An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizards of the Coast

https://www.opendnd.games

by Macha • 4 years ago

369 358 4 years ago

If I build a computer game using places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon, how much fee I need to pay WotC? Assuming I sell it on Steam for some paltry revenue.

ajross2• 4 years ago

I don't think any Dragonlance content was ever published under the OGL, FWIW. The covered content is limited to the rules and the core(-ish) monster stat blocks. The fiction was never part of the deal (nor should it have been, IMHO).

markus_zhang3• 4 years ago

Interesting. Does that mean If I loosely follow the rules (say mages use mana points which change by shape of moons) and don't use the stats (after all it's just a Ultima spinoff), I probably don't need to worry anything about licensing fee? I really don't think it's going to make any meaningful money anyway.

coldpie3• 4 years ago

Unless you make over $750k, nothing. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d

This is Wizards trying to walk a fine line. They want a cut of the profits from the big-name D&D-based content creators, but they don't want to kill the entire creative community. I'm not sure they're going to succeed. Pissing off the biggest names putting your product in the spotlight in return for a couple bucks seems a really dumb idea to me.

the_af43• 4 years ago

What are the big names? Paizo/Pathfinder? Can't they simply do their own thing and stop relying on D&D precisely because they are so big their customer base already knows them?

Or is it computer games? With computers handling the rules, you can just make your own RPG rules, right? Or is it the setting? Do people really only play videogames that are set in Faerun or Icewind Dale or whatever? Can't you just make your own stuff up and call it Arda-- er, Middle-- er, Ancient Magical Land of Elves?

pflats• 4 years ago

Not true. One of the very first lines there states that:

OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.

The Fan Content Policy is:

https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy

Which says that:

You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;
You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and
Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.
You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.

All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed."

Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon" very much are covered by WotC's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).

enragedcacti• 4 years ago

Important to note that:

1) you are required to report your income if it is above $50k.

2) Once you sign they can arbitrarily adjust that $750k with nothing but a notice that the license has been updated.

sleepybrett8• 4 years ago

Nope, ogl 1.1 doesn't apply to anything but printed matieral/pdfs... 'books' essentially.

WastingMyTime898• 4 years ago

They grant themselves a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use the content under the new OGL for any purpose and they can revoke your license for any reason provided they give you a 30 days notice.

You would have to be crazy to agree to that. Hasbro can literally tell you you have 30 days to pack then sell your product as their own.

delecti• 4 years ago

The Dragonlance universe is one of the more complicated examples you could have picked, because there's been some lawsuits about the rights. Also, video games have always required additional licensing, so you picked an almost entirely orthogonal example. The OGL covers printed (or digital "print") content.

zaarn• 4 years ago

The original OGL very much allows video games. KOTOR is for example a game that includes a copy of the OGL. There is also several virtual tabletop softwares that ship with OGL content.

PeterisP2• 4 years ago

OGL only covers rules and mechanics, and some of the common, generic races/classes/spells/gear. All of the 'fluff' e.g. places and characters and worldbuilding is not licensed by OGL. OGL allows you to build your places and characters and content so that they're compatible with D&D content.

xavdid4• 4 years ago

This is disappointing, but not surprising. I don't play Magic anymore, but it's been clear for years that WotC is prioritizing profit over game health.

pclmulqdq• 4 years ago

Yep, this is an all-too-normal letdown from WotC. They really are trying to milk their franchises, without concern for their longevity. That's too bad.

For me, this is more reason to continue with the D&D 3.5 and pathfinder ecosystems for my RPGs.

xtirpation• 4 years ago

Devil's advocate: if they've been doing this for years (and I do agree wholeheartedly with you personally) then has it really been detrimental to game health? Presumably they have metrics indicating positive growth or they wouldn't be pushing in this direction.

Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us to pound sand as they have for years.

xavdid4• 4 years ago

It's a fair question, and one I don't really have the answer to without internal WotC metrics. I really think it depends on how we define "game health" (and whether we, the players, define it the same way that they do).

I'd say the game is healthy if people keep playing, the community grows, the meta isn't stale, and there's still interest in the game. By that metric, the game feels unhealthy to me.

I would _guess_ that WotC is most concerned with overall revenue (and potential for future revenue). I would bet that any reduced player counts have been offset by sales of higher-margin product (so numbers probably look decent right now). But, long term, I think these actions have hurt the brand, so the next product will have to have a higher price to make up for fewer sales.

Of course, I'm just theorizing here. I have no inside info and most of my feelings (especially as a no-longer-player) are driven by what I hear from friends and read online (the latter of which, of course, skews negative).

wincy5• 4 years ago

Hasbro announced they intended to double revenue in five years, and apparently did it in half that. So you’re right, they are profiting a lot off of the changes they’ve made. It includes things like selling a $1000 “Magic 30th Anniversary” that has 4 beta booster “packs” that have different backs so aren’t legal in any tournament play but otherwise look like the Black Lotus and Moxes that are absurdly expensive now.

georgeecollins2• 4 years ago

I'll be the devil here-- I played a Magic event with my teenage son last year and it was a blast. We're not big collectors, but over the holidays we got some commander decks and I played with my sons.

It's amazing to me that they have kept Magic that relevant and commercial that long. People always complain about "greedy" corporations but guess what? Greedy corporations make the books, movies, video games, board games that you play. If they were failing no one would complain. In these spaces complaints about your motives come with success.

drewry• 4 years ago

Ah so this is why my hobby open-source project of 6+ years has been getting a surge in traffic :) https://github.com/opendnd

Totally unrelated to this of course, but very cool to see all the same. The OGL has been a cornerstone of innovation in this space and without it a lot of us would be dead in the water.

make32• 4 years ago

name should probably change so you don't get sued. am not a lawyer though. (cool project btw)

the_af43• 4 years ago

How important is it to stick to the D&D franchise? Why are third parties married to something like the OGL?

I understand D&D is to RPGs what Windows is (or used to be) to operating systems. But unlike an operating system, D&D's grasp on roleplaying is more fragile. There are plenty of RPG systems that are (subjectively) better and owe nothing to D&D's imaginary setting or rules. In fact, the largest innovation happens outside the D&D franchise.

There are very innovative "lite" RPGs like Trophy Dark or Risus, but also heavier and "crunchy" systems that owe nothing to D&D. Why risk your business by tying it to a franchise owned by a competing business?

(Again, I understand riding the success of D&D's popularity. But unlike with computers and hardware, the "vendor lock-in" pitfall is easier to avoid with something as intangible as an RPG)

WastingMyTime898• 4 years ago

I think people are mostly worried about old material which will fall into a grey zone distribution-wise if Hasbro revokes the previous version of the OGL.

the_af43• 4 years ago

Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff? That's bad.

jerf2• 4 years ago

Are they actually trying to revoke the previous version? I do not know, which is why I ask; honest question.

I observe that 1.0 contains the verbiage:

"Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and Distribute any Open Game Content originally Distributed under any version of this License."

which at least to my open source license not-a-lawyer read says that they basically can't revoke it.

They can relicense stuff going forward under 1.1, and that may be bad, but I wonder if people are misunderstanding and treating it as apocolyptic when it's just bad. It seems like the worst case scenario is the community undergoes a de facto fork and you can stick to a 1.0 world if you want, not that all the 1.0 stuff goes away.

This smells to me like many similar panics in our community when some project goes to relicense and people don't generally understand that the relicense only applies going forward, because in general you can't retroactively relicense an open license. (There are nuances to that statement which I'm skipping over, but I'd say that's the most correct short summary. The thing that people think is happening is not what is happening.) Of course it is still valid to be upset about the relicensing going forward! It just may not be quite as much a kick in the teeth as people think.

MrStonedOne• 4 years ago

The D&D world is not covered by the OGL. its the core mechanics that have been mirrored by not just other TTRPGs, but video game RPGs as well.

This is like if the names of the functions in the c++ STL (and their argument/return types) was released under gpl, and they came out and "updated" their license to be basically cc-by-sa-nc but worse and also claimed it retroactively applied to the license. It could technically have repercussions to other languages that mirrored the style.

Now the fun question! how much of what was covered by the OGL was actually copyrightable?

Ideas and facts are not copyrightable, arrangement of ideas and facts can be copyrightable with a higher bar of 'creativity', but the barrer to change before it becomes a new 'arrangement' and not covered is also lower.

the_af43• 4 years ago

Ah, the OGL is just core mechanics?

I cannot imagine this being a big hurdle to videogames from now on, then. It's not that difficult to use entirely different mechanics in a computer RPG, and they had the details anyway. If the world/setting doesn't matter, I can't see how this can affect videogames not set in D&D worlds.

That is, I don't see video gamers rejecting a CRPG because its rules are not based on D&D. They'll get to kill monsters or whatever in Fantasyland, what does it matter that the inner workings are entirely new?

coldpie3• 4 years ago

You definitely can, and many do. But D&D is the lingua franca of this space. If you say you're casting Magic Missile, I know you're going to toss a few d4 on the table. Even if I'm brand new to your adventure, if you say you're a Level 15 Magician, I know you're a pretty righteous dude. No other system has the same level of familiarity across such a broad audience.

I think you're right though. No one with eyes on a big audience is going to want to tie their brand to a Wizards product after this decision. Shame.

sleepybrett8• 4 years ago

Magician is not a class in D&D

idiotsecant• 4 years ago

Sounds like the space is ready for development of an open framework that doesn't rely on corporate approval.

hinkley3• 4 years ago

"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

If you make all of your money off of books and models in a world full of wikis, web-apps and amateur typesetters, and especially 3D printing, they may worry that their revenue streams will dry up if they don't lock down the IP (which will be something an IP lawyer told them to think).

And now they'll put the idea into people's heads by trying to avoid that situation.

You don't want Matthew Mercer to have Creative Commons on his radar. Or a bunch of voice mail from other publishers who smell blood in the water. You don't want him thinking about ten years of fan donated artwork. Or that he hopes to retire some day and he and his friends can still play RPGs together, built on this world that is now in danger.

springogeek• 4 years ago

The thing a lot of folks seem to miss is that it isn't just D&D using the OGL, there are non-D&D games (such as Fate, Fudge. Etc) which license themselves using the OGL.

the_af43• 4 years ago

Hmm, so no connection at all to D&D? Does this affect them at all, then? What benefits do they draw from using the OGL at all?

cool_dude85• 4 years ago

But they don't need to update the license they use, right? So the other games can just issue their existing and current material with the existing license and it's all good?

sleepybrett8• 4 years ago

Pathfinder, a very D&D like game by Pazio, was originally based on D&D "3.5". Fourth edition was a wild departure from the rules as they were evolving between AD&D and 3.5. Many people call Pathfinder First Edition D&D 3.75.

It is my understanding, however, that Pathfinder Second Edition is pretty much a full rewrite and only includes the OGL as a way for third parties to build content around Pathfinder Second Edition.

There are a great deal of adaptations, under the OGL, of the original 'Moldvay' Dungeons and Dragons BECMI rules (Basic and Expert rules from the 80s) and the original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rules as well.

As it was originally written, backed up by testimony from 'the guys in the room', the orignal OGL was to be considered 'unrevokeable'.

So there are kind of two bad scenarios if Hasbro/Wizards goes ahead with their current plans. One scenario is, OGL 1.1 applies to 'One D&D' and therefore you'd have to sign and abide the 1.1 OGL if you want to build content (and only 'textual printed/pdf content' if I'm reading it right) for 'One D&D'. The worse scenario is that they attempt to revote the 1.0 OGL which basically means a bunch on in-print content evaporates because their publishers do not want to deal with 1.1 OGL.

An extended wrinkle being that 'One D&D' based on their current plans seems to be more of a Edition 5.5 than a new ruleset entirely.

the_af43• 4 years ago

I know about Pathfinder, but I don't understand this:

It is my understanding, however, that Pathfinder Second Edition is pretty much a full rewrite and only includes the OGL as a way for third parties to build content around Pathfinder Second Edition.

Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite?

There's something I'm definitely missing here.

sircastor• 4 years ago

A friend invited me to a DnD game he was starting for his son. I’d never really played regularly before that. He said he invited a few other friends who reacted “Oh, 4e? No thanks”

I understand the dedication to 3.5 - it was years, if not decades of experience, commitment, and buy in. It can’t be helped to see the several editions since as desperate effort to get more sales from WoTC

rhdunn2• 4 years ago

There are a number of games released under the OGL, e.g.:

1. 13th Age

2. Castles & Crusades

3. Fudge

4. Pathfinder

Note that some of these (e.g. Pathfinder) make use of the D&D base rules and setting (System Reference Document, SRD) covered by the OGL. However, not all the games released under the OGL are tied to elements of the SRD.

The issue with the revocation of the OGL 1.0a license is that it affects all of those games.

Then there are all the publishers (Critical Role, MCDM, etc.) creating settings and campaigns for D&D and related systems under the OGL.

The OGL 1.1 license affects video (like Critical Role's Legends of Vox Machina) and other content. It affects people using Patreon for revenue, and possibly (through mentioning pantomime) things like cosplay on TikTok and Patreon.

The full implications are not fully known, and a lot of this would likely need challenging in court. It also depends on how much WotC/Hasbro are willing to challenge/go after.

Sebb7674• 4 years ago

The issue with the revocation of the OGL 1.0a license is that it affects all of those games.

How so, if they're not using WotC IP?

Honest question, it seems absurd to me that the can cancel a license and have it affect people who licensed their own IP under those conditions.

enasterosophes2• 4 years ago

You can't revoke a license. Any change in the OGL will affect new products, not what was already made.

krisoft2• 4 years ago

affects video (like Critical Role's Legends of Vox Machina)

I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :) While we know that the origins of the show is in DnD there is nothing in it they could claim copyright over. It is the same as if a shower manufacturer would like to claim an idea I had while showering.

And while the CR team is quite small next to Hasbro, they have Amazon Studios as a producer who could probably lend them firepower.

musicale2• 4 years ago

I don't see how Wizards can "revoke" the OGL retroactively.

I really don't see how they can "revoke" the OGL on non-WoTC games.

Maybe Wizbro is mad that they're not getting any of the money that youtube and roll20 are taking in, but pulling a Nintendo seems completely counterproductive, since youtube and streamers are basically advertising D&D and helping newcomers learn how to play the game, and roll20 expands the group of players who can play (and also enabled groups to continue - or start - during the pandemic!)

jamesgeck0• 4 years ago

Note that some of these (e.g. Pathfinder) make use of the D&D base rules and setting

Pathfinder does not use Forgotten Realms or any other WotC setting, afaik.

And Pathfinder 2nd edition is no longer based on the D&D rules.

Manuel_D2• 4 years ago

It has enabled developers to freely use the mechanics that make up much of the DnD - the "game engine" so to speak: the attribute system, levels, skills, classes, and so on - without paying license fees. The consequence of this is that franchises like Pathfinder now have to pay license fees for these mechanics. The consequence is that video games set in this universe [1] now have to pay liceses to WotC.

I assume these games will just slightly tweak the formula: use D30s instead of D20, change some class names, and so on. It's exceptionally hard to robustly copyright and enforce mathematics, but WotC's lawyers probably pose a significant enough threat to scare away developers.

1. for example: https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_kingmaker_explorer_ed...

advisedwang3• 4 years ago

FWIW general game mechanics are not copyrightable. So you don't need a license for core ideas like AC, character attributes, D20 skill/attack/save rolls, modifiers, advantage/disadvantage, equiptment yadda yadda.

It's the specifics of D&D's implementation where you need a license. You'd certainly need to develop your own feats, spells (and not just change the names!). You'd need new classes, or at least major changes (no re-using the level progressions or traits).

You'd need to play test the new variants because changes would be large enough to require new balncing.

All in all not a trivial modification.

viraptor• 4 years ago

How important is it to stick to the D&D franchise?

Nor very important in my experience. I get that it's the most popular system globally, but the popularity seems uneven. Where I grew up people played Warhammer, Legends of 5 rings, vampire masquerade, and some others. I can't remember anyone playing DnD specifically. So... there are larger communities that don't really care about that one.

freshhawk4• 4 years ago

In practice it's much harder to avoid. Especially with the new players driving all the recent growth.

The brand is so dominant that in any group most of the players will play D&D or they will not play. If you don't have the brand on your 3rd party product then the average number of units you will sell is around zero.

It's not really Windows, D&D is Windows+Apple+Linux and everything else is one of the BSDs.

the_af43• 4 years ago

The brand is so dominant that in any group most of the players will play D&D

I cannot wrap my brain around this. For boardgames, which is a growing market and has been for years now, people are buying and learning new games every day, especially geeks who are only too eager to teach them to their gaming groups.

How come for RPGs it's too difficult for one geek to evangelize a new RPG to their group, especially if they are newbies not too invested in an ongoing RPG campaign?

D&D is a very complex system, there are far simpler, newbie-friendly rules out there. How come you cannot convince your newbie friends to try one? One other commenter was mentioning how complex D&D is, how every spell and level and weapon is interconnected in very restricting ways in order to prevent overpowered characters -- that cannot be easy to teach! I played plenty of D&D based video games, like Icewind Dale, and for the life of me I'm thankful the computer hides all the complexity; I wouldn't have played them otherwise!

poulpy1233• 4 years ago

Afaik D&D is the ttrpg game that has the biggest market share, more that 50% iirc. It's the only one known to the general public with several forgettable movies (one more soon), many games, and a lot of references in other cultural creations (such as the successful serie stranger thing) and was on the top of the wave created by the recent renaissance of boardgames/ttrpg.

As for the OGL license, you have to understand that ttrpg companies are usually very small (some people, sometimes only one) so they can't really spend a lot on exploring what is the best license or publicize a new one. So they take the license that is the most used in their domain which is the OGL

the_af43• 4 years ago

I understand D&D is the "Windows" of RPGs. I understand the market- and mind-share it enjoys. (Those movies: not many people remember or know about them though!). Obviously when Paizo forked D&D 3.5 and started Pathfinder, they were riding on the popularity of this particular RPG. Also evident is why there is a cottage industry of third-party modules, campaigns and gadgets for D&D: it makes sense to make these for the most popular system.

The thing is, it's much harder to implement "vendor lock-in" for RPGs than it is for hardware or software which has business uses. The cost of switching to another RPG system is very low: all it takes for a group of friends to start a new RPG is for the geekiest of them to buy a rulebook and evangelize it, there's almost zero cost (but the rulebook(s), of course).

I find videogames are a red herring as an argument for D&D, since most people playing CRPGs based on D&D don't even need to understand the rules; the computer does everything for them. And people will buy a flashy CRPG regardless of the underlying engine, all that matters is that the game is fun, hyped, has nice graphics, and friends are playing.

karaterobot• 4 years ago

I played D&D for about 27 years, but I never thought it was particularly good. It was just the lingua franca, the kernel a relatively small community could come together around.

I don't think D&D has to be the default tabletop RPG anymore, nor should it be. Partly due to the OGL and its knock-on effects, lots more people entered the community. Maybe they want different things than just a miniatures combat-oriented pastiche of Tolkien, Howard, and Vance. You can publish books more easily, distribute them more easily, market them more easily. I think the tabletop industry could sustain a community without D&D if it had to, and maybe it has to. I wonder if maybe that's a good thing.

WoTC's decision was selfish, tone-deaf, destructive; all that stuff. It will hurt people with existing businesses built around OGL content. That sucks. But, I don't think it will (as this open letter states) dismantle the tabletop industry. On the contrary, I hope it frees it from its dependence on a capricious IP owner with a brittle license. For the players, maybe it frees them from a mediocre system and the most generic, uninteresting fantasy setting ever. There's a lot more out there, maybe this is a good opportunity to explore some of it.

vintermann• 4 years ago

I agree that D&D doesn't need to be the default tabletop RPG anymore. But you bet I want the freedom to borrow everything I liked from every version of it I played (which doesn't include anything recent, by the way). I want to be able to talk about it online too, hell, even PLAY it online.

And if Hasbro are so desperate to prevent that from happening that they'll call in the shit-flinging lawyers - the kind who don't even try to have a solid argument, they just try to make engaging with them maximally unpleasant to everyone involved - then I will be most pissed with Hasbro.

You too, will have to live in fear of attracting their attention. The whole point of this sort of litigation is that they're signaling, they're not going to be reasonable. Are you SURE you're not infringing in the shit-flinging lawyers' eyes?

That doesn't sound like a good opportunity to explore to me.

Karawebnetwork• 4 years ago

My understanding is that this also puts the more robust "forks" like Pathfinder at risk.

shuntress2• 4 years ago

I think they actually did a really good job with the 5e rules. I started in 3.5e 15+ years ago. I very strongly dislike 4e. I haven't yet been convinced by any alternatives that the d20 system isn't optimal.

D&D 5th edition obviously has problems but, like other comments say, it is the current "lingua franca" of the space and it's difficult to conceive of any realistic open replacement that isn't essentially just "D&D 5e with some relatively minor tweaks".

bigger_cheese• 4 years ago

I agree. Similarly to you I started about 15 years ago with 3.5 and I am pretty satisfied with 5e.

I think the issue is for better or worse D&D is more or less synonymous with Tabletop roleplaying games, especially when you are talking to people outside of the space.

So many of the concepts from D&D from the attribute system (Strength, dexterity Constitution etc.) To the classes (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin and so on) show up all over the place in things like video games etc. At this point I think it's very hard to come up with a fantasy setting and not have it look like somewhat of a D&D clone.

Outside the D&D D20 system I really like the World of Darkness system which is D10 based. I don't think it especially popular though.

the_af43• 4 years ago

I don't understand how gamers (non-videogame gamers in this case) put up with ruthless monetization and lock-in attempts by the biggest companies.

RPGs is a particularly bizarre case. You really don't need anything but a group of friends, your imagination and some rules to play roleplaying games. Ok, so you want merchandise -- player screens and mats and minis -- all of that's optional, there's no RPG police that can prevent you making your own or buying from third parties. So you have adventure modules... I made my own adventures back when I was a teenager, but I can sort of see not everyone has the imagination to make their own, plus being able to "share" a world with other gaming groups so you can say you defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil or whatnot is sort of cool; not my thing, but I can see it.

But now apparently Wizards of the Coast is not content with all the stuff they already sell, so they are starting to build a virtual world (+ app, of course) where you can customize your character, buy DLC, etc. Of course, all tidily locked-in, because what better way to keep a tight reign than owning the app?

I can't wrap my head around this. An app? DLC? Custom items? For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy?

You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination...

remram• 4 years ago

This letter is proof they are not putting up with it. Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap?

You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination

Obviously you need rulebooks, campaign modules, etc. This is the stuff that is under license from WotC.

the_af43• 4 years ago

Sorry, my rant was semi-related: I mean the upcoming digital D&D app that Wizards of the Coast expects players to use. Isn't it crazy that they expect to sell you DLC for online avatars for a game that happens in your imagination?

Obviously you need rulebooks

Yes.

campaign modules

Unlike the rulebook, these are nice but not mandatory. And if you're crafty, you can derive inspiration from other fantasy worlds, books, novels and movies. I do understand not everybody is creative enough or wants to spend time doing this though; I also understand some people value a "shared world" they can discuss with other players beyond their group.

Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap?

At some point, yes. I mean, there are plenty of other awesome RPGs to play, right? You are not locked-in to D&D in the same sense many people are locked-in to Windows.

wincy5• 4 years ago

Right so D&D has always been inspired from wargames, and combat and such occurs on a grid, with measurements and dice rolls.

With the pandemic virtual tabletops blew up and Hasbro (let’s call them what they really are, one of the largest game companies in the world) wants a piece of this action, or maybe all the pieces for that matter.

I play online using a virtual tabletop and while we often just use our imaginations, the VTT keeps track of our character sheets, our current equipment, our gold amounts, a log of all our dice rolls and what skill we were rolling. I used a 3D modeling program to make screenshots that I use as tokens for my character. Our DM runs multiple games and the virtual tabletop is also a note taking app that allows his notes to correspond to objects in the game, attached to certain places, or the entire campaign. Like a specialized Evernote. He couldn’t keep track of all the games he runs without it (or he could but it’d be harder).

It makes things a lot easier than just logging onto a zoom call and playing pretend. All this convenience would be a lot more expensive if it was just through the one official source.

I understand what they’re doing but it’s going to stifle the innovation that’s been happening in this space and finally get D&D to be a “video game” like they tried with 4th edition.

mcv9• 4 years ago

Entirely true. However, Dungeons & Dragons is by far the biggest brand in the hobby. Bigger than the hobby itself, arguably. I'm pretty sure "Dungeons & Dragons" is better known than "Roleplaying Games". The brand is huge, it's the biggest thing that attracts new players, and WotC/Hasbro owns it. And they want to monetise it.

Most experienced roleplayers who know that there's a world outside D&D won't put up with it, but to lots of new players flocking to the big name, having something computer/app based may actually help make it more familiar. They've never heard of Pathfinder, let alone Call of Cthulhu, Fate or Shadowrun, and they have no idea how to play it. That's what they're coming to D&D for: to learn how to play it.

And if WotC/Hasbro is now going to tell them they need to pay to make their character in an online virtual world, they may never find what they were looking for.

the_af43• 4 years ago

I suspect you are right, and it's depressing.

I do think it's a bit easier to escape this trap, because an inventive game master can convince their group of friends to play something else, and this is easier than getting someone to switch from Windows. It's simply teaching them a new game!

brendoelfrendo• 4 years ago

Not only have many players never heard of these systems, unfortunately many don't want to learn them once they do. I like Pathfinder, and Call of Cthulhu, and Mouseguard, and Fate; unfortunately, my players have little interest in picking up a new set of rules so that we can do the same thing, maybe just a little differently or cheaper.

And I get that! Learning the DnD rules to a point where you can roll up a character and take full advantage of the available actions and skills without a turn taking forever takes time. And once folks have done it once, they don't really care to do it again and again; that starts to feel like work, and this is supposed to be a game. For some, the tradeoffs aren't worth it.

It is a little disappointing, though, seeing all this change on the horizon and knowing that I would lose more than half of my players if I tried to get us into a different rule system.

thomastjeffery• 4 years ago

Some friends of mine started their own RPG decades ago. They have built up long branches of history/lore, star charts, a dozen or so species, several factions disputing territory, weapons, vehicles, armor classes, dozens of attributes per character, mysterious artifacts, magic, etc. and art to go along with most of it.

It's the only RPG I have played more than a handful of times. RPGs are a labor of love, friendship, and fun: no more, no less.

the_af43• 4 years ago

I love your reply, and fully agreed!

I do understand that kind of involvement in the hobby is not for everyone. I'm not obtuse, I understand the appeal of ready-made fantasy worlds and adventures. But still...

scubbo• 4 years ago

I agree with the broad thrust of your argument, but I cannot emphasize enough how useful DnDBeyond is for character creation, rule/item lookups, shared campaign content, etc. Sure, you don't _need_ it, but it makes the experience so much easier and more pleasant, allowing you to spend your time on the bits of the hobby you actually enjoy rather than trawling through reference books (if trawling through reference books _is_ the bit that you enjoy, you are free to keep doing that :) )

It's not useful _enough_ to make me want to keep using it in this new climate, but still - don't undermine your (very correct!) argument by under-valuing the non-DLC aspects of RPG apps.

legitster2• 4 years ago

For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy?

I think the thing that happened is that D&D transitioned from being a game to a lifestyle brand. It's not actually about playing a game anymore, it's about collecting books and buying swag and watching Youtube shows.

kubb6• 4 years ago

We need a table top system on GPL or a similar licence, with a full universe and lore. Do you think YC would fund a startup to build it up?

andolanra4• 4 years ago

There are a truly massive number of RPGs out there with a wide variety of open licenses, especially the various Creative Commons licenses. The indie RPG sphere is massive and includes tabletop systems that range from "mild variations on the core D&D formula" to "almost fundamentally alien approaches to doing structured role-playing". D&D has long-standing brand recognition and cultural cachet, but it hasn't been the only player in this space for decades.

kubb6• 4 years ago

Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to replace DnD?

mcv9• 4 years ago

The OGL was intended to be the GPL but for table top games.

Admittedly, the settings, characters, books and similar content were never part of the deal. It was more meant to be a common standard that everybody could build on.

But a common world that everybody could expand upon, would very quickly become a gigantic mess.

PeterisP2• 4 years ago

The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e.g. "3.5" D&D) on a parallel track, ignoring all the OGL 1.1 things, explicitly foregoing any compatibility with D&D 6th edition (or whatever it will be called), and building up a thriving ecosystem of content which they are definitely capable of doing separately from WotC.

dahdum2• 4 years ago

OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.

ezfe• 4 years ago

They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that.

Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.

ghostly_s2• 4 years ago

This site makes it sound like even that won't be possible, which I find a questionable claim (see my top-level comment).

armoredkitten• 4 years ago

Part of the contention is that the OGL 1.1 is trying to retroactively revoke the OGL 1.0. Whether or not that is legal is, well, a legal question. But boycotting the new edition is not "the only thing" the industry has to do, if building on the OGL 1.0 is no longer valid.

Provided that WotC does follow through with trying to revoke the previous version, the major thing that will have to play out is to figure out which third-party company is going to end up trying to battle Hasbro in court over whether their maneuver is legal. If anyone, it will probably be Paizo, as one of the largest players building off the OGL. But until that legal question is settled, boycotting the new version (while still building off OGL 1.0) is a dangerous option.

alexvoda• 4 years ago

I say the community should be more proactive.

Hasbro is surely using plenty of open source software under licenses like MIT, BSD, GPL v2 which do not have the magic word "irrevocable". I say some software devs should just declare that if Hasbro retroactively revokes licenses then the licenses for their IT infrastructure also gets revoked.

If this goes to court and Hasbro wins, this creates an monstrously dangerous precedent for the software industry. So maybe someone should take their infrastructure hostage before it get to court.

beezlebroxxxxxx2• 4 years ago

There seems to be language in OGL 1.1 that is trying to retroactively nullify OGL 1.0. So anyone trying to make something new related to DnD, where they would need to agree to OGL 1.1, would essentially reapply 1.1 to everything they have already made. At least that's how some people have tried to describe the situation to me.

I don't see that being remotely enforceable or even a strong argument were something brought to court, but I think WOTC (really Hasbro ) is using the threat of litigation to limit the ability for creators to continue to make new things that identify themselves explicitly as DnD. WOTC is basically betting that the rpg market is really a DnD market, captive to the brand, which will probably backfire on them.

VikingCoder9• 4 years ago

I'm so tired of everything remotely like this.

Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?

Some that would be amenable to making into Computer RPGs.

Some that maybe that would be nearly impossible to automate. (That's fine, too.)

Under some licenses like CC BY / CC BY-SA / CC BY-NC?

I _like_ buying RPG books. I would continue to do so, even if the license was CC BY. I also like getting searchable PDFs, and turning dungeons into a Wiki for the DM to make it easy to find content.

I mean... Come on...

Jtsummers2• 4 years ago

Eclipse Phase was released under CC BY-NC-SA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase

I don't know if there are others or not.

krainboltgreene8• 4 years ago

There are tons, the parent commenter just doesn't know.

RangerScience• 4 years ago

On nice! I read some about it a long time ago, it looks like a very cool system.

Similarly, I was coming in to post Sufficiently Advances, which is (I think) Creative Commons.

As always, the issue isn't so much content, is selling people on it so they use it, get excited, get involved. Like everything open, when you don't have a budget to make that happen, it gets a lot harder.

SpeedilyDamage4• 4 years ago

Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?

Why are you waiting for someone else to do this? Do it yourself!

Something that bothers me more than most things is when people demand others act to solve a growing problem. Sure, you're not the most qualified person to do it, but actual execution trumps qualifications every time.

Get out there! Get in touch with some excellent game designers, ask them what it would take to get their help. Come up with a plan based on their feedback and execute it!

Or at least if you're not going to do it, recognize that your reasons for not doing it are probably exceedingly similar to everyone else's reasons for not doing it, and stop asking the question.

movedx• 4 years ago

Something that bothers me more than most things is when people demand others act to solve a growing problem. Sure, you're not the most qualified person to do it, but actual execution trumps qualifications every time.

I would agree with this, however most people can't organise and maintain the most mundane aspects of their lives, let alone gather a large group of people together to combat some big goal like this.

msoucy2• 4 years ago

What makes you think that GP isn't already doing so, and trying to rally others to do the same?

bob1029• 4 years ago

and stop asking the question.

I agreed up until this part. Even if you aren't going to do it, stoking the fire with otherwise idle conversation might get more motivated individuals interested.

VikingCoder9• 4 years ago

There are game designers possibly reading this thread.

I've approached two of my favorites, back possibly too long ago before Kickstarter was more of a known quantity, and they both said "hard pass" at the time.

Also, have you ever been approached by an "idea guy"? It's obnoxious as hell. "Hi, I'm creating a video game. All I need is a game designer, 2 programmers, 2 artists, and a sound guy. Pay is on commission." It's like, What? What do you bring to the table?

I bring very little to this table, other than the assertion that I would spend money on this product, if it existed.

But it's entirely possible a game designer will see this, and decide to run their own Kickstarter, based off of the comment I made and the comments I got back.

Or, someone more knowledgeable than me could have explained to me why my idea was unworkable. Or someone could have shared ten links to existing products or ongoing Kickstarters.

I'm not afraid to speak up in a public place about my hopes. Why should I be?

I mean, maybe you meant to be encouraging, but please accept my feedback that your comment seems to me to be an attempt to discourage discussion.

mcv9• 4 years ago

Truly open RPGs already exist. Fudge, for example. And Fate (based on Fudge, because it's open and they can). And if Pathfinder 2 is indeed free from any old d20 content (I don't know), then that one counts too.

The big problem is that there's not a single one that everybody agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the standard. Like Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody can agree on a single alternative, and the market stays with what people know.

VikingCoder9• 4 years ago

Fudge uses OGL, which is the topic under discussion.

https://www.fudgerpg.com/about/about-fudge/fudge-ogl-require...

PF 2.0 also uses OGL:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/104wjuo/why_d...

throw_m2393394• 4 years ago

The big problem is that there's not a single one that everybody agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the standard. Like Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody can agree on a single alternative, and the market stays with what people know.

I don't understand why there needs to be "a standard". in the 80's, 90's people played Runequest, Warhammer, GURPS, AD&D, Dark Eye... there was no need for a "standard". No, people are lazy and just want to play what is popular, this isn't a standard. Games rules are half the table top RPG, the stories are as important if not more...

Furthermore, back in the days, people were interested in innovative rules or universes, D&D is none of that, it's the most bland and boring game system...

wincy5• 4 years ago

Richard Garfield made Magic the Gathering and was given carte blanche by Valve to make Artifact, and it bombed spectacularly.

Just because you bottled lightning once, doesn’t mean you can do it ever again.

VikingCoder9• 4 years ago

Other game developers have made hit after hit.

And I think the nature of open content is still relatively new, so that's the best explanation I have for why it hasn't been done yet.

pastacacioepepe• 4 years ago

AFAIK Garfield was involved in the game design, which is actually appreciated by the players. What made the game reviews tank is the game monetization schemes.

scruple• 4 years ago

FWIW, Basic Fantasy RPG [0] is in the process of converting to CC BY-SA right now [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Fantasy_RPG

[1] https://www.basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596...

throw_m2393394• 4 years ago

Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?

No need to even do that, there is plenty of alternative RPG and game systems out there already. It's not about money. It's about principles. But people wants to play "D&D", Hasbro's IP, Hasbro rules and business practices...

But also let's not forget how some conferences managed to shut down and shun the competition by forbidding them to attend the conferences to promote their alternative creations, insuring Hasbro/WotC prominent market shares... There is a lot to say about that "community", a lot of corrupt individuals...

paxys• 4 years ago

The problem isn't money, it's getting a large group of people to agree on...anything.

BryantD2• 4 years ago

Off the top of my head:

GUMSHOE, FATE, Forged in the Dark, Dungeon World, Quest, and Trophy are all available under CC BY licenses. Many of those are fairly popular (if you don’t compare them to D&D) — six figure Kickstarter revenue, for example. Creative Commons has been a reasonably common choice for game designers who want open content for a decade or so.

VikingCoder9• 4 years ago

Thank you much!

GUMSHOE - Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution Unported License
FATE - Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) / OGL
Forged in the Dark (Blades in the Dark) - Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license.
Dungeon World - Creative Commons Attribution
Quest - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
Trophy - custom, permissive-looking license

Yours was by far the most helpful response I got.

There's also this list:

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

Which I found from another thread you were in:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304853

VikingCoder9• 4 years ago

In case someone wanders into this conversation later, Paizo just announced that they are doing something exactly like what I hoped for.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary 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.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...

mabbo• 4 years ago

It's the natural process in a capitalistic system.

First, you build something that everyone loves and build up a huge stockpile of consumer trust. You use that consumer trust to gain market share, and eventually a lot of market power (though you never use those words or imply that you know you have market power).

Then once you're dominant, you exploit that consumer trust to make more money.

It worked pretty well for companies like Amazon and Google. WotC are just doing it a bit blatantly, or perhaps people saw through the ploy more easily than they had anticipated.

ghostly_s2• 4 years ago

Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we are free to disagree with that decision, but surely they have no legal means to force other creators to switch their own content to the new license version simply because they are using a license text that was drafted by WoTC? Plenty of OSS projects have stuck with GPLv2 in similar circumstances.

And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC content that was already published under the old license? Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?

beezlebroxxxxxx2• 4 years ago

It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up.

In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.

Tyr422• 4 years ago

Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs they already paid for with zero notice before, when they revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think they can try and pull that shit again.

sleepybrett8• 4 years ago

But the people who make money using the current ogl provide lots of value to d&d consumers that wotc simply isn't filling. At the end of the day it's a foot gun.

johnday3• 4 years ago

Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?

It depends entirely on your definition of "can".

If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you mean, is this action supported by WotC's own historic interpretation of their own license, then no. If you mean, can they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of litigation, then certainly they can.

flockonus• 4 years ago

Had this question too, can you clarify, so say there is an existing biz that uses some of DnD content like perks or classes; their software is said at v1.0 now, but then they want to include another class from existing DnD 3.5, or some perk, which would bump their release. Are they now obligated to signup for this new license, or can they just reference the old system version and license, much like a software would??

Terr_• 4 years ago

If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no.

IANAL, but isn't this a situation where smaller companies could band together and sue WoTC for Declaratory Relief [0], even if WoTC hasn't yet sued any of them for continuing to operate under the old license it's trying to revoke under questionable circumstances?

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief

brigade• 4 years ago

A nuance: they might not be able to revoke existing OGL 1.0 licenses for anyone that has already used it to publish derivates, but they can likely cancel the offer, even for existing OGL 1.0 content, for anyone that hasn't yet relied on the OGL to ship WotC IP. Which would in turn limit all future derivates to existing OGL 1.0 license holders, which would practically achieve Hasbro's rumored goals.

freshhawk4• 4 years ago

WotC owns or controls all the places those creators sell their stuff. So they definitely have the economic means to force creators to abandon the old license. They will also probbaly just threaten people with their odd legal interpretation of their actual legal means as well, and plenty of people will comply.

ankaAr• 4 years ago

Are u kidding me? Again? Are we fighting against the same company again? We never learned anything. They had the article where they can change anything at any time, that was always a red flag, and was from the first day.

As gm it is a shame that someone uses that licence all those years. Paizo made a rewrite and I think was the only company that saw that coming decades ago. But many mainstream groups used the content and the rights that the licence gave to push their projects and made a fortune (and wizards used that to push again the game), and now they are saying: no more. Well, bad luck for you.

Use a real open licence, even a CC-BY-SA-NC if you wants, not a licence with a backdoor from the owner!

My god, the community is fighting a battle for less than 20 companies affected because they wanted to use a stupid licence.

OGL 1.1 is bad as 1.0 was, it is the same shit, now with a royalty and just because of that, they are all like crazies. Was always as bad as now.

_aavaa_• 4 years ago

On top of that, games such as Pathfinder 1E and 2E, 13th Age, Fudge, and Traveller—which use the 1.0 OGL as the backbone of their existence—will need to cease sales of upcoming products or give WotC 25% of their revenue to stay in compliance with the new license

How does this work? Why are they forced to do so?

mcv9• 4 years ago

Hasbro claims they are. Whether that's actually true is very questionable, but most RPG publishers will not want to fight Hasbro in court.

thefurdrake• 4 years ago

Gosh, yeah, this'll definitely stop all those content creators from doing a find and replace to make their content fit for Pathfinder 2 or any non-OGL-tainted system on the planet.

This might actually do good for tabletop gaming in general, if Hasbro's cancerous behavior causes people to flee their IP and show interest in other things.

I really don't think this is going to work out the way these braindead business executives seem to think it will. People will move their content to a different platform because DnD has never been anything more than a storytelling/content framework.

Hasbro mad cuz community content better than their own. Go back to ruining ponies.

legitster2• 4 years ago

Am I right to assume WotC's move is basically aimed at groups like Critical Role?

On one hand, I have no interest in defending corporate copyright rules. But on the other hand, I disagree that this would stifle creativity. If there are hundreds of companies out there that only exist to pump out content for the D&D ruleset, surely making them pay for the privilege would encourage some of them to build new rulesets?

jimbob45• 4 years ago

…the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.

This makes me believe less that this is an organic push within WotC and more a push by a special interest group. Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1, it would make sense that a special interest group funded it with the stipulation that they added the trans bit in.

krainboltgreene8• 4 years ago

Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1

I have seen no evidence of this so far? Any source?

Macha10• 4 years ago

I'm pretty sure the primary target is third party VTTs, and that Critical Role will probably get a royalty free side deal, precisely to prevent them jumping ship with their marketing power.

cstever• 4 years ago

For a little bit of flavor. After I saw this post (I don't follow D&D or Wizards or Hasbro news) I thought immediately of BFRPG. Found this post in Basic Fantasy's forum, so this move by WotC is definitely going to have an impact.

https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596

gkoberger2• 4 years ago

I imagine the logic was that someone at Hasbro saw Critical Role, Dimension 20, etc making millions and felt it was "unfair" they're not getting any money.

But there's a quote attributed to Bill Gates that feels relevant here: "A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it."

DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.

mcv9• 4 years ago

But Critical Role is also great advertisement. If Hasbro goes after them, Critical Role can just switch to another system and give them free advertisement instead. I guarantee that every single RPG creator would love for Critical Role to pick their system.

gkoberger2• 4 years ago

Oh I 100% agree. This is lose-lose for Hasbro (either people pay and are angry, or leave), and there's no way they ultimately make more with these rules than without them.

wincy5• 4 years ago

I think Critical Role is in no danger of them “going after” them as there are officially licensed Critical Role books and miniatures.

I’d imagine they’re wanting to get a cut of whatever money Paizo, and Kobold Gaming Press, or the D&D miniatures and books kickstarters that regularly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sebb7674• 4 years ago

DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.

Assuming they don't tank their platform, which it very much looks like right now.

sleepybrett8• 4 years ago

Absolutely nothing was stopping wotc from getting a bunch of actors in a room and paying them to play with someone like jeremy crawford on twitch...

jeffwask• 4 years ago

Hasbro is working overtime to alienate the game communities they purchased.

make32• 4 years ago

This is some old school microsoft shit, make everyone expand on your products & be dependant on them thinking they're safe by publishing an open license, then swap it under their feet forcing everyone to pay 25%.

That's like if Apple had decided overnight to start charging apps their infamous 30% fee

raydiatian2• 4 years ago

Maybe I don’t fully understand how public copyright licenses work.

Do you need to apply for a license?

When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?

If somebody infringes on your license, do you get a free OGL lawyer or something to help your case?

In conclusion, it almost sounds like OGL is fucking useless in the first place if they can just upgrade it to be paid at scale but clearly I’m missing something

boole1854• 4 years ago

When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?

The issue is that part of the 1.0 license says users "may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License" (emphasis added).

And part of 1.1 says that 1.0 "is no longer an authorized license agreement".

So, in other words, 1.0 had an embedded kill switch which 1.1 activates. At least that's the legal theory which WotC is operating on.

93po3• 4 years ago

I have no law experience but I feel like no longer recognizing a previous license you created doesn't force an upgrade to a new license, but rather would invalidate any licensing at all on all content that had the old license.

raydiatian2• 4 years ago

If a language model can run a D&D campaign, what do we need Wizards for?

FridgeSeal• 4 years ago

Have you tried?

It loses the thread and descends into incoherence pretty quickly.

Also, because if it can do that, it was at some point trained on material licensed under the OGL, or WotC directly.

jeremycw• 4 years ago

I am not a lawyer and please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it rules and mechanics are not copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the flavor text and specific compilation of the rule set into the "Rule Book". The rule book becomes a copyrightable work. This means that your are within your legal right to make a game called "Dragons & Daggers" where all the combat mechanics, rules, etc are identical to Dungeons & Dragons as long as the "glue" text and flavour text is original content. It seems to me like a community fork licensed under CC that plays exactly the same is not impossible.

advisedwang3• 4 years ago

Spells use text to explain their mechanics, and that text is copyrightable. You'd likely need to re-write the spell lists from scratch.

etchalon• 4 years ago

Maybe more people to discover, and build with, Monte Cook's excellent Cypher System: https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/

nevinera• 4 years ago

Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

So it sounds like their approach here is dependent on the interpretation of "any authorized version" to mean "authorized _by us_", which would allow them to declare past versions "unauthorized"? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds.. unlikely to stick.

Pet_Ant• 4 years ago

Is there a lawyer here that can give us an opinion here for entertainment - not legal advice - reasons?

cbrozefsky2• 4 years ago

Regarding the ability to copyright the "method of playing" or "rules" of a game:

https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf

The US Copyright Office says it can apply to text or description, but not to the rules.

WoTC did have a patent issues for MtG, but I dont think that's going to work for D20 rules. Perhaps they will attempt to patent the OneD&D release?

Either way, it's quite clear that corporations will attempt to colonize and control our culture, and lie and scheme their way to expand their profit extraction.

krainboltgreene8• 4 years ago

The wealth of written content is exactly what's valuable about D&D. The rules aren't interesting nor innovative.

There is a Wizard Spell that does 1d4 damage at spell slot 1. It is called Magic Missile. There is a block of text that describes the Magic Missile. If you want D&D you can't just clone the mechanic of spells, you also have to write a massive amount of copywritten content.

cbrozefsky2• 4 years ago

I don't think "cloning D&D" is what any of these third parties are doing. It's producing add-ons, source books, or videos of them playing. That is, original content that is compatible with, and tuned for the rule system.

anakha• 4 years ago

WotC CEO and president Cynthia Williams was on the record as saying that the DnD brand is under monetized. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news...

Hasbro CEO, also the former WoTC CEO, has ramped up monetization of the Magic the Gathering brand significantly in recent years, partly at the expense of cashing in on the secondary market.

WoTC choking the OGL is consistent with them looking to pump up their profits.

phaedryx• 4 years ago

I used to play MtG back in the early 90's, but got out because I needed money for college books, not cards.

My son got interested recently through some friends and I started looking about getting him into it around the time WotC released the $1000 old-school proxy packs. Needless to say, it turned me off.

wolverine8762• 4 years ago

Habro is being pressured by outside investors to increase revenue from their Wizards division or spin it off.

hinkley3• 4 years ago

It’s not like TSR were the good guys either. I wrote off DnD until CR precisely because it has a reputation of being owned by assholes. They just slowed down for a while but here we are again

thesuperbigfrog2• 4 years ago

If D&D "goes dark", why not try another role playing system?

GURPS is a well-designed favorite made by Steven Jackson Games:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS

krainboltgreene8• 4 years ago

It's not like GURPS is unknown to community members. If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives. This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-designed favorite Spanish."

Eji1700• 4 years ago

And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship.

It’s crunchy as hell and a major commitment.

Pathfinder 2 is likely going to be the biggest winner in this but hopefully other systems benefit as well.

Dungeon world strikes me as another easy analogue and there’s plenty of different stuff like Spire/Heart or Lancer that’s made waves.

Not to say that gurps is bad. I hope they see a bump too. Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists

thesuperbigfrog2• 4 years ago

> This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-designed favorite Spanish."

If English had revised OGL-like terms of use, would it see the same usage?

Seriously, the revised OGL is onerous and greedy. As a long time fan of tabletop role playing I can't see the changes being accepted by the community.

> If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives.

What are some of your favorite D&D alternatives?

wolverine8762• 4 years ago

The difficulty of switching from English to Spanish is far, far beyond that of switching role-playing games. Even learning a new RPG from scratch is far easier - who would play them otherwise?

mcv9• 4 years ago

There's certainly no shortage of excellent alternatives, but none of them have the cultural mindshare that D&D has.

cheeseomlit• 4 years ago

Really hope this doesn't affect OGL 1.0a the way some people are saying it will, particularly regarding non-DnD systems. I've been working on a project for several years that's based on the Cepheus Engine RPG system which was published under OGL 1.0a (as it's based on the Traveller SRD which was also used OGL 1.0a), which requires me to publish under that license as well. Now that's all up in the air, what happens if OGL 1.0a becomes 'unauthorized' in this case? If this ends up killing Cepheus I will have wasted thousands of hours of my time.

djur4• 4 years ago

The Traveller SRD is (c) Mongoose Publishing. It seems implausible that the OGL 1.0a could be construed to give Hasbro any control over intellectual property that isn't derived from their own. It should be possible for the rights owners to simply relicense Traveller, Fudge, etc. It's Paizo that is in a difficult spot, because their SRD still explicitly references material from Hasbro products.

ivraatiems4• 4 years ago

IANAL, but I would love the opinion of anyone more qualified on this: Suppose I am one of the "Expert Tier" companies and I'm making a lot of money off of using OGL 1.0 licensed works in conjunction with my own.

The OGL[0] says Wizards can authorize new versions of the license, but it doesn't define "authorized" and it doesn't say anywhere they can deauthorize old ones. It also says that the terms of the license are perpetual.

If I saw WOTC was going to make a change like this, obviously I'd retain counsel, but why wouldn't I take a position something like:

1) We don't believe that Wizards can arbitrarily bind us to the terms of any new license just because they have "authorized" it.

2) We will only release content that uses OGL 1.0a licensed works and never anything using 1.1 or any other version.

3) If Wizards doesn't like it, they can sue us and try to enforce their license. It'll be on them to prove the license binds us, and they'll look like assholes in front of their community of players.

When my option is "give up all my corporate secrets and also lose 25% of my money" or this, why shouldn't I do this?

[0] https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html

Edit: Another source I found that seems to suggest this might be an option, to an extent - or that there might be other ways to challenge this decision: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...

NikolaNovak2• 4 years ago

There was a good thread recently where a lawyer helps distinguish "perpetual" and "irrevocable", which us laypeople tend to confuse.

Basically the license is perpetual in that there's no default expiry; but it is NOT irrevocable. Consequences of license being revoked would then depend on details, jurisdiction, law,precedent,court, potentially past vs future work, and whether you're feeling lucky, punk :-/

ivraatiems4• 4 years ago

Very interesting distinction, thank you.

Buttons840• 4 years ago

The next question of interest to HN then, is whether or not the MIT license is revocable? (The MIT license never says the word "irrevocable".)

Perseids• 4 years ago

There was a good thread recently where a lawyer helps distinguish "perpetual" and "irrevocable", which us laypeople tend to confuse.

Gosh, why does it have to be this way? It's even harder for non-native speakers to read legal documents "correctly", i.e. the way courts would interpret them. I understand that contracts and laws need precise language, but, in contrast to, say, mathematics, reading legal documents is such an important activity that we cannot ignore the needs of laypeople – they have to follow contracts and laws, too, after all. And I don't think it's plausible that clashes between general use of words and legalese are unavoidable, especially as contracts don't seem to be optimized for brevity.

And in general, us laypeople should vehemently demand contracts and laws to be optimized for easy reading. Imagine what good a precedent could do, where a complete EULAs was judged void, because they were to hard to read/understand/interpret.

naniwaduni• 4 years ago

The risk that if Wizards moves forward with undertaking #3, that they can remain big and assholey for longer than you can remain solvent.

(Giving up 25% of your revenue is obviously an enormous blow, but seems possible to be in a position where you think you can just about squeeze by long enough to pivot if you suck it up and take their terms as you try to move away from doing any new 1.1-related works.)

dragonwriter4• 4 years ago

The risk that if Wizards moves forward with undertaking #3, that they can remain big and assholey for longer than you can remain solvent.

To be fair, Hasbro seems to pull this every other major D&D version since introducing the OGL with 3rd edition, so we should expect Two D&D to be a return to more open licensing after the inevitable debacle of One D&D.

Sucks to be one of the companies that exists solely around the ecosystem of the 5e wave of “Hasbro is trying to encourage third party support rather than squeezing producers”, or one of the ones that survived the 4e squeeze because Hasbro didn’t try to squeeze pure legacy use.

lifeisstillgood2• 4 years ago

I would assume (IANAL!) that it would work similarly to software license upgrades. The IP created and licensed under version 1.0 would still be under version 1.0, and only IP created after 1.1 is released is affected, and then there must be some action on part of the small games company to agree to it.

I suspect it depends of course on the exact terms of license and what users of version 1.0 agreed to in terms of future binding.

Might be an interesting case with more than a little relevance for (US) software licenses

ivraatiems4• 4 years ago

Wizards seems to think this will explicitly not be the case, and they can effectively force everyone to abide by the terms of a new license just by making one. Which maybe they can! But it seems like the right move might be to force them to try it.

chefandy• 4 years ago

I wonder what constitutes a new game for purposes of the contract. Could I release "Circvmventia: Qvest of the Changeling" and then when you hit 600k modify the game art and character names and release "Circvmventia: Changeling Reborne," etc. I imagine they'd just modify the license again to get more control but it could buy time.

chemmail• 4 years ago

I think they will find they are screwed and this desperate attempt is the straw. We see this in computing world where everyone did their best to avoid going to x86 and went to ARM, but now that ARM is so uncertain now they will abandon and go RISC V.

dcow• 4 years ago

How are we even in a scenario where the ideas from one game can be covered by the copyright of the author? What law today covers the ideas born out of a copyrighted work? Or is it mostly that people see this OGL as explicit permission where otherwise there'd be none which, despite the fact that they'd win, would still leave open the possibility that derivative authors could be sued (and out resourced, legally)?

shuntress2• 4 years ago

I think the catch is more on extensions and accessories for D&D. There is obvious stuff like pre-packaged one-shot adventure books or custom character classes. Less obvious stuff like DM screens, stat-trackers, or spell cards. Then there's the "corporate dystopia nightmare" like wizard of the coast demanding a cut on sales of dice towers, notebooks, d20s, etc.

secabeen• 4 years ago

WotC/Hasbro has named their next release "One D&D". They clearly want to clear the field of other compatible rules-sets, and have just a singular system that they control, manage, and profit from. My guess is that they see the profits that Apple and Google make from their App Store, and want all future add-on content to D&D to be paying them 25% of revenues, rather than 0% right now.

rosmax_1337• 4 years ago

Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license? Are they trying retroactively to gain IP over all ""DnD"" derivative works? Are they just doing something different for One D&D?

throw_m2393394• 4 years ago

Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license?

Well Hasbro wants to make money of third party D&D content, nothing more. Why were people still using D&D when non corporate alternatives exist?

The people at the head of these companies could be selling vacuum cleaners it wouldn't make a difference, at the end of the day it's all about maximizing short term profit.

Macha10• 4 years ago

The existence of the OGL v1.0a as given to this point allows you to take a big chunk of the D&D 5e rules and content (specifically this subset: https://www.5esrd.com/) and 3.5e (this subset): https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm and implement a character builder, database lookup, etc, roll engine etc. which you would need to make a virtual tabletop to compete with their upcoming product.

This is a problem for Wizards of the Coast as they view DnD as "heavily under-monetised" and so would like to change that with DnD 6E (aka OneD&D) to a model more similar to microtransaction laden video games. In particular, as part of OneD&D, they are building a whole new VTT on top of D&D Beyond which they acquired last year. This new VTT will have 3d models and animations which they want to sell to players, and D&D Beyond already allows selling pieces of rules for players to use in their character sheet seperately (see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cau...).

This compares to the current model of D&D where maybe the GM buys a couple of books and shares them to their table or people just look up the SRD for the rules and use a third party character builder or VTT. The problem is if you're comparing "1 person spends $60 and 4-5 people pay $0" to "6 people pay recurring microtransaction revenue at the level of popular video games", then the 3d models and fancy effects are highly unlikely to avoid people choosing one of the cheaper options using the open licensed material.

So #1 they'd like to kill the ability for third parties to interfere with their new monetisation models. As for benefit #2, if they get to kill Pathfinder which is the closest game to D&D in licensing shenanigans, then that also removes the easiest option for players to move to if they accomplish point #1 alone. Failing that, they'll settle for #2b, which is capturing the revenue of Paizo (the publisher of Pathfinder) for themselves so that even if players flee D&D to alternatives, Wizards aren't losing any money.

As a tertiary benefit, maybe they manage to bully some smaller content creators into agreeing to 1.1 with the terms that they get to sell it on OneD&D to pad out their content library and make OneD&D more appealing to end users.

madrox2• 4 years ago

In another place and time, a similar circumstance is what led Blizzard to unintentionally provide the tools for inspiring the MOBA genre, which spawned League of Legends and DOTA2. That altered games forever. You'll notice few games ship with map editors anymore, and game UGC is very tightly locked down. Blizzard leaders have stated that letting MOBA get away from them was their biggest miss.

D&D is having a similar moment where companies that were built on D&D are becoming bigger than them, and WotC wants to compete more directly now that digital is becoming a priority for TTRPGs. Once you decide to do that, you no longer want to be a platform for your competitor. In a way, this is similar Apple banning apps that directly compete with built-in iOS features. While also an unpopular move, you can hardly blame them.

cpv• 4 years ago

And then Blizzard updated the user agreement (around the Warcraft 3 Reforged), mentioning that all player generated content is owned by the company.

So in case some genius comes with another successful custom map (or whatever), the company has new ideas to work on, for free.

madrox2• 4 years ago

I believe they updated the EULA long before that, but Reforged got a lot of press about it since it represents such a contrast between yesterday's games and today's.

coffeebeqn• 4 years ago

Warcraft 3 mods also launched the tower defense genre

SSLy4• 4 years ago

For a reasonable explanation from some of the community members https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/10...

For the 1.1 leak mentioned there https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Ga...

Please note the length of the document corroborates the length of about 9000 words as mentioned by tech journalists.

deleted_account2• 4 years ago

I was a tabletop gamer for 25 years before I played my first sit-down D&D session. GURPS, Paranoia, Cyberpunk 2020, WHFRP, TOON, Amber, World of Darkness...you name it. To say, "Wizards of the Coast wants to dismantle the tabletop industry," feels like hyperbole when there's a rich history of alternatives, but I sympathize with the content creators. There's a cultural battle as much as there is a commercial one being waged here.

That said you gotta be _asleep_ to not see the tightening of the reins coming from these mega-companies sitting on fertile creative IP. Marvel Cinematic Universe only made — what? — $28B worldwide while making Rocket-fucking-Raccoon a household name. Games Workshop put the screws to content creators leading to the launch of Warhammer+ and r/grimdank is still hitting the front page of Reddit. Not to mention Uber-nerd Henry Cavill is hooking up with Amazon to bring 40K to streaming.

The strategy works and I suspect it's driven entirely by folks — all grown up and with deep pockets — thirsty to see their marginalized childhood hobbies hit the mainstream. I'm conflicted. As much as I want to say, "Fuck WotC. Fuck Games Workshop" there's visceral appeal in hoping for good Drizzt Do'Urden movie or the Drop Site Massacre becoming as much a cultural touchstone as the The Red Wedding.

ropable• 4 years ago

I can't express just how much I want the Horus Heresy saga to receive the high-production-value HBO/Netflix/Amazon treatment. The animated content on Warhammer+ is good and all, but that would be a dream.

deleted_account2• 4 years ago

What? Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie wasn't enough for you?

I kid. Every 40K fan wants this, but it almost feels like hubris to hope it actually happens. I have to wonder if the Amazon deal[1] is Games Workshop's attempt to get out of the streaming business. Nothing coming out of Warhammer+ is breaking out of the core fanbase; I couldn't fathom suggesting to anyone not familiar with the universe, "Yo, you got to checkout this show The Exodite."

My guess is GW is falling back to its comfort zone of licensing IP: "Amazon Studios today announced that it has secured global rights to Warhammer 40,000...The agreement encompasses rights to the universe across series, film, and more..."[2] When you have two producers from Vertigo Entertainment, one of which happens to be dating Henry Cavill, brokering an escape hatch I'm sure they were, "Yes, please."

My guess is we're going to see Eisenhorn first[3] which feels like a far more approachable introduction to the setting anyways.

[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-wa... [2] https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-st... [3] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-se...

allone• 4 years ago

Before french revolution: enlightened monarchy

After french revolution: tyranny and paranoia

Shortly after: "universal" democracy (modulo something)

Do we really need to repeat the exercise. It'll only lead to tears.

dang2• 4 years ago

Recent and related:

Dungeons and Dragons’ new license tightens its grip on competition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 - Jan 2023 (203 comments)

mijoharas2• 4 years ago

And also

Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 - Jan 2023 (233 comments)

dang2• 4 years ago

Thanks!

User23• 4 years ago

I'm under the impression that in the USA copyright doesn't protect rule systems[1]. I imagine a clean rewrite of the SRD would be relatively straightforward. I expect it would take some lawyering to make sure it was done properly, but it clearly can be done.

I also know from people in the legal business that Hasbro is notoriously litigious. They will happily drag out a suit and make it as expensive as possible even when they don't really have a case.

[1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658...

scoofy• 4 years ago

Again... you can't copyright or patent rules of a game. I understand the OGL exists as a sort of off-hand agreement, but I am concerned as to why we all have decided that a "game system" is somehow a different, copyrightable thing, when it is essentially a fancy way of saying "rules of a game."

I'm honestly confused by the entire situation. I remain confused as to why any Hasbro suit regarding this would not just get thrown out by a court. It seems very obvious to me that the D20 system isn't controllable, and that referencing D&D books for more details is clearly fair use.

93po3• 4 years ago

The text across hundreds of books, modules, guides, maps, and other materials that describe various classes, items, spells, and other elements is 100% copyrightable, and anything that is "substantially similar" would be infringing on those copyrights. So yes, you're right, you can't copyright the real world rule for a game, but with enough existing copyrighted text, good luck describing similar rules in a similar universe with similar naming in a way that isn't substantially similar.

jasondigitized• 4 years ago

Why did this disappear from the front page?

nurettin• 4 years ago

DnD is a community effort shaped by the needs and wants of players. It doesn't just belong to WotC. This was the rationale behind OGL 1.0. Trying to claim all derivatives for themselves is a Dick Move with consequences.

An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizards of the Coast

Related Stories