from the new-license-is...[rolls_dice]...withdrawn dept.
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:
- Dungeons & Dragons' New OGL Will be 'Irrevocable' and Bring Mechanics to Creative Commons
- Dungeons & Dragons' New License Tightens its Grip on Competition
Related Stories
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.
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
(Score: 1, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 30 2023, @02:30PM (22 children)
Congratulations Neckbeards Everywhere! And, tell us Bob, what did they win? /s
It's a fantasy game, either you're playing a script you purchased - which is fine, or you're embellishing off of it - which is fine, or you're making up your own - which is fine. If you feel that your made up script is "higher quality" than the ones being sold by the "Big Boys" you have always had the options of 1) try to sell it to a big boy for big boy distribution exposure, 2) try to sell it on your own and get a hard lesson in the costs and value of marketing, or 3) just share it among friends and fans and get on with enjoying life without a bunch of bitterness about ownership of derivative works which ALL you cretins are making starting with the moment you bring a troll, or goblin, or orc, or elf, or dwarf, or fairy, or dragon, or witch, or wizard into your storyline.
If Wizards of the Coast or whoever want to become jerks about their open source licensing for their works going forward, vote with your feet first. Howling over marginal technicalities is for nerds, oh, wait...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday January 30 2023, @02:40PM (1 child)
Not that I claim any expertise in RPG financing, but TFS seems to imply that folks have succeeded in (2)
> popular products from Paizo, Kobold Press, and many individual creators
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 30 2023, @03:57PM
Yes, option 2 is there, and option 2 will always be there. If WotC doesn't want to support option 2 off of their "original" (an extremely laughable term in the highly derivative world of fantasy gaming) works, then stop buying new WotC base material and go make your own from some other base, or take that huge leap and make it from no base at all.
I recently heard - third hand - about a bunch of gamers who are sharing figurine designs as 3D CAD files, printing and painting the characters and doing their things with those... cool, but time intensive in the extreme.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 30 2023, @03:00PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday January 30 2023, @03:07PM (12 children)
Even if you're not publishing yourself, you're losing if publishers fold. Competition is good for the quality of the product and the consumer in general. Less competition between suppliers means that even mediocre content can be sold at a premium because you don't really have a lot of better options.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 30 2023, @04:00PM (11 children)
Given the longevity of WotC to-date, I doubt they'd be folding based on a mistake like this - maybe backtracking after a quarter or two, or maybe figuring it out before committing to the mistake as they seem to have already.
Question is: will they go Netflix on their fanbase and try, try again for the extra squeeze?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by helel on Monday January 30 2023, @04:58PM (9 children)
I can answer that question for you. Yes, yes they will. This isn't the first time they've tried to pull this kind of nonsense and it won't be the last. This isn't even the first time they've tried to win with exploitative public licensing.
Back when D&D 4th edition was launched they licensed it under a then new "Game System License" which was much more restrictive and was intended to lock third parties into their upgrade track, killing off OGL products. It went about as well as you'd imagine, because everyone could ignore the new material and just continue using the OGL. I think it's safe to say that's why they were trying to kill the OGL directly this time.
The problem that WotC management just doesn't seem to understand is that the value of their game comes from the community of small publishers - Push them to a different system (Pathfinder, last time they tried this) and D&D is worth nothing.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday January 30 2023, @06:07PM (7 children)
And no, trying to copyright certain terms won't change a thing. You can copyright the "Beholder", then publishers writing material for "Caves & Cadavers" will create a creature called a "Watcher" and every GM will tell their confused friends "It's a Beholder, WotC is just going bonkers with their copyright, just ignore the fuckers".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by helel on Monday January 30 2023, @06:14PM (6 children)
Look at every board games version of "tapping" a card. WotC has the trademark on that one so every designer has come up with a new way to say "turn the card sideways to indicate it's been used." It's as funny as it is frustrating.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday January 30 2023, @06:24PM (5 children)
And in the end, every player calls it "tapping" and nobody gives a flying fuck about WotC's copyright. If anything, once in a while, someone will butt in and say "Oh, no, wait, it's "locking", because "tapping" is only for Magic!", followed by the roll of some eyes and a derisive chuckle.
Source: I play VteS.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 30 2023, @10:34PM (4 children)
>nobody gives a flying fuck about WotC's copyright
Exactly, until they think they can sell their derivative works too... If you don't like WotC's copyright, don't put the effort into making derivative works.
Somebody I know made a really cool mp3 player, uses the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicBrainz [wikipedia.org] song attributes database to auto-dj through a very large collection of .mp3 files. It's a nice thing to have and listen to, and it's not exactly refined enough to turn into a commercial product. Music industry being what it is, with their copyright enforcement and all, it's not worth that extra step to do the refinement and attempt to make the auto-dj into a product that could be sold, or even distributed as open source, because: who wants the hassle of RIAA lawsuits in exchange for your hard work? Just enjoy the auto-dj for what it is and maybe share with some close friends.
I feel like WotC users are in a similar boat: play the games, make your fanfic mods, enjoy them with friends, and just find something different to do with your time to make money. It's a little different than RIAA, but really: just let WotC be WotC - love 'em, hate 'em, whatever, but if you're going to try to compete with them you're going to have to deal with the copyright BS, because that's reality - just like wishing you could put the Beatles' songs as background music on your YouTube videos. Maybe in another lifetime, but this is the lifetime we're living.
I do wonder, though, how far off from the originals the songs will have to be to pass the copyright filters, can we say: "Hey AI-Bot, give me a song that sounds like 'Let It Be' but is different enough to not get snagged by the Copyright trolls."?
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/google-created-an-ai-that-can-generate-music-from-text-descriptions-but-wont-release-it/ [techcrunch.com]
For that matter, can ChatGPT massage WotC scripts sufficiently to get them out of copyrighted territory?
After all, publication of "Fake Books" has been legally unhindered for many decades now: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fake%20book [merriam-webster.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:16PM (3 children)
And nobody would have a problem with this if they didn't try to change the rules of the game at halftime.
It would be something very different if they were a bit more like Disney. You know, the company that aggressively defends its copyright and tells you in no uncertain terms if and how you may and may not use their IP. That at least doesn't change, so at least you can avoid working with them.
WotC went the other way. They basically said that you can create content for their IP with a very permissive license, and people saw that and decided that is the kind of license they want to operate with. The bait-and-switch in that context now is that they try to change that license in a way that not only affects future releases, which you could simply not do if you don't accept the license.
That is the key problem here. It's not that they operated with some kinda-sorta-maybe-hopefully legal loophole that now gets plugged, they were operating under a license that gets changed in a way that was also supposed to affect already published material.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:28PM (2 children)
>if they didn't try to change the rules of the game at halftime.
Well... they didn't change the rules, they changed how they are playing within the rules, and there _is_ a difference. In the '90s (before the internet) AT&T hiked their rates on me 3x in one billing cycle, I told them to get stuffed, told them to show me the contract I signed that said they could raise my rates like that without notifying me first. Crickets, except for the collection agency trying to collect on a $30 bill I refused to pay. Years later, they sent me a "terms and conditions update" that included language to the effect of: "We can change our rates whenever we want, notification will be provided on our website... to accept these terms and conditions, just pay your bill - payment implies acceptance." Guess what? 30 years later and I still don't miss doing business with AT&T.
>They basically said that you can create content for their IP with a very permissive license
Read carefully and you will find something about them having the discretion to modify the agreement. You know: " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. "
>the key problem here
is that their business guys are assholes, and idiots, and they have little to no understanding of their customer base which provides their income stream. I have other things to waste my time with, but if WotC was my timewaster of choice, I'd be investing most of my effort in becoming independent of ALL their terms and conditions, including the ones they haven't come up with yet - but reserve the right to do so.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday January 31 2023, @06:23PM (1 child)
The point is that they tried to simply pull the old license out under their publishers. It's kinda hard to compare that to your AT&T example because those licensees aren't exactly the "customer" in this. They're companies using the IP of WotC to publish material for customers. WotC knows now that if they don't disallow using the more permissive license, nobody will give a fuck about their new one. It would essentially be exactly what happened with D&D v4. The publishers ignored it, and the players didn't exactly like it either, partly because there was very little published material for it while there was a trove of D&D3.5 material still coming out, an environment that they all know and have as a comfort zone already, and also partly because the v4 rules really smelled like WotC tried to push the game towards being WoW, which resonated REALLY badly with a lot of players. Personally I liked the general idea, it improved the tactical possibilities, and I can see why and how WotC tried to improve the game there, but the narrative of the "WoWified D&D" stuck.
So they try to pull that rub out under the licensees this time around. No more publishing under the "old" license. Can they do that? Quite possibly. The question is not a legal one, though. The question is whether it is economically sound. At face value, they should be making a lot more money with the changed license. In fact, though, I think they noticed what's gonna happen if they really pull through with it.
D&D is immensely popular right now, to no small part because it's the "cool" TTRPG. Yes, it's still a nerd game, but "nerd" doesn't mean anymore "fat, pimple faced loser who can't get a date on Saturday so he plays D&D with his equally socially incompatible friends". Look around Twitch and you find cool, young adults playing D&D for you to watch. Sure, most of them are actors and some of them are paid to do it, but there's a streaming market. And if you dare to put D&D as a search query into YouTube (or possibly Tiktok, no idea), you find weeks worth of material, from taped sessions to material reviews to playing tips to GMing tips to ... I'm pretty sure I don't even know 5% of it all.
Mostly because D&D isn't exactly my poison of choice, but you find just as much for WOD and CoC.
And if you think the average gamer geek is going apeshit if "his" studio dares to change something crucial about "his" game, you haven't seen the wrath of TTRPG geeks. Well, no, you have. The shitstorm over the last few weeks.
The thing here is, though, these people are no loyal to the brand. They don't worship WotC for making D&D. They worship various YouTube and Twitch hosts, they buy everything from a certain author or studio because they like their publishing style or their stories. They don't give a hoot about WotC. And if those studios, authors and hosts move on because they are fed up with the license (and of course post their derisive and outright hostile opinion about it), these people will follow.
And I guess WotC noticed that. Just in time.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 31 2023, @08:46PM
>exactly what happened with D&D v4. The publishers ignored it, and the players didn't exactly like it either, partly because there was very little published material for it while there was a trove of D&D3.5 material still coming out
Some people never learn...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday January 30 2023, @09:02PM
There's a reason that WotC went back to the OGL for their 5th Edition of D&D, and that the rules more closely resemble 3rd Edition than 4th - Paizo and their Pathfinder system were eating their lunch. 4th Ed was not at all popular, and Pathfinder had a healthy lead in the market.
As famous as TSR, WotC and D&D brand names are, they are not immune from market forces when they put out a product that gamers dislike. 4th Edition was one of those. The proposed v1.2 of the OGL was another.
Fun fact - the hugely popular YouTube series Critical Role was originally going to be played under Pathfinder until WotC enticed them to use 5th Ed instead. Genius marketing play and it definitely paid off - that and a few other highly visible streams got the momentum back under the brand. But WotC has demonstrated their disdain for the community now and other groups (Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium) will be there to offer an alternative.
How does this explain Games Workshop and their ability to continue to charge ridiculous prices for Warhammer minis? It doesn't - that's one of life's great mysteries.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Monday January 30 2023, @04:59PM
Likely. That topic sure ain't off the table, it's just shelved for now 'til the shitstorm blows over. Then we'll see another attempt, maybe with a bit more legalese spin around it.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday January 30 2023, @10:25PM (3 children)
One other aspect of this that has been largely overlooked so far - this was a win in terms of preventing the Woke crowd from forcing the cancellation of 3rd party content at will.
WotC spoke at length about using a clause in the new OGL to remove 'objectionable' content tied to v1.2 at any time. Given their recent public positions on matters of gender, race, identity etc it's clear what they were referring to. This was in fact being offered as a carrot in order to accept the payment of royalties, theft of IP etc that formed the rest of the changes.
Granted, fears of the Woke agenda taking over were not the primary reason for people rejecting the new OGL deal. But I am pleased that virtually nobody advocated putting up with all of the other shit in there just so they could cancel those things that hurt their feelz. To me, that's a win - IP ownership and the ability for 3rd party creators to continue to deliver content to audiences trumped the need to wield the ban-hammer on the ever-shifting target of what's 'problematic'. It also left that bit of activism in the community's hands - not some admin or legal person at WotC.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 30 2023, @10:46PM (2 children)
Funny thing about the fantasy worlds that all that stuff is set in: They're racial as all hell, maybe not usually too gender bending, but they definitely are built in a world where your genetic differences and family history either ally you with, or set you as mortal enemies of, "the others." Getting bent about the color of an Elf's skin mattering, or female Dwarfs with beards, is just missing the boat, IMO.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:33AM (1 child)
Yes, one of the problems with attaching real-world social issues and problems into a fantasy setting.
Funny that we are all OK with mass-murdering everyone who gets in our way when dungeon-delving, but should have a problem that Elves and Dwarves tend to not get along.
FWIW, Paizo is making a point to include some LGBTQI+ in most of their published material. Some of it is a bit laboured, but you can always change anything you feel doesn't work for your group (add more, change the circumstances, whatever).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @12:11PM
Murder hoboing is an honest profession, you insensitive clod.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by richtopia on Tuesday January 31 2023, @12:04AM (1 child)
They won the right to re-publish the Source Reference Documentation. For homebrew scenarios, it doesn't really matter. The real win is table top websites. You can build a platform to play Dungeons And Dragons online using the official rules.
If WotC had went through with the change, Roll 20 and Fantasy Grounds would have needed to remove references to the first party material, potentially driving traffic to whatever website WotC has. Now they will actually need to compete on features and price. WotC does have name recognition and therefore an advantage in the space, but the third party providers can keep them honest.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 31 2023, @10:40AM
If the original license was revokable, the new one is too no doubt, which is a crappy foundation to build a business on.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday January 30 2023, @06:29PM (4 children)
In the event that a system can be monetized, it will be. This means a corporation will eventually or automatically try to squeeze every dollar (or penny) they can from their customers. This includes subscriptions, because subscriptions means regular, recurring money deposits. This is by no means a "one and done" attempt by WotC. This is a, "oh I'm sorry, I didn't know that was your wallet", attempt at fleecing their customer base. It will happen again. This is just another warning that you must stay vigilant and/or seek a different option.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @06:55PM (3 children)
"Monetize" means to literally use as money, not to make money from.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday January 30 2023, @07:04PM (1 child)
That is not how it is used most of the time though. The most common meaning is to make money from something that you already have. Just my €0.02 worth.
(Score: 5, Funny) by khallow on Monday January 30 2023, @07:21PM
See? Monetized!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 31 2023, @04:27PM
Just gotta take your customer to the bank, so you can spend them.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"