D&D AND THE OPEN GAMING LICENSE

[Formless]

Ah, I misunderstood then. I'm guessing they realized that they are going to get destroyed at those rates by a mass exodus of users to other websites, as a sponsorship deal is insufficient to keep an outraged community on your crowdfunding platform. And there is no way to force the community to use Kickstarter via a license, that almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court and enough users would do it anyway that suing all of them would be financial suicide for both companies.

Not that they aren't already committing financial suicide, but hey.

[Solauren]

My wife told me there is currently and effort to get people to leaves WOTC online platform in protest, as that's going to show them quickly how upset the community is, and have an immediate financial result.

They're calling it "D&D Begone"

[Solauren]

Oh, and here is something else from Enworld.org

From Mr. Ryan S. Dancey

Two decades ago I helped create the Open Gaming License which helped save Dungeons & Dragons. Today that license is at risk of being changed by Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast. I am hoping that a coordinated response by the community might make them reconsider their plans.

Please join me in signing this petition on change.org. The more people who sign, the more visible this effort will become and the more likely we will have an impact on the decisions being made by Hasbro.

I believe time is of the essence. An announcement of their plans may happen today, Thursday the 12th of January. If you are inclined, please sign the petition now.

Thank you for your support!

https://chng.it/TBdh8Z4xVV
 

[Rogue 9]

Ah, I misunderstood then. I'm guessing they realized that they are going to get destroyed at those rates by a mass exodus of users to other websites, as a sponsorship deal is insufficient to keep an outraged community on your crowdfunding platform. And there is no way to force the community to use Kickstarter via a license, that almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court and enough users would do it anyway that suing all of them would be financial suicide for both companies.

Not that they aren't already committing financial suicide, but hey.

Users of other crowdfunding platforms will be charged the commercial rate of 25%. If you want to crowdfund a project covered under the new OGL, ditching Kickstarter (while the principled move because they cut a deal under this garbage license) doesn't get you out of it; it gets you more fucked.

Anyway: Gizmodo

Wizards of the Coast Cancels OGL Announcement After Online Ire
The new Dungeons & Dragons Open Game License was expected on Thursday afternoon, but a fan campaign against changes has caused the company to hesitate.
By Linda Codega

Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast has apparently cancelled an announcement about its updated Open Gaming License for a second time this week. Inside sources at Wizards of the Coast tell io9 that the company is scrambling to formulate a response to backlash against the new OGL that has occurred over the past week, following io9's story about a leaked draft of the document.

Hasbro-owned Wizards of the Coast did not immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.

According to io9 sources, the new OGL, now known as OGL 2.0, was supposed to go live on Thursday afternoon, along with a detailed FAQ explaining changes and addressing fan concerns.

But when D&D personality Ginny Di tweeted that people should cancel their D&D Beyond subscription in order to send a clear message to Wizards of the Coast regarding what the fanbase thinks of the developments around the Updated OGL, the message was widely shared. A stream of subscribers turning off their payment to D&D Beyond appeared to temporarily shut down the landing page for subscription cancellations because of server errors.

The result of these cancellations and their impact on the bottom line of Wizards of the Coast is not negligible, according to io9's sources at the company, and has caused upper management to scramble to adjust their messaging around the situation, leading to the delays in the OGL release.

Wizards of the Coast also cancelled a pre-scheduled D&D Beyond live stream on Twitch, which had been set for 3:00 pm on Thursday, although the company stated on its Discord that this was done to update a previously agreed-upon schedule, rather than as a response to the purported announcement.

It remains unclear when Wizards of the Coast will release the hotly anticipated new OGL, and what its final contents will include.

In the meantime, Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons & Dragons appear to be at a critical point with their fanbase, facing petition drives, open letters, and announcements from third-party publishers like MCDM and Kobold Press rejecting the new OGL in favor of creating their own systems.

[Rogue 9]

Paizo has broken their silence.

Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License

Thursday, January 12, 2023

For the last several weeks, as rumors of Wizards of the Coast’s new version of the Open Game License began circulating among publishers and on social media, gamers across the world have been asking what Paizo plans to do in light of concerns regarding Wizards of the Coast’s rumored plan to de-authorize the existing OGL 1.0(a). We have been awaiting further information, hoping that Wizards would realize that, for more than 20 years, the OGL has been a mutually beneficial license which should not–and cannot–be revoked. While we continue to await an answer from Wizards, we strongly feel that Paizo can no longer delay making our own feelings about the importance of Open Gaming a part of the public discussion.

We believe that any interpretation that the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a) were intended to be revocable or able to be deauthorized is incorrect, and with good reason.

We were there.

Paizo owner Lisa Stevens and Paizo president Jim Butler were leaders on the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards at the time. Brian Lewis, co-founder of Azora Law, the intellectual property law firm that Paizo uses, was the attorney at Wizards who came up with the legal framework for the OGL itself. Paizo has also worked very closely on OGL-related issues with Ryan Dancey, the visionary who conceived the OGL in the first place.

Paizo does not believe that the OGL 1.0a can be “deauthorized,” ever. While we are prepared to argue that point in a court of law if need be, we don’t want to have to do that, and we know that many of our fellow publishers are not in a position to do so.

We have no interest whatsoever in Wizards’ new OGL. Instead, we have a plan that we believe will irrevocably and unquestionably keep alive the spirit of the Open Game License.

As Paizo has evolved, the parts of the OGL that we ourselves value have changed. When we needed to quickly bring out Pathfinder First Edition to continue publishing our popular monthly adventures back in 2008, using Wizards’ language was important and expeditious. But in our non-RPG products, including our Pathfinder Tales novels, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, and others, we shifted our focus away from D&D tropes to lean harder into ideas from our own writers. By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.

We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.

The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

Of course, Paizo plans to continue publishing Pathfinder and Starfinder, even as we move away from the Open Gaming License. Since months’ worth of products are still at the printer, you’ll see the familiar OGL 1.0(a) in the back of our products for a while yet. While the Open RPG Creative License is being finalized, we’ll be printing Pathfinder and Starfinder products without any license, and we’ll add the finished license to those products when the new license is complete.

We hope that you will continue to support Paizo and other game publishers in this difficult time for the entire hobby. You can do your part by supporting the many companies that have provided content under the OGL. Support Pathfinder and Starfinder by visiting your local game store, subscribing to Pathfinder and Starfinder, or taking advantage of discount code OpenGaming during checkout for 25% off your purchase of the Core Rulebook, Core Rulebook Pocket Edition, or Pathfinder Beginner Box. Support Kobold Press, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Roll for Combat, Rogue Genius Games, and other publishers working to preserve a prosperous future for Open Gaming that is both perpetual AND irrevocable.

We’ll be there at your side. You can count on us not to go back on our word.

Forever.

–Paizo Inc

[bilateralrope]

Anyway: Gizmodo

Wizards of the Coast Cancels OGL Announcement After Online Ire
The new Dungeons & Dragons Open Game License was expected on Thursday afternoon, but a fan campaign against changes has caused the company to hesitate.
By Linda Codega

Lets wait and see what they replace it with before we celebrate

[Rogue 9]

They were apparently hoping to just spring this on everybody with only a week's warning. The leak has messed up the plan pretty hard, by all appearances.

[Solauren]

If WOTC is smart, they'll realize they're fucked unless they follow Paizo's lead, and find a neutral third party to be in charge of the license.

If they're REALLY smart, they'll license D&D to Paizo for the creation of game products, but keep the novel and tv/movie rights for themselves.

[Agent Sorchus]

From the EFF with edited thought's about the FAQ that was on the Wizards of the Coast website for a long time. Not they considered revocation to be a valid action until the plain language of the FAQ was brought to their attention.

Now as to why WotC has attempted to go through with the Oppressive Gaming License 1.1, of all the things that I can find I think Ryan Dancey says it best HERE.

As a consequence of this I have found a lot of content has been put up for sale at steep discounts all over the web by designers that are very upset with Wizards right now. Unfortunately I personally have been burned out on D20 system as it currently stands. With very little investment by WotC to develop new interesting stories and places to adventure I did not get invested in the Edition wars era of DnD and have found very little narrative value in the actual rules. A D20 game is always seemingly about an explosive series of events that do not know how or why to raise the stakes of the game and it also has very few tools in the game to actually do so.

I was very sure a few days ago that the 3PP companies would find it very easy to just ditch DnD and the system, after all it is well known that the actual inhouse DnD team is very small and if they are capable of releasing and revising their core rules every 6 years many of the larger publishers have content teams larger than the actual WotC team.

I have signed up for the Kobold Press playtest. #RaiseTheFlag.

EDIT: also there is a campaign to cancel DnD Beyond subscripts and confusing reports that WotC hid the cancel subscription option.

[Formless]

Its funny to me when an organization like the EFF is subtly hinting that publishers should make the same power move that Arc Dream Publishing pulled and assert that the mechanics of their game cannot be copyrighted in the first place, because the lawsuits at this point are just as inevitable as without the OGL, plus you get some of your trademark rights back!

Also interesting that they support the notion that perpetual does not mean irrevocable, but once made aware of the old FAQs decided that the OGL is indeed a contract with obligations for WotC as well as its licensees, and therefore at best they can revoke the offer of the contract to new publishers but not the rights already given to existing parties like Piazo. Not how I hope it will be ruled, but if that's the plain text of the law over in Washington State, its certainly a better outcome than everyone just having to accept OGL 1.1 in misery. If WotC tries to fight the law on this one, can we do what people did with TSR's name and call them "Won't Obey Their Contracts?" I mean, I believe Margret Weiss and Tracy Hickman would have a few thoughts on that...

[LaCroix]

Having the original people and lawyer signing the OGL on the side of the plaintiff, it should be very surprising if they would lose the case. Any judge worth his salt would take the words of the creators of a legal document over someone who bought the company and tries to reinterpret an agreement that has been existing for 20+ years.

Also, they most likely added the "irreocable" to the ORC in order to avaid this coming up ever again - since that little (missing) word is what Hasbro is tying their flag to in this mess.

But D&D is done - with the new ORC, the fact that most of the words they try to claim copyright to are 90% not their own, and the fact that you can't copyright a game mechanic, they are done. TBH - all they did the last 20 years was come up with a few subtle changes to sell another version of their core rulebook every few years. In the end, they are not creating anything - D&d is carried by the 3rdparties...

Also, they might be "the thing" in the States, but tbH - we mostly play DSA, Shadowrun, Battletech, VtM, WtA, and dozens of other games, and I have never seen any mention of the D&D OGL anywhere on these things (and DSA is a D20 game, although a bit more complicated than D&D, but much better mechanics than the oversimplified D&D). there are a few people playing D6D, but it is kinda niche...

[Formless]

Well, that and the word "de-authorized", which is partially in the OGL. Just not the important part. Like the EFF says, there is enough ambiguity to make the argument that they can de-authorize the license, but a plainer reading is that you can only access Open Gaming Content via an OGL authorized by Wizards of the Coast. Authorization is therefore given the moment the contract was published, and cannot be revoked because it does not exist at WotC's continuing permission. It just exists. And like many things relating to contracts opened to the public and accepted by merely republishing the license with your work, courts tend to rule against cute interpretations given by the contractor to users in favor of protecting consumers and license holders.

This just goes to show that its just as important that the ORC is owned by no one company in the industry, so that the entity offering the contract never has a conflict of interest to compete with their own licensees the way WotC does with D&D and its derivatives.

[Rogue 9]

Turns out there's an IP attorney, Bob Tarantino, who went for his doctorate and did his thesis on the OGL in 2019. He just wrapped up an interview on Roll for Combat's livestream, but here's an interview with him on his thesis on the Law Insider channel before all this blew up, for a perspective uncolored by current events.

[Rogue 9]

For completeness' sake: Wizards of the Coast has made a statement.

An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)

by DND Beyond Staff
2 days ago

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second. 

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected. 

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities. As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.

[Solauren]

It's like they're trying to say 'all the problems are caused by someone that was ill-informed, overreaching, and stepped way over the line'

Which, you know, technically, the leaker did

[Rogue 9]

Well the statement is obviously full of lies. If it was a draft for feedback, why did it have an effective date in it?

[Formless]

LegaEagle also threw his interpretation into the ring.

TL;DR he avoids talking about the contract issues (only briefly mentioning that this could involve Promessory Estoppel) because he instead thinks that the copyright issue is more important (and anyway, his legal specialty is copyright). He backs up the argument that game rules cannot be copyrighted in the first instance, only the expression of them, and suggests that from this perspective the only benefit of using the OGL was the certainty of not getting sued by WotC. He briefly acknowledges the entanglement of copyrightable material and non-copyrightable material in RPGs, but doesn't seem to think its terribly insurmountable for the average DM or youtubers like Critical Role... however, he conspicuously didn't touch on the issue of Piazo and other users who have printed entire spinoff games based on the third and fifth edition SRDs. He mentions talking to WotC's lawyers in preparation for the video, and I would guess they tried steering the conversation away from Piazo because of Piazo's announcement declaring their willingness to take Wizards to court if necessary. Its obviously harder for them to steer clear of Wizards' copyrights than someone like Matt Mercer who has only published setting material and could always have done so even without the OGL. However, it does sound like Devin would have concluded the same thing since he does mention the possibility of republishing the SRD's rules in their entirety and says you could probably still do it without the OGL simply by finding new expressions for them. Which Piazo's books absolutely do.

Which made me think about Piazo's decision to make their own license. Besides the obvious point of not wanting to sue if they don't have to, the OGL seems to preclude them simply backing out of its terms and republishing OGC under any license they want. Of course, the "rules can't be copyrighted" argument could protect them, but then they would get sued anyway and have to argue that point before a court. So what makes them think they can get away with it? After all, the argument that the OGL never really protected the rules in the first place because those can't be copyrighted would apply to the ORC as well. ORC equivalents to the SRD would merely be protected as exact expressions of the rules too. Then I got to thinking: since pretty much all of the legal battle is going to revolve around section 9 of the OGL, being that it is the only part that mentions "authorization", but is also the same section that mentions how you can't re-license OGC under other licenses not authorized by WotC, perhaps the ORC is part of Piazo's legal strategy? According to Ryan Dancey, the word "authorized" was used because before final publication of the license, he was sharing early drafts of the OGL with publishers and the public to get feedback, and the word merely indicated that this was the officially finalized version and using those early drafts to republish OGC wouldn't be allowed. As opposed to WotC's opinion that "authorization" is like giving someone permission to enter your house, it can always be revoked, Dancey and Piazo are saying that this is more like signing off on a contract. Once you do that, you can't erase your signature, and are bound by the contract. So, what if Piazo is trying to put WotC in a double bind here? If the courts rule in Piazo's favor, the contract is irrevocable because section 9 specifically says you can republish OGC under any authorized version of the license you want, ergo as long as there is an OGL all versions of the OGL are fair game. If they rule in favor of WotC's interpretation, however, then section 9 is no longer read as meaning that OGC can exclusively be licensed under the OGL, or perhaps that by de-authorizing OGL 1.0 all existing OGL 1.0 content is no longer bound by the terms of the license, i.e. section 9 and all the rest are void. Either way, a ruling in favor of WotC's interpretation means all that content can be moved over to the ORC license without being sued under the terms of OGL 1.0.

Or maybe I've just been thinking about this too hard and Piazo's reason for creating the ORC is just what they said it is.

[Solauren]

It could be both reasons. After all, the best plans account for multiple possible outcomes.

The other thing is, WOTC allowed entire books to be published with the SRD more or less in them. They even said in the FAQ that if someone thought they could do that, to go ahead and do so.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040307092 ... /20040123c

Case in point - The core books for the following were basically the SRD (for fantasy, d20 modern, or d20 future), with the magic, tech, or classes tweaked for the campaign setting.

Alderac Entertainment Group -
Legends of the Five Rings/Rokugan D20 (Fantasy)
Swashbuckling Adventurers (D20) (Fantasy)
Stargate SG-1 D20 (d20 future)
Farscape D20 (d20 future)
Spycraft D20 (d20 modern)

White Wolf (Sword and Sorcery Imprint - all D20 Fantasy)
Scarred Lands D20
Everquest D20
Warcraft D20

Mongoose -
Babylon 5 RPG (d20 future)
Conan The Rolepaying Game (d20 fantasy)
Judge Dredd (d20 future)

They current management of the WOTC brands has way, way to much they are trying to ignore to succeed.

Then again, that's what they have done with every D&D edition since 3.5, so it's not a surprise.

[Rogue 9]

Paizo's Open RPG Creative license doesn't need to re-license Wizards' SRD, because their current offering, Pathfinder 2e, doesn't use it. They only published under the OGL so that their own work would be open. I'm not taking their word for it; Pathfinder's second edition bears no resemblance to D&D or to the game's own first edition. (Source: I was in the playtest.) So they can re-license their own original work under a different open license all they want.

[Formless]

Maybe, but have they ever stopped selling PF1 material? Or their business partners? I know there is still a market for PF1 material because a lot of people were unimpressed by PF2 but didn't want to switch to 5e either. Piazo may not want to continue supporting PF1, but that doesn't mean they want to stop selling it completely or screw their 3pp partners who never switched editions. I've even heard of some publishers who chose to keep making their own version of PF1 much like PF1 was a continuation of 3.5.

[Rogue 9]

They still have stock for sale, but I'm pretty sure it's out of print; once it's gone it'll be gone.

[Formless]

Yes, but if they sell those books in pdf format, that isn't an issue. Plus, they probably don't want the backlash of having to take the pfSRD off the internet.

[Rogue 9]

WotC apparently thinks that groups are going to pay $30 per month per player for their virtual tabletop. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[Gandalf]

Wow. They know Tabletop Simulator exists right?

My regular group is now looking elsewhere for game systems.

[Solauren]

$30 a month for something I could accomplish with Microsoft Office? Thats not just laughable, that's fucking insane!

Even World of Warcraft is only $15/month, and it's WAY more immersive.