17 ms·

Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a

220 points by SubiculumCode 4y ago

wincy 4y ago
It really sucks that such bedrocks of our culture are owned by corporations and subject to their whims and profit motives. I grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons - I don’t want to play Oubliettes and Wyverns or whatever.
- germandiago 4y ago
  Do not play then. It is their company, not yours. No matter how annoying. It they make a bad move they could mess it up. It is them who take the risk after all.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
    I'll buy some shares in Hasbro and do as I please.
    - germandiago 4y ago
      Well, that is the point. If a company does something stupid... it will eventually pay the stupidity.
- RajT88 4y ago
  > bedrocks of our culture D&D does indeed predate me, but there's nothing stopping me from inhabiting their world. I don't think they understand the extent to which moves like this harm their fanbase. Paying fans! They will soon find out. What I am certain of is is that the D&D phenomenon will outlive WotC. It's a movement, an ethos, and gross mismanagement will not kill it.
  - chii 4y ago
    > D&D phenomenon will outlive WotC ... gross mismanagement will not kill it. while community driven projects _could_ live, it would be under constant legal threat, which prevents it from growing independently of WotC. Esp. if there's an aspect of commercialization in there. This means that any project would seek first to cooperate with WotC, which means they get a control, and may be commercial benefit.
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      There are plenty of D&D-adjacent works that exist with no legal dependency on WotC, which rely on how game mechanics (as distinct from the specific expression of them) can't be copyrighted.
    - Kostchei 4y ago
      Honestly, as a 30+ year DM who has played every edition from 1st to cap (except 4th- only made it to 6th), what people play at their table is wildly different from group to group. I don't know many experienced DMs who don't do a huge amount of homebrew. And there is no legal threat to 95% of homebrew, never will be. Why? Because I just do what I want with their IP (Wotc) and it never reaches further than my players. Most people do not publish to the world, they present to their players. Very few folks make an official doc, get it printed, add their own mechanics, build a world atlas etc. It will stop things like the "wheel of time" (books not tv) adaption, the reasonably widely available dark sun fan made version, "one night strahd" etc. Now that is a shame. But. 50% + of it was drek. And half of what was good rode rough-shod over other folks ideas, vision and IP and made money for the writers for it. If you are re-doing elric's world in 5th ed, you owe a bit to Michael Moorcock (which is ironic as he dis-owns it as pulp and beneath him), and owe a bit to wizards-o-t-c because you are probably re-skinning their hard work. What is more disappointing is that Wotc is actively trying to model their monetization of DnD in the future on mobile gaming and free-to-play computer games.. I kid you not. Luckily there are basic, adnd 1st ed, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 5th ed to choose form for cool playable systems, and that's if you want to stick to "original" dnd. So 6th ed, with whatever horrible monetization they formulate may well just rot in it's own lonely purgatory with it's older brother 4th edition. (which, to be fair has a couple of cool things but overall was a failure, IMO) *edited, spelling
- lll-o-lll 4y ago
  I completely agree with this. Much like when a “trademark” becomes common speech and loses its protection, cultural artefacts should move into the public domain. Not based on time, based on their value to the culture.
- klipt 4y ago
  Just call it Sword and Sorcery, that's a genre so presumably can't be trademarked?
  - gilleain 4y ago
    Just be sure to not use any of : > Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler, Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Kuo-toa, Mind Flayer, Slaad, Umber Hulk, Yuan-ti, Tanar'ri, and Baatezu. From https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41942/is-there-a-website-that-tells-you-which-dd-creatures-are-under-copyright-protec https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41942/is-there-a... (although it's a bit more complex than this, I think?)
    - klipt 4y ago
      I'm sure the open source community can come up with new monsters that are even more fun than those.
    - sbergot 4y ago
      I play various RPGs including a little bit of D&D. I only know about beholders & mind flayers. If that is the price to pay then I think it is fine.
      - cafeinux 4y ago
        I play a French RPG called Rôle'n Play, that's heavily based on the DRS, essentially adding new classes, species, spells, and a whole lot more content. I'd be crushed if I had to see it cancelled because WotC decided they didn't like the competition. With this move anyway, they ensured that I would nevemore buy any WotC licensed product, and I'll start by not watching, not even pirating the upcoming DnD movie. I do hope they'll backpedal, but it'll be a long time before they get my trust again.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Beholder and Mind Flayer aside, those are pretty lame fantasy names anyway. Happy so long as Owlbear is public domain.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Dens and Drakes
  - muraiki 4y ago
    Woods and Wyrms Gives a bit of a boost to the ranger class.
    - IIsi50MHz 4y ago
      Sounds like a splatbook!
- BerislavLopac 4y ago
  I'm sad to see this kind of sentiment - D&D is fun, but there are so many TTRPGs out there. I'm highly recommending checking out all the lesser known games by companies like Chaosium, Modiphius, Free League (I just recently had some great sessions of Tales from the Loop and The One Ring), Atlas Games, Steve Jackson Games and others!
  - coremoff 4y ago
    a fair bit of the popularity is due to the splat books; world building is hard, and the world of Forgotten Realms is huge and detailed - combine that with the large number of iconic IP that they have, it would be a shame to have to abandon everything D&D completely.
    - BerislavLopac 4y ago
      That is true, although it's ultimately a matter of personal tastes. I prefer worlds that are not intrinsically intertwined with any specific ruleset. And for general fantasy I will always come back to Middle-earth. :)
Adaptive 4y ago
This leak feels like a trial balloon (sanctioned or not). I suspect there is enough "hmm is this a good idea" and pushback within wotc that this is a way to gauge how terrible of an idea this really is (it is terrible and would burn the brand down).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 4y ago
'Perpetual' has no meaning if it can just be revoked by fiat. Imagine trying to revoke your prior agreement to pay your legal fees.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  that was apparently covered. If you made something based on the license while it was in effect, you are perpetually covered. Once they revoke the license, you can no longer make new work. That's how I read it anyway
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    That's a separate matter. Perpetual just means it doesn't expire on its own - only if revoked by the authors. Separately, if you based a business on creating a work with a valid license, if the license is later revoked, there is a good chance courts will protect your right to keep selling the work you based your business on, even if the current license no longer allows it - that is what I understood the OP was explaining.
    - darreninthenet 4y ago
      The problem with relying on a court to protect your small OGL derived business is that Hasbro has much deeper pockets to keep somebody tied up in litigation and appeals for years, that they probably can't afford.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        Hasbro doesn't want to waste their money on your $0 infringement either.
        darreninthenet 4y ago
        You're missing the bigger picture... keep small fry tied up, make them not win and then nobody else has a precedent ruling. Take a proper money making business to court first time and you risk them actually fighting and winning.
MrJagil 4y ago
Also in the Magic world has WOTC been making a stir recently. They have reprinted non-playable versions of cards they promised never to reprint like Black Lotus and sell them at staggering prices. This has been seen as a breach of trust in a desperate attempt to fulfill their promise of growing profits[1] and even Bank of America has warned against their stock[2]. 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114181 2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33613315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33613315
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thom 4y ago
  The high prices of the packs were ridiculous but the reserve list is tournament legal cards only, and as far as I can see almost every playgroup has a cube or commander decks with high quality proxies these days, so I don’t blame them for trying. Far worse is the systematic dismantling of organised play that has meant ‘tournament legal’ has become meaningless for many people, but perhaps the latest iteration of the Pro Tour will stick.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    Can you say more about "the systematic dismantling of organised play" please? I've been out of the loop for a few years, but I used to play semi-competitively (i.e. I tried to play competitively but I sucked at it :)
- lovich 4y ago
  The lords of hasbro demand their quarterly bonuses, next year be damned if need be
ars 4y ago
OGL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License
Semaphor 4y ago
Is there some background? This post seems to make some assumptions about knowledge of what’s going on?
- tadzik_ 4y ago
  This has more details: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Wow, that’s insane.
  - chabad360 4y ago
    If this link can become the main one that would be fantastic, it's much more helpful than this forum link (@dang?)
    - codetrotter 4y ago
      But the Gizmodo article has an annoying unrelated video that starts to play when you scroll down in the article on mobile, and the video positions itself to the top of the screen and remains there as you scroll further. For this reason I think the Gizmodo link does not deserve traffic.
      - lakomen 4y ago
        I agree. Not only is the video irrelevant, it also covers 1/4 of the screen and can't be removed. And they do show ads despite having the reject all button pressed.
        pohuing 4y ago
        You get less targeted advertising by rejecting. Not none
Nursie 4y ago
Interesting, so this seems analogous to trying to revoke or rescind a GPL license in the software world? This is something that has been tried in the past, IIRC, when a project with a single contributor has attracted a commercial buyer that wants to take the product closed-source. In the case I so vaguely remember (video software of some sort?), they tried to say that not only would future releases be closed, but that all previous GPL versions were now revoked, and continued use was copyright violation. From what I can remember, the community response was basically "LOL no".
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The GPL explicitly says that the rights it grants are irrevocable - unlike this OGL discussed in the article. So no, they are not analogous at all.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vintermann 4y ago
    Older GPL versions and most other OSS licenses, don't use the magic word "irrevocable". In legal matters, no one should be sure shit like that matters, unless they're paid to be sure of it.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Sure - IANAL, IANYL, legal matters are complex etc. But there is a reason why the GPL authors explicitly added the "irrevocable" clause, and it is that it strengthens the chances the copyright holder can't make retroactive changes. Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary.
      - vintermann 4y ago
        > Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary. Doesn't mean much to me unless I know who's paying them to believe / worry about that.
anothernewdude 4y ago
This is like Games Workshop. Trying to control things after the horse has long bolted. I don't actually know anyone still playing any version of D&D at this point. Everyone I know is either Pathfinder, OSR or some other indie RPG (MORK BORG seems popular right now).
- guywhocodes 4y ago
  5e is the most commonly played ttrpg currently I would gamble. Due to the recent mainstream adoption. When acquaintances hear that I DM ttrpgs that's what they ask me about and it's 70% because of Stranger things. Which is ironic because I know it would be a challenge to even get to a first session with them in such a system. Instead I play Knave with them.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    That's mysterious to me. 5th edition has a number of distinctly un D&D-ish features as I see it, as one who - like the fictional Stranger Things kids - played D&D in the late 80s. I don't think it's actually Stranger Things driving 5th ed popularity, though. If it was, surely they'd go for something more retro. I think it's the big tabletop RPG streamers.
    - guywhocodes 4y ago
      I haven't watched Stranger Things but I see where you are coming from. I tend to prefer OSR games these days myself and I think 5e is pretty bad. But these people don't know anything about TTRPGs in general, they use Google and the SEO directs them into the sales funnel of 5e. EDIT: The other big channel in is watching Critical Role streams. And if that is your only reference with their particular ads it will draw you into the current, and large, ecosystem of 5e.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Stranger Things doesn't go into that sort of detail at all. It just mentions D&D and a couple of monsters, and that's it. Specific editions of D&D are completely irrelevant to people excited about D&D because of Stranger Things. It just raises attention and that brings in new players, who have generally never heard of B/X, BECMI, AD&D or d20. It's just D&D.
MengerSponge 4y ago
This is why I've been seeing a big push for Pathfinder 2e, right? I suppose there are some game mechanics reasons too, but a project that isn't owned by a bully will probably see more organic support.
- bethling 4y ago
  But Pathfinder depends on the SRDs under the 1.0 OGL - these changes would require Paizo to accept the new terms to publish anything new for 2e (or create a 3e that doesn't build off the D20 SRDs)
broodbucket 4y ago
The comments on that thread are wild. Lawyers going back and forth about things I don't understand but can kinda loosely follow along with. Check it out if you're bored.
imwillofficial 4y ago
Wizards can get fucked. This is a tragic move that poisons goodwill.
hysan 4y ago
Having read the Gizmodo article[1] before this, I’m coming away confused about how licensing language works. In addition to revoking a “perpetual” license, there are hints that WotC plans to force any entity that is commercially selling products now to agree to the new license or cease sales. This sounds like they are planning to take a cut of all products by retroactively cancelling the 1.0a license. This is counter to what is explained in OP’s link about being able to continue selling existing products. Aside from the confusing “perpetual” !== “irrevocable” language, how would it be legal to suddenly start taking cuts of existing businesses? If WotC were to attempt this, would it be legal? It sounds like it would be based on the explanation of being able to revoke an existing license. But that sounds like a giant legal loophole to me. [1] https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  Perpetual refers to time only. Contracts have to contemplate an end date. In perpetuity is just an acknowledgement that the parties have thought about time, and have agreed that there is no natural end date, but that does not foreclose other termination triggers, like revocability.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    But on the other hands, contracts aren't revocable unless there are specific revocation provisions in the said contract.
- thayne 4y ago
  The MIT license also doesn't explicitly say it is irrevocable. It doesn't even say the license is perpetual. Does that mean that any software that is MIT licensed (or any of the many other licenses that doesn't have that wording) could be revoked at any time? That could have some pretty bad repercussions.
  - knaik94 4y ago
    My understanding is the software released as MIT is pereptually MIT. Additional updates could change the license, but that won't retroactiely affect previous releases. The MIT license explicitly allows sublicensing. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
thordenmark 4y ago
There is nothing about the OGL that makes it so Wizards can never revoke it. The license states that WotC grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license" to use the SRD (system reference document: the document that provides the D&D rules sans IP content). But "perpetual," in licensing law, does not mean "irrevocable." As it turns out, unless the word "irrevocable" appears in the license, the license can be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason. This will make fan content nye impossible to publish.
- legerdemain 4y ago
  "Nigh." The only kinds of "nye" are Bill and December 31st.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  If what you say holds than most software licensing will be turned on it's head. The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse and others say no such thing. Does that mean they are all revocable? Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? Edit: correction the GPL and family are irrevocable. But that still leaves a lot of OSI and FSF approved licenses with no such language.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    While I agree with what you saying regarding "irrevocable" > Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.
    - thayne 4y ago
      But the GPLv2 is itself protected by copyright right? Could they revoke the license to that to force anything using GPLv2 to switch to a different license?
  - 4y ago
vintermann 4y ago
This may be a case of Hasbro lawyers testing the boundaries of what they can get away with. It also looks like a lawyer advertising his services. And I'm not sure I trust this lawyer any more than I trust Hasbro.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  > It also looks like a lawyer advertising his services How so? They are just clarifying that it’s not legal advice, something that would suddenly come with a ton of regulation (and would even be illegal in some jurisdictions).
mnd999 4y ago
So lawyers love DnD. I don’t know why I found that surprising, but I did.
- vintermann 4y ago
  This old Door Monster sketch may be relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ido61qVbgqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ido61qVbgqI
djur 4y ago
Unbelievable that Hasbro is doing this again after how badly screwing over third parties went the last time. D&D 4th Edition had much more restrictive terms than 3.5e; one of the big selling points of 5e was the return to the OGL. I guess they're confident that they don't need third-party content or the goodwill of the broader tabletop community anymore. But if recent efforts like the Spelljammer book are any indication, they're dead wrong about that.
- dorchadas 4y ago
  I don't think they're confident at all. The opposite, in fact. They're trying to kill off Pathfinder because, anecdotally, it seems like they're hemorrhaging players to 2e. They're trying to stop that, then I can guarantee they'll incorporate everything they think made 2e good into D&D 6.0. Basically this is just them trying to extract more profit and screw over their biggest competitor.
  - djur 4y ago
    Pathfinder 2e seems to me like it was designed to only retain superficial elements from the D&D SRD. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo had a plan for how to jettison the remaining content right from the start. So if this is meant to take PF out I think it's a foolish error (just like the existence of Pathfinder itself was due to their foolish error with the 4e licensing!).
    - dorchadas 4y ago
      I hope so, as I prefer what Pathfinder is doing a lot more. I first started getting interested in TTRPGs with 3.5e, and, to me, 5e has completely lost the feel of customisation that it had. They have finally released new races, but for the most part it's just sub-classes and "change the flavour text". PF 2e already has more ancestries and classes than 5e, and more fun ways of putting them together, and I absolutely love that. It makes the world feel more diverse, and really makes you feel like you can be what you want to be and find any class/race combo to fit your character idea as opposed to the opposite. That said, I think PF will still have to reword quite a few spells, and possibly rename more than a few creatures and spells as well. Probably enough for a 2.5e, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they're working on it especially after this leak dropped.
louhike 4y ago
I wonder why they are doing that at the same time they seem to cancel several of the games they were publishing[1] (not Baldur’s Gate 3 coming thus year). Is it just a coincidence or part of a big swift in their business plan? [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1610405307561443333 https://mobile.twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/161040530756...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And they are attempting to make money? Or was these games something they provided funding for and not just a lincense.
timvdalen 4y ago
Here's another lawyer's take on this situation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRMOOlka https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRM... This letter was sent to Wizards of the Coast yesterday, asking for clarification on the situation within 10 days. The biggest effect from all of this that I can see is that everyone I know that's normally super enthusiastic about creating Dungeons & Dragons content (including myself!) is now deflated, not knowing what they should do about their upcoming projects (that they may have sunk thousands in already).
- t-writescode 4y ago
  For those of us that don't want to go into another person's Google Drive, could you give a summary of this? (or an alternate source?)
  - Y_Y 4y ago
    It's a letter from an affected publisher's lawyer, too long to post verbatim. They say they want to be able to keep publishing stuff under this license, give supporting citations and demand clarification.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      And they say that if they receive no reply within 10 days, they, as well as other affected parties, will sue Hasbo/WotC
    - bonzini 4y ago
      They don't provide many citations though. They mostly mention that "authorized versions" is not defined in the license and they cite the FAQ (mentioned in the OP as well), hinting that reneging the words of the FAQ would constitute estoppel.
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    > alternate source? https://archive.is/EFalu https://archive.is/EFalu
ReptileMan 4y ago
My take about license is that ip can always be relicensed to whatever suits the ip owner, but licenses already given and used by people can't be revoked on a whim. So no new ip are allowed, but already created stuff is safe.
david2ndaccount 4y ago
WotC got taken over by a bunch of ex-Microsoft guys so this kind of behavior is not surprising.
krisoft 4y ago
Thing is I don’t understand what OGL is for. Let’s say I decide that I want to publish a DnD adventure. Even with OGL I can’t say it is for DnD. They say I can’t even say it is compatible with DnD, but I have my doubts about that. I describe a unique set and setting. Not using any Wizards of the Coast trademark in it. (Which honestly I don’t want because I want my thing to feel fresh and unique.) I don’t think the OGL licence would help me with that. Then of course there is game mechanics. I don’t want to repeat the players handbook. (You wouldn’t expect this kind of material to repeat the basic rules anyway.) But i do want to use terms from it. For example I would write: “The 3rd chest in the second level is locked and magically trapped. The DC of the trap is 13. On activativation it deals 1d6 poison damage. Inside the chest a Shimmering Ghillie Suit. The suit is a legendary magical item which grants its wearer advantage on stealth checks.” Obviously this uses a lot of DnD terminology. (DC, advantage, poison damage, stealth check, legendary item) But it does not infringe on the copyright on any WotC property. (Assuming that I have made a search for the Ghillie Suit not appearing in any published materials yet.) Do i need OGL to publish this? If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish?
- Semaphor 4y ago
  I think this would actually be fine. The problems happen, if an enemy is of the Druid class and can cast Web. Or at least that’s my understanding with all I’ve learned today ;) Mechanics are fine, "Creative" things like classes not. > If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish? IIRC the video game Solasta: Crown of the Magister is D&D5e under OGL, so they used a lot of SRD things. > Turn-Based Tactical RPG based on the SRD 5.1 Ruleset
  - timvdalen 4y ago
    Solasta actually has a separate license: https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-license-to-use-the-dd-srd https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-licen...
    - Semaphor 4y ago
oliwarner 4y ago
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. But seriously, if this goes wrong, if it's agreed that OGL 3rd and 5th Edition derivatives can continue under OGL1.0 in perpetuity, Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro stand to lose control of AD&D. They have already have lost significant mindshare to Pathfinder (a 3rd Ed fork), but this could be the final nail. There's more than enough money in keeping OGL1 to fight this. This is a stupid fight for WotC to have picked. Any goodwill they had will be actively invested into other rulesets.
- ogre_battle 4y ago
  They contacted the Lorraine Williams, she said this was a good idea
jasonlotito 4y ago
All of this advice without actually seeing the changes. People thinking Strength and Dexterity are mechanics. So much misinformation from a leak. I will say the confusion and concern are warranted but officially we don’t know what the next OGL is yet.
carapace 4y ago
I remember when all my friends in high school got into MtG. They wanted me to play, and I said, "okay, but I'm going to make my own cards." You know, xerox some cards and laminate them myself. I was cheap. I wasn't about to pay real money for a bunch of fancy cardboard. None of them would go for it. I tried and tried to get them to understand that there wasn't anything special about the WotC cards, I said "You know there are no real wizards at Wizards of the Coast, right?" These are "magic" cards, not magic cards, eh? But they wouldn't have it. I gotta hand it to these folks. They convinced a generation that you have to pay them to use your own imagination. Maybe they are real wizards?
swisniewski 4y ago
I am not a Lawyer…And not a dnd gamer… But this does not “cancel” existing licenses. Instead, what it does is create a hard fork, between 1.1 content and 1.0 content. Basically… any content released under the 1.1 license is not usable under the 1.0 license. The statement, in the new license, that the old license is “no longer an authorized license agreement” does not apply to existing licenses anyone may have to 1.0 content. Absent your consent to the 1.1 license, its terms don’t apply to you. Instead, that language is meant to defeat the forward compatibility clauses in the 1.0 license. Absent that language you could freely use 1.1 content under the 1.0 terms because of the forward compatibility language in 1.0. This means you can continue to “Use” (as defined in the 1.0 license) any of the content you were using before. However, it also means if you “Use” any 1.1 licensed content, then either you are in violation of the 1.0 license (and then thus have no rights) or you are subject to the 1.1 license and its terms. So, this does create some hazard, in that any one using 1.0 content under a 1.0 license needs to ensure they don’t in the future use any 1.1 content. But if you stick to 1.0 licensed content you are ok. This can still cause problems. If you are in the business of selling DnD compatible game content, you now suddenly have to make a choice between loosing forward compatibility and having control over your revenue. It still sucks. But any content you could sell yesterday you can still sell tomorrow. The contract has explicit, custom, definitions for several basic elements of contract law. It explicitly declares what consideration exists and what offer and acceptance look like. The party defining those terms is Wotc. They are bound by something called “promissory estoppel” from representing that those things weren’t present in the original 1.0 license. They cannot revoke your 1.0 license unless you breach the agreement. They can set a trap for you, that will capture 25% of your revenue, if you end up incorporating 1.1 content into your previously 1.0 derived works. So, be careful. But they can’t take away what you have now. It can still also hurt various businesses to loose forward compatibility rights… but anything derived from purely 1.0 content is still 1.0 licensed and they can’t take that away unless you violate the 1.0 license terms somehow.

220 points by SubiculumCode 4y ago

It really sucks that such bedrocks of our culture are owned by corporations and subject to their whims and profit motives. I grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons - I don’t want to play Oubliettes and Wyverns or whatever.

germandiago 4y ago
Do not play then. It is their company, not yours. No matter how annoying. It they make a bad move they could mess it up. It is them who take the risk after all.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  I'll buy some shares in Hasbro and do as I please.
  - germandiago 4y ago
    Well, that is the point. If a company does something stupid... it will eventually pay the stupidity.
RajT88 4y ago
> bedrocks of our culture D&D does indeed predate me, but there's nothing stopping me from inhabiting their world. I don't think they understand the extent to which moves like this harm their fanbase. Paying fans! They will soon find out. What I am certain of is is that the D&D phenomenon will outlive WotC. It's a movement, an ethos, and gross mismanagement will not kill it.
- chii 4y ago
  > D&D phenomenon will outlive WotC ... gross mismanagement will not kill it. while community driven projects _could_ live, it would be under constant legal threat, which prevents it from growing independently of WotC. Esp. if there's an aspect of commercialization in there. This means that any project would seek first to cooperate with WotC, which means they get a control, and may be commercial benefit.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    There are plenty of D&D-adjacent works that exist with no legal dependency on WotC, which rely on how game mechanics (as distinct from the specific expression of them) can't be copyrighted.
  - Kostchei 4y ago
    Honestly, as a 30+ year DM who has played every edition from 1st to cap (except 4th- only made it to 6th), what people play at their table is wildly different from group to group. I don't know many experienced DMs who don't do a huge amount of homebrew. And there is no legal threat to 95% of homebrew, never will be. Why? Because I just do what I want with their IP (Wotc) and it never reaches further than my players. Most people do not publish to the world, they present to their players. Very few folks make an official doc, get it printed, add their own mechanics, build a world atlas etc. It will stop things like the "wheel of time" (books not tv) adaption, the reasonably widely available dark sun fan made version, "one night strahd" etc. Now that is a shame. But. 50% + of it was drek. And half of what was good rode rough-shod over other folks ideas, vision and IP and made money for the writers for it. If you are re-doing elric's world in 5th ed, you owe a bit to Michael Moorcock (which is ironic as he dis-owns it as pulp and beneath him), and owe a bit to wizards-o-t-c because you are probably re-skinning their hard work. What is more disappointing is that Wotc is actively trying to model their monetization of DnD in the future on mobile gaming and free-to-play computer games.. I kid you not. Luckily there are basic, adnd 1st ed, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 5th ed to choose form for cool playable systems, and that's if you want to stick to "original" dnd. So 6th ed, with whatever horrible monetization they formulate may well just rot in it's own lonely purgatory with it's older brother 4th edition. (which, to be fair has a couple of cool things but overall was a failure, IMO) *edited, spelling
lll-o-lll 4y ago
I completely agree with this. Much like when a “trademark” becomes common speech and loses its protection, cultural artefacts should move into the public domain. Not based on time, based on their value to the culture.
klipt 4y ago
Just call it Sword and Sorcery, that's a genre so presumably can't be trademarked?
- gilleain 4y ago
  Just be sure to not use any of : > Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler, Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Kuo-toa, Mind Flayer, Slaad, Umber Hulk, Yuan-ti, Tanar'ri, and Baatezu. From https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41942/is-there-a-website-that-tells-you-which-dd-creatures-are-under-copyright-protec https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41942/is-there-a... (although it's a bit more complex than this, I think?)
  - klipt 4y ago
    I'm sure the open source community can come up with new monsters that are even more fun than those.
  - sbergot 4y ago
    I play various RPGs including a little bit of D&D. I only know about beholders & mind flayers. If that is the price to pay then I think it is fine.
    - cafeinux 4y ago
      I play a French RPG called Rôle'n Play, that's heavily based on the DRS, essentially adding new classes, species, spells, and a whole lot more content. I'd be crushed if I had to see it cancelled because WotC decided they didn't like the competition. With this move anyway, they ensured that I would nevemore buy any WotC licensed product, and I'll start by not watching, not even pirating the upcoming DnD movie. I do hope they'll backpedal, but it'll be a long time before they get my trust again.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Beholder and Mind Flayer aside, those are pretty lame fantasy names anyway. Happy so long as Owlbear is public domain.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Apocryphon 4y ago
Dens and Drakes
- muraiki 4y ago
  Woods and Wyrms Gives a bit of a boost to the ranger class.
  - IIsi50MHz 4y ago
    Sounds like a splatbook!
BerislavLopac 4y ago
I'm sad to see this kind of sentiment - D&D is fun, but there are so many TTRPGs out there. I'm highly recommending checking out all the lesser known games by companies like Chaosium, Modiphius, Free League (I just recently had some great sessions of Tales from the Loop and The One Ring), Atlas Games, Steve Jackson Games and others!
- coremoff 4y ago
  a fair bit of the popularity is due to the splat books; world building is hard, and the world of Forgotten Realms is huge and detailed - combine that with the large number of iconic IP that they have, it would be a shame to have to abandon everything D&D completely.
  - BerislavLopac 4y ago
    That is true, although it's ultimately a matter of personal tastes. I prefer worlds that are not intrinsically intertwined with any specific ruleset. And for general fantasy I will always come back to Middle-earth. :)

Adaptive 4y ago

This leak feels like a trial balloon (sanctioned or not). I suspect there is enough "hmm is this a good idea" and pushback within wotc that this is a way to gauge how terrible of an idea this really is (it is terrible and would burn the brand down).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 4y ago

'Perpetual' has no meaning if it can just be revoked by fiat. Imagine trying to revoke your prior agreement to pay your legal fees.

readthenotes1 4y ago
that was apparently covered. If you made something based on the license while it was in effect, you are perpetually covered. Once they revoke the license, you can no longer make new work. That's how I read it anyway
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That's a separate matter. Perpetual just means it doesn't expire on its own - only if revoked by the authors. Separately, if you based a business on creating a work with a valid license, if the license is later revoked, there is a good chance courts will protect your right to keep selling the work you based your business on, even if the current license no longer allows it - that is what I understood the OP was explaining.
  - darreninthenet 4y ago
    The problem with relying on a court to protect your small OGL derived business is that Hasbro has much deeper pockets to keep somebody tied up in litigation and appeals for years, that they probably can't afford.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      Hasbro doesn't want to waste their money on your $0 infringement either.
      - darreninthenet 4y ago
        You're missing the bigger picture... keep small fry tied up, make them not win and then nobody else has a precedent ruling. Take a proper money making business to court first time and you risk them actually fighting and winning.

MrJagil 4y ago

Also in the Magic world has WOTC been making a stir recently. They have reprinted non-playable versions of cards they promised never to reprint like Black Lotus and sell them at staggering prices. This has been seen as a breach of trust in a desperate attempt to fulfill their promise of growing profits[1] and even Bank of America has warned against their stock[2]. 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114181 2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33613315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33613315

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thom 4y ago
The high prices of the packs were ridiculous but the reserve list is tournament legal cards only, and as far as I can see almost every playgroup has a cube or commander decks with high quality proxies these days, so I don’t blame them for trying. Far worse is the systematic dismantling of organised play that has meant ‘tournament legal’ has become meaningless for many people, but perhaps the latest iteration of the Pro Tour will stick.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  Can you say more about "the systematic dismantling of organised play" please? I've been out of the loop for a few years, but I used to play semi-competitively (i.e. I tried to play competitively but I sucked at it :)
lovich 4y ago
The lords of hasbro demand their quarterly bonuses, next year be damned if need be

ars 4y ago

OGL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License

Semaphor 4y ago

Is there some background? This post seems to make some assumptions about knowledge of what’s going on?

tadzik_ 4y ago
This has more details: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Wow, that’s insane.
- chabad360 4y ago
  If this link can become the main one that would be fantastic, it's much more helpful than this forum link (@dang?)
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    But the Gizmodo article has an annoying unrelated video that starts to play when you scroll down in the article on mobile, and the video positions itself to the top of the screen and remains there as you scroll further. For this reason I think the Gizmodo link does not deserve traffic.
    - lakomen 4y ago
      I agree. Not only is the video irrelevant, it also covers 1/4 of the screen and can't be removed. And they do show ads despite having the reject all button pressed.
      - pohuing 4y ago
        You get less targeted advertising by rejecting. Not none

Nursie 4y ago

Interesting, so this seems analogous to trying to revoke or rescind a GPL license in the software world? This is something that has been tried in the past, IIRC, when a project with a single contributor has attracted a commercial buyer that wants to take the product closed-source. In the case I so vaguely remember (video software of some sort?), they tried to say that not only would future releases be closed, but that all previous GPL versions were now revoked, and continued use was copyright violation. From what I can remember, the community response was basically "LOL no".

tsimionescu 4y ago
The GPL explicitly says that the rights it grants are irrevocable - unlike this OGL discussed in the article. So no, they are not analogous at all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vintermann 4y ago
  Older GPL versions and most other OSS licenses, don't use the magic word "irrevocable". In legal matters, no one should be sure shit like that matters, unless they're paid to be sure of it.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Sure - IANAL, IANYL, legal matters are complex etc. But there is a reason why the GPL authors explicitly added the "irrevocable" clause, and it is that it strengthens the chances the copyright holder can't make retroactive changes. Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary.
    - vintermann 4y ago
      > Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary. Doesn't mean much to me unless I know who's paying them to believe / worry about that.

anothernewdude 4y ago

This is like Games Workshop. Trying to control things after the horse has long bolted. I don't actually know anyone still playing any version of D&D at this point. Everyone I know is either Pathfinder, OSR or some other indie RPG (MORK BORG seems popular right now).

guywhocodes 4y ago
5e is the most commonly played ttrpg currently I would gamble. Due to the recent mainstream adoption. When acquaintances hear that I DM ttrpgs that's what they ask me about and it's 70% because of Stranger things. Which is ironic because I know it would be a challenge to even get to a first session with them in such a system. Instead I play Knave with them.
- vintermann 4y ago
  That's mysterious to me. 5th edition has a number of distinctly un D&D-ish features as I see it, as one who - like the fictional Stranger Things kids - played D&D in the late 80s. I don't think it's actually Stranger Things driving 5th ed popularity, though. If it was, surely they'd go for something more retro. I think it's the big tabletop RPG streamers.
  - guywhocodes 4y ago
    I haven't watched Stranger Things but I see where you are coming from. I tend to prefer OSR games these days myself and I think 5e is pretty bad. But these people don't know anything about TTRPGs in general, they use Google and the SEO directs them into the sales funnel of 5e. EDIT: The other big channel in is watching Critical Role streams. And if that is your only reference with their particular ads it will draw you into the current, and large, ecosystem of 5e.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Stranger Things doesn't go into that sort of detail at all. It just mentions D&D and a couple of monsters, and that's it. Specific editions of D&D are completely irrelevant to people excited about D&D because of Stranger Things. It just raises attention and that brings in new players, who have generally never heard of B/X, BECMI, AD&D or d20. It's just D&D.

MengerSponge 4y ago

This is why I've been seeing a big push for Pathfinder 2e, right? I suppose there are some game mechanics reasons too, but a project that isn't owned by a bully will probably see more organic support.

bethling 4y ago
But Pathfinder depends on the SRDs under the 1.0 OGL - these changes would require Paizo to accept the new terms to publish anything new for 2e (or create a 3e that doesn't build off the D20 SRDs)

broodbucket 4y ago

The comments on that thread are wild. Lawyers going back and forth about things I don't understand but can kinda loosely follow along with. Check it out if you're bored.

imwillofficial 4y ago

Wizards can get fucked. This is a tragic move that poisons goodwill.

hysan 4y ago

Having read the Gizmodo article[1] before this, I’m coming away confused about how licensing language works. In addition to revoking a “perpetual” license, there are hints that WotC plans to force any entity that is commercially selling products now to agree to the new license or cease sales. This sounds like they are planning to take a cut of all products by retroactively cancelling the 1.0a license. This is counter to what is explained in OP’s link about being able to continue selling existing products. Aside from the confusing “perpetual” !== “irrevocable” language, how would it be legal to suddenly start taking cuts of existing businesses? If WotC were to attempt this, would it be legal? It sounds like it would be based on the explanation of being able to revoke an existing license. But that sounds like a giant legal loophole to me. [1] https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...

checkyoursudo 4y ago
Perpetual refers to time only. Contracts have to contemplate an end date. In perpetuity is just an acknowledgement that the parties have thought about time, and have agreed that there is no natural end date, but that does not foreclose other termination triggers, like revocability.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  But on the other hands, contracts aren't revocable unless there are specific revocation provisions in the said contract.
thayne 4y ago
The MIT license also doesn't explicitly say it is irrevocable. It doesn't even say the license is perpetual. Does that mean that any software that is MIT licensed (or any of the many other licenses that doesn't have that wording) could be revoked at any time? That could have some pretty bad repercussions.
- knaik94 4y ago
  My understanding is the software released as MIT is pereptually MIT. Additional updates could change the license, but that won't retroactiely affect previous releases. The MIT license explicitly allows sublicensing. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

thordenmark 4y ago

There is nothing about the OGL that makes it so Wizards can never revoke it. The license states that WotC grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license" to use the SRD (system reference document: the document that provides the D&D rules sans IP content). But "perpetual," in licensing law, does not mean "irrevocable." As it turns out, unless the word "irrevocable" appears in the license, the license can be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason. This will make fan content nye impossible to publish.

legerdemain 4y ago
"Nigh." The only kinds of "nye" are Bill and December 31st.
alexvoda 4y ago
If what you say holds than most software licensing will be turned on it's head. The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse and others say no such thing. Does that mean they are all revocable? Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? Edit: correction the GPL and family are irrevocable. But that still leaves a lot of OSI and FSF approved licenses with no such language.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  While I agree with what you saying regarding "irrevocable" > Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.
  - thayne 4y ago
    But the GPLv2 is itself protected by copyright right? Could they revoke the license to that to force anything using GPLv2 to switch to a different license?
- 4y ago

vintermann 4y ago

This may be a case of Hasbro lawyers testing the boundaries of what they can get away with. It also looks like a lawyer advertising his services. And I'm not sure I trust this lawyer any more than I trust Hasbro.

Semaphor 4y ago
> It also looks like a lawyer advertising his services How so? They are just clarifying that it’s not legal advice, something that would suddenly come with a ton of regulation (and would even be illegal in some jurisdictions).

mnd999 4y ago

So lawyers love DnD. I don’t know why I found that surprising, but I did.

vintermann 4y ago
This old Door Monster sketch may be relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ido61qVbgqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ido61qVbgqI

djur 4y ago

Unbelievable that Hasbro is doing this again after how badly screwing over third parties went the last time. D&D 4th Edition had much more restrictive terms than 3.5e; one of the big selling points of 5e was the return to the OGL. I guess they're confident that they don't need third-party content or the goodwill of the broader tabletop community anymore. But if recent efforts like the Spelljammer book are any indication, they're dead wrong about that.

dorchadas 4y ago
I don't think they're confident at all. The opposite, in fact. They're trying to kill off Pathfinder because, anecdotally, it seems like they're hemorrhaging players to 2e. They're trying to stop that, then I can guarantee they'll incorporate everything they think made 2e good into D&D 6.0. Basically this is just them trying to extract more profit and screw over their biggest competitor.
- djur 4y ago
  Pathfinder 2e seems to me like it was designed to only retain superficial elements from the D&D SRD. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo had a plan for how to jettison the remaining content right from the start. So if this is meant to take PF out I think it's a foolish error (just like the existence of Pathfinder itself was due to their foolish error with the 4e licensing!).
  - dorchadas 4y ago
    I hope so, as I prefer what Pathfinder is doing a lot more. I first started getting interested in TTRPGs with 3.5e, and, to me, 5e has completely lost the feel of customisation that it had. They have finally released new races, but for the most part it's just sub-classes and "change the flavour text". PF 2e already has more ancestries and classes than 5e, and more fun ways of putting them together, and I absolutely love that. It makes the world feel more diverse, and really makes you feel like you can be what you want to be and find any class/race combo to fit your character idea as opposed to the opposite. That said, I think PF will still have to reword quite a few spells, and possibly rename more than a few creatures and spells as well. Probably enough for a 2.5e, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they're working on it especially after this leak dropped.

louhike 4y ago

I wonder why they are doing that at the same time they seem to cancel several of the games they were publishing[1] (not Baldur’s Gate 3 coming thus year). Is it just a coincidence or part of a big swift in their business plan? [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1610405307561443333 https://mobile.twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/161040530756...

Ekaros 4y ago
And they are attempting to make money? Or was these games something they provided funding for and not just a lincense.

timvdalen 4y ago

Here's another lawyer's take on this situation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRMOOlka https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRM... This letter was sent to Wizards of the Coast yesterday, asking for clarification on the situation within 10 days. The biggest effect from all of this that I can see is that everyone I know that's normally super enthusiastic about creating Dungeons & Dragons content (including myself!) is now deflated, not knowing what they should do about their upcoming projects (that they may have sunk thousands in already).

t-writescode 4y ago
For those of us that don't want to go into another person's Google Drive, could you give a summary of this? (or an alternate source?)
- Y_Y 4y ago
  It's a letter from an affected publisher's lawyer, too long to post verbatim. They say they want to be able to keep publishing stuff under this license, give supporting citations and demand clarification.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    And they say that if they receive no reply within 10 days, they, as well as other affected parties, will sue Hasbo/WotC
  - bonzini 4y ago
    They don't provide many citations though. They mostly mention that "authorized versions" is not defined in the license and they cite the FAQ (mentioned in the OP as well), hinting that reneging the words of the FAQ would constitute estoppel.
- codetrotter 4y ago
  > alternate source? https://archive.is/EFalu https://archive.is/EFalu

ReptileMan 4y ago

My take about license is that ip can always be relicensed to whatever suits the ip owner, but licenses already given and used by people can't be revoked on a whim. So no new ip are allowed, but already created stuff is safe.

david2ndaccount 4y ago

WotC got taken over by a bunch of ex-Microsoft guys so this kind of behavior is not surprising.

krisoft 4y ago

Thing is I don’t understand what OGL is for. Let’s say I decide that I want to publish a DnD adventure. Even with OGL I can’t say it is for DnD. They say I can’t even say it is compatible with DnD, but I have my doubts about that. I describe a unique set and setting. Not using any Wizards of the Coast trademark in it. (Which honestly I don’t want because I want my thing to feel fresh and unique.) I don’t think the OGL licence would help me with that. Then of course there is game mechanics. I don’t want to repeat the players handbook. (You wouldn’t expect this kind of material to repeat the basic rules anyway.) But i do want to use terms from it. For example I would write: “The 3rd chest in the second level is locked and magically trapped. The DC of the trap is 13. On activativation it deals 1d6 poison damage. Inside the chest a Shimmering Ghillie Suit. The suit is a legendary magical item which grants its wearer advantage on stealth checks.” Obviously this uses a lot of DnD terminology. (DC, advantage, poison damage, stealth check, legendary item) But it does not infringe on the copyright on any WotC property. (Assuming that I have made a search for the Ghillie Suit not appearing in any published materials yet.) Do i need OGL to publish this? If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish?

Semaphor 4y ago
I think this would actually be fine. The problems happen, if an enemy is of the Druid class and can cast Web. Or at least that’s my understanding with all I’ve learned today ;) Mechanics are fine, "Creative" things like classes not. > If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish? IIRC the video game Solasta: Crown of the Magister is D&D5e under OGL, so they used a lot of SRD things. > Turn-Based Tactical RPG based on the SRD 5.1 Ruleset
- timvdalen 4y ago
  Solasta actually has a separate license: https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-license-to-use-the-dd-srd https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-licen...
  - Semaphor 4y ago

oliwarner 4y ago

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. But seriously, if this goes wrong, if it's agreed that OGL 3rd and 5th Edition derivatives can continue under OGL1.0 in perpetuity, Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro stand to lose control of AD&D. They have already have lost significant mindshare to Pathfinder (a 3rd Ed fork), but this could be the final nail. There's more than enough money in keeping OGL1 to fight this. This is a stupid fight for WotC to have picked. Any goodwill they had will be actively invested into other rulesets.

ogre_battle 4y ago
They contacted the Lorraine Williams, she said this was a good idea

jasonlotito 4y ago

All of this advice without actually seeing the changes. People thinking Strength and Dexterity are mechanics. So much misinformation from a leak. I will say the confusion and concern are warranted but officially we don’t know what the next OGL is yet.

carapace 4y ago

I remember when all my friends in high school got into MtG. They wanted me to play, and I said, "okay, but I'm going to make my own cards." You know, xerox some cards and laminate them myself. I was cheap. I wasn't about to pay real money for a bunch of fancy cardboard. None of them would go for it. I tried and tried to get them to understand that there wasn't anything special about the WotC cards, I said "You know there are no real wizards at Wizards of the Coast, right?" These are "magic" cards, not magic cards, eh? But they wouldn't have it. I gotta hand it to these folks. They convinced a generation that you have to pay them to use your own imagination. Maybe they are real wizards?

swisniewski 4y ago

I am not a Lawyer…And not a dnd gamer… But this does not “cancel” existing licenses. Instead, what it does is create a hard fork, between 1.1 content and 1.0 content. Basically… any content released under the 1.1 license is not usable under the 1.0 license. The statement, in the new license, that the old license is “no longer an authorized license agreement” does not apply to existing licenses anyone may have to 1.0 content. Absent your consent to the 1.1 license, its terms don’t apply to you. Instead, that language is meant to defeat the forward compatibility clauses in the 1.0 license. Absent that language you could freely use 1.1 content under the 1.0 terms because of the forward compatibility language in 1.0. This means you can continue to “Use” (as defined in the 1.0 license) any of the content you were using before. However, it also means if you “Use” any 1.1 licensed content, then either you are in violation of the 1.0 license (and then thus have no rights) or you are subject to the 1.1 license and its terms. So, this does create some hazard, in that any one using 1.0 content under a 1.0 license needs to ensure they don’t in the future use any 1.1 content. But if you stick to 1.0 licensed content you are ok. This can still cause problems. If you are in the business of selling DnD compatible game content, you now suddenly have to make a choice between loosing forward compatibility and having control over your revenue. It still sucks. But any content you could sell yesterday you can still sell tomorrow. The contract has explicit, custom, definitions for several basic elements of contract law. It explicitly declares what consideration exists and what offer and acceptance look like. The party defining those terms is Wotc. They are bound by something called “promissory estoppel” from representing that those things weren’t present in the original 1.0 license. They cannot revoke your 1.0 license unless you breach the agreement. They can set a trap for you, that will capture 25% of your revenue, if you end up incorporating 1.1 content into your previously 1.0 derived works. So, be careful. But they can’t take away what you have now. It can still also hurt various businesses to loose forward compatibility rights… but anything derived from purely 1.0 content is still 1.0 licensed and they can’t take that away unless you violate the 1.0 license terms somehow.