20 ms·

An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizards of the Coast

369 points by Macha 4y ago

markus_zhang 4y ago
If I build a computer game using places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon, how much fee I need to pay WotC? Assuming I sell it on Steam for some paltry revenue.
- ajross 4y ago
  I don't think any Dragonlance content was ever published under the OGL, FWIW. The covered content is limited to the rules and the core(-ish) monster stat blocks. The fiction was never part of the deal (nor should it have been, IMHO).
  - markus_zhang 4y ago
    Interesting. Does that mean If I loosely follow the rules (say mages use mana points which change by shape of moons) and don't use the stats (after all it's just a Ultima spinoff), I probably don't need to worry anything about licensing fee? I really don't think it's going to make any meaningful money anyway.
    - ajross 4y ago
      The Ultima series itself didn't bother to license D&D, so you're fine. Basic ideas of mechanics can't be copyrighted, and no one ever got a patent on "hit points" et. al.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Unless you make over $750k, nothing. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d This is Wizards trying to walk a fine line. They want a cut of the profits from the big-name D&D-based content creators, but they don't want to kill the entire creative community. I'm not sure they're going to succeed. Pissing off the biggest names putting your product in the spotlight in return for a couple bucks seems a really dumb idea to me.
  - pflats 4y ago
    Not true. One of the very first lines there states that: > OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. The Fan Content Policy is: https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy Which says that: > You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content; > You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and > Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit. > You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content. All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed." Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon" very much are covered by WotC's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).
    - markus_zhang 4y ago
      Thanks, looks like it's pretty strigent. Well worst case I'll put it up for free when done. Don't think anyone is going to pay anyway, just a hobby project.
  - the_af 4y ago
    What are the big names? Paizo/Pathfinder? Can't they simply do their own thing and stop relying on D&D precisely because they are so big their customer base already knows them? Or is it computer games? With computers handling the rules, you can just make your own RPG rules, right? Or is it the setting? Do people really only play videogames that are set in Faerun or Icewind Dale or whatever? Can't you just make your own stuff up and call it Arda-- er, Middle-- er, Ancient Magical Land of Elves?
- delecti 4y ago
  The Dragonlance universe is one of the more complicated examples you could have picked, because there's been some lawsuits about the rights. Also, video games have always required additional licensing, so you picked an almost entirely orthogonal example. The OGL covers printed (or digital "print") content.
  - zaarn 4y ago
    The original OGL very much allows video games. KOTOR is for example a game that includes a copy of the OGL. There is also several virtual tabletop softwares that ship with OGL content.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  OGL only covers rules and mechanics, and some of the common, generic races/classes/spells/gear. All of the 'fluff' e.g. places and characters and worldbuilding is not licensed by OGL. OGL allows you to build your places and characters and content so that they're compatible with D&D content.
xavdid 4y ago
This is disappointing, but not surprising. I don't play Magic anymore, but it's been clear for years that WotC is prioritizing profit over game health.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Yep, this is an all-too-normal letdown from WotC. They really are trying to milk their franchises, without concern for their longevity. That's too bad. For me, this is more reason to continue with the D&D 3.5 and pathfinder ecosystems for my RPGs.
- xtirpation 4y ago
  Devil's advocate: if they've been doing this for years (and I do agree wholeheartedly with you personally) then has it really been detrimental to game health? Presumably they have metrics indicating positive growth or they wouldn't be pushing in this direction. Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us to pound sand as they have for years.
  - xavdid 4y ago
    It's a fair question, and one I don't really have the answer to without internal WotC metrics. I really think it depends on how we define "game health" (and whether we, the players, define it the same way that they do). I'd say the game is healthy if people keep playing, the community grows, the meta isn't stale, and there's still interest in the game. By that metric, the game feels unhealthy to me. I would _guess_ that WotC is most concerned with overall revenue (and potential for future revenue). I would bet that any reduced player counts have been offset by sales of higher-margin product (so numbers probably look decent right now). But, long term, I think these actions have hurt the brand, so the next product will have to have a higher price to make up for fewer sales. Of course, I'm just theorizing here. I have no inside info and most of my feelings (especially as a no-longer-player) are driven by what I hear from friends and read online (the latter of which, of course, skews negative).
    - 4y ago
drewry 4y ago
Ah so this is why my hobby open-source project of 6+ years has been getting a surge in traffic :) https://github.com/opendnd https://github.com/opendnd Totally unrelated to this of course, but very cool to see all the same. The OGL has been a cornerstone of innovation in this space and without it a lot of us would be dead in the water.
- make3 4y ago
  name should probably change so you don't get sued. am not a lawyer though. (cool project btw)
the_af 4y ago
How important is it to stick to the D&D franchise? Why are third parties married to something like the OGL? I understand D&D is to RPGs what Windows is (or used to be) to operating systems. But unlike an operating system, D&D's grasp on roleplaying is more fragile. There are plenty of RPG systems that are (subjectively) better and owe nothing to D&D's imaginary setting or rules. In fact, the largest innovation happens outside the D&D franchise. There are very innovative "lite" RPGs like Trophy Dark or Risus, but also heavier and "crunchy" systems that owe nothing to D&D. Why risk your business by tying it to a franchise owned by a competing business? (Again, I understand riding the success of D&D's popularity. But unlike with computers and hardware, the "vendor lock-in" pitfall is easier to avoid with something as intangible as an RPG)
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  I think people are mostly worried about old material which will fall into a grey zone distribution-wise if Hasbro revokes the previous version of the OGL.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff? That's bad.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerf 4y ago
    Are they actually trying to revoke the previous version? I do not know, which is why I ask; honest question. I observe that 1.0 contains the verbiage: "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." which at least to my open source license not-a-lawyer read says that they basically can't revoke it. They can relicense stuff going forward under 1.1, and that may be bad, but I wonder if people are misunderstanding and treating it as apocolyptic when it's just bad. It seems like the worst case scenario is the community undergoes a de facto fork and you can stick to a 1.0 world if you want, not that all the 1.0 stuff goes away. This smells to me like many similar panics in our community when some project goes to relicense and people don't generally understand that the relicense only applies going forward, because in general you can't retroactively relicense an open license. (There are nuances to that statement which I'm skipping over, but I'd say that's the most correct short summary. The thing that people think is happening is not what is happening.) Of course it is still valid to be upset about the relicensing going forward! It just may not be quite as much a kick in the teeth as people think.
karaterobot 4y ago
I played D&D for about 27 years, but I never thought it was particularly good. It was just the lingua franca, the kernel a relatively small community could come together around. I don't think D&D has to be the default tabletop RPG anymore, nor should it be. Partly due to the OGL and its knock-on effects, lots more people entered the community. Maybe they want different things than just a miniatures combat-oriented pastiche of Tolkien, Howard, and Vance. You can publish books more easily, distribute them more easily, market them more easily. I think the tabletop industry could sustain a community without D&D if it had to, and maybe it has to. I wonder if maybe that's a good thing. WoTC's decision was selfish, tone-deaf, destructive; all that stuff. It will hurt people with existing businesses built around OGL content. That sucks. But, I don't think it will (as this open letter states) dismantle the tabletop industry. On the contrary, I hope it frees it from its dependence on a capricious IP owner with a brittle license. For the players, maybe it frees them from a mediocre system and the most generic, uninteresting fantasy setting ever. There's a lot more out there, maybe this is a good opportunity to explore some of it.
- vintermann 4y ago
  I agree that D&D doesn't need to be the default tabletop RPG anymore. But you bet I want the freedom to borrow everything I liked from every version of it I played (which doesn't include anything recent, by the way). I want to be able to talk about it online too, hell, even PLAY it online. And if Hasbro are so desperate to prevent that from happening that they'll call in the shit-flinging lawyers - the kind who don't even try to have a solid argument, they just try to make engaging with them maximally unpleasant to everyone involved - then I will be most pissed with Hasbro. You too, will have to live in fear of attracting their attention. The whole point of this sort of litigation is that they're signaling, they're not going to be reasonable. Are you SURE you're not infringing in the shit-flinging lawyers' eyes? That doesn't sound like a good opportunity to explore to me.
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  My understanding is that this also puts the more robust "forks" like Pathfinder at risk.
- deleted 4y ago
the_af 4y ago
I don't understand how gamers (non-videogame gamers in this case) put up with ruthless monetization and lock-in attempts by the biggest companies. RPGs is a particularly bizarre case. You really don't need anything but a group of friends, your imagination and some rules to play roleplaying games. Ok, so you want merchandise -- player screens and mats and minis -- all of that's optional, there's no RPG police that can prevent you making your own or buying from third parties. So you have adventure modules... I made my own adventures back when I was a teenager, but I can sort of see not everyone has the imagination to make their own, plus being able to "share" a world with other gaming groups so you can say you defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil or whatnot is sort of cool; not my thing, but I can see it. But now apparently Wizards of the Coast is not content with all the stuff they already sell, so they are starting to build a virtual world (+ app, of course) where you can customize your character, buy DLC, etc. Of course, all tidily locked-in, because what better way to keep a tight reign than owning the app? I can't wrap my head around this. An app? DLC? Custom items? For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy? You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination...
- remram 4y ago
  This letter is proof they are not putting up with it. Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap? > You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination Obviously you need rulebooks, campaign modules, etc. This is the stuff that is under license from WotC.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Sorry, my rant was semi-related: I mean the upcoming digital D&D app that Wizards of the Coast expects players to use. Isn't it crazy that they expect to sell you DLC for online avatars for a game that happens in your imagination? > Obviously you need rulebooks Yes. > campaign modules Unlike the rulebook, these are nice but not mandatory. And if you're crafty, you can derive inspiration from other fantasy worlds, books, novels and movies. I do understand not everybody is creative enough or wants to spend time doing this though; I also understand some people value a "shared world" they can discuss with other players beyond their group. > Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap? At some point, yes. I mean, there are plenty of other awesome RPGs to play, right? You are not locked-in to D&D in the same sense many people are locked-in to Windows.
kubb 4y ago
We need a table top system on GPL or a similar licence, with a full universe and lore. Do you think YC would fund a startup to build it up?
- andolanra 4y ago
  There are a truly massive number of RPGs out there with a wide variety of open licenses, especially the various Creative Commons licenses. The indie RPG sphere is massive and includes tabletop systems that range from "mild variations on the core D&D formula" to "almost fundamentally alien approaches to doing structured role-playing". D&D has long-standing brand recognition and cultural cachet, but it hasn't been the only player in this space for decades.
  - kubb 4y ago
    Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to replace DnD?
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago
      It's kinda wild to watch HN suggest that a tech company can do as well as established tabletop gaming companies as if it's as easy as asking ChatGPT. I suppose considering how beloved Tesla and Theranos were I shouldn't be surprised.
      - kubb 4y ago
        We can also code it for the Metaverse! Mark please invest 4-5 Million.
    - mattmanser 4y ago
      Think your wishful thinking belongs on /r/choosingbeggars :)
      - kubb 4y ago
        Umm, we deserve high quality open source projects. I'm not complaining about the existing ones, just pointing out the opportunity.
PeterisP 4y ago
The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e.g. "3.5" D&D) on a parallel track, ignoring all the OGL 1.1 things, explicitly foregoing any compatibility with D&D 6th edition (or whatever it will be called), and building up a thriving ecosystem of content which they are definitely capable of doing separately from WotC.
- dahdum 4y ago
  OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.
  - ezfe 4y ago
    They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Bjartr 4y ago
      > Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
    - dahdum 4y ago
      The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.
VikingCoder 4y ago
I'm so tired of everything remotely like this. Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs? Some that would be amenable to making into Computer RPGs. Some that maybe that would be nearly impossible to automate. (That's fine, too.) Under some licenses like CC BY / CC BY-SA / CC BY-NC? I _like_ buying RPG books. I would continue to do so, even if the license was CC BY. I also like getting searchable PDFs, and turning dungeons into a Wiki for the DM to make it easy to find content. I mean... Come on...
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  In case someone wanders into this conversation later, Paizo just announced that they are doing something exactly like what I hoped for. > In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  Eclipse Phase was released under CC BY-NC-SA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase I don't know if there are others or not.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    There are tons, the parent commenter just doesn't know.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      I found several NC. That didn't suit my purposes at the time. It's great to hear there are more. Would you care to list your favorites? Or the ones you believe are already popular?
  - 4y ago
mabbo 4y ago
It's the natural process in a capitalistic system. First, you build something that everyone loves and build up a huge stockpile of consumer trust. You use that consumer trust to gain market share, and eventually a lot of market power (though you never use those words or imply that you know you have market power). Then once you're dominant, you exploit that consumer trust to make more money. It worked pretty well for companies like Amazon and Google. WotC are just doing it a bit blatantly, or perhaps people saw through the ploy more easily than they had anticipated.
ghostly_s 4y ago
Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we are free to disagree with that decision, but surely they have no legal means to force other creators to switch their own content to the new license version simply because they are using a license text that was drafted by WoTC? Plenty of OSS projects have stuck with GPLv2 in similar circumstances. And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC content that was already published under the old license? Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up. In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.
  - Tyr42 4y ago
    Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs they already paid for with zero notice before, when they revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think they can try and pull that shit again.
    - SSLy 4y ago
      Whoa, do you have more sources about this event?
      - Macha 4y ago
ankaAr 4y ago
Are u kidding me? Again? Are we fighting against the same company again? We never learned anything. They had the article where they can change anything at any time, that was always a red flag, and was from the first day. As gm it is a shame that someone uses that licence all those years. Paizo made a rewrite and I think was the only company that saw that coming decades ago. But many mainstream groups used the content and the rights that the licence gave to push their projects and made a fortune (and wizards used that to push again the game), and now they are saying: no more. Well, bad luck for you. Use a real open licence, even a CC-BY-SA-NC if you wants, not a licence with a backdoor from the owner! My god, the community is fighting a battle for less than 20 companies affected because they wanted to use a stupid licence. OGL 1.1 is bad as 1.0 was, it is the same shit, now with a royalty and just because of that, they are all like crazies. Was always as bad as now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
_aavaa_ 4y ago
> On top of that, games such as Pathfinder 1E and 2E, 13th Age, Fudge, and Traveller—which use the 1.0 OGL as the backbone of their existence—will need to cease sales of upcoming products or give WotC 25% of their revenue to stay in compliance with the new license How does this work? Why are they forced to do so?
- mcv 4y ago
  Hasbro claims they are. Whether that's actually true is very questionable, but most RPG publishers will not want to fight Hasbro in court.
thefurdrake 4y ago
Gosh, yeah, this'll definitely stop all those content creators from doing a find and replace to make their content fit for Pathfinder 2 or any non-OGL-tainted system on the planet. This might actually do good for tabletop gaming in general, if Hasbro's cancerous behavior causes people to flee their IP and show interest in other things. I really don't think this is going to work out the way these braindead business executives seem to think it will. People will move their content to a different platform because DnD has never been anything more than a storytelling/content framework. Hasbro mad cuz community content better than their own. Go back to ruining ponies.
legitster 4y ago
Am I right to assume WotC's move is basically aimed at groups like Critical Role? On one hand, I have no interest in defending corporate copyright rules. But on the other hand, I disagree that this would stifle creativity. If there are hundreds of companies out there that only exist to pump out content for the D&D ruleset, surely making them pay for the privilege would encourage some of them to build new rulesets?
- jimbob45 4y ago
  …the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory. This makes me believe less that this is an organic push within WotC and more a push by a special interest group. Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1, it would make sense that a special interest group funded it with the stipulation that they added the trans bit in.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    > Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1 I have seen no evidence of this so far? Any source?
- Macha 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure the primary target is third party VTTs, and that Critical Role will probably get a royalty free side deal, precisely to prevent them jumping ship with their marketing power.
cstever 4y ago
For a little bit of flavor. After I saw this post (I don't follow D&D or Wizards or Hasbro news) I thought immediately of BFRPG. Found this post in Basic Fantasy's forum, so this move by WotC is definitely going to have an impact. https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596 https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596
gkoberger 4y ago
I imagine the logic was that someone at Hasbro saw Critical Role, Dimension 20, etc making millions and felt it was "unfair" they're not getting any money. But there's a quote attributed to Bill Gates that feels relevant here: "A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it." DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.
- mcv 4y ago
  But Critical Role is also great advertisement. If Hasbro goes after them, Critical Role can just switch to another system and give them free advertisement instead. I guarantee that every single RPG creator would love for Critical Role to pick their system.
  - gkoberger 4y ago
    Oh I 100% agree. This is lose-lose for Hasbro (either people pay and are angry, or leave), and there's no way they ultimately make more with these rules than without them.
  - wincy 4y ago
    I think Critical Role is in no danger of them “going after” them as there are officially licensed Critical Role books and miniatures. I’d imagine they’re wanting to get a cut of whatever money Paizo, and Kobold Gaming Press, or the D&D miniatures and books kickstarters that regularly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    - djur 4y ago
      If anything, this might put their partnership with Critical Role at risk.
    - Macha 4y ago
      I think the primary target is VTTs serving D&D 5e gameplay systems as an alternative to their planned 6e microtransaction machine in their upcoming OneD&D/D&D Beyond VTT. They want to sell classes and feats and spells etc. to players as microtransactions and justify it with 3d models and animations, but at that price many players would opt to forgot the 3d content for a system where they didn't have to pay... unless Wizards manage to prevent that system existing. As a secondary target, getting a cut of Paizo's revenue is something I imagine Wizards like the idea of, but was not the primary goal. Critical Role will probably just get a plain royalty free license for use in their main show as a side deal for the amount it promotes the game.
jeffwask 4y ago
Hasbro is working overtime to alienate the game communities they purchased.
make3 4y ago
This is some old school microsoft shit, make everyone expand on your products & be dependant on them thinking they're safe by publishing an open license, then swap it under their feet forcing everyone to pay 25%. That's like if Apple had decided overnight to start charging apps their infamous 30% fee
raydiatian 4y ago
Maybe I don’t fully understand how public copyright licenses work. Do you need to apply for a license? When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die? If somebody infringes on your license, do you get a free OGL lawyer or something to help your case? In conclusion, it almost sounds like OGL is fucking useless in the first place if they can just upgrade it to be paid at scale but clearly I’m missing something
- boole1854 4y ago
  > When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die? The issue is that part of the 1.0 license says users "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" (emphasis added). And part of 1.1 says that 1.0 "is no longer an authorized license agreement". So, in other words, 1.0 had an embedded kill switch which 1.1 activates. At least that's the legal theory which WotC is operating on.
  - 93po 4y ago
    I have no law experience but I feel like no longer recognizing a previous license you created doesn't force an upgrade to a new license, but rather would invalidate any licensing at all on all content that had the old license.
    - 93po 4y ago
      I realized after writing this that my logic doesn't work great and I would rather just delete this if possible :)
raydiatian 4y ago
If a language model can run a D&D campaign, what do we need Wizards for?
- FridgeSeal 4y ago
  Have you tried? It loses the thread and descends into incoherence pretty quickly. Also, because if it can do that, it was at some point trained on material licensed under the OGL, or WotC directly.
jeremycw 4y ago
I am not a lawyer and please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it rules and mechanics are not copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the flavor text and specific compilation of the rule set into the "Rule Book". The rule book becomes a copyrightable work. This means that your are within your legal right to make a game called "Dragons & Daggers" where all the combat mechanics, rules, etc are identical to Dungeons & Dragons as long as the "glue" text and flavour text is original content. It seems to me like a community fork licensed under CC that plays exactly the same is not impossible.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  Spells use text to explain their mechanics, and that text is copyrightable. You'd likely need to re-write the spell lists from scratch.
etchalon 4y ago
Maybe more people to discover, and build with, Monte Cook's excellent Cypher System: https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/ https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/
nevinera 4y ago
> 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. So it sounds like their approach here is dependent on the interpretation of "any authorized version" to mean "authorized _by us_", which would allow them to declare past versions "unauthorized"? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds.. unlikely to stick.
- Pet_Ant 4y ago
  Is there a lawyer here that can give us an opinion here for entertainment - not legal advice - reasons?
cbrozefsky 4y ago
Regarding the ability to copyright the "method of playing" or "rules" of a game: https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf The US Copyright Office says it can apply to text or description, but not to the rules. WoTC did have a patent issues for MtG, but I dont think that's going to work for D20 rules. Perhaps they will attempt to patent the OneD&D release? Either way, it's quite clear that corporations will attempt to colonize and control our culture, and lie and scheme their way to expand their profit extraction.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  The wealth of written content is exactly what's valuable about D&D. The rules aren't interesting nor innovative. There is a Wizard Spell that does 1d4 damage at spell slot 1. It is called Magic Missile. There is a block of text that describes the Magic Missile. If you want D&D you can't just clone the mechanic of spells, you also have to write a massive amount of copywritten content.
  - cbrozefsky 4y ago
    I don't think "cloning D&D" is what any of these third parties are doing. It's producing add-ons, source books, or videos of them playing. That is, original content that is compatible with, and tuned for the rule system.
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago
      Fine any other synonym for "clone" if that's your issue. It's the idea that many many of these products are dressing on top of the SRD.
    - sleepybrett 4y ago
      Some are to an extent. There are several modern adaptations of the old 'Moldvay' Basic/Expert Dungeon and Dragons rules (The old red and blue books/boxes). Basically getting them down in a better way on paper, smoothing some rough edges out.
anakha 4y ago
WotC CEO and president Cynthia Williams was on the record as saying that the DnD brand is under monetized. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news... Hasbro CEO, also the former WoTC CEO, has ramped up monetization of the Magic the Gathering brand significantly in recent years, partly at the expense of cashing in on the secondary market. WoTC choking the OGL is consistent with them looking to pump up their profits.
- phaedryx 4y ago
  I used to play MtG back in the early 90's, but got out because I needed money for college books, not cards. My son got interested recently through some friends and I started looking about getting him into it around the time WotC released the $1000 old-school proxy packs. Needless to say, it turned me off.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Habro is being pressured by outside investors to increase revenue from their Wizards division or spin it off.
- hinkley 4y ago
  It’s not like TSR were the good guys either. I wrote off DnD until CR precisely because it has a reputation of being owned by assholes. They just slowed down for a while but here we are again
jesusofnazarath 4y ago
[dead]
thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
If D&D "goes dark", why not try another role playing system? GURPS is a well-designed favorite made by Steven Jackson Games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  It's not like GURPS is unknown to community members. If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives. This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-designed favorite Spanish."
  - Eji1700 4y ago
    And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship. It’s crunchy as hell and a major commitment. Pathfinder 2 is likely going to be the biggest winner in this but hopefully other systems benefit as well. Dungeon world strikes me as another easy analogue and there’s plenty of different stuff like Spire/Heart or Lancer that’s made waves. Not to say that gurps is bad. I hope they see a bump too. Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago
      > And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship. This kind of comment is also why it's funny to suggest "just use X" to D&D players. RPG nerds are effectively poor software engieners. Ask 10 of them for an opinion on TT RPG rulesets and you'll get 300 opinions. > Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists Absolutely correct.
      - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        Well in all fairness, GURPS games and OSR games are just very different games. Sure they're roughly "RPGs" where people roleplay as characters in a world with stats for structure, but their attitudes toward actions and conflict resolution are completely different which lends them to completely different gameplay and audiences. It's like saying Monopoly and Agricola are both board games. They are but they're also very different.
cheeseomlit 4y ago
Really hope this doesn't affect OGL 1.0a the way some people are saying it will, particularly regarding non-DnD systems. I've been working on a project for several years that's based on the Cepheus Engine RPG system which was published under OGL 1.0a (as it's based on the Traveller SRD which was also used OGL 1.0a), which requires me to publish under that license as well. Now that's all up in the air, what happens if OGL 1.0a becomes 'unauthorized' in this case? If this ends up killing Cepheus I will have wasted thousands of hours of my time.
- djur 4y ago
  The Traveller SRD is (c) Mongoose Publishing. It seems implausible that the OGL 1.0a could be construed to give Hasbro any control over intellectual property that isn't derived from their own. It should be possible for the rights owners to simply relicense Traveller, Fudge, etc. It's Paizo that is in a difficult spot, because their SRD still explicitly references material from Hasbro products.
ivraatiems 4y ago
IANAL, but I would love the opinion of anyone more qualified on this: Suppose I am one of the "Expert Tier" companies and I'm making a lot of money off of using OGL 1.0 licensed works in conjunction with my own. The OGL[0] says Wizards can authorize new versions of the license, but it doesn't define "authorized" and it doesn't say anywhere they can deauthorize old ones. It also says that the terms of the license are perpetual. If I saw WOTC was going to make a change like this, obviously I'd retain counsel, but why wouldn't I take a position something like: 1) We don't believe that Wizards can arbitrarily bind us to the terms of any new license just because they have "authorized" it. 2) We will only release content that uses OGL 1.0a licensed works and never anything using 1.1 or any other version. 3) If Wizards doesn't like it, they can sue us and try to enforce their license. It'll be on them to prove the license binds us, and they'll look like assholes in front of their community of players. When my option is "give up all my corporate secrets and also lose 25% of my money" or this, why shouldn't I do this? [0] https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Edit: Another source I found that seems to suggest this might be an option, to an extent - or that there might be other ways to challenge this decision: 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...
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  I would assume (IANAL!) that it would work similarly to software license upgrades. The IP created and licensed under version 1.0 would still be under version 1.0, and only IP created after 1.1 is released is affected, and then there must be some action on part of the small games company to agree to it. I suspect it depends of course on the exact terms of license and what users of version 1.0 agreed to in terms of future binding. Might be an interesting case with more than a little relevance for (US) software licenses
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    Wizards seems to think this will explicitly not be the case, and they can effectively force everyone to abide by the terms of a new license just by making one. Which maybe they can! But it seems like the right move might be to force them to try it.
chemmail 4y ago
I think they will find they are screwed and this desperate attempt is the straw. We see this in computing world where everyone did their best to avoid going to x86 and went to ARM, but now that ARM is so uncertain now they will abandon and go RISC V.
dcow 4y ago
How are we even in a scenario where the ideas from one game can be covered by the copyright of the author? What law today covers the ideas born out of a copyrighted work? Or is it mostly that people see this OGL as explicit permission where otherwise there'd be none which, despite the fact that they'd win, would still leave open the possibility that derivative authors could be sued (and out resourced, legally)?
- shuntress 4y ago
  I think the catch is more on extensions and accessories for D&D. There is obvious stuff like pre-packaged one-shot adventure books or custom character classes. Less obvious stuff like DM screens, stat-trackers, or spell cards. Then there's the "corporate dystopia nightmare" like wizard of the coast demanding a cut on sales of dice towers, notebooks, d20s, etc.
secabeen 4y ago
WotC/Hasbro has named their next release "One D&D". They clearly want to clear the field of other compatible rules-sets, and have just a singular system that they control, manage, and profit from. My guess is that they see the profits that Apple and Google make from their App Store, and want all future add-on content to D&D to be paying them 25% of revenues, rather than 0% right now.
rosmax_1337 4y ago
Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license? Are they trying retroactively to gain IP over all ""DnD"" derivative works? Are they just doing something different for One D&D?
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license? Well Hasbro wants to make money of third party D&D content, nothing more. Why were people still using D&D when non corporate alternatives exist? The people at the head of these companies could be selling vacuum cleaners it wouldn't make a difference, at the end of the day it's all about maximizing short term profit.
- Macha 4y ago
  The existence of the OGL v1.0a as given to this point allows you to take a big chunk of the D&D 5e rules and content (specifically this subset: https://www.5esrd.com/ https://www.5esrd.com/) and 3.5e (this subset): https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm and implement a character builder, database lookup, etc, roll engine etc. which you would need to make a virtual tabletop to compete with their upcoming product. This is a problem for Wizards of the Coast as they view DnD as "heavily under-monetised" and so would like to change that with DnD 6E (aka OneD&D) to a model more similar to microtransaction laden video games. In particular, as part of OneD&D, they are building a whole new VTT on top of D&D Beyond which they acquired last year. This new VTT will have 3d models and animations which they want to sell to players, and D&D Beyond already allows selling pieces of rules for players to use in their character sheet seperately (see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cauldron-of-everything https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cau...). This compares to the current model of D&D where maybe the GM buys a couple of books and shares them to their table or people just look up the SRD for the rules and use a third party character builder or VTT. The problem is if you're comparing "1 person spends $60 and 4-5 people pay $0" to "6 people pay recurring microtransaction revenue at the level of popular video games", then the 3d models and fancy effects are highly unlikely to avoid people choosing one of the cheaper options using the open licensed material. So #1 they'd like to kill the ability for third parties to interfere with their new monetisation models. As for benefit #2, if they get to kill Pathfinder which is the closest game to D&D in licensing shenanigans, then that also removes the easiest option for players to move to if they accomplish point #1 alone. Failing that, they'll settle for #2b, which is capturing the revenue of Paizo (the publisher of Pathfinder) for themselves so that even if players flee D&D to alternatives, Wizards aren't losing any money. As a tertiary benefit, maybe they manage to bully some smaller content creators into agreeing to 1.1 with the terms that they get to sell it on OneD&D to pad out their content library and make OneD&D more appealing to end users.
madrox 4y ago
In another place and time, a similar circumstance is what led Blizzard to unintentionally provide the tools for inspiring the MOBA genre, which spawned League of Legends and DOTA2. That altered games forever. You'll notice few games ship with map editors anymore, and game UGC is very tightly locked down. Blizzard leaders have stated that letting MOBA get away from them was their biggest miss. D&D is having a similar moment where companies that were built on D&D are becoming bigger than them, and WotC wants to compete more directly now that digital is becoming a priority for TTRPGs. Once you decide to do that, you no longer want to be a platform for your competitor. In a way, this is similar Apple banning apps that directly compete with built-in iOS features. While also an unpopular move, you can hardly blame them.
- cpv 4y ago
  And then Blizzard updated the user agreement (around the Warcraft 3 Reforged), mentioning that all player generated content is owned by the company. So in case some genius comes with another successful custom map (or whatever), the company has new ideas to work on, for free.
  - madrox 4y ago
    I believe they updated the EULA long before that, but Reforged got a lot of press about it since it represents such a contrast between yesterday's games and today's.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  Warcraft 3 mods also launched the tower defense genre
SSLy 4y ago
For a reasonable explanation from some of the community members https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/1062131379493683320/Screenshot_95.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/10... For the 1.1 leak mentioned there https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Game-License-1-1-Leak.pdf https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Ga... Please note the length of the document corroborates the length of about 9000 words as mentioned by tech journalists.
deleted_account 4y ago
I was a tabletop gamer for 25 years before I played my first sit-down D&D session. GURPS, Paranoia, Cyberpunk 2020, WHFRP, TOON, Amber, World of Darkness...you name it. To say, "Wizards of the Coast wants to dismantle the tabletop industry," feels like hyperbole when there's a rich history of alternatives, but I sympathize with the content creators. There's a cultural battle as much as there is a commercial one being waged here. That said you gotta be _asleep_ to not see the tightening of the reins coming from these mega-companies sitting on fertile creative IP. Marvel Cinematic Universe only made — what? — $28B worldwide while making Rocket-fucking-Raccoon a household name. Games Workshop put the screws to content creators leading to the launch of Warhammer+ and r/grimdank is still hitting the front page of Reddit. Not to mention Uber-nerd Henry Cavill is hooking up with Amazon to bring 40K to streaming. The strategy works and I suspect it's driven entirely by folks — all grown up and with deep pockets — thirsty to see their marginalized childhood hobbies hit the mainstream. I'm conflicted. As much as I want to say, "Fuck WotC. Fuck Games Workshop" there's visceral appeal in hoping for good Drizzt Do'Urden movie or the Drop Site Massacre becoming as much a cultural touchstone as the The Red Wedding.
- ropable 4y ago
  I can't express just how much I want the Horus Heresy saga to receive the high-production-value HBO/Netflix/Amazon treatment. The animated content on Warhammer+ is good and all, but that would be a dream.
  - deleted_account 4y ago
    What? Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie wasn't enough for you? I kid. Every 40K fan wants this, but it almost feels like hubris to hope it actually happens. I have to wonder if the Amazon deal[1] is Games Workshop's attempt to get out of the streaming business. Nothing coming out of Warhammer+ is breaking out of the core fanbase; I couldn't fathom suggesting to anyone not familiar with the universe, "Yo, you got to checkout this show The Exodite." My guess is GW is falling back to its comfort zone of licensing IP: "Amazon Studios today announced that it has secured global rights to Warhammer 40,000...The agreement encompasses rights to the universe across series, film, and more..."[2] When you have two producers from Vertigo Entertainment, one of which happens to be dating Henry Cavill, brokering an escape hatch I'm sure they were, "Yes, please." My guess is we're going to see Eisenhorn first[3] which feels like a far more approachable introduction to the setting anyways. [1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-warhammer-40000-amazon-1235283251/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-wa... [2] https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-studios-secures-first-of-its-kind-rights-to-warhammer-40000-with-henry-cavill-set-to-star-and-executive-produce-global-franchise/ https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-st... [3] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-series-works-man-high-castle-creator-1224874/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-se...
allone 4y ago
Before french revolution: enlightened monarchy After french revolution: tyranny and paranoia Shortly after: "universal" democracy (modulo something) Do we really need to repeat the exercise. It'll only lead to tears.
dang 4y ago
Recent and related: Dungeons and Dragons’ new license tightens its grip on competition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 - Jan 2023 (203 comments)
- mijoharas 4y ago
  And also Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 - Jan 2023 (233 comments)
  - dang 4y ago
    Thanks!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
User23 4y ago
I'm under the impression that in the USA copyright doesn't protect rule systems[1]. I imagine a clean rewrite of the SRD would be relatively straightforward. I expect it would take some lawyering to make sure it was done properly, but it clearly can be done. I also know from people in the legal business that Hasbro is notoriously litigious. They will happily drag out a suit and make it as expensive as possible even when they don't really have a case. [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658-4f00-884f-8310cfeb4b0f https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658...
scoofy 4y ago
Again... you can't copyright or patent rules of a game. I understand the OGL exists as a sort of off-hand agreement, but I am concerned as to why we all have decided that a "game system" is somehow a different, copyrightable thing, when it is essentially a fancy way of saying "rules of a game." I'm honestly confused by the entire situation. I remain confused as to why any Hasbro suit regarding this would not just get thrown out by a court. It seems very obvious to me that the D20 system isn't controllable, and that referencing D&D books for more details is clearly fair use.
- 93po 4y ago
  The text across hundreds of books, modules, guides, maps, and other materials that describe various classes, items, spells, and other elements is 100% copyrightable, and anything that is "substantially similar" would be infringing on those copyrights. So yes, you're right, you can't copyright the real world rule for a game, but with enough existing copyrighted text, good luck describing similar rules in a similar universe with similar naming in a way that isn't substantially similar.
jasondigitized 4y ago
Why did this disappear from the front page?
nurettin 4y ago
DnD is a community effort shaped by the needs and wants of players. It doesn't just belong to WotC. This was the rationale behind OGL 1.0. Trying to claim all derivatives for themselves is a Dick Move with consequences.

369 points by Macha 4y ago

If I build a computer game using places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon, how much fee I need to pay WotC? Assuming I sell it on Steam for some paltry revenue.

ajross 4y ago
I don't think any Dragonlance content was ever published under the OGL, FWIW. The covered content is limited to the rules and the core(-ish) monster stat blocks. The fiction was never part of the deal (nor should it have been, IMHO).
- markus_zhang 4y ago
  Interesting. Does that mean If I loosely follow the rules (say mages use mana points which change by shape of moons) and don't use the stats (after all it's just a Ultima spinoff), I probably don't need to worry anything about licensing fee? I really don't think it's going to make any meaningful money anyway.
  - ajross 4y ago
    The Ultima series itself didn't bother to license D&D, so you're fine. Basic ideas of mechanics can't be copyrighted, and no one ever got a patent on "hit points" et. al.
coldpie 4y ago
Unless you make over $750k, nothing. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d This is Wizards trying to walk a fine line. They want a cut of the profits from the big-name D&D-based content creators, but they don't want to kill the entire creative community. I'm not sure they're going to succeed. Pissing off the biggest names putting your product in the spotlight in return for a couple bucks seems a really dumb idea to me.
- pflats 4y ago
  Not true. One of the very first lines there states that: > OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. The Fan Content Policy is: https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy Which says that: > You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content; > You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and > Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit. > You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content. All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed." Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon" very much are covered by WotC's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).
  - markus_zhang 4y ago
    Thanks, looks like it's pretty strigent. Well worst case I'll put it up for free when done. Don't think anyone is going to pay anyway, just a hobby project.
- the_af 4y ago
  What are the big names? Paizo/Pathfinder? Can't they simply do their own thing and stop relying on D&D precisely because they are so big their customer base already knows them? Or is it computer games? With computers handling the rules, you can just make your own RPG rules, right? Or is it the setting? Do people really only play videogames that are set in Faerun or Icewind Dale or whatever? Can't you just make your own stuff up and call it Arda-- er, Middle-- er, Ancient Magical Land of Elves?
delecti 4y ago
The Dragonlance universe is one of the more complicated examples you could have picked, because there's been some lawsuits about the rights. Also, video games have always required additional licensing, so you picked an almost entirely orthogonal example. The OGL covers printed (or digital "print") content.
- zaarn 4y ago
  The original OGL very much allows video games. KOTOR is for example a game that includes a copy of the OGL. There is also several virtual tabletop softwares that ship with OGL content.
PeterisP 4y ago
OGL only covers rules and mechanics, and some of the common, generic races/classes/spells/gear. All of the 'fluff' e.g. places and characters and worldbuilding is not licensed by OGL. OGL allows you to build your places and characters and content so that they're compatible with D&D content.

xavdid 4y ago

This is disappointing, but not surprising. I don't play Magic anymore, but it's been clear for years that WotC is prioritizing profit over game health.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Yep, this is an all-too-normal letdown from WotC. They really are trying to milk their franchises, without concern for their longevity. That's too bad. For me, this is more reason to continue with the D&D 3.5 and pathfinder ecosystems for my RPGs.
xtirpation 4y ago
Devil's advocate: if they've been doing this for years (and I do agree wholeheartedly with you personally) then has it really been detrimental to game health? Presumably they have metrics indicating positive growth or they wouldn't be pushing in this direction. Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us to pound sand as they have for years.
- xavdid 4y ago
  It's a fair question, and one I don't really have the answer to without internal WotC metrics. I really think it depends on how we define "game health" (and whether we, the players, define it the same way that they do). I'd say the game is healthy if people keep playing, the community grows, the meta isn't stale, and there's still interest in the game. By that metric, the game feels unhealthy to me. I would _guess_ that WotC is most concerned with overall revenue (and potential for future revenue). I would bet that any reduced player counts have been offset by sales of higher-margin product (so numbers probably look decent right now). But, long term, I think these actions have hurt the brand, so the next product will have to have a higher price to make up for fewer sales. Of course, I'm just theorizing here. I have no inside info and most of my feelings (especially as a no-longer-player) are driven by what I hear from friends and read online (the latter of which, of course, skews negative).
  - 4y ago

drewry 4y ago

Ah so this is why my hobby open-source project of 6+ years has been getting a surge in traffic :) https://github.com/opendnd https://github.com/opendnd Totally unrelated to this of course, but very cool to see all the same. The OGL has been a cornerstone of innovation in this space and without it a lot of us would be dead in the water.

make3 4y ago
name should probably change so you don't get sued. am not a lawyer though. (cool project btw)

the_af 4y ago

How important is it to stick to the D&D franchise? Why are third parties married to something like the OGL? I understand D&D is to RPGs what Windows is (or used to be) to operating systems. But unlike an operating system, D&D's grasp on roleplaying is more fragile. There are plenty of RPG systems that are (subjectively) better and owe nothing to D&D's imaginary setting or rules. In fact, the largest innovation happens outside the D&D franchise. There are very innovative "lite" RPGs like Trophy Dark or Risus, but also heavier and "crunchy" systems that owe nothing to D&D. Why risk your business by tying it to a franchise owned by a competing business? (Again, I understand riding the success of D&D's popularity. But unlike with computers and hardware, the "vendor lock-in" pitfall is easier to avoid with something as intangible as an RPG)

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
I think people are mostly worried about old material which will fall into a grey zone distribution-wise if Hasbro revokes the previous version of the OGL.
- the_af 4y ago
  Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff? That's bad.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jerf 4y ago
  Are they actually trying to revoke the previous version? I do not know, which is why I ask; honest question. I observe that 1.0 contains the verbiage: "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." which at least to my open source license not-a-lawyer read says that they basically can't revoke it. They can relicense stuff going forward under 1.1, and that may be bad, but I wonder if people are misunderstanding and treating it as apocolyptic when it's just bad. It seems like the worst case scenario is the community undergoes a de facto fork and you can stick to a 1.0 world if you want, not that all the 1.0 stuff goes away. This smells to me like many similar panics in our community when some project goes to relicense and people don't generally understand that the relicense only applies going forward, because in general you can't retroactively relicense an open license. (There are nuances to that statement which I'm skipping over, but I'd say that's the most correct short summary. The thing that people think is happening is not what is happening.) Of course it is still valid to be upset about the relicensing going forward! It just may not be quite as much a kick in the teeth as people think.

karaterobot 4y ago

I played D&D for about 27 years, but I never thought it was particularly good. It was just the lingua franca, the kernel a relatively small community could come together around. I don't think D&D has to be the default tabletop RPG anymore, nor should it be. Partly due to the OGL and its knock-on effects, lots more people entered the community. Maybe they want different things than just a miniatures combat-oriented pastiche of Tolkien, Howard, and Vance. You can publish books more easily, distribute them more easily, market them more easily. I think the tabletop industry could sustain a community without D&D if it had to, and maybe it has to. I wonder if maybe that's a good thing. WoTC's decision was selfish, tone-deaf, destructive; all that stuff. It will hurt people with existing businesses built around OGL content. That sucks. But, I don't think it will (as this open letter states) dismantle the tabletop industry. On the contrary, I hope it frees it from its dependence on a capricious IP owner with a brittle license. For the players, maybe it frees them from a mediocre system and the most generic, uninteresting fantasy setting ever. There's a lot more out there, maybe this is a good opportunity to explore some of it.

vintermann 4y ago
I agree that D&D doesn't need to be the default tabletop RPG anymore. But you bet I want the freedom to borrow everything I liked from every version of it I played (which doesn't include anything recent, by the way). I want to be able to talk about it online too, hell, even PLAY it online. And if Hasbro are so desperate to prevent that from happening that they'll call in the shit-flinging lawyers - the kind who don't even try to have a solid argument, they just try to make engaging with them maximally unpleasant to everyone involved - then I will be most pissed with Hasbro. You too, will have to live in fear of attracting their attention. The whole point of this sort of litigation is that they're signaling, they're not going to be reasonable. Are you SURE you're not infringing in the shit-flinging lawyers' eyes? That doesn't sound like a good opportunity to explore to me.
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
My understanding is that this also puts the more robust "forks" like Pathfinder at risk.
deleted 4y ago

the_af 4y ago

I don't understand how gamers (non-videogame gamers in this case) put up with ruthless monetization and lock-in attempts by the biggest companies. RPGs is a particularly bizarre case. You really don't need anything but a group of friends, your imagination and some rules to play roleplaying games. Ok, so you want merchandise -- player screens and mats and minis -- all of that's optional, there's no RPG police that can prevent you making your own or buying from third parties. So you have adventure modules... I made my own adventures back when I was a teenager, but I can sort of see not everyone has the imagination to make their own, plus being able to "share" a world with other gaming groups so you can say you defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil or whatnot is sort of cool; not my thing, but I can see it. But now apparently Wizards of the Coast is not content with all the stuff they already sell, so they are starting to build a virtual world (+ app, of course) where you can customize your character, buy DLC, etc. Of course, all tidily locked-in, because what better way to keep a tight reign than owning the app? I can't wrap my head around this. An app? DLC? Custom items? For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy? You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination...

remram 4y ago
This letter is proof they are not putting up with it. Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap? > You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination Obviously you need rulebooks, campaign modules, etc. This is the stuff that is under license from WotC.
- the_af 4y ago
  Sorry, my rant was semi-related: I mean the upcoming digital D&D app that Wizards of the Coast expects players to use. Isn't it crazy that they expect to sell you DLC for online avatars for a game that happens in your imagination? > Obviously you need rulebooks Yes. > campaign modules Unlike the rulebook, these are nice but not mandatory. And if you're crafty, you can derive inspiration from other fantasy worlds, books, novels and movies. I do understand not everybody is creative enough or wants to spend time doing this though; I also understand some people value a "shared world" they can discuss with other players beyond their group. > Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap? At some point, yes. I mean, there are plenty of other awesome RPGs to play, right? You are not locked-in to D&D in the same sense many people are locked-in to Windows.

kubb 4y ago

We need a table top system on GPL or a similar licence, with a full universe and lore. Do you think YC would fund a startup to build it up?

andolanra 4y ago
There are a truly massive number of RPGs out there with a wide variety of open licenses, especially the various Creative Commons licenses. The indie RPG sphere is massive and includes tabletop systems that range from "mild variations on the core D&D formula" to "almost fundamentally alien approaches to doing structured role-playing". D&D has long-standing brand recognition and cultural cachet, but it hasn't been the only player in this space for decades.
- kubb 4y ago
  Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to replace DnD?
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    It's kinda wild to watch HN suggest that a tech company can do as well as established tabletop gaming companies as if it's as easy as asking ChatGPT. I suppose considering how beloved Tesla and Theranos were I shouldn't be surprised.
    - kubb 4y ago
      We can also code it for the Metaverse! Mark please invest 4-5 Million.
  - mattmanser 4y ago
    Think your wishful thinking belongs on /r/choosingbeggars :)
    - kubb 4y ago
      Umm, we deserve high quality open source projects. I'm not complaining about the existing ones, just pointing out the opportunity.

PeterisP 4y ago

The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e.g. "3.5" D&D) on a parallel track, ignoring all the OGL 1.1 things, explicitly foregoing any compatibility with D&D 6th edition (or whatever it will be called), and building up a thriving ecosystem of content which they are definitely capable of doing separately from WotC.

dahdum 4y ago
OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.
- ezfe 4y ago
  They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bjartr 4y ago
    > Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.

VikingCoder 4y ago

I'm so tired of everything remotely like this. Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs? Some that would be amenable to making into Computer RPGs. Some that maybe that would be nearly impossible to automate. (That's fine, too.) Under some licenses like CC BY / CC BY-SA / CC BY-NC? I _like_ buying RPG books. I would continue to do so, even if the license was CC BY. I also like getting searchable PDFs, and turning dungeons into a Wiki for the DM to make it easy to find content. I mean... Come on...

VikingCoder 4y ago
In case someone wanders into this conversation later, Paizo just announced that they are doing something exactly like what I hoped for. > In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...
Jtsummers 4y ago
Eclipse Phase was released under CC BY-NC-SA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase I don't know if there are others or not.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  There are tons, the parent commenter just doesn't know.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    I found several NC. That didn't suit my purposes at the time. It's great to hear there are more. Would you care to list your favorites? Or the ones you believe are already popular?
- 4y ago

mabbo 4y ago

It's the natural process in a capitalistic system. First, you build something that everyone loves and build up a huge stockpile of consumer trust. You use that consumer trust to gain market share, and eventually a lot of market power (though you never use those words or imply that you know you have market power). Then once you're dominant, you exploit that consumer trust to make more money. It worked pretty well for companies like Amazon and Google. WotC are just doing it a bit blatantly, or perhaps people saw through the ploy more easily than they had anticipated.

ghostly_s 4y ago

Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we are free to disagree with that decision, but surely they have no legal means to force other creators to switch their own content to the new license version simply because they are using a license text that was drafted by WoTC? Plenty of OSS projects have stuck with GPLv2 in similar circumstances. And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC content that was already published under the old license? Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up. In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.
- Tyr42 4y ago
  Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs they already paid for with zero notice before, when they revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think they can try and pull that shit again.
  - SSLy 4y ago
    Whoa, do you have more sources about this event?
    - Macha 4y ago

ankaAr 4y ago

Are u kidding me? Again? Are we fighting against the same company again? We never learned anything. They had the article where they can change anything at any time, that was always a red flag, and was from the first day. As gm it is a shame that someone uses that licence all those years. Paizo made a rewrite and I think was the only company that saw that coming decades ago. But many mainstream groups used the content and the rights that the licence gave to push their projects and made a fortune (and wizards used that to push again the game), and now they are saying: no more. Well, bad luck for you. Use a real open licence, even a CC-BY-SA-NC if you wants, not a licence with a backdoor from the owner! My god, the community is fighting a battle for less than 20 companies affected because they wanted to use a stupid licence. OGL 1.1 is bad as 1.0 was, it is the same shit, now with a royalty and just because of that, they are all like crazies. Was always as bad as now.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

_aavaa_ 4y ago

> On top of that, games such as Pathfinder 1E and 2E, 13th Age, Fudge, and Traveller—which use the 1.0 OGL as the backbone of their existence—will need to cease sales of upcoming products or give WotC 25% of their revenue to stay in compliance with the new license How does this work? Why are they forced to do so?

mcv 4y ago
Hasbro claims they are. Whether that's actually true is very questionable, but most RPG publishers will not want to fight Hasbro in court.

thefurdrake 4y ago

Gosh, yeah, this'll definitely stop all those content creators from doing a find and replace to make their content fit for Pathfinder 2 or any non-OGL-tainted system on the planet. This might actually do good for tabletop gaming in general, if Hasbro's cancerous behavior causes people to flee their IP and show interest in other things. I really don't think this is going to work out the way these braindead business executives seem to think it will. People will move their content to a different platform because DnD has never been anything more than a storytelling/content framework. Hasbro mad cuz community content better than their own. Go back to ruining ponies.

legitster 4y ago

Am I right to assume WotC's move is basically aimed at groups like Critical Role? On one hand, I have no interest in defending corporate copyright rules. But on the other hand, I disagree that this would stifle creativity. If there are hundreds of companies out there that only exist to pump out content for the D&D ruleset, surely making them pay for the privilege would encourage some of them to build new rulesets?

jimbob45 4y ago
…the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory. This makes me believe less that this is an organic push within WotC and more a push by a special interest group. Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1, it would make sense that a special interest group funded it with the stipulation that they added the trans bit in.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  > Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1 I have seen no evidence of this so far? Any source?
Macha 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the primary target is third party VTTs, and that Critical Role will probably get a royalty free side deal, precisely to prevent them jumping ship with their marketing power.

cstever 4y ago

For a little bit of flavor. After I saw this post (I don't follow D&D or Wizards or Hasbro news) I thought immediately of BFRPG. Found this post in Basic Fantasy's forum, so this move by WotC is definitely going to have an impact. https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596 https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596

gkoberger 4y ago

I imagine the logic was that someone at Hasbro saw Critical Role, Dimension 20, etc making millions and felt it was "unfair" they're not getting any money. But there's a quote attributed to Bill Gates that feels relevant here: "A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it." DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.

mcv 4y ago
But Critical Role is also great advertisement. If Hasbro goes after them, Critical Role can just switch to another system and give them free advertisement instead. I guarantee that every single RPG creator would love for Critical Role to pick their system.
- gkoberger 4y ago
  Oh I 100% agree. This is lose-lose for Hasbro (either people pay and are angry, or leave), and there's no way they ultimately make more with these rules than without them.
- wincy 4y ago
  I think Critical Role is in no danger of them “going after” them as there are officially licensed Critical Role books and miniatures. I’d imagine they’re wanting to get a cut of whatever money Paizo, and Kobold Gaming Press, or the D&D miniatures and books kickstarters that regularly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  - djur 4y ago
    If anything, this might put their partnership with Critical Role at risk.
  - Macha 4y ago
    I think the primary target is VTTs serving D&D 5e gameplay systems as an alternative to their planned 6e microtransaction machine in their upcoming OneD&D/D&D Beyond VTT. They want to sell classes and feats and spells etc. to players as microtransactions and justify it with 3d models and animations, but at that price many players would opt to forgot the 3d content for a system where they didn't have to pay... unless Wizards manage to prevent that system existing. As a secondary target, getting a cut of Paizo's revenue is something I imagine Wizards like the idea of, but was not the primary goal. Critical Role will probably just get a plain royalty free license for use in their main show as a side deal for the amount it promotes the game.

jeffwask 4y ago

Hasbro is working overtime to alienate the game communities they purchased.

make3 4y ago

This is some old school microsoft shit, make everyone expand on your products & be dependant on them thinking they're safe by publishing an open license, then swap it under their feet forcing everyone to pay 25%. That's like if Apple had decided overnight to start charging apps their infamous 30% fee

raydiatian 4y ago

Maybe I don’t fully understand how public copyright licenses work. Do you need to apply for a license? When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die? If somebody infringes on your license, do you get a free OGL lawyer or something to help your case? In conclusion, it almost sounds like OGL is fucking useless in the first place if they can just upgrade it to be paid at scale but clearly I’m missing something

boole1854 4y ago
> When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die? The issue is that part of the 1.0 license says users "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" (emphasis added). And part of 1.1 says that 1.0 "is no longer an authorized license agreement". So, in other words, 1.0 had an embedded kill switch which 1.1 activates. At least that's the legal theory which WotC is operating on.
- 93po 4y ago
  I have no law experience but I feel like no longer recognizing a previous license you created doesn't force an upgrade to a new license, but rather would invalidate any licensing at all on all content that had the old license.
  - 93po 4y ago
    I realized after writing this that my logic doesn't work great and I would rather just delete this if possible :)

raydiatian 4y ago

If a language model can run a D&D campaign, what do we need Wizards for?

FridgeSeal 4y ago
Have you tried? It loses the thread and descends into incoherence pretty quickly. Also, because if it can do that, it was at some point trained on material licensed under the OGL, or WotC directly.

jeremycw 4y ago

I am not a lawyer and please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it rules and mechanics are not copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the flavor text and specific compilation of the rule set into the "Rule Book". The rule book becomes a copyrightable work. This means that your are within your legal right to make a game called "Dragons & Daggers" where all the combat mechanics, rules, etc are identical to Dungeons & Dragons as long as the "glue" text and flavour text is original content. It seems to me like a community fork licensed under CC that plays exactly the same is not impossible.

advisedwang 4y ago
Spells use text to explain their mechanics, and that text is copyrightable. You'd likely need to re-write the spell lists from scratch.

etchalon 4y ago

Maybe more people to discover, and build with, Monte Cook's excellent Cypher System: https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/ https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/

nevinera 4y ago

> 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. So it sounds like their approach here is dependent on the interpretation of "any authorized version" to mean "authorized _by us_", which would allow them to declare past versions "unauthorized"? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds.. unlikely to stick.

Pet_Ant 4y ago
Is there a lawyer here that can give us an opinion here for entertainment - not legal advice - reasons?

cbrozefsky 4y ago

Regarding the ability to copyright the "method of playing" or "rules" of a game: https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf The US Copyright Office says it can apply to text or description, but not to the rules. WoTC did have a patent issues for MtG, but I dont think that's going to work for D20 rules. Perhaps they will attempt to patent the OneD&D release? Either way, it's quite clear that corporations will attempt to colonize and control our culture, and lie and scheme their way to expand their profit extraction.

krainboltgreene 4y ago
The wealth of written content is exactly what's valuable about D&D. The rules aren't interesting nor innovative. There is a Wizard Spell that does 1d4 damage at spell slot 1. It is called Magic Missile. There is a block of text that describes the Magic Missile. If you want D&D you can't just clone the mechanic of spells, you also have to write a massive amount of copywritten content.
- cbrozefsky 4y ago
  I don't think "cloning D&D" is what any of these third parties are doing. It's producing add-ons, source books, or videos of them playing. That is, original content that is compatible with, and tuned for the rule system.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    Fine any other synonym for "clone" if that's your issue. It's the idea that many many of these products are dressing on top of the SRD.
  - sleepybrett 4y ago
    Some are to an extent. There are several modern adaptations of the old 'Moldvay' Basic/Expert Dungeon and Dragons rules (The old red and blue books/boxes). Basically getting them down in a better way on paper, smoothing some rough edges out.

anakha 4y ago

WotC CEO and president Cynthia Williams was on the record as saying that the DnD brand is under monetized. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news... Hasbro CEO, also the former WoTC CEO, has ramped up monetization of the Magic the Gathering brand significantly in recent years, partly at the expense of cashing in on the secondary market. WoTC choking the OGL is consistent with them looking to pump up their profits.

phaedryx 4y ago
I used to play MtG back in the early 90's, but got out because I needed money for college books, not cards. My son got interested recently through some friends and I started looking about getting him into it around the time WotC released the $1000 old-school proxy packs. Needless to say, it turned me off.
wolverine876 4y ago
Habro is being pressured by outside investors to increase revenue from their Wizards division or spin it off.
hinkley 4y ago
It’s not like TSR were the good guys either. I wrote off DnD until CR precisely because it has a reputation of being owned by assholes. They just slowed down for a while but here we are again

jesusofnazarath 4y ago

[dead]

thesuperbigfrog 4y ago

If D&D "goes dark", why not try another role playing system? GURPS is a well-designed favorite made by Steven Jackson Games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS

krainboltgreene 4y ago
It's not like GURPS is unknown to community members. If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives. This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-designed favorite Spanish."
- Eji1700 4y ago
  And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship. It’s crunchy as hell and a major commitment. Pathfinder 2 is likely going to be the biggest winner in this but hopefully other systems benefit as well. Dungeon world strikes me as another easy analogue and there’s plenty of different stuff like Spire/Heart or Lancer that’s made waves. Not to say that gurps is bad. I hope they see a bump too. Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    > And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship. This kind of comment is also why it's funny to suggest "just use X" to D&D players. RPG nerds are effectively poor software engieners. Ask 10 of them for an opinion on TT RPG rulesets and you'll get 300 opinions. > Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists Absolutely correct.
    - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      Well in all fairness, GURPS games and OSR games are just very different games. Sure they're roughly "RPGs" where people roleplay as characters in a world with stats for structure, but their attitudes toward actions and conflict resolution are completely different which lends them to completely different gameplay and audiences. It's like saying Monopoly and Agricola are both board games. They are but they're also very different.

cheeseomlit 4y ago

Really hope this doesn't affect OGL 1.0a the way some people are saying it will, particularly regarding non-DnD systems. I've been working on a project for several years that's based on the Cepheus Engine RPG system which was published under OGL 1.0a (as it's based on the Traveller SRD which was also used OGL 1.0a), which requires me to publish under that license as well. Now that's all up in the air, what happens if OGL 1.0a becomes 'unauthorized' in this case? If this ends up killing Cepheus I will have wasted thousands of hours of my time.

djur 4y ago
The Traveller SRD is (c) Mongoose Publishing. It seems implausible that the OGL 1.0a could be construed to give Hasbro any control over intellectual property that isn't derived from their own. It should be possible for the rights owners to simply relicense Traveller, Fudge, etc. It's Paizo that is in a difficult spot, because their SRD still explicitly references material from Hasbro products.

ivraatiems 4y ago

IANAL, but I would love the opinion of anyone more qualified on this: Suppose I am one of the "Expert Tier" companies and I'm making a lot of money off of using OGL 1.0 licensed works in conjunction with my own. The OGL[0] says Wizards can authorize new versions of the license, but it doesn't define "authorized" and it doesn't say anywhere they can deauthorize old ones. It also says that the terms of the license are perpetual. If I saw WOTC was going to make a change like this, obviously I'd retain counsel, but why wouldn't I take a position something like: 1) We don't believe that Wizards can arbitrarily bind us to the terms of any new license just because they have "authorized" it. 2) We will only release content that uses OGL 1.0a licensed works and never anything using 1.1 or any other version. 3) If Wizards doesn't like it, they can sue us and try to enforce their license. It'll be on them to prove the license binds us, and they'll look like assholes in front of their community of players. When my option is "give up all my corporate secrets and also lose 25% of my money" or this, why shouldn't I do this? [0] https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Edit: Another source I found that seems to suggest this might be an option, to an extent - or that there might be other ways to challenge this decision: 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...

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I would assume (IANAL!) that it would work similarly to software license upgrades. The IP created and licensed under version 1.0 would still be under version 1.0, and only IP created after 1.1 is released is affected, and then there must be some action on part of the small games company to agree to it. I suspect it depends of course on the exact terms of license and what users of version 1.0 agreed to in terms of future binding. Might be an interesting case with more than a little relevance for (US) software licenses
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  Wizards seems to think this will explicitly not be the case, and they can effectively force everyone to abide by the terms of a new license just by making one. Which maybe they can! But it seems like the right move might be to force them to try it.

chemmail 4y ago

I think they will find they are screwed and this desperate attempt is the straw. We see this in computing world where everyone did their best to avoid going to x86 and went to ARM, but now that ARM is so uncertain now they will abandon and go RISC V.

dcow 4y ago

How are we even in a scenario where the ideas from one game can be covered by the copyright of the author? What law today covers the ideas born out of a copyrighted work? Or is it mostly that people see this OGL as explicit permission where otherwise there'd be none which, despite the fact that they'd win, would still leave open the possibility that derivative authors could be sued (and out resourced, legally)?

shuntress 4y ago
I think the catch is more on extensions and accessories for D&D. There is obvious stuff like pre-packaged one-shot adventure books or custom character classes. Less obvious stuff like DM screens, stat-trackers, or spell cards. Then there's the "corporate dystopia nightmare" like wizard of the coast demanding a cut on sales of dice towers, notebooks, d20s, etc.

secabeen 4y ago

WotC/Hasbro has named their next release "One D&D". They clearly want to clear the field of other compatible rules-sets, and have just a singular system that they control, manage, and profit from. My guess is that they see the profits that Apple and Google make from their App Store, and want all future add-on content to D&D to be paying them 25% of revenues, rather than 0% right now.

rosmax_1337 4y ago

Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license? Are they trying retroactively to gain IP over all ""DnD"" derivative works? Are they just doing something different for One D&D?

throw_m239339 4y ago
> Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license? Well Hasbro wants to make money of third party D&D content, nothing more. Why were people still using D&D when non corporate alternatives exist? The people at the head of these companies could be selling vacuum cleaners it wouldn't make a difference, at the end of the day it's all about maximizing short term profit.
Macha 4y ago
The existence of the OGL v1.0a as given to this point allows you to take a big chunk of the D&D 5e rules and content (specifically this subset: https://www.5esrd.com/ https://www.5esrd.com/) and 3.5e (this subset): https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm and implement a character builder, database lookup, etc, roll engine etc. which you would need to make a virtual tabletop to compete with their upcoming product. This is a problem for Wizards of the Coast as they view DnD as "heavily under-monetised" and so would like to change that with DnD 6E (aka OneD&D) to a model more similar to microtransaction laden video games. In particular, as part of OneD&D, they are building a whole new VTT on top of D&D Beyond which they acquired last year. This new VTT will have 3d models and animations which they want to sell to players, and D&D Beyond already allows selling pieces of rules for players to use in their character sheet seperately (see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cauldron-of-everything https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cau...). This compares to the current model of D&D where maybe the GM buys a couple of books and shares them to their table or people just look up the SRD for the rules and use a third party character builder or VTT. The problem is if you're comparing "1 person spends $60 and 4-5 people pay $0" to "6 people pay recurring microtransaction revenue at the level of popular video games", then the 3d models and fancy effects are highly unlikely to avoid people choosing one of the cheaper options using the open licensed material. So #1 they'd like to kill the ability for third parties to interfere with their new monetisation models. As for benefit #2, if they get to kill Pathfinder which is the closest game to D&D in licensing shenanigans, then that also removes the easiest option for players to move to if they accomplish point #1 alone. Failing that, they'll settle for #2b, which is capturing the revenue of Paizo (the publisher of Pathfinder) for themselves so that even if players flee D&D to alternatives, Wizards aren't losing any money. As a tertiary benefit, maybe they manage to bully some smaller content creators into agreeing to 1.1 with the terms that they get to sell it on OneD&D to pad out their content library and make OneD&D more appealing to end users.

madrox 4y ago

In another place and time, a similar circumstance is what led Blizzard to unintentionally provide the tools for inspiring the MOBA genre, which spawned League of Legends and DOTA2. That altered games forever. You'll notice few games ship with map editors anymore, and game UGC is very tightly locked down. Blizzard leaders have stated that letting MOBA get away from them was their biggest miss. D&D is having a similar moment where companies that were built on D&D are becoming bigger than them, and WotC wants to compete more directly now that digital is becoming a priority for TTRPGs. Once you decide to do that, you no longer want to be a platform for your competitor. In a way, this is similar Apple banning apps that directly compete with built-in iOS features. While also an unpopular move, you can hardly blame them.

cpv 4y ago
And then Blizzard updated the user agreement (around the Warcraft 3 Reforged), mentioning that all player generated content is owned by the company. So in case some genius comes with another successful custom map (or whatever), the company has new ideas to work on, for free.
- madrox 4y ago
  I believe they updated the EULA long before that, but Reforged got a lot of press about it since it represents such a contrast between yesterday's games and today's.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
Warcraft 3 mods also launched the tower defense genre

SSLy 4y ago

For a reasonable explanation from some of the community members https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/1062131379493683320/Screenshot_95.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/10... For the 1.1 leak mentioned there https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Game-License-1-1-Leak.pdf https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Ga... Please note the length of the document corroborates the length of about 9000 words as mentioned by tech journalists.

deleted_account 4y ago

I was a tabletop gamer for 25 years before I played my first sit-down D&D session. GURPS, Paranoia, Cyberpunk 2020, WHFRP, TOON, Amber, World of Darkness...you name it. To say, "Wizards of the Coast wants to dismantle the tabletop industry," feels like hyperbole when there's a rich history of alternatives, but I sympathize with the content creators. There's a cultural battle as much as there is a commercial one being waged here. That said you gotta be _asleep_ to not see the tightening of the reins coming from these mega-companies sitting on fertile creative IP. Marvel Cinematic Universe only made — what? — $28B worldwide while making Rocket-fucking-Raccoon a household name. Games Workshop put the screws to content creators leading to the launch of Warhammer+ and r/grimdank is still hitting the front page of Reddit. Not to mention Uber-nerd Henry Cavill is hooking up with Amazon to bring 40K to streaming. The strategy works and I suspect it's driven entirely by folks — all grown up and with deep pockets — thirsty to see their marginalized childhood hobbies hit the mainstream. I'm conflicted. As much as I want to say, "Fuck WotC. Fuck Games Workshop" there's visceral appeal in hoping for good Drizzt Do'Urden movie or the Drop Site Massacre becoming as much a cultural touchstone as the The Red Wedding.

ropable 4y ago
I can't express just how much I want the Horus Heresy saga to receive the high-production-value HBO/Netflix/Amazon treatment. The animated content on Warhammer+ is good and all, but that would be a dream.
- deleted_account 4y ago
  What? Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie wasn't enough for you? I kid. Every 40K fan wants this, but it almost feels like hubris to hope it actually happens. I have to wonder if the Amazon deal[1] is Games Workshop's attempt to get out of the streaming business. Nothing coming out of Warhammer+ is breaking out of the core fanbase; I couldn't fathom suggesting to anyone not familiar with the universe, "Yo, you got to checkout this show The Exodite." My guess is GW is falling back to its comfort zone of licensing IP: "Amazon Studios today announced that it has secured global rights to Warhammer 40,000...The agreement encompasses rights to the universe across series, film, and more..."[2] When you have two producers from Vertigo Entertainment, one of which happens to be dating Henry Cavill, brokering an escape hatch I'm sure they were, "Yes, please." My guess is we're going to see Eisenhorn first[3] which feels like a far more approachable introduction to the setting anyways. [1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-warhammer-40000-amazon-1235283251/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-wa... [2] https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-studios-secures-first-of-its-kind-rights-to-warhammer-40000-with-henry-cavill-set-to-star-and-executive-produce-global-franchise/ https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-st... [3] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-series-works-man-high-castle-creator-1224874/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-se...

allone 4y ago

Before french revolution: enlightened monarchy After french revolution: tyranny and paranoia Shortly after: "universal" democracy (modulo something) Do we really need to repeat the exercise. It'll only lead to tears.

dang 4y ago

Recent and related: Dungeons and Dragons’ new license tightens its grip on competition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 - Jan 2023 (203 comments)

mijoharas 4y ago
And also Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 - Jan 2023 (233 comments)
- dang 4y ago
  Thanks!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

User23 4y ago

I'm under the impression that in the USA copyright doesn't protect rule systems[1]. I imagine a clean rewrite of the SRD would be relatively straightforward. I expect it would take some lawyering to make sure it was done properly, but it clearly can be done. I also know from people in the legal business that Hasbro is notoriously litigious. They will happily drag out a suit and make it as expensive as possible even when they don't really have a case. [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658-4f00-884f-8310cfeb4b0f https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658...

scoofy 4y ago

Again... you can't copyright or patent rules of a game. I understand the OGL exists as a sort of off-hand agreement, but I am concerned as to why we all have decided that a "game system" is somehow a different, copyrightable thing, when it is essentially a fancy way of saying "rules of a game." I'm honestly confused by the entire situation. I remain confused as to why any Hasbro suit regarding this would not just get thrown out by a court. It seems very obvious to me that the D20 system isn't controllable, and that referencing D&D books for more details is clearly fair use.

93po 4y ago
The text across hundreds of books, modules, guides, maps, and other materials that describe various classes, items, spells, and other elements is 100% copyrightable, and anything that is "substantially similar" would be infringing on those copyrights. So yes, you're right, you can't copyright the real world rule for a game, but with enough existing copyrighted text, good luck describing similar rules in a similar universe with similar naming in a way that isn't substantially similar.

jasondigitized 4y ago

Why did this disappear from the front page?

nurettin 4y ago

DnD is a community effort shaped by the needs and wants of players. It doesn't just belong to WotC. This was the rationale behind OGL 1.0. Trying to claim all derivatives for themselves is a Dick Move with consequences.