The "1.1" Just my Opinion

Blogs At a Glance
,
#31

I don’t think anyone has formally sued anyone yet. And on what grounds would they be able to sue right now before the OGL is released? I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure a plaintiff would have to be able to establish that they were harmed in some way. I don’t think that a leaked work-product of WotC’s lawyers would be sufficient.

It’s extremely easy for Paizo to claim that they are ready to defend the OGL in court “if need be,” it is a completely different thing to actually do so. Right now, all that is, is posturing. And while they may indeed be willing to fight it out with Wizards, I’m pretty fucking certain that behind closed doors they are praying that won’t happen. Because win or lose, defending the OGL would cost them a boatload of cash in a niche industry with razor thin margins.

What they and everyone else can do though is shun the ever loving Christ out of anything to do with WotC at this point.

And, I hope all involved do. I’ve worked with Wolfgang – I used to host his website, in fact. He’s a fantastic guy. I’d love to see him take Kobold Press and do something awesome with it SANS Wizards.

3 Likes
#32

I would have to agree at this point. Do I think Paizo has a case? Sure. Would I expect them to win if they sued? I don’t know. It could go either way. And I’m willing to bet Paizo has a pretty strong case as they were in the room when the OGL was created. I say, get ready for the ORC and the other Open Licenses that are coming. At this point, they are the safest bet.

2 Likes
#33

IMHO if Wizards sued Paizo and “won” they would become the BBEG of gaming. That seems to be their goal lately. +5 Corporate muwahhhahahhahaa.

1 Like
#34

I don’t know very much about this so please educate me/us - if you have the time and inclination. Does an OGL apply to certain generations of the game? So, can they have OGL 1.0 for D&D 1-4, and OGL 1.1 for D&D 5+? I can’t see the company being bound to the old OGL for new editions of the game. However, aspect that are under prior games seem like they can’t then be clawed back, so you can’t 1.1 the old monsters, etc, but anything related to rules mechanics maybe can be 1.1ed?

And remember - OGL 1.1 only wants to screw talented people that make stuff that lots of people want to include in their games. If you are run of the mill, and don’t put a lot of effort into it, and few people want your creations, meh, you’re fine! :wink:

I read a few stories about OGL and it sounds like a mega narcissistic overreach. Did any of these execs honestly think that people would be like “oh sure, let me create great content for you for free”. If they had any common sense they would have tried something like if others are getting rich of their IP, then the creators get a fair share and the corporate overlords get a fair share. If you are honest & sincere, make it fair! Easy.

I haven’t bought any stuff since 3.5. Hearing stuff like this makes me even more morally opposed to even considering current and future generations of the game. And really does the game get better? Or just different? Shouldn’t an RPG be first and foremost about the story, not the rules?

In order for Hasbro/WOTC to have deep pockets, they need to get money out of our shallow pockets - ultimately we do have the power. But most consumers are blissfully unaware and uncaring. This kind of conduct by Hasbro/WOTC is tainting everything they are involved in for me. I will take it into some consideration if I become aware of anything I’m thinking of buying is under their corporate umbrella.

I will still give the movie a chance, but I will now be less willing to “see it anyways” if it gets bad reviews. I want to support the genre, but not so much the company, so it is a balancing act. Prior to all this coming out I would have seen it no matter what.

1 Like
#35

That’s my take as well. Not currently a paid creator, but have some stuff I would love to see in print that I created, and it would make no sense to try and get it published the way 1.1 is worded. I don’t have a problem with them getting a cut for me using their rules, viewing it as cost of doing business, but you aren’t taking 25% regardless of what you want to set the bar at. I think they wanted to know how many were making $50K+ because they were going to slowly lower the bar and start including more content creators so they could make even more $$.

As far as your first question: 1.0 and 1.0(a) effectively cover editions 1 - 5 (mainly 3 - 5 since they created 1.0 when 3rd edition came out and tweaked it 7 or 8 years ago to 1.0a). The OGL was just a way for 3rd party creators to use the game mechanics legally as long as they included the OGL in their book, basically saying the rules weren’t owned by them but another entity. At least, that is how “I” understand it.

#36

My career has been focused on gaming communities. Watching WotC mishandle the ogl debacle has been painful both as a professional, and as a D&D gamer.

Today’s note is finally the one I’ve been looking for. Working with the community vs taking at them. It’s not perfect, people will complain, but it is absolutely a step forward.

1 Like
#37

Like a beaten dog licking the hand of its sadistic master, only a fool would fall for this latest corpo-speak.
This is the same evil (I don’t use that term lightly) company that tried to sneakily intimidate creators into signing on to a very predatory license a few days ago. Which they are still lying and calling a draft. They are not interested in creators, the community, or fairness. They’re changing masks, but they smell the same.

2 Likes
A Working Conversation About the Open Game License (OGL)
#38

I agree that admitting how badly they screwed up is better than not saying anything, but it’s the base level of expected behavior and doesn’t make up for the attempt. Dropping the new license on Friday, I cynically expect late in the day, is an attempt to avoid having to answer for it until the next week, which means they don’t think it’s going to go over well. And they still refer to the leak as a “draft,” which is too disingenuous to overlook. I’m not giving them any points for that statement.

4 Likes
#39

Still unacceptable, there’s no mention of the OGL 1.0a being perpetual & unrevocable.

Wizards’ Apology: A Desperate Mess of Manipulation and Careful Lies

3 Likes
#41

Good catch on the attempt to funnel outrage to a in-house survey they can ignore and dispose of. I hope nobody falls for it.

2 Likes
#42

New OGL announcement, survey will open tomorrow.

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

#43

Raggi gives some of the best food for thought I’ve heard about this mess:

4 Likes
#44

That was really good. Thank you for sharing it.

I really appreciate someone stopping to share a viewpoint without anger or negative energy. This just lays out a concern, demonstrates why it’s something to think about, and gives you more to think about.

2 Likes
#45

I am impressed. The videogame community is even chiming in en masse on this and saying enough is enough. They’ve seen enough micro-transaction shenanigans to see what’s next too. Gamers of all flavors unite!

1 Like
#46

I’ve shied away from commenting on this topic until now for a few reasons. First and foremost, I try to avoid “online outrage,” which tends to blow things way, way out of proportion. Not saying this is the case with this issue, just that I’m wary of falling into such things, and I like to make sure.

Second, I haven’t read the proposed new OGL, and everyone commenting on it seems to have only heard about it from third (or fourth, or fifth, or…) parties. Add to that the skepticism over such things as “everything created under the old license will be subject to the new license that no one agreed to” would actually hold up in a legal proceeding. Maybe I’m wrong; I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But if someone can actually enforce that, our legal system is seriously f*cked up.

Third, I have no horse in this race. I’ve stopped playing D&D and its derivatives some time ago. Level-based systems bore the hell out of me, and I’ve disliked the influence video games have had on D&D (and plenty of other games) for some time. That’s not to say I haven’t played any games under the OGL recently (someone please explain to me how Mutants and Masterminds falls under the OGL), but for the most part, I really don’t care.

Now, I understand that D&D is “the worlds most popular tabletop role-playing game,” or whatever the line is that people use when they don’t want to utter the letters “D&D” (someone please explain this to me, too) but there are so many different – and in my opinion better – systems out there that, well, as I’ve already said, I don’t really care.

So I guess the point I’m trying to make is, there are a lot of alternatives to D&D and games or material under the OGL. Seriously. And so much of it is better. If WotC/Hasbro wants to shoot themselves in the foot, let them. Corporate arrogance has consequences.

Make no mistake – I understand the impact on third-party creators that have invested a lot of time and capital into OGL-based materials. Even if WotC can’t retroactively tax them for products already created (still skeptical), it puts a burden on them as they “retool” their future products.

Best thing everyone can do? Abandon the D&D SRD. Adapt.

1 Like
#47

I don’t disagree with you. I’ve seen both versions of the new OGL, and I am of the same opinion, that it is time to move on to something new, at least for now. The new D&D OGL is toxic for creators at it stands now.

2 Likes
#48

I’m extremely impressed. Raggi laid out some levelheaded, well-reasoned opinions, gave multiple historical examples of how similar things have existed in the past. He wonders how a “morality clause” might be used as a bludgeon if publicly held social mores drastically change. Here also gives a specific, real-world example of how the proposed “morality clause” is truly powerless to keep racist, homophobic, etc… RPG material from being published. He then tied it all into how something he published had won an award then became reviled 3 years later.

4 Likes
#49

I think all the discussion on legal and otherwise nuance, while interesting, is mssing the main point. Hasbro is a good-sized corporation, whose only goal is to maximize profit. To put it simply: “It’s Money all the way down.”

If the primary market for continued revenue is 20% (+/-) then they have a huge untapped market. That’s what they are going after. All the people who play the game yet typically only buy the handbook (though they also spend money on third-party products). They want the recurring revenue from the other 80%. This is a massive market with huge profit potential.

Of course they want good PR for their company, but underneath PR, they want all that money. You are not a human, you are a wallet or purse. I’m reasonably convinced that what they want is to Lock their customer base into a self-contained system: “D&D Beyond,” which will become The “One D&D” (“M-one-y D&D”) to rule them all (sorry, couldn’t resist a silly LOTR reference). With all the delicious microtransactions to follow.

Time will tell how accurate this assessment proves to be.

2 Likes
#50

Fixed that for you, lol.

2 Likes
#51

Yes!!! I edited it to my OP.

1 Like