material (including those for Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, etc.).
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
wolverine876 4y ago
Another corporation embracing the hyperaggressive narcissistic ethos, as if there are nothing else - no other stakeholders, no goodwill, no future, no community, no employee value, no public image etc. - besides making money now. Hasbro is being pressured by investors to monetize their IP more. It matches the authoritarian, anti-democratic, drive for power in another domain (and often by some of the same people). Nothing else matters.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jdkee 4y ago
  That is capitalism.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    That's what they tell you, but like many things they and other post-truth sophists say, it collapses immediately with just a little scrutiny: Hasbro has been a capitalist company since they were founded, and created the prior open gaming licesce. It's a recent trend - all these 'capitalist' companies operated otherwise for most of their existence. And they did for good reasons, and built the most productive companies and economies in history - all that we have today.
rhdunn 4y ago
This is already having an effect on the community, as people like The Arcane Library (https://www.youtube.com/@TheArcaneLibrary https://www.youtube.com/@TheArcaneLibrary) are shifting away from using/referencing the OGL despite having pre-prints of material using the OGL. I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect statements).
- greenknight 4y ago
  > I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect statements). Probably because they are trying to figure out damage control. this leak only happened on thursday. I would expect a response during the week with them backpeddling a bit.
  - ck425 4y ago
    What's interesting(/blows my mind) though is that unsubstantiated rumours about the new OGL started going around weeks ago. This caused a massive amount of concern and outrage among the community, to the extend that WoTC actively moved up their communication timeline and responded with a post on DndBeyond containing more info about the new OGL (a far more reasonable version) to try and reassure the community and stop the fearmongering. That was all before this leak. Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage." Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. "The document does note that if the company oversteps, they are aware that they “will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.”" I hope this will get settled in court, though. The 1.0 Licence seems to be unclear whether it is revokable, but since there was a FAQ section on WoTCs Website explicitely stating you can always ignore changes you don't like, then this is what I would settle for, if I would have invested in it. The picture of the FAQ: https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.webp https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.web... from this article https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
nitwit005 4y ago
Copyright law does not extend to the rules of games themselves (you may notice video games copy mechanics all the time), so it just seems like this will result in people jetesoning references to their original creatures.
- javajosh 4y ago
  How much of the value in DnD is the specific taxonomy of names?
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    Like "magic user" or "fighter"? seems pretty generic to me.
    - Macha 4y ago
      How about the detailed spell listings? D&D 3.5: http://dndsrd.net/wizardSpells.html http://dndsrd.net/wizardSpells.html PF 1E: https://www.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?Class=Sorcerer https://www.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?Class=Sorcerer
    - eropple 4y ago
      D&D owns a lot of things that have sort of percolated into the gaming zeitgeist. For example, "beholder" is a D&D construct, as is "mind flayer". You can switch up the names, and people do that more these days, but it is a concern.
      - crooked-v 4y ago
        Though it's worth noting that there are plenty of things that weren't original to D&D in the first place. For example, the distintive looks of the owlbear and landshark were actually directly based off dime store plastic toys imported from Asia, and various names like "prismatic spray" and "githyanki" actually come from preexisting fantasy novels.
  - jasondigitized 4y ago
LordDragonfang 4y ago
This comes directly on the back of Hasbro's CEO (D&D's parent company) complaining that D&D is "under monetized" and that they want to grow the revenue through "the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games." https://kotaku.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-fifth-edition-one-dnd-1849884812 https://kotaku.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-fifth-edition-on...
kelsolaar 4y ago
Unrelated to the license, I have been using ChatGPT to create dialogs, extended descriptions, translations, and many other things to complement adventures.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  I was thinking about how ChatGPT might be a reasonably decent way to flesh out game depth. Fallout 4 has a ton of hand-crafted content, but the “Radiant” quests are just so obvious and thin.
  - eropple 4y ago
    GPT-derived content is going to be watery and thin, too, though. The value of it for the OP is likely as much in human curation as anything else.
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      Verifying a good story is far less work than writing one. This seems like an easy way to address the hollow variable-substituted text of half the quests I get.
    - strokirk 4y ago
      Human-written content is also often watery and thin, so not much difference there.
  - kelsolaar 4y ago
    It has been quite good for my DnD5e needs so far!
Waterluvian 4y ago
“ By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules.” Is this rug-pull actually true and legal? Seems like a horrible agreement to enter into for this reason.
- dathinab 4y ago
  True yes, kinda. Legal, is more complicated and likely needs to be decided in court. There is a non-small chance that original OGL license is in no way terminated and people can continue to distribute copyright content under it. Through trademarks can be another issue. And being in right doesn't mean you are not sued or otherwise terrorized by an abuse of the legal system. E.g. see non-Lego brick products which are legal but frequently e.g. stuck in customs due to Lego abusing the legal system. Not even speaking about the 3D trademark nonsense which makes selling compatible figures close to impossible even through the law is very very clearly not meant to be apply that way.
jonnycomputer 4y ago
What specifically falls under the license? Surely not the rules or mechanics, only the particular expression of those. The art, sure. Maps, sure. Not sure you can claim right over "orc", "dragon", "wizard" or any of that.
- johnchristopher 4y ago
  The OGL states that "in consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content".[1] The OGL defines two forms of content: Open Game Content (or OGC) ...the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.... Product Identity (or PI) ...product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    They seem to be trying to license some things that are just not covered by copyright: "17 U.S. Code § 102, (b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
slater- 4y ago
So what you're saying is... there's never been a better time to get back into Vampire the Masquerade? Grab a fistful of d10s and let's get to work.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  Unfortunately, the current edition of Vampire kind of sucks because of severe mismanagement by Paradox Interactive (the current rightsholders). By all accounts Vampire 20th Anniversary Edition by Onyx Path (a licensee of Paradox) is quite good, though, as is Vampire the Requiem (a reboot/variant gameline by Onyx Path, now mostly shut down by Paradox, designed around more modern gothic horror/mystery and less of VtM's 90s Blade vibes).
  - slater- 4y ago
    yeah, it's hilarious how convoluted that whole series of games has become while still pretending to be associated with each other. world of darkness vs new world of darkness vs chronicles of darkness, storyteller vs storytelling... vampire the masquerade 20th anniversary isn't the same game as 5th edition but they're both out at the same time, and requiem is something entirely different? and there are two editions of THAT, too? they need to just make a true blood rpg. they could call it Waitress: The Undressing and people would go nuts over it.
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      One point of clarification there: New World of Darkness is the same thing as Chronicles of Darkness, with an edition change and some rules rewrites in between. The game line started as the former (as dictated by White Wolf) and then got rebranded to the latter (also as dictated by White Wolf).
- musicale 4y ago
  Shadowrun sees that and raises you an absurdly massive bag of d6s.
kelsolaar 4y ago
https://www.opendnd.games/ https://www.opendnd.games/
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
esharte 4y ago
This was preceded by WOTC bringing in new top brass from Microsoft. They intend to promote DnD primarily as a digital product.
xxEightyxx 4y ago
I really don't know much about D&D but WotC had reached out to me a while back for an engineering position. The individual was incredibly unprofessional in just about every way imaginable so I cut things off and said I was not interested before we began talking compensation or anything. Weird company!
- crooked-v 4y ago
  Basically the whole tabletop industry is like that, though I think a large part of that is that only Wizards and Paizo have enough sales in the first place to even act as workplaces rather than part-time hobbies.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  I also had a weird professional experience with them that I'm probably not allowed to give details on. Not exactly shady or unethical, but they didn't comport themselves well. As a player since 1990, I was excited to work with (the inheritors of) D&D, then suddenly very disappointed with them.
londons_explore 4y ago
> The original OGL granted “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System Resource Document) and directed that licensees “may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.” But the updated OGL says that “this agreement is…an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.” I wasn't under the impression that such an authorization could be revoked... Specifically, if someone is living in a cave with OGL v1.0(a), and churning out works according to its terms, then it isn't their responsibility to check every day if the copy they are using has suddenly become not-authorized. Nor can Hasbro send them an official notification that they have withdrawn authorization, because they have no way to find said person. And any reseller need not reveal the identity of the cave dweller creator who is still using OGL 1.0.
- voidfunc 4y ago
  Perpetual doesn't imply anything about revocability (thats irrevocable). The law doesn't operate in this stupid vacuum like software engineers believe it does.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    But from a logistical point of view, is it possible to revoke a license from a person that you don't know the name and address of, and have no way to find it? I think you'd be hard pressed to tell a court that you want to sue an unnamed person for following the terms of a license that you granted to them, then revoked but haven't told them you revoked, and that you don't know their name or address...
    - patmcc 4y ago
      The law doesn't care all that much about logistics, for one. More importantly a license like this only practically matters for published work, and published work is generally not completely anonymous; WOTC doesn't know everyone who has published something under the OGL but they certainly know of Paizo, Roll20, Critical Role, etc. and fundamentally those are the ones they care about. If Jim your local DM keeps writing homebrew they won't know, but it's also not who they're aiming at (yet).
lasermatts 4y ago
Does anyone know if there is an alternative to the OGL? Like, is there any other Open Sourced ruleset that publishers/homebrewers could get behind that _isn't_ run by WotC/Hasbro?
- BryantD 4y ago
  Much of the tabletop gaming world has embraced Creative Commons in the last decade or so. Off the top of my head, reasonably popular systems that are CC licensed include Pelgrane's GUMSHOE, Evil Hat's FATE and Forged in the Dark systems, Posthuman's Eclipse Phase (although that's a non-commercial license), Trophy, Dungeon World, Quest, and I'm sure I'm missing some significant ones. None of these games are even remotely as popular as D&D, but yeah, there are plenty of options.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying uses their own rewrite of the OGL, which has a less trap-doored section on license updates: https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/ https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/
    - BryantD 4y ago
      It also has some really restrictive terms around using otherwise available material. You can't use it for anything derived from "all works related to the Cthulhu Mythos, including those that are otherwise public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur." This is of course to protect their own games, but walling off anything related to the primary source for Arthurian legend is awfully broad. Are all knights related to that? Also doesn't use "irrecoverable" so it's got the same potential problem as the OGL does, right now. Hopefully they'll change it. Interestingly Delta Green (a Call of Cthulhu variant) just decided to drop the OGL from their books, which means they're just flat out using a system which is 90% identical to the Call of Cthulhu BRP variant without any license at all. I'm curious how that will go.
      - 4y ago
zug_zug 4y ago
As far as I'm concerned this is the perfect opportunity for the community to standardize on a new, open-source ruleset. 5E is fine and all, but in my opinion a professional game developer could rebalance a lot about it. There are so many traits, abilities, spells, character features that are so inferior that they are hard to pick. Heck some classes in general could use a real boost, not necessarily in combat stats but overall usefulness to the party.
- hajile 4y ago
  As a collector of different systems, I can assure you that d20 is one of the worst systems ever created. Most people who've played a handful of other systems will prefer one of those systems to d20 in basically every scenario. The system is only popular because it is popular. More specifically, d20 lacks a useful skill system. You can do 95+% of game mechanics from a skill system. I don't mean a handful of stuff you roll your d20 against, but something much more comprehensive. Some skills are harder to learn. Some require other skills. Some have a weakest link (eg, a surgeon skill depends on both having skilled hands and good doctoring skills). A good framework for this means your system has fewer balance issues. Along those same lines is the effect system. In d20, a fireball spell and a grenade are very different things. They have to be independently balanced and adjusted until they "feel right". In an effects system, you would understand that both are explosions with a specific radius, damage (with falloff), lingering fire damage, etc while some other parts are different like what limits the number of shots (magical energy vs how many grenades you can carry). The effects system would allow you to calculate the exact value of both of these things with some slightly different modifiers and different descriptions of what they look like in the game. The result in-game feels different, but is now mechanically balanced and (ideally) cost balanced too. Next, Vancian magic is by far the least interesting magic and worst for basically any story. Players must make a blind choice and then get either a cake walk or extreme punishment based on that choice. It causes a kind of "when you are a hammer" issue as well. It also doesn't jive with what most people expect of magic. Better systems are more flexible. They allow the user to decide which spells to use on the fly with some kind of resource limiter instead (eg, the classic mana or how long it takes to cast or how hard a spell is to cast vs how many cast dice, threshold magic where spells get riskier to the caster as you use more of them, etc). A final aspect is tactics vs resource management. RAW (rules as written) modern d20 is a resource management game. Your team slugs it out with the other team until someone's HP runs low. You expend a resource to raise the HP and keep slogging. Rinse and repeat until there's no more way to raise the HP at which point things conclude (never mind the whole suspension of disbelief that you continue to hack the same thing over and over and over). Yes, there are better and worse choices here, but they are not of particular consequence (and tend to become obvious rather quickly). That is why DMs do battle statistics calculations instead of caring so much about stuff like positioning. Tactical games are much more interesting. In those games (like in real life), positioning and strategy is all-important. Once someone is in your gun sights, they are almost certainly very wounded or dead. When a GM for these games is planning, they aren't worried about statistics so much as where the enemy is, why they are there, what their strategy will be, etc. This immediately shifts the focus of the game mechanics away from statistics and back to role playing. Combat will be a lot of working together on a plan and then the actual combat won't be super long because life and death results happen pretty quickly. If you were to go with an actually different system, OpenD6 would be the place to start in my opinion (Star Wars D6 wrote a large part of the current canon and used an early version of this system). It provides a very useful skill framework that is easily extended. Because the dice mechanic is extensible in MANY different and interesting ways, it is far easier to match your particular mechanical choices to your specific universe. The default magic system is quite flexible and uses an effects system to build spells. Instead of sticking with the list of pre-approved spells, you can have your players cook up their own and be pretty sure that the new spell isn't going to break the game. And of course, the system isn't quite as lethal as some others, but it is still MUCH more lethal than d20 by default.

222 points by ndiddy 4y ago

I think this is interesting to software people because the OGL is clearly inspired by open source licenses, being mostly a permissive license but also borrowing the "or later" clause from GPL, which is herein being abused to try intimidate older license version users and secure additionally rights for Wizards themselves. I suspect it won't succeed if it ever does end up in a courtroom, but it does raise some interesting questions about where the line is. e.g. GFDL 1.3's Wikipedia can convert from GFDL to Creative Commons clause is arguably a similar claim to the idea that Wizards can now use OGL 1.0 content royalty free on the surface.

trynewideas 4y ago

The OGL was always, always, always a trap, and it's sad to see it snap shut. The time for Paizo and such to move on from it was with Pathfinder 2E, but they didn't, and now the depressing part happens. The other shoe to drop is the actual play community. Critical Role is all but in-house already and probably won't be affected, but smaller creators trying to monetize their 5E content are going to start feeling the noose tighten. > The original OGL granted “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System Resource Document) and directed that licensees “may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.” But the updated OGL says that “this agreement is…an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.” > The new document clarifies further in the “Warranties” section that “this agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.” The hinge of the trap in OGL 1.0a is the "any authorized version" part, here in its more full context:[1] > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Hasbro has the money to make legal challenges to that prohibitive, and no other company in the space has remotely similar resources. Good luck, suckers! 1: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html

Macha 4y ago
So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 Their "this is not specific personalised advice, consult your own lawyer" thoughts were: 1. The license does not specify revocable or irrevocable, but it would be likely a court would find it to be irrevocable because: - other lanaguage in the license such as the perpetual term and the option to use later versions appears to anticipate it being non-revocable - the zection on termination only provides for breach of contract and protects sublicenses of the terminated work from being terminated unless the sub licenses were also infringing. The fact that it provides some grounds for terminatioj but "we have a new license" isn't among them hurts their argument. - There is mutual consideration and this is even spelled out in the contract as being consideration in terms of the derivative content being reciprocally licensed, plus the unspecified benefit to Wizards of having more complements to their product increasing its appeal. The licensee obviously gets the rights to use the covered content. - The 23 year usage of OGL 1.0a may constitute reliance especially when combined with past clarifying public statements where Wizards official documents and then-active employees indicated it was intended to be non-revocable. - Clauses in US law for copyright owners to terminate licenses require 35 yeara and do not affect sublicenses, so unlikely a court would assume a stricter unwritten standard of revocability than this However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content. They also touch on the idea of if Wizards could use others OGL 1.0a licensed content under 1.1 which imposes lesser restrictions on wizards than 1.1. They're vaguer on this point, but imply probably not as its too much of a deviation from the previous license and raise the reliance part again
- wolverine876 4y ago
  That attorney makes clear they are not an IP lawyer. Here's an IP lawyer, who specifically works in gaming, who says the opposite: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
  - 4y ago

voakbasda 4y ago

I grew up on D&D in the 80s, but I will steer my kids away from it over these kind of shenanigans. The publisher is demonstrably untrustworthy of its fans.

musicale 4y ago
Does it make any sense for Wizbro to fight Paizo, or Green Ronin, or streamers, or Youtube, or roll20, or software based on the OGL? Is there any evidence at all that they are harming or cannibalizing D&D? Youtube/streamers are basically the gateway drug to TTRPGs, and roll20 allowed us all to keep (or start!) playing D&D during a global pandemic! Pathfinder is a thing, but D&D is still bigger than ever. (Though I wonder if Starfinder helped to provide incentive for reviving Spelljammer? I'm happy that both exist actually.) Maybe it's easier to hire lawyers than to focus on making more D&D products, video games, and licensed media that are actually good. In any case, it usually isn't a good idea to fight your fans/customers, because they are the lifeblood of your game (and company), as well as its biggest advocates.

philipwhiuk 4y ago

Not a lawyer but I don't see how you can revoke a perpetual license. If it expired after a period sure, but it doesn't, that's what perpetual means. So it'll be a problem for new products but not for stuff that was licensed under OGL 1.0 already

Akronymus 4y ago
They can't. They sure as hell are trying to/imply being able to, though.
eadler 4y ago
"perpetual" and "irrevocable" have two different meanings in licencing law.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
keypusher 4y ago
From OGL 1.0: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive License with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/OGL%20License https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/OGL%20License From Gizmodo: One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license” Some more background on the terms: https://www.larsenlawoffices.com/can-terminate-perpetual-lic https://www.larsenlawoffices.com/can-terminate-perpetual-lic...
- crooked-v 4y ago
  That part in section 9 doesn't say that it invalidates the part in section 4, though. Reading it strictly, claiming an earlier license is "unauthorized" would merely mean that you can't use the earlier license to redistribute content put out under the later license, not that you can't use the earlier license at all.

musicale 4y ago

I tend to think that the explosion of compatible d20 system RPGs in the 2000s was a good thing. The 5e OGL also seems to have been good for gaming, and for D&D as well. D&D is certainly bigger than ever. As I see it, D&D, Pathfinder, Green Ronin, etc. are all on team RPG; Wizards would do best to focus on expanding the hobby and making players happy, largely by producing high-quality D&D tabletop games and associated products, and supporting high-quality D&D-derived video games, movies, TV, novels, comics, etc..

alasdair_ 4y ago

After seeing what WotC did with the Android: Netrunner license (they pulled it just as the game became extremely popular), I’m not surprised they are doing the same thing to D&D. Building on top of a WotC-owned IP seems like a bad idea, since they will likely change the license once your product stqrts to get big.

suprjami 4y ago
I wonder if this will affect future WotC success, like how Google are reknowned for cancelling products so Stadia was doomed from day 1.
lukifer 4y ago
Strictly speaking, WotC didn't pull the A:NR license, they just declined to renew it when the six-year term was up. While we don't know the story, it seems a safe bet that the initial license was seen as a low-effort monetization of an idle property, which they didn't expect to become competition for the MtG cash cow. And while A:NR never became big enough to be a direct competitor (compared to Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh), I think they came to perceive minimal upside in subsidizing a successful LCG model, lest the market lose confidence in "luxury cardboard rectangles" as a speculative asset. Netrunner has continued as a fairly successful non-profit fan cooperative [0] since, but remains in a very legally shaky position (they've been working on cutting ties with the original IP as much as possible, but if Hasbro wanted to set an example, it might not matter). [0] https://nullsignal.games/ https://nullsignal.games/

barbariangrunge 4y ago

Step one: build up a huge ecosystem, companies that depend on this ecosystem. Step 2: revoke the old agreement and give 7 days to accept a new one. What an epic bait and switch

notart666 4y ago
Yep that's how a monopoly works.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Except Pathfinder is literally right there. Wizards of the Coast has no monopoly.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    Percentage of games on Roll20 in Q1 2014:[1] Pathfinder: 24% D&D 5E: 20% In Q4 2021:[2] D&D 5E: 55% Pathfinder 1E+2E+Starfinder: 5% Pathfinder 1E, 2E and Starfinder all rely on OGL 1.0a content. 1: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2014/ https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-report-... 2: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-report-q4-2021/ https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-report-q4-2021/
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      The problem with using those numbers as-is as an indicator of game system popularity is that Roll20 sucks for non-5e systems and a lot of people have jumped ship to Foundry VTT [1], which has much better mechanical support for various game systems. [1]: https://foundryvtt.com https://foundryvtt.com
      - LordDragonfang 4y ago
        A someone who currently plays in four weekly games, I don't know a single person that has actually switched from Roll20 to Foundry, despite me recommending it and everyone agreeing it's the superior product in many ways. Roll20 still has the overwhelming supermajority of the VTT market, Foundry is the Linux of VTTs.

footlose_3815 4y ago

Gygax rolls over in his grave

panzagl 4y ago
Ehh, I think you need to read some history on D&D/TSR- Gygax was happy to try to squeeze Arneson out, and to threaten other RPGs
- TillE 4y ago
  I would specifically recommend "Game Wizards" by Jon Peterson. Gygax comes across as a pretty huge jerk, though Arneson isn't entirely sympathetic either.

LarryMullins 4y ago

I have never played D&D but I have some very limited experience with matrix games for wargaming, which I understand to be similar. Can somebody explain the scope of the ruleset(?) that was being licensed under this OGL license? How much would you need to change a game based on OGL licensed rules to make it independent of WotC? Specifically, what does this mean? > Much of the original OGL is dedicated to the System Resource Document, and includes character species, classes, equipment, and, most importantly, general gameplay structures, including combat, spells, and creatures. If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you? Or is this pertaining to games that specifically reference D&D documents in their rules?

crooked-v 4y ago
You can see pretty much the whole original SRD here: https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm Everything in the first two columns is the stuff from that turned into a nice web format. > If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you? There are plenty of games that already have those. In fact, there's an entire sub-genre of D&D-like game ("OSR") designed around directly emulating older editions of D&D, based on the fact that you can't copyright game mechanics themselves, just the text that expresses them.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  So what exactly have WotC managed to trademark here ? "Orc" would be trademarked for a RPG, but not a book, movie, video game ?? (Wait, is this why Game Workshop's Warhammer's are OrKs ?!) That is why Pathfinder might have issues, despite having replaced basically all the proper names and stories ??
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    "Orc" is Old English and is used in Beowulf. "Ork" is a 1990s idea of a cool spelling, like "magick". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc

sidlls 4y ago

I prefer the Harnmaster rule system anyway. Too bad that system's creators/estates are in a slapfight with each other, too.

LarryMullins 4y ago

> "[The OGL 1.1] takes a strong stance against bigoted content, explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.” I'd just like to point out that such a license, if applied to software, would violate the zeroth essential freedom of free software, "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" And for good reason. That clause essentially gives WoTC the right to revoke your license at any time for essentially arbitrary reasons if they subjectively decide your content is one of those bad things. Where is the line between a game depicting discrimination and the game material being discriminatory? When Morrowind depicted racist slavemaster Dunmer who shout "N'wah" at you, and allowed the player to align themselves with such factions, was that a depiction of racism, or was the game material itself discriminatory? I think you could make good faith arguments in either direction. Normally finding the line between the two is up to everyone to decide for themselves, but in this new license, WotC gets to decide the line is wherever they want, whenever they decide to snuff you out. Even if the other terms of the new license were agreeable, this term makes the license a trap for any business that would compete with WoTC. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en

tptacek 4y ago
The D&D rules aren't free software, and WOTC has branding concerns that free software projects don't have. The intellectual property issues here are somewhere between those of Mickey Mouse and those of Linux.
- rhdunn 4y ago
  Not all games and other material published under the OGL references/uses the WotC SRD (System Reference Document) or D&D material (beholders, magic missile, etc.). The license changes also affect any non-PDF content, which would include D&D/OGL game streams and YouTube videos, and virtual table tops publishing OGL material (including those for Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, etc.).
- LarryMullins 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago

Another corporation embracing the hyperaggressive narcissistic ethos, as if there are nothing else - no other stakeholders, no goodwill, no future, no community, no employee value, no public image etc. - besides making money now. Hasbro is being pressured by investors to monetize their IP more. It matches the authoritarian, anti-democratic, drive for power in another domain (and often by some of the same people). Nothing else matters.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jdkee 4y ago
That is capitalism.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  That's what they tell you, but like many things they and other post-truth sophists say, it collapses immediately with just a little scrutiny: Hasbro has been a capitalist company since they were founded, and created the prior open gaming licesce. It's a recent trend - all these 'capitalist' companies operated otherwise for most of their existence. And they did for good reasons, and built the most productive companies and economies in history - all that we have today.

rhdunn 4y ago

This is already having an effect on the community, as people like The Arcane Library (https://www.youtube.com/@TheArcaneLibrary https://www.youtube.com/@TheArcaneLibrary) are shifting away from using/referencing the OGL despite having pre-prints of material using the OGL. I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect statements).

greenknight 4y ago
> I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect statements). Probably because they are trying to figure out damage control. this leak only happened on thursday. I would expect a response during the week with them backpeddling a bit.
- ck425 4y ago
  What's interesting(/blows my mind) though is that unsubstantiated rumours about the new OGL started going around weeks ago. This caused a massive amount of concern and outrage among the community, to the extend that WoTC actively moved up their communication timeline and responded with a post on DndBeyond containing more info about the new OGL (a far more reasonable version) to try and reassure the community and stop the fearmongering. That was all before this leak. Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage." Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. "The document does note that if the company oversteps, they are aware that they “will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.”" I hope this will get settled in court, though. The 1.0 Licence seems to be unclear whether it is revokable, but since there was a FAQ section on WoTCs Website explicitely stating you can always ignore changes you don't like, then this is what I would settle for, if I would have invested in it. The picture of the FAQ: https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.webp https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.web... from this article https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...

nitwit005 4y ago

Copyright law does not extend to the rules of games themselves (you may notice video games copy mechanics all the time), so it just seems like this will result in people jetesoning references to their original creatures.

javajosh 4y ago
How much of the value in DnD is the specific taxonomy of names?
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  Like "magic user" or "fighter"? seems pretty generic to me.
  - Macha 4y ago
    How about the detailed spell listings? D&D 3.5: http://dndsrd.net/wizardSpells.html http://dndsrd.net/wizardSpells.html PF 1E: https://www.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?Class=Sorcerer https://www.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?Class=Sorcerer
  - eropple 4y ago
    D&D owns a lot of things that have sort of percolated into the gaming zeitgeist. For example, "beholder" is a D&D construct, as is "mind flayer". You can switch up the names, and people do that more these days, but it is a concern.
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      Though it's worth noting that there are plenty of things that weren't original to D&D in the first place. For example, the distintive looks of the owlbear and landshark were actually directly based off dime store plastic toys imported from Asia, and various names like "prismatic spray" and "githyanki" actually come from preexisting fantasy novels.
- jasondigitized 4y ago

LordDragonfang 4y ago

This comes directly on the back of Hasbro's CEO (D&D's parent company) complaining that D&D is "under monetized" and that they want to grow the revenue through "the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games." https://kotaku.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-fifth-edition-one-dnd-1849884812 https://kotaku.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-fifth-edition-on...

kelsolaar 4y ago

Unrelated to the license, I have been using ChatGPT to create dialogs, extended descriptions, translations, and many other things to complement adventures.

Waterluvian 4y ago
I was thinking about how ChatGPT might be a reasonably decent way to flesh out game depth. Fallout 4 has a ton of hand-crafted content, but the “Radiant” quests are just so obvious and thin.
- eropple 4y ago
  GPT-derived content is going to be watery and thin, too, though. The value of it for the OP is likely as much in human curation as anything else.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Verifying a good story is far less work than writing one. This seems like an easy way to address the hollow variable-substituted text of half the quests I get.
  - strokirk 4y ago
    Human-written content is also often watery and thin, so not much difference there.
- kelsolaar 4y ago
  It has been quite good for my DnD5e needs so far!

Waterluvian 4y ago

“ By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules.” Is this rug-pull actually true and legal? Seems like a horrible agreement to enter into for this reason.

dathinab 4y ago
True yes, kinda. Legal, is more complicated and likely needs to be decided in court. There is a non-small chance that original OGL license is in no way terminated and people can continue to distribute copyright content under it. Through trademarks can be another issue. And being in right doesn't mean you are not sued or otherwise terrorized by an abuse of the legal system. E.g. see non-Lego brick products which are legal but frequently e.g. stuck in customs due to Lego abusing the legal system. Not even speaking about the 3D trademark nonsense which makes selling compatible figures close to impossible even through the law is very very clearly not meant to be apply that way.

jonnycomputer 4y ago

What specifically falls under the license? Surely not the rules or mechanics, only the particular expression of those. The art, sure. Maps, sure. Not sure you can claim right over "orc", "dragon", "wizard" or any of that.

johnchristopher 4y ago
The OGL states that "in consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content".[1] The OGL defines two forms of content: Open Game Content (or OGC) ...the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.... Product Identity (or PI) ...product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  They seem to be trying to license some things that are just not covered by copyright: "17 U.S. Code § 102, (b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

slater- 4y ago

So what you're saying is... there's never been a better time to get back into Vampire the Masquerade? Grab a fistful of d10s and let's get to work.

crooked-v 4y ago
Unfortunately, the current edition of Vampire kind of sucks because of severe mismanagement by Paradox Interactive (the current rightsholders). By all accounts Vampire 20th Anniversary Edition by Onyx Path (a licensee of Paradox) is quite good, though, as is Vampire the Requiem (a reboot/variant gameline by Onyx Path, now mostly shut down by Paradox, designed around more modern gothic horror/mystery and less of VtM's 90s Blade vibes).
- slater- 4y ago
  yeah, it's hilarious how convoluted that whole series of games has become while still pretending to be associated with each other. world of darkness vs new world of darkness vs chronicles of darkness, storyteller vs storytelling... vampire the masquerade 20th anniversary isn't the same game as 5th edition but they're both out at the same time, and requiem is something entirely different? and there are two editions of THAT, too? they need to just make a true blood rpg. they could call it Waitress: The Undressing and people would go nuts over it.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    One point of clarification there: New World of Darkness is the same thing as Chronicles of Darkness, with an edition change and some rules rewrites in between. The game line started as the former (as dictated by White Wolf) and then got rebranded to the latter (also as dictated by White Wolf).
musicale 4y ago
Shadowrun sees that and raises you an absurdly massive bag of d6s.

kelsolaar 4y ago

https://www.opendnd.games/ https://www.opendnd.games/

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

esharte 4y ago

This was preceded by WOTC bringing in new top brass from Microsoft. They intend to promote DnD primarily as a digital product.

xxEightyxx 4y ago

I really don't know much about D&D but WotC had reached out to me a while back for an engineering position. The individual was incredibly unprofessional in just about every way imaginable so I cut things off and said I was not interested before we began talking compensation or anything. Weird company!

crooked-v 4y ago
Basically the whole tabletop industry is like that, though I think a large part of that is that only Wizards and Paizo have enough sales in the first place to even act as workplaces rather than part-time hobbies.
karaterobot 4y ago
I also had a weird professional experience with them that I'm probably not allowed to give details on. Not exactly shady or unethical, but they didn't comport themselves well. As a player since 1990, I was excited to work with (the inheritors of) D&D, then suddenly very disappointed with them.

londons_explore 4y ago

> The original OGL granted “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System Resource Document) and directed that licensees “may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.” But the updated OGL says that “this agreement is…an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.” I wasn't under the impression that such an authorization could be revoked... Specifically, if someone is living in a cave with OGL v1.0(a), and churning out works according to its terms, then it isn't their responsibility to check every day if the copy they are using has suddenly become not-authorized. Nor can Hasbro send them an official notification that they have withdrawn authorization, because they have no way to find said person. And any reseller need not reveal the identity of the cave dweller creator who is still using OGL 1.0.

voidfunc 4y ago
Perpetual doesn't imply anything about revocability (thats irrevocable). The law doesn't operate in this stupid vacuum like software engineers believe it does.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  But from a logistical point of view, is it possible to revoke a license from a person that you don't know the name and address of, and have no way to find it? I think you'd be hard pressed to tell a court that you want to sue an unnamed person for following the terms of a license that you granted to them, then revoked but haven't told them you revoked, and that you don't know their name or address...
  - patmcc 4y ago
    The law doesn't care all that much about logistics, for one. More importantly a license like this only practically matters for published work, and published work is generally not completely anonymous; WOTC doesn't know everyone who has published something under the OGL but they certainly know of Paizo, Roll20, Critical Role, etc. and fundamentally those are the ones they care about. If Jim your local DM keeps writing homebrew they won't know, but it's also not who they're aiming at (yet).

lasermatts 4y ago

Does anyone know if there is an alternative to the OGL? Like, is there any other Open Sourced ruleset that publishers/homebrewers could get behind that _isn't_ run by WotC/Hasbro?

BryantD 4y ago
Much of the tabletop gaming world has embraced Creative Commons in the last decade or so. Off the top of my head, reasonably popular systems that are CC licensed include Pelgrane's GUMSHOE, Evil Hat's FATE and Forged in the Dark systems, Posthuman's Eclipse Phase (although that's a non-commercial license), Trophy, Dungeon World, Quest, and I'm sure I'm missing some significant ones. None of these games are even remotely as popular as D&D, but yeah, there are plenty of options.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying uses their own rewrite of the OGL, which has a less trap-doored section on license updates: https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/ https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/
  - BryantD 4y ago
    It also has some really restrictive terms around using otherwise available material. You can't use it for anything derived from "all works related to the Cthulhu Mythos, including those that are otherwise public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur." This is of course to protect their own games, but walling off anything related to the primary source for Arthurian legend is awfully broad. Are all knights related to that? Also doesn't use "irrecoverable" so it's got the same potential problem as the OGL does, right now. Hopefully they'll change it. Interestingly Delta Green (a Call of Cthulhu variant) just decided to drop the OGL from their books, which means they're just flat out using a system which is 90% identical to the Call of Cthulhu BRP variant without any license at all. I'm curious how that will go.
    - 4y ago

zug_zug 4y ago

As far as I'm concerned this is the perfect opportunity for the community to standardize on a new, open-source ruleset. 5E is fine and all, but in my opinion a professional game developer could rebalance a lot about it. There are so many traits, abilities, spells, character features that are so inferior that they are hard to pick. Heck some classes in general could use a real boost, not necessarily in combat stats but overall usefulness to the party.

hajile 4y ago
As a collector of different systems, I can assure you that d20 is one of the worst systems ever created. Most people who've played a handful of other systems will prefer one of those systems to d20 in basically every scenario. The system is only popular because it is popular. More specifically, d20 lacks a useful skill system. You can do 95+% of game mechanics from a skill system. I don't mean a handful of stuff you roll your d20 against, but something much more comprehensive. Some skills are harder to learn. Some require other skills. Some have a weakest link (eg, a surgeon skill depends on both having skilled hands and good doctoring skills). A good framework for this means your system has fewer balance issues. Along those same lines is the effect system. In d20, a fireball spell and a grenade are very different things. They have to be independently balanced and adjusted until they "feel right". In an effects system, you would understand that both are explosions with a specific radius, damage (with falloff), lingering fire damage, etc while some other parts are different like what limits the number of shots (magical energy vs how many grenades you can carry). The effects system would allow you to calculate the exact value of both of these things with some slightly different modifiers and different descriptions of what they look like in the game. The result in-game feels different, but is now mechanically balanced and (ideally) cost balanced too. Next, Vancian magic is by far the least interesting magic and worst for basically any story. Players must make a blind choice and then get either a cake walk or extreme punishment based on that choice. It causes a kind of "when you are a hammer" issue as well. It also doesn't jive with what most people expect of magic. Better systems are more flexible. They allow the user to decide which spells to use on the fly with some kind of resource limiter instead (eg, the classic mana or how long it takes to cast or how hard a spell is to cast vs how many cast dice, threshold magic where spells get riskier to the caster as you use more of them, etc). A final aspect is tactics vs resource management. RAW (rules as written) modern d20 is a resource management game. Your team slugs it out with the other team until someone's HP runs low. You expend a resource to raise the HP and keep slogging. Rinse and repeat until there's no more way to raise the HP at which point things conclude (never mind the whole suspension of disbelief that you continue to hack the same thing over and over and over). Yes, there are better and worse choices here, but they are not of particular consequence (and tend to become obvious rather quickly). That is why DMs do battle statistics calculations instead of caring so much about stuff like positioning. Tactical games are much more interesting. In those games (like in real life), positioning and strategy is all-important. Once someone is in your gun sights, they are almost certainly very wounded or dead. When a GM for these games is planning, they aren't worried about statistics so much as where the enemy is, why they are there, what their strategy will be, etc. This immediately shifts the focus of the game mechanics away from statistics and back to role playing. Combat will be a lot of working together on a plan and then the actual combat won't be super long because life and death results happen pretty quickly. If you were to go with an actually different system, OpenD6 would be the place to start in my opinion (Star Wars D6 wrote a large part of the current canon and used an early version of this system). It provides a very useful skill framework that is easily extended. Because the dice mechanic is extensible in MANY different and interesting ways, it is far easier to match your particular mechanical choices to your specific universe. The default magic system is quite flexible and uses an effects system to build spells. Instead of sticking with the list of pre-approved spells, you can have your players cook up their own and be pretty sure that the new spell isn't going to break the game. And of course, the system isn't quite as lethal as some others, but it is still MUCH more lethal than d20 by default.