I am just guessing, but I’d say it required several executives, etc. to sign off on it
Apology by committee rarely works well but happens often.
2 Likes
I personally find anything that attempts to “de-authorize” OGL1.0a unacceptable. There was a very explicit & unambiguous reason why OGL 1.0a used the word “perpetual”, Ryan Dancey has publicly spoken regarding this.
2 Likes
The OGL 2.0 Has Been Leaked, But Don’t Fall For It, It’s A Trap! | Roll For Combat
Wizards’ Desperate Response To The D&D Community Backlash
4 Likes
In the end it’s just going to create a shift away from WotC products, and new products by other companies will use other licenses and someone will be assigned to be the scapegoat at WotC and Gaming will move on.
1 Like
They can… bluster, and it doesn’t matter. Section 9 of the OGL1a is very clear, and there’s no takebacksies.
I think the Noah Downs meme did more to frighten creators into thinking they’d have to buckle under Wotc’s pressure in the immediate aftermath of 1.1’s leak, to the point I think he was employed by Wotc. Turns out, especially with Paizo and Kobold suing them, actual lawyers with actual clients and actual stakes in the matter have unanimously said (paraphrasing) that Wizards can fuck off with their bullshit.
Many creators are changing their games to ween themselves off 1a out of principal, but there really is no reason to.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pulphummock/gods-of-the-forbidden-north/posts/3708262
2 Likes
That would indeed be nice. This whole thing has made me almost wish I had a D&D Beyond subscription to cancel, but I haven’t had one for a long time now. Sad times.
I almost renewed recently since I am taking a (albeit brief) hiatus from GM’ing and one of my players is now running an interim D&D 5e game. Definitely won’t be now.
That’s not entirely certain. I have heard “actual lawyers” say that it isn’t clear if WotC would be able to revoke the license. Perpetual and irrevocable apparently mean very different things in the legal world. One being a license with no specific end date and the other actually meaning that it cannot be revoked.
The problem isn’t necessarily who would ultimate prevail in court. The problem is that Hasbro has much deeper pockets to litigate the matter than ANY of these publishers – Paizo included.
2 Likes
If that was the case Paizo, Goodman, Kobold, etc wouldn’t be suing them, and smaller indy publishers wouldn’t be telling them now to shove it. A few days ago there was uncertainty. Now we’re wise to the fact that Wotc are a paper tiger.
1 Like
I normally hate “influencer” vids but the DnD Shorts ones have been great.
2 Likes
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
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
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
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! 
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
New OGL announcement, survey will open tomorrow.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest