D&D AND THE OPEN GAMING LICENSE

[Rogue 9]

It's evidently going to be a tiered service, with $30/month being the top tier with monthly "content drops," which may or may not mean it skirts the microtransactions somewhat. Lower tiers also aren't allowed to upload and use homebrew content; they must play published material that's provided on the server.

The hell of it is, at those prices they could lose 90% of the player base and still come out ahead on money.

[Formless]

This is almost reaching TSR levels of corporate mismanagement. Here's hoping that the pricing alone kills D&D's status as a "core brand" at Hasbro.

[Solauren]

This is almost reaching TSR levels of corporate mismanagement. Here's hoping that the pricing alone kills D&D's status as a "core brand" at Hasbro.

This makes me wonder if D&D is going to be caught in a repeating cycle of 'loves the brand/sees it as a cash cow' for it's exsitence.

First, we had TSR being run by Gygax (mostly), who falls under 'loves the brand'. (1972 - 1985)
Then he was forced out, and run by someone who apparently didn't even allow play testing. That's clearly 'cash chow'. (1985–1997)
Then, WOTC buys it up. Their management up to 4e falls under 'Loves the Brand'
If I can see what they were trying with 4e and 5e, despite my dislike of those systems, so I'll put it under 'Loves the brand'.
(1998 - 2009 definately, arguably up to 2020)

Now we're back to 'cash cow' (2020 - until WOTC+Hasbro managament grows brain cells)

[Formless]

Nah, watching Chuck's history of D&D series has opened my eyes to Gygax's true nature. He always wanted to make games for a living, but its clear that actually owning a business changed him. His story about quitting his job to make games was a fabrication he made after the fact: the real story is he was fired for stealing office supplies which he took home to help in his game design efforts. Running TSR made him cease seeing D&D as a passion project and started seeing it as his golden goose, especially after it went mainstream. The first signs of this came when he tried claiming that AD&D, despite its own advertising, was a legally distinct game from OD&D, therefore he didn't have to pay Dave Arneson royalties for sales of AD&D products. Arneson sued, and after a long legal battle, Arneson won, but not until after the myth of Gary Gygax was fully cemented in the public consciousness. Its known that as the end of his tenure as CEO was about to abruptly end, he had long stopped designing products and was spending most of his time in Hollywood trying to make a movie instead. He cared less about D&D as a game and more about turning D&D into a multimedia brand. Hell, he didn't even think too hard about the finances, not understanding that the company was coasting on luck due to being the first to market, he really cared most about having control of the company at all costs, even pissing off TSR's creditors and the banks. That's the real reason that the investors staged a coup; even before Lorraine Williams was made CEO by a unanimous vote by every investor save Gary Gygax himself, Gary had basically put her in charge of day to day business anyway, so she had earned their trust. They didn't take the reigns away from him out of greed, but because he was going to ruin them to sate his own ego. And do note that one of those investors was Dave Arneson! He cared more about the game despite all that Gary had done to him, because he invented the hobby itself.

Running TSR basically brought out the worst in Gary Gygax, and a lot of Lorraine Williams' negative reputation came from him lying to the public about how it all went down at a point in time where her leadership had become unpopular with fans because of the company's litigious nature, and Wizards had already bought them out and wanted to make amends with the man as a matter of PR. Note that they didn't reach out to Arneson the same way because it was all about the myth, not the truth. The industry insiders who knew Arneson's contributions didn't matter to WotC because he wasn't a big name outside the industry. Most of the employees from TSR that have been interviewed by gaming historians have suggested that while Lorraine was not a pleasant person, she was very competent as a business woman, and didn't actually hate gamers like Gary claimed. Again, she was running the business in his stead even before the coup. Gary claimed that because his fear was always that the company would get taken over by bog standard businessmen. He just didn't think to look in the mirror and realize that its the business that makes the businessman, not the college degree.

[Solauren]

Nah, watching Chuck's history of D&D series has opened my eyes to Gygax's true nature.

You have my attention. Is it on Youtube?

[Formless]

Its in no danger of getting hit by copyright bots, so yes. There's a four part history of Magic: the Gathering up to about the year 2000, which is referenced in the D&D history to contrast how the founders of Wizards found success whereas the founders of TSR ended up suing each other. The history of D&D starts with a history of wargaming, but most of the juicy content about how TSR turned Gary Gygax into a tyrant boss starts in part three. He isn't done with this one, he intends to continue at least through the point where TSR and Wizards of the Coast merged into one company. He hasn't said whether or not he intends to continue the project through to the modern day, but we will see.

Edit: just as a warning, these are 40+ minute videos.

[Raw Shark]

DND is a shit game, anyway. I don't understand why anyone who isn't mentally disabled would rather play that than GURPS. FUCK 'EM IN THE EAR.

[Solauren]

Wow, Raw Shark being a troll! Has his account been hacked?

[Rogue 9]

They're giving it another try.

A Working Conversation About the Open Game License (OGL)

by Kyle Brink
4 hours ago

Hi. I’m Kyle Brink, the Executive Producer on D&D. It’s my team that makes the game we all play.

D&D has been a huge part of my life long before I worked at Wizards and will be for a long time after I’m done. My mission, and that of the entire D&D team, is to help bring everyone the creative joy and lifelong friendships that D&D has given us.

These past days and weeks have been incredibly tough for everyone. As players, fans, and stewards of the game, we can’t–and we won’t–let things continue like this.

I am here today to talk about a path forward.

First, though, let me start with an apology. We are sorry. We got it wrong.

Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs. Then we compounded things by being silent for too long. We hurt fans and creators, when more frequent and clear communications could have prevented so much of this.

Starting now, we’re going to do this a better way: more open and transparent, with our entire community of creators. With the time to iterate, to get feedback, to improve.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s how we do it for the game itself. So let’s do it that way for the OGL, too.

We’ll listen to you, and then we will share with you what we’ve heard, much like we do in our Unearthed Arcana and One D&D playtests. This will be a robust conversation before we release any future version of the OGL.

Here’s what to expect.

On or before Friday, January 20th, we’ll share new proposed OGL documentation for your review and feedback, much as we do with playtest materials.
After you review the proposed OGL, you will be able to fill out a quick survey–much like Unearthed Arcana playtest feedback surveys. It will ask you specific questions about the document and include open form fields to share any other feedback you have.
The survey will remain open for at least two weeks, and we’ll give you advance notice before it closes so that everyone who wants to participate can complete the survey. Then we will compile, analyze, react to, and present back what we heard from you.

Finally, you deserve some stability and clarity. We are committed to giving creators both input into, and room to prepare for, any update to the OGL. Also, there’s a ton of stuff that isn’t going to be affected by an OGL update. So today, right now, we’ll lay out all the areas that this conversation won’t touch.

Any changes to the OGL will have no impact on at least these creative efforts:

Your video content. Whether you are a commentator, streamer, podcaster, liveplay cast member, or other video creator on platforms like YouTube and Twitch and TikTok, you have always been covered by the Wizards Fan Content Policy. The OGL doesn’t (and won’t) touch any of this.
Your accessories for your owned content. No changes to the OGL will affect your ability to sell minis, novels, apparel, dice, and other items related to your creations, characters, and worlds.
Non-published works, for instance contracted services. You use the OGL if you want to publish your works that reference fifth edition content through the SRD. That means commissioned work, paid DM services, consulting, and so on aren’t affected by the OGL.
VTT content. Any updates to the OGL will still allow any creator to publish content on VTTs and will still allow VTT publishers to use OGL content on their platform.
DMs Guild content. The content you release on DMs Guild is published under a Community Content Agreement with Dungeon Masters Guild. This is not changing.
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
Your revenue. There will be no royalty or financial reporting requirements.
Your ownership of your content. You will continue to own your content with no license-back requirements.

That’s all from me for now. You will hear again from us on or before Friday as described above, and we look forward to the conversation.

Kyle Brink

Executive Producer, Dungeons & Dragons

[Solauren]

Provided they meet those stated parameters and goals, that's a big improvement.

Still not going to try their VTT, or the new system, as I'm very happy with Roll20 and my customized version of Pathfinder1e (which is basically the Pathfinder Core books taking the place of the 3.X PHBK, DMG, and MM, with calculating CMB, CMD as needed for pre-Pathfinder stuff. Incidently, most of the stuff people said was 'too powerful' in the prePathfinder d20 system works perfectly with Pathfinder 1e)

[Raw Shark]

Wow, Raw Shark being a troll! Has his account been hacked?

The winky face means I'm kidding, y'know. But I am a GURPS partisan, it is the better game.

[Solauren]

Wow, Raw Shark being a troll! Has his account been hacked?

The winky face means I'm kidding, y'know. But I am a GURPS partisan, it is the better game.

(Blinks). Did Raw Shark also miss the dry sarcasm?

dude, you okay?

[Raw Shark]

(Blinks). Did Raw Shark also miss the dry sarcasm?

dude, you okay?

Been better. Had to move and get a new job. Got one, though. Thanks for asking.

[Rogue 9]

They have released an updated draft (actually a draft this time) of a new OGL. They still purport to deauthorize version 1.0a and the draft says it only applies to SRD 5.1 (current) and forward, so releasing content using the older editions' SRDs is straight banned.

[Formless]

They are also saying that they are going to be relicensing several core game mechanics from 5e under a creative commons license. However, this apparently ONLY includes 5e mechanics, not 3e ones, and is very limited. The spell mechanics but not the spells, the feat mechanics but only one feat (grapple of all things), leveling up but none of the actual classes, and none of the monsters either. In other words, not only are they trying to re-license everything under a license that wasn't designed to handle the peculiar entanglement of copyrightable, trademarkable and public domain material that characterizes RPG material, they aren't even releasing anything on that license that can actually get copyright protection in the first instance. It looks like they thought that this would alleviate people's fears about what de-authorizing OGL 1.0 would do to existing users without actually understanding how either the OGL 1.0 works or why people generally prefer it over CC licenses to begin with. And they are still trying to screw over Piazo and the OSR crowd they malign so much over suspicious claims of racism by keeping 3e material de-authorized. In other words, the fight isn't over. WotC just finally started listening to their own PR department rather than letting managers shoot their mouths off in public.

[Formless]

Edit: stupid phone did a double post.

[Solauren]

I stat down and figured something out to day, based on a little project of mine.

The project in question is a database, I've tossed, and continue to toss, RPG (D20 system) stuff into. In this case, entire books.
All of WOTC, Paizo PF1, and numerous other publisher are in this database, in full. There are currently 2333 RPG Source books in the database.
(sorry if I caused any spit takes)

Most are completely entered, a few items have a note beyond title of item of 'OCR Pending'. (Mostly Dragon and Dungeon magazine). Meaning yes, I can literally load it up, and I have 2333 RPG books open at the same time. And it's indexed.

How it's indexed is important for this.

Each item is under a 'Type' listing, and a 'Subtype listing'. i.e "Feat", "Combat".
As of right now, beyond the generic 'Note' type, there are 152 'Types'
92 of them original from WOTC Books.
Just about everything that does not have an item type is indexed with what I call a 'Master ID Number'.
What allows me to put something by the same publisher, but repeated across multiple books in, and still give them a unique tracking identified above the data tables 'autonumber'. Fireball shows up 2 times from WOTC (PHBK 3, PHBK3.5), and once from Paizo, and they all have the same 'Master Id Number'. If someone puts out a different spell named Fireball, but it differs from the WOTC/PZO version, it would have it's own MID number
(and show in in the master id index as 'Fireball (Publisher short form)'.

As of right now, the MID # list has 130,852 unique entries. Of those, even counting stuff that was later updated to Pathfinder by Paizo or Dreamscarred (who updated Psionics), or Paizo put out in Dragon/Dungeon etc under the D&D Brand.
WOTC is responsible for 27683 of those entries.

If you consider that I have at least 2000 more books to enter (I admit I may never get them all in, I go through periods of working on this in some way, it's one of several rotating hobbies), WOTC is in the minority for commerical contribution to the d20 system at this point.

And that's just for D20 System/3.X I have no idea about 4e or later. (Don't really care either). I suspect a similar minority would show.

But, I also am working on putting a few discussion forms in as well (again, rotating hobby, may never get done').

Specifically I'm still working my way through the WOTC discussion forms, which I downloaded all the D20/D&D related stuff from before they originally migrated to Gleemax, after they migrated back from Gleemax, and then 2 weeks before they closed it.
(and a bunch of other websites, including theMimir.net and others).

Just from the WOTC forum, which I'm only about 1/2 done I'd say, I've pulled out 40,000 unique items. I estimated there are probably about 20 - 30,000 more to pull out, without getting into post 3e stuff.

Then I will move on to Giants in the Playground, Dickfreaks,and others.

As far as I'm concerned, WOTC can't pull the OLG1.0a, because they have the smallest claim to it at this point.

[bilateralrope]

And they are still trying to screw over Piazo and the OSR crowd they malign so much over suspicious claims of racism by keeping 3e material de-authorized.

I've never played 5e. Does it keep the alignment system from 3e ?

Because if it dropped it, I can see the argument about racism when alignment marks entire races as evil.

[Formless]

5e still has alignment. Bringing it back after simplifying the shit out of it in 4e was part of their attempt to make 5e appear palatable to consumers: look, everybody, we cast True Resurrection on all the sacred cows we slaughtered! Aren't we nice? (never mind that alignment has always had problems and caused arguments, because its philosophically flawed, and no longer works the way it used to in AD&D anyway).

All the lies they've been telling about how they "needed" to de-authorize the OGL in order to enforce their morality clause in OGL 1.2 * are just a form of deflection used for the sake of PR. They think that because they won over the Twitter idiots who bullied them back in 2020 without apparently doing anything internally to change their culture. Everything has been externally facing from what I can tell, which isn't nothing, but its a sign that they only take it as seriously as they need to to appease the cancel culture on Twitter. I mean, its an explicitly revocable contract, so anything else in it is meaningless. If they decide they don't like the terms tomorrow, they can change them and any user of 1.2 is screwed.

And let me be clear here: do not sign corporate contracts with morality clauses. They only serve to take your own moral authority and agency away. In the case of OGL 1.2, the problem is that "offensive content" is left undefined, and you have no recourse under the terms of the contract to defend yourself if WotC decides that your content is "offensive". You cannot trust corporate suits to have a genuine social conscience. You cannot trust them to define "offensive" fairly. If you are European, you have to remember that WotC is an American company with American social mores, so sexual content might be deemed offensive by WotC even if you see no problem with it. If you are part of the queer community, they might be explicitly friendly towards gay people, but you never know when the leadership might be taken over by TERFs. Its happened before. And their stance on ableism, well, its already been shown that its a complicated topic they don't fully know how to address.

How do we know? Because they already rewrote an important disabled character from Curse of Strahd, and its debatable which depiction is more ableist. In one version, the disability (a prosthetic leg) is kept hidden because the character feels that its a vulnerability they cannot afford to advertise in a world as dangerous as Ravenloft; in the other, she flaunts it because WotC apparently thinks that its teh cool thing now for kids with missing limbs to show off their cool prosthetics rather than hiding them. Now, this is a debatable point. I've seen at least one D&D youtuber say that they made a misstep here. Its well meaning, but as that youtuber himself has a missing eye he keeps covered with an eyepatch, he makes the point that adults like him do that for a reason-- its gross. It disturbs other people to look at it. And in context, the character would indeed have good reason to hide the prosthetic leg. Strahd's domain is dangerous, and its a meaningful weakness in combat, so if the character also wears a sword more to intimidate would be aggressors than to actual fight with it, hiding the leg makes sense for her. Its not ableist, and it also reminded me that the trend WotC might have seen mostly applies to kids with missing limbs. Adults are known to have a harder time coping with amputation because they've had decades to grow emotionally attached to their limbs, whereas a child born without a leg doesn't know any other life. Point is, it appears that the change was made with the best of intentions, but without actually consulting a sensitivity reader, who might have told them that the character's situation is more complicated than just a binary "this is ableist or not". Instead of changing just the way the character behaves, they should have asked deeper questions about what purpose she serves in the campaign and thus why she is missing a leg in the first place.

Anyway, offensive could even just mean "you used a naughty word! Yes, even though this was before the euphamism treadmill made the word naughty when it wasn't before. You have no right to complain under the terms of the license, so go fuck yourself." Again, do not sign corporate contracts with morality clauses in them. They are designed to fuck you in the ass.

* And lets be clear, they are lies. They could always release the next iteration of D&D under the GSL and add their morality clause to that license instead of trying to murder the OGL. They can't walk back the many other things that have been revealed about why they are doing this, like the statements to investors that D&D is "undermonetized" or the now retracted licensing fees or the copyright bullfuckery or the attempts to monopolize on the VTT market through the license. There are too many changes in OGL 1.2 for them to all come down to "but but but offensive content!" Don't trust corporations who hide behind a smokescreen of morality, even if or especially when that morality appears to match yours. A corporation isn't a person, and they evolve in ways you never expect. They could be sincere today, but tomorrow who knows who the investors will make CEO. Elon Musk could buy Hasbro tomorrow, and then... well.

[madd0c0t0r2]

While I do not disagree with you Formless, how is a corp supposed to defend themselves from becoming a target when(not if) some idiot puts something out on their licence designed to shock and cause headlines?

[Formless]

They don't have to. The publisher of shocking content cannot use WotC's actual trademarks, and the OGL 1.0 says that you cannot use the words "compatible with D&D" even though that would normally be Fair Use. Therefore no one can reasonably confuse WotC with the publisher of such shocking content. Otherwise, it would be like suggesting that Microsoft is responsible for all those manifestos that have been written in Word over the years. WotC provided the rules, but they are only responsible for content that they create themselves. They are not responsible for games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. And you are free to decide whether or not that game's artwork is mysogynistic or just very dark gothic fantasy. You don't need a big corporation to tell you when someone who names their game after a former girlfriend they are bitter over is an asshole. The community figured that out on their own.

Plus, its not like they can clamp down on all the offensive material on the market. The two most offensive RPG's of all time (FATAL and another whose name is so wretched I shall not even give it further notoriety by repeating it) aren't OGL content! They were original systems, designed by individuals as passion projects to share with other disgusting buyers. WotC can't control for that. They can't claim all the fantasy tropes in the public domain, and by now, they can't claim all the basic RPG mechanics and lock them up with a license-- any license, OGL, GSL, or CC.

[Jub]

While I do not disagree with you Formless, how is a corp supposed to defend themselves from becoming a target when(not if) some idiot puts something out on their licence designed to shock and cause headlines?

WotC themselves put out the Book of Vile Darkness Book of Kinks They Find Icky and still have enough questionable stuff in their current line-up to easily fight any such claims. This isn't to mention the actual internal actions of the company that fail to match their own stated ideas. You can't hide behind a morality clause while your entire corporate culture and product line are themselves built on morally questionable foundations.

[Solauren]

Putting in a morality clause is basically making anyone and everyone walk in a minefield, where the mines randomly move around and sometimes activate for no reason. Largely because of ongoing evolving social morality and consciousness, as well as double standards, as well as regional morality, generational morality, and people that will find anything offensive or acceptable, depending on if it would make them money.

[Agent Sorchus]

The bigger problem with the new OGL and the morality clause is the inclusion of Conduct not just Content. If it was content and you were using the Creator's badge as required by the draft there is in fact a product trademark association with the brand that the old OGL did not need to worry about due to the trademark license being a separate semi-open license.

With conduct being a included as part of a product content license it becomes more about controlling the market than about controlling the brand.

[Solauren]

I can also imagine the conduct portion would get struck down in court. Especially in the United States.

"Freedom of the Press", "Freedom of Speech", and similar would crush it.