Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Wednesday January 11 2023, @05:37PM   Printer-friendly

An exclusive look at Wizards of the Coast's new open gaming license shows efforts to curtail competitors and and tighten control on creators of all sizes:

The new Dungeons & Dragons Open Gaming License, a document which allows a vast group of independent publishers to use the basic game rules created by D&D owner Wizards of the Coast, significantly restricts the kind of content allowed and requires anyone making money under the license to report their products to Wizards of the Coast directly, according to an analysis of a leaked draft of the document, dated mid-December.

Despite reassurances from Wizards of the Coast last month, the original OGL will become an "unauthorized" agreement, and it appears no new content will be permitted to be created under the original license.

The original OGL is what many contemporary tabletop publishers use to create their products within the boundaries of D&D's reproducible content. Much of the original OGL is dedicated to the System Resource Document, and includes character species, classes, equipment, and, most importantly, general gameplay structures, including combat, spells, and creatures.

[...] One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is "no longer an authorized license agreement." By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules. Large publishers who focus almost exclusively on products based on the original OGL, including Paizo, Kobold Press, and Green Ronin, will be under pressure to update their business model incredibly fast.

[...] This sentiment is reiterated later in the document: The "OGL wasn't intended to fund major competitors and it wasn't intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear."

[...] While there is plenty more to parse, the main takeaway from the leaked OGL 1.1 draft document is that WotC is keeping power close at hand. There is no mention of perpetual, worldwide rights given to creators (which was present in section 4 of the original OGL), and one of the caveats is that the company "can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days' notice."

[...] Wizards of the Coast is clearly expecting these OGL changes to be met with some resistance. The document does note that if the company oversteps, they are aware that they "will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We're more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision."

WOTC takes a dump on the D&D OGL community.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

Related Stories

Dungeons & Dragons' New OGL Will be 'Irrevocable' and Bring Mechanics to Creative Commons 18 comments

Amid all the backlash, Wizards of the Coast is pursuing a radically different strategy for its future open licensing:

Dungeons & Dragons released a statement today saying that the future of its open gaming license will include its core rules being placed under the purview of the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is "a nonprofit dedicated to sharing knowledge, and it developed a set of licenses to let creators do that," says the newest update from Kyle Brink, the executive producer at Dungeons & Dragons.

This decision is a direct response to a lot of the fears the community had after io9 reported on the initial OGL 1.1 draft on January 5. The CC license will cede Wizards of the Coast's control over the base rules and mechanics of D&D to the nonprofit that stewards the license, which means that Dungeons & Dragons and WOTC will be unable to touch it and will not be able to revoke it. Likewise, content that goes beyond the remit of using core rules will fall under a new OGL, dubbed 1.2, which will contain specific language denoting the license as "irrevocable"—a massive pressure point for creators who used the original OGL 1.0 and were worried about the implications of the 30-day termination clause in the OGL 1.1.

[...] Wizards of the Coast seems committed to having a firm stance on bigoted and hateful content—something that people praised in the leaked draft. "If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content," reads the statement. [...]

Additionally, Brink states that "what [Dungeons & Dragons] is going for here is giving good-faith creators the same level of freedom (or greater, for the ruleset in Creative Commons) to create TTRPG content that's been so great for everyone, while giving us the tools to ensure the game continues to become ever more inclusive and welcoming." [...]

Previously: Dungeons & Dragons' New License Tightens its Grip on Competition


Original Submission

Wizards of the Coast Changes Course, Gamers Win 28 comments

Wizards of the Coast changes course, gamers win:

Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast will abandon attempts to alter the Open Gaming License (OGL). The announcement, made Friday, comes after weeks of virulent anger from fans and third-party publishers caused the story to make international headlines — and on the eve of a high-profile movie starring Chris Pine.

The OGL was developed and refined in the lead-up to D&D's 3rd edition, and a version of it has been in place for more than 20 years. It provides a legal framework by which people have been able to build their own tabletop RPGs alongside the Hasbro-owned brand. It has also buoyed the entire role-playing game industry, giving rise to popular products from Paizo, Kobold Press, and many individual creators. But proposed changes to the OGL, leaked to and first reported on by io9 on Jan. 5, seemed like they would create an adversarial relationship between Wizards and its community. The story has since made headlines around the world — including a nearly 10-minute segment this week on NPR's All Things Considered and lengthy write-ups by organizations such as CNBC.

Previously:


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by SomeRandomGeek on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:06PM (17 children)

    by SomeRandomGeek (856) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:06PM (#1286382)

    I haven't played D&D for many editions now. The last time I did play it, however, there was nothing to distinguish it from many competing systems except the large amount of content available for it. Has that changed? Is there anything that prevents all of these third party content developers from just saying "D&D is officially too much of a pain in the ass. Our content will no longer be D&D compatible going forward. Use this other system instead?"
    Is D&D in the process of disbanding their ecosystem?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by crafoo on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:16PM (1 child)

      by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:16PM (#1286385)

      It distinguishes itself in being very bland and just bad.

      D&D was never a very good system, it was the first popular gaming system. But it was never very good. Not well designed.

      What's worse, it ruined entire decades of video games as well. they adopted the terrible, clunky, frankly quite dumb D&D systems into their combat systems. 40 fucking years of "tank-healer-glass cannon" combat trope in every single game, ruining them. The dumbest, weakest, most no-effort attempt at game design and balance.

      Good riddance.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by darkfeline on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:42PM

        by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:42PM (#1286390) Homepage

        It wasn't designed for balance AFAIK, it was designed for fun, and it was rather successful from the stories I hear.

        WOTC has been flailing for a while, so this may be a desperate attempt to stamp out refuges for fleeing customers.

        --
        Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:25PM (4 children)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:25PM (#1286387) Homepage Journal

      The change happened in 2000. This is the century of unparalleled greed, selfishness, and a dire paucity of honesty and humanity. At least in America, anyway.

      Age of Aquarius, my ass!

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday January 11 2023, @10:43PM (3 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @10:43PM (#1286417)

        Sounds like someone is unfamiliar with U.S. history. While wealth inequality has once again risen to the dangerous extremes that characterized the Gilded Age of robber-barons, we've still got a long ways to go to rival the excesses of greed and inhumanity that were characteristic of the era. For example, I've yet to see company goon squads gunning down striking workers in broad daylight, much less the U.S. Army. Nor have I seen company towns forcing their workers into near-slavery by paying them in company scrip that can only be spent at the extremely overpriced company store.

        As for astrology... of the many things you can say about it, one of them is that any change of significance that lines up nicely with calendar dates is complete bull$#@!. A quick google gives dates for the beginning of the Age of Aquarius varying between sometime in 1447 to within the next few decades, depending on exactly how you define the completely arbitrary requirements.

        And that's even before you even consider the modern "math is hard" redefinition of the zodiac boundaries to span equal-width wedges of the night sky that now only have a tenuous connection to the constellations that once defined them.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:49PM (#1286425)

          Nor have I seen company towns forcing their workers into near-slavery by paying them in company scrip that can only be spent at the extremely overpriced company store.

          I don't know, I'm pretty sure Disney has tried that at some point . . .

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 12 2023, @08:01PM (1 child)

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday January 12 2023, @08:01PM (#1286551) Homepage Journal

          As for astrology

          I was referring to a popular song from half a century ago. I don't believe any of that astrology bullshit. As to history, I was referring to the last seventy years; we don't have legal slavery any more, either, but I was talking about recent history.

          And that's even before you even consider the modern "math is hard" redefinition of the zodiac

          Math is only hard if your math teacher was incompetent. I made a D- in high school algebra, and realized years later that I don't know what that teacher was trying to teach, but it wasn't algebra; I was already using formulas for electronics when I took the class. I probably knew the subject I made a D- in better than my incompetent instructor.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday January 12 2023, @10:27PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 12 2023, @10:27PM (#1286574)

            I completely agree that math isn't actually difficult (Heck, I've got a degree in it despite finding arithmetic a grueling chore until finally introduced to algebra - and pre-algebra was some sort of ugly nightmare that did its best to confuse everything).

            It does however revolve around two skills that humans are really bad at as a rule: logic and rigor. And while neither skill is particularly difficult, I think many people find applying them consistently to be hard, in sort of the mental analog to the "hard but not difficult" work of digging ditches.

            Getting back to my post, my "math is hard" comment was not a comment on math, but the quality of modern astrologers who have dramatically simplified the system - presumably because anyone who could handle the math to do it right went into astronomy, physics, or most anything else that requires actual skill in things other than bullshitting.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:31PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @06:31PM (#1286389)

      Well ... maybe just one more heist to squeeze more money out of it. After all, is there honor among thieves [youtu.be]?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by helel on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:00PM (3 children)

      by helel (2949) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:00PM (#1286394)

      The original OGL is the reason there's so much material published for D&D.

      For a long time anyone who wanted to publish their own game material would slap together a half-baked clone of D&D, add all the setting material they actually cared about, and call it a day. This meant there were lots and lots of bad games floating around and a few good ones [wikipedia.org] that started eating their lunch.

      Someone at WotC had the bright idea to regain relevance by going open source: Anyone can publish content that's compatible with D&D so anyone who wants to use their setting will need to purchase our rules books and use our character creation tools. It was a good deal - designers could publish to a set "standard" rules system without paying for a license and WotC could be the biggest game selling the most merchandise around.

      If they go through with this new license that ends. Nobody wants to spend all the time and money to produce a book just to see WotC plagiarize and publish it with their much larger reach. Thanks in large part to the OGL there's allot of game systems that are available for use and modification nowadays. None of them are as big as D&D but I could very much see one of them becoming the new favorite if everyone in the industry has to scramble to find a new home that's not D&D.

      In short, yes, I think WotC is in the process of taking the nice little asset that was D&D and throwing it in the dustbin.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday January 12 2023, @02:41AM (2 children)

        by Reziac (2489) on Thursday January 12 2023, @02:41AM (#1286437) Homepage

        I'm wondering ... if they say the new license means the old license is now invalid and therefore infringement (which seems to be the gist), isn't that a unilateral and retroactive change to an existing de facto contract?

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by helel on Thursday January 12 2023, @05:21AM (1 child)

          by helel (2949) on Thursday January 12 2023, @05:21AM (#1286448)

          Yes, but very very few game designers have the money to fight WotC in court so they can more-or-less force it to be true by threat of frivolous lawsuits. Doesn't matter if you're right if you've already lost your house before the trial even starts.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Reziac on Thursday January 12 2023, @05:43AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Thursday January 12 2023, @05:43AM (#1286449) Homepage

            Are there not laws against unilaterally altering a contract? that would make it criminal, not civil.

            Of course, for your next trick, get the relevant jurisdiction to prosecute....

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:37PM (3 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:37PM (#1286399) Journal

      > I haven't played D&D for many editions now.

      Same. The heyday was 2nd and earlier editions. Tried 3rd, 4th, and 5th, but circumstances had changed so much that we could no longer sustain a campaign. When you live on a college campus, there are interested people within 5 minutes walking distance. Outside of that, players live too far away, and we all have too many other things to do, both necessities and fun. Not least was MMORPGs. Perhaps now, we could run a campaign virtually, using tech only for video conferencing, rather than the still completely mechanistic dungeon mastering of the typical MMORPG. Human DMs, good ones, roll with innovative thinking. MMORPGs nerf it.

      > large amount of content

      I got schooled on the use of "modules", that is, pre-made adventures. Turned out that the players were all too familiar with them. You could dismiss as lucky one or two instances of looking in just the right place, but when it happened every time, and they all knew exactly what was behind every door and around every corner, it was painfully obvious I couldn't rely on pre-made stuff. Had to make my own content. Perhaps now "large" is large enough to avoid that?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by GloomMower on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:17PM (2 children)

        by GloomMower (17961) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:17PM (#1286402)

        > Perhaps now "large" is large enough to avoid that?

        I don't think there is any avoiding a player taking the initiative to look it up. I think that might be more common. No matter how large, it is easy to download whatever pre-made you are doing and read it ahead of time.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:58PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:58PM (#1286427) Journal
          And then you too will know which Otyugh garbage nests have the 53 gp rings in them.
        • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday January 23 2023, @03:03AM

          by Mykl (1112) on Monday January 23 2023, @03:03AM (#1288131)

          Any player who actually wants to have fun will not look up the material ahead of playing. There are no prizes for "Winning" - the actual enjoyment is the gameplay itself.

          Who am I kidding - this is 2023.

    • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday January 12 2023, @03:35PM

      by richtopia (3160) on Thursday January 12 2023, @03:35PM (#1286485) Homepage Journal

      There are a few reasons to prefer D&D:

      1. Popularity. Even pathfinder is a small subset of players compared to D&D (Roll 20 publishes statistics but the site is blocked at work, probably this link: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2021/) [roll20.net]
      2. Polish and streamlining. WOTC can throw a lot of money and playtesters at the game resulting in a very consistent gaming experience. In 5E the rules rarely conflict with eachother and the rulebooks are well written
      3. Simplicity. Along with the streamlining 5E has been made very approachable for new users. If you are looking for tactical combat, better systems exist, but if you want collaborative storytelling, simple is usually better
      4. Digital tools. WOTC knows more and more people are playing online. While Roll 20 and Fantasy Grounds are great third party experiences (with the official rules integrated directly), I believe WOTC is building a first-party site. That space is theirs to lose

      With those said, I would argue that moving to a more restrictive license will defeat all 4 bullets (maybe digital tools could use vendor lock-in). I believe the digital tools are the real growth opportunity in the industry (reoccurring payment opportunity), and a company like WOTC has the resources to make the best product in the space. Hell, they could just purchase Fantasy Grounds or Roll 20 for an established platform and playerbase.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by rpnx on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:20PM (2 children)

    by rpnx (13892) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:20PM (#1286395) Journal

    If the original license is perpetual, it can't just be unilaterally revoked. That's not how contracts work.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2023, @09:35PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2023, @09:35PM (#1286413)

      They're not reaching back and changing the terms of stuff that is out, but anything being released going forward will have to be done on the new license version.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by tekk on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:01PM

        by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:01PM (#1286420)

        No, that's not what Wizards claims.

        Wizards is indeed claiming that by declaring all previous versions of OGL "unauthorized" in OGL 1.1, that everyone using OGL 1.0a (the current version) must stop because it's not an "unauthorized version." Multiple lawyers have pointed out that claiming this would get you flunked out of contract law 1 in law school, but that's what Wizards is claiming.

  • (Score: 1) by dwilson98052 on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:21PM

    by dwilson98052 (17613) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @07:21PM (#1286396)

    D&D is pretty played out at this point, and this latest power/money grab by a group of covetous nitwits is just another in a long list of reasons to find a better hobby.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by GloomMower on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:11PM (2 children)

    by GloomMower (17961) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:11PM (#1286400)

    For a while I was hearing more about Pathfinder than D&D, that probably upset WotC a bit, especially since they all but created Paizo. D&D still is a bigger name, so they still got more licensing potential for now.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tekk on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:09PM (1 child)

      by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:09PM (#1286422)

      That was from the 4E days, which is the last time Wizards went and tried to kill the 3rd party publishing market with a license change. Paizo refused to play that game and essentially forked D&D 3.5 under the OGL. Now of course it's happening again: Kobold Press (the biggest publisher of 3rd party 5e content I'm aware of) has just announced that they'll be designing their own core RPG system. I personally would rather they just start writing for PF2E, which I like a lot, but it's definitely a different beast from 5E.

      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday January 23 2023, @03:17AM

        by Mykl (1112) on Monday January 23 2023, @03:17AM (#1288132)

        I switched to Pathfinder 1e when D&D moved to 4th Edition - I had no interest in the dramatic change to play style they took. Apparently many others did too - Pathfinder was eating 4th Edition's lunch for quite a while. It's no mistake that 5th Edition has much more in common with 3rd Edition than 4th - it walked back a lot of mistakes.

        I've stuck with Pathfinder 1e even though they've now moved to a different ruleset now - too invested in the d20 system! D&D 5E is a bit too simplistic for my taste - not as much customization for characters, and not as much 'crunch' in the combat rules.

        I agree that 3rd parties publishing for Pathfinder would be great, as Paizo are in a perfect position to learn from WoTC's mistakes and be the well-behaved custodian of their ruleset.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:17PM (2 children)

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:17PM (#1286401) Homepage Journal

    What sources are there for true open-source free/libre game rules?
    Are there any?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by GloomMower on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:39PM

      by GloomMower (17961) on Wednesday January 11 2023, @08:39PM (#1286406)

      The OGL 1.0 was not perfect, but maybe could have been an answer to your question. I'm not familiar with that many, but simple search:

      https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Open_Game_Systems [rpg.net]

      https://opensource.com/article/21/10/rpg-tabletop-games [opensource.com]

    • (Score: 2) by tekk on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:06PM

      by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2023, @11:06PM (#1286421)

      Creative Commons. If it's just game rules you care about the OGL works just fine. It's a very readable license on its own but if you're too lazy the terms of the OGL are basically:
      1. You can publish works compatible with this product so long as you publish your works under this or a future version of the OGL
      2. You have to include the OGL in your published work.
      3. You have to indicate what parts you've published are derived from the OGL material.
      4. You don't get to touch the "product identity" except to show compatibility. ie you can say that your book is "D&D Compatible", you can publish spells for some prestige class like "Arcane Archer", etc but you can't write a campaign in our campaign settings, feature our characters on your cover art, etc.

  • (Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday January 12 2023, @01:39AM

    by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Thursday January 12 2023, @01:39AM (#1286432) Journal

    Greedy beach wizards be damned together with all of their funky beasts!

    It's time for commoners to understand they can do their own rules too, even better.

    Just like in politics.

    --
    Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 13 2023, @02:32AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday January 13 2023, @02:32AM (#1286601)

    Tabletop RPGs are supposed to be an exercise in group story creation. The rules and such are mostly there to answer the question of "Did what this character try actually work?"

    Well-honed rules might lead to better balance, but if you just make them up that would be at least a decent start - after all, that's how TSR got started.

    All the settings, etc are maybe stimulants to your group's imagination, but really whatever works for the people you've got is the right answer, and that can be something weirder than can be found in the rulebooks.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(1)