The DND video I didn't want to make
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 січ 2023
- The OGL (or Open Gaming License) is reportedly undergoing some changes from WOTC (Wizards of the Coast) and Hasbro that we should all be weary of. The new OGL 1.1 leak has left us with some insight but what does it mean for the future of DND and the creators that help support it?
SOURCES:
DNDBeyond Staff Statement: www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-...
Gizmodo OGL Leak Article: gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-th...
Live Roleplay Dungeons and Dragons streams on Twitch every Wednesday at 7:00PM CST! Come hang out with us at / constructedchaos
Discord: / discord
Instagram: / constructedchaosdnd
Facebook: / constructedchaosdnd
Patreon: / constructedchaos
New episodes posted on Mondays along with various Dungeons and Dragons videos and content about printing and painting terrain in between! What other videos would you like to see?
Be sure to tell us what you think in the comments and please enjoy!
#opendnd #dnd #dungeonsanddragons - Розваги
There' an open survey for OneD&D right now with an any comments box at the end!
That's a good point, Ry! I'll pin this comment and head in that direction.
This comment is so funny. It screams “you know guys..FYI”
By the way, they are baiting the community rn. It's a common tactic of bigger businesses to build good faith by releasing something like the OGL 1.1 which may clearly cause backlash but also turn heads, so that when they revamp it with changes that are only slightly better the community will turn a blind eye to it because of that aforementioned good faith. For the sake of clarification (and providing an example of what may be to come), this is how microtransactions in video games came to be a widely accepted monetization scheme in video games. Food for thought.
@@urdimsum7961 Other part of that is to eventually roll back out the first, rejected, idea later once the heat has simmered down enough for them to sneak it out.
@@urdimsum7961 good food for thought🫡
This update to the OGL feels like it violates the entire spirit and meaning of DND. Homebrew is more foundational to DND than dungeons, dragons, or wizards. The DMG opens by talking about creating your own worlds and adventures. And I would wager that far more people play homebrew adventures than published ones. This just feels like they are crippling the creativity that makes DND beautiful
I couldn’t agree more. I feel so awkward for even confessing my slight amount of copium when I caught wind of some of the changes. The more I dwell on it and the more I think about the fact that we are constantly asked to “fill in the blanks” left by WOTC, the less I understand it.
They are shooting themselves in the face trying to make a buck
@@timfrank7461 This is pretty much the extent of it. Hasbro really loves this maneuver; they did it a long time ago with one of the first online Scrabble ports. They waited until it had caught on and then sued for IP rights, took the product and drove it into the ground (because they seem to act like a big fumbling idiot who crushes the shiny, precious things they hold in their grasp). Hasbro having rights over D&D is a disaster in the making, all they really know how to do these days is destroy good things.
It's basically gonna kill dnd and/or tabletop games in general. Everybody will ignore it, or the price will be problematic (if wotc is takinf 1/4 of your income, then you need to price higher) so people will be even more to ignore it. So either wotc does nothing and looses copyright or lawsuits their way into obscurity. DND is popular right now because of shit like stranger things and critical role, which may just get a pass (not a lawyer but if a company tries to sue you can you point to another person and say 'why are they special fuck you', as is a trademark allowed to be selective in its protection). Hasbro is doing the same thing to dnd that they are doing to magic, but magic only legally makes money from amazon dumps and "investors" that don't even play mtg. mtg as a player is dead, no one cares about it anymore except those whose livelihood depends on it
"The DMG opens by talking about creating your own worlds and adventures. And I would wager that far more people play homebrew adventures than published ones." OK, and this OGL changes none of that. You can still homebrew your own stuff; worlds, monsters, items, classes, species. This is only referring to people making/distributing homebrew for profit. Nothing is inhibiting your creativity.
One DnD to rule them all, One DnD to find them,
One DnD to bring them all and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Hasbro where the Shadows lie.
welp time to make a walking simulator game
Roll a d100/5... aka the dx/5 system
Put the two words together you get DNDONE otherwise Dn Done lol
Even if this leak was deliberate to gauge the reaction, step it back a little and say “see we listened”, this is a disgusting immoral tactic, and to try to trick people into signing the new one out of fear is an evil act, using fear to force others to bend to your will is the definition of evil. This is disastrous for them, the mask of niceness and community spirit has slipped and their true face has been revealed, one of an evil greedy corporate overlord.
I hope I’m right and wrong at the same time on so much of this. I just can’t think of any other plausible reason for them thinking this would go over well.
Here's the thing. As long as they have the terms, and this applies to every company honestly, that they can change it for any reason then once you sign it you're already signed on and considered to have consented. Sure you can argue you didn't consent to changes made but there's a lot of legal loopholes they can make to make sure you do. For example they may redirect you to DND beyond from now on to contact them and make it part of the DND beyond membership that you agree to these rules so in order to complain to them through the proper channels you need to be in a system where you've already agreed to the rules
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 "For example they may redirect you to DND beyond from now on to contact them and make it part of the DND beyond membership that you agree to these rules so in order to complain to them through the proper channels you need to be in a system where you've already agreed to the rules"
You can always just write them a letter.
Didn't they hire someone from micro$oft?
@@ConstructedChaos I mean.. have you seen what wizards and Hasbro is doing to Magic? xd
I'm so glad you addressed the bigger issue with the OGL. They can take your entire content and sell it without paying you. They don't have a slice of the pie. They are leaving us a small slice and taking the whole cake, though you also missed the part that steals your content. They can terminate our license, forcing us to destroy our content, but because they have the irrevocable contract bit, they can keep our content making it theirs.
This contract is horrible.
It really is. People have pointed out that my guess at the clause about using our IP is more to cover them for accidental cases but I’m not sure I can trust them if they’re going to try rug pulling the old OGL like this.
Only if you publish.
@@ConstructedChaos I mean, hire artists, and don't use anything online. Hire people, make contracts, and don't use anything online.
This sounds more like they are planning to take anything they can, don't double-check, and use anything as long as it is cheap.
@@ConstructedChaos Nah, the idea is something around digitally monetizing "official" characters. Nickle and dime players with micro transactions just to have a character. (Are people this dumb? Some probably are) But how can their servers handle your character if you are using a third party character class? Easy! They just rip everything straight out of the third party books and put it in their system.
Dungeon World: "But our game is only thematically related to D&D. We don't even use 20-sided dice, they're all 6-sided dice!!"
WoTC: "All your dice are belong to us."
basically, DnD REALLY wants you to make your own game.
Certainly seems that way! For years we’ve been told the rules were only guidelines and didn’t matter. Now it seems like we make our own rules?
@@ConstructedChaos Blizzard did this with Warcraft 3 "Reforged" with custom maps because they saw people make mods for Warcraft 3 and then make money later on game modes when those people made their own games.
No real surprise considering how they're trying to run MTG into the dirt and cut the goose open to get all the eggs at once....
I'm gonna make my own dnd! With blackjack and hookers!
@@Atmoseeker Yup!
Already there. Sort of. Still finalising and doing the write-up.
Here's what I think: Fuck em. They might backpeddle a little bit on this, but once the corporate folks are involved, the meddling won't ever stop. If even pathfinder is truly under threat, then I hope creators band together to make their own open source game that does not operate under any OGL. This community and its creators are amazing and able to overcome this and come out of it better than before.
True. We haven’t seen this kind of shift in dnd for a while and the world we live in is very different.
Sadly, if any kind of OGL were to be done away with people who are protected by a license would never be able to earn a living doing what they love, I am not supporting the new license and can walk away if I want to at any time, I do not buy the current AD&D or D&D content since I have no interest in this version of D&D (1 D&D and v5) I mainly play v1 through v3.5, my kids play these versions and create content for our family and friends.
What will happen is that people are going to start walking away like most do from current Hollywood content and when they start to lose billions over their bad actions then they will go "we messed up" and change it back to or something similar to the old OGL but by then it will be too late.
@@samcaccavallo591 It won't be too late; it will be like what happened with the edition-who-shall-not-be-named (4e). After they finish alienating all their fans while strangling the golden goose, they'll make 7e to try to bring everyone back together. The thing is that Hasbro destroys everything they touch; it's all they know how to do. The best thing for D&D would probably be if they devalue it enough that someone else can purchase the rights to it. I'm sure there's someone worse out there, but the chances are high that a shift in ownership would be for the best.
Hopefully, Paizo sees that this is chasing people away from DnD over to them, and so won't make the same mistake Hazbro did, seeing that not only is it creating business for them to be the good guy, but also it would hurt business to follow suit.
@@meliponalord8892 while corporate greed is always a threat in the current system, Paizo has a strong track record of being committed to a player first experience, making _all_ of their material free for use to my understanding, and have their own OGL which is much more open even than the 1.0 WotC OGL
You know what would be a better way to do this... instead of just stealing every 3rd party work, offer publishing deals and a platform, become the engine that runs the 3rd party market. "You wanna make this awesome adventure? Cool, for 25% of the profit, we'll publish it, handle distribution and put it on shelves alongside all the other DND official material, with a Wizards' stamp of approval" but no, that'd be far too smart for WOTC.
100% this. Although, I think the percentage might actually end up being a bit higher than 25% for a distribution deal that weighs heavily on the brand. Probably something more like 35-40% but at least then you’re getting something for it.
They want 25% of REVENUE, of your total sales, not profits. Profit equals revenue minus expenses, and the margins are already paper thin. This ridiculous “royalty scheme” will mean you will run at a loss, it will bankrupt you.
Thats kinda like Minecraft Bedrock functions with mods/skins and world downloads, seems to be working well for them.
@@ericaltmann5711 The 25% applies to what is earned OVER 750k meaning if you earned $750001 you would pay 25 cents in "qualifying revenue". 4:17 on the video where it states that.
In a way they already do this. DMSGuild is owned by WOTC and there you can make dnd content that even includes some of their IPs (like Forgotten Realms or Eberron specific adventures). There's even the option for specific books to be bought in Hardcover form. These compendiums don't operate under the OGL and instead I believe they use guidelines stated on the DMSGuild website.
As someone who never cared for D&D, but am in love with Pathfinder, that Paizo is under threat for a system so far removed from D&D 5E and D&D 3/3.5E is horrifying.
I think, based on other comments, that they are only on a technicality. It seems like they can hold themselves upright with some fairly simple, albeit annoying, changes.
Im learning more about Pathfinder, and I might make the switch.
Legally this doesn't seem correct, they can't just modify a pre-existing license (the original OGL) and force people/companies to agree to the new terms. That's not how contracts work. The new contract would have to be agreed upon by both parties first.
@@futuza Well, they can't revoke the license for the content already published under that license. So Pathfinder will not have any problems with already published content. But there's a paragraph in the OGL that says that WotC can change the OGL and you are only allowed to use 'authorized' versions of the OGL. So, if they really can 'deauthorize' the previous version (any lawyers here?) you will only be able to publish _new_ content that uses OGL licensed stuff if you use the _new_ OGL.
Insofar the original OGL already had a backdoor built in.
they're not. game mechanics can't be copywritten. the only enforceable copyright WOTC has is in regards to setting. i'm not super familiar with Pathfinder but afaik it doesn't copy any D&D setting.
I would bet that they “leaked “ this out knowing it would make everyone upset. So they could later show what they actually want to change about the ogl , while looking like they are working with us. Simple negotiation .
My thoughts exactly. But they are just thoughts. Confirmation bias can be a scary thing on the internet so I’m just waiting to see what they do from here.
@@ConstructedChaos Good thing is it seems most of the community are aware of this so any change to the OGL is now going to be seen as toxic and a PR disaster by the community, anything that not OGL 1.0 will lead to backlash.
1.0 or Bust imho
Ask for the stars, and you might get the moon
Could very well be, it's similar to things they have done before with play test material, put out something that was actually not what they were planning on, just to see what people thought of it.
The Fans: This wasn’t part of the Deal!
WOTC/Hasbro: I am altering the Deal… pray I don’t alter it any further…
Lando didn't have the option to walk out of the room and find a new TTRPG to play :P
@@ConstructedChaos Any recommendation's?
@T2-Scoops Pathfinder 1e is fine I think and has a lot of content, but idk if it uses the OGL or whatever. As for Call of Cthulu 7e, that's a system that I know for sure shouldn't be under the OGL at all. As it uses d100's as it's main rolling system for checks. Although it is normally used for eldritch horror games and such, they do have a pulp add-on (or separate book?) version of the book for those more over the top adventures that people like. But who knows, if you prefer hiding from eldritch horrors as the base game, than cool. I love using the system so far and personally homebrew modified it for a more pulp version.
@@t2-scoops436 Could check out Fate/Fudge System. Fudge is a system that goes back to the 1990s, while Fate is a design that "simplifies" the older fudge system, but uses some of it as part of its own frame work.
They've admitted themselves that DnD, etc is under monetised so I suspect that this is just the beginning. They're setting the foundations for much more avaricious behaviour in the future because as we are all well aware, businesses only exist to make money, nothing else.
The under monetized bit is probably talking about the life style brand and shit.
But if you don't want to risk losing you need to masterminds call of Cthulhu I believe one of the Star wars and many more games you might want to try fill out their surveys and make sure you call yourself a DM(aka cash cow that pulls more people in) even if you're not. Scare their leaders.
I know personally that you truly didn't want to make this video. I'm glad you did. I was unaware of the flavor-text at the end of the leaked OGL 1.1.
If WotC is as open-minded as they claim to be, then our voices will be heard. But I guess we'll find out on Jan 13.
Hahaha yeah you do. I wrestled with it a lot yesterday. For as much as I've been accused of clickbait in the past, I wanted to avoid this topic because I do not take it lightly.
that bit at the end isn't them being open-minded. It's a common business technique called "the big ask" The next thing we see won't be as bad as this but still worse than it was before. That next thing will be accepted cause people will think "well it could have been worse" then over time they'll bring it back to this one cause it's what they wanted the whole time. Notice how they put in there that they can change it at any time with a 30 day notice. Even if the rest ends up looking like the old OGL I would bet hard cash that part would still be in there. It's the vehicle that allows them to get to the point they want to be at
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 precisely my thought
You laid this out very well. But if this turns out to be the change D&D makes, I will be finding a new system to use. I've been a DM since 1978 and been buying 90%+ of D&D products under TSR and WOTC. But I won't spend another dime on books, merchandise, movies, manuals or anything if they make this change. It will be brutal to leave my favorite game, but I won't support them while they are in greedy, sleezy mode.
I’ve seen a lot of people sharing that same sentiment and I can’t say that I blame you at all.
@@ConstructedChaos thanks - and you know, I get updates to protect themselves, I even get a SMALL license fee if you make a certain amount of money, but I find it used-car-salesman-sleezy to be able to change things at will, revoke the old license and take your creations and make more money off them. I'm not going to be loyal to a company that has no loyalty to me. Thanks for what you do - and I've never seen your channel before, but I have subscribed.
dude check out shadow of the demon lord or wfrp! ive been moving away from 5e to these systems and they are FANTASTIC
@@jamalsiddique1362 I will check them out. Thank you for the suggestions
Hasbro Greed is boundless. They discussed massively expanding the revenue potential of D&D pretty openly in an investor call. The MTG community learned hard this year, WOTC are not the friends we used to know, not with Hasbro holding the strings. I expect only the worst to come.
Perfectly said. I don’t think this is really WOTC-just WOTC being puppeted by Hasbro.
They never were. It's always been about bleeding as much money as possible for WotC. Or have you been oblivious to them trying to mix Magic the Gathering with Dungeons and Dragons
@@angelagranger760 The least offensive of the blatant crossovers, at least you could imagine D&D and MTG in the same setting. Something like 60 secret lairs have covered a much wider selection of Hasbro toy properties and pop culture nonsense. We've also had The Walking Dead, Godzilla, My Little Pony, Transformers, Post Malone...
MTG has been bleeding for a while, that's why I said to expect the worst when it comes to D&D's turn under the carving knife.
To be clear, I'm very much not happy about it. Been rough for fans across a lot of different brands these past couple of years.
@@angelagranger760 Mixing MTG and D&D isn't that much of a stretch, it was something we messed around with in high school when MTG first became popular. Your argument holds better if you use examples like MTG mixing in things like Godzilla, Transformers, and Street Fighter.
I see Hasbro’s fingerprints all over this; they want to squeeze this market for all they can. I could even imagine WOTC leaking it as part of an internal struggle, to get the public on their side.
It's going to be a good year for Copyright Lawyers.
The RPG community needed a big rock to get thrown in the pond and shake things up. Why so many people choose to lock themselves into one game system is something I've never understood. We are in for a huge amount of new games as a result of this.
This comment makes me excited! I'll definitely be investing in more systems regardless of the outcome of all this!
Well, it is a good system. that is why.
@@Scylon1 no it's a recognizable system their are other systems that are objectively better at doing the same things.
@@Scylon1 Sure but do you only eat the one type of pizza every single time you eat pizza? Variety is the spice of life.
@@Scylon1 other systems, like pathfinder, are better than dnd
dnd is just simple and recognizable
Yeah, they're starting to be kind of sketch. I kinda figured it was gonna turn into a slippery slope ordeal when I read the first iteration.
I felt okay when they posted on Dec 21st. But it seems like Hasbro is maybe pushing the envelope. Seems extra silly to do this so close to the movie releasing haha
Slippery slope? Seems like free fall to me.
They weren't lying when they called it OneD&D because they rolled a massive 1 on this OGL
Rolled a 1 with advantage somehow.
That bit about them supposedly being willing to rethink this if they catch enough flack is bullshit. The people who put this in effect came from video game companies that grossly over monetize their products with micro transaction money sinks. They aren't interested in preserving their intellectual property. This is them trying to find a way to put micro transactions in their own game and supress competition.
I hope you’re wrong on this. I’m choosing to hold out hope but time may yet prove you right.
The worst and unacceptable thing about the new OGL is that WotC will receive a perpetual, irrevocable right to use everything you produce as well as allowing others to use your works, without additional payment to you. This is ABSURD. They want to get revenue from you if you do well using their mechanics (and mind you, in the USA you cant legally protect rules or game mechanics; you could use the same rules as D&D in a book of your own as long as you dont use their IP (setting, creatures, etc) and you express the rules with your own words) and they also want to own your works... It's generally a bad idea to give control of your bussiness to other ppl.
What my group will do? Transition to Pathfinder 2E. We speak with our wallets. Dont spend a cent on One D&D.
Pathfinder is based on OGL
People really are forgetting Pathfinder is not safe
I do think pathfinder could really capitalize here if they speedily release something like a 2.5e to rid their reliance on OGL. I know that would probably take a lot but I’d love to see it.
Personally I would highly recommend everyone into D&D to branch out and try other systems. I used to be quite hesitant to try any game that wasn't 5th edition but I got into a group that taught me how to play both V:TM and Rogue trader (2009 TTRPG from fantasy flight games) and I have never been happier.
I agree. Not only because of the OGL shitshow, but also because there are so many unique experiences that DnD (of any edition) cannot even dream of delivering that many systems specialize in. And most are much easier to learn than DnD 5e.
Up until now, it’s been dnd or bust for me but I may have to consider other options in the future 🫣
Tried the WhiteWolf system in collage and found it to be very intuitive and flexible, the way magic functions in Mage is fantastic.
@@ConstructedChaos I've been blessed with cutting my ttrpg teeth on non-d20 systems 20 years ago, namely Rifts and BESM 2e. Since then, I've gotten to play and run so many different systems, and it's been a true joy for me.
There are so many really cool and fun systems out there. Lancer has been one of my new favorites in the last few years, as has been PF2e and the whole Forged in the Dark format. Games that are super homebrew and 3pp friendly - even Lancer, which has only been out a few short years, has released several 3rd party supplements and modules.
GURPS GURPS GURPS GURPS GURPSFED GANG
The worst part is, Pathfinder 2e only included the OGL to protect 3PP from WotC prosecuting them for accidentally putting their favorite D&Dism into their 3PP Pathfinder 2e content. It doesn't actually have anything to do with any of the actual Paizo official content! But I doubt attorneys will feel that way.
I wonder if this might fast track a 3e. That would certainly be a way for paizo to capitalize on the situation.
@@ConstructedChaos I REALLY hope they just re-release 2nd ed books and call them "3rd Edition" just with a different OGL they write themselves. "All Second Edition books are compatible with 3rd Edition".
Not a Problem. WotC can't revoke the license for already published works. Just do not use the OGL for anything new.
@harmless Ah, so by your understanding, the voiding of the 1.0a OGL will only effect future products that attempt to use it, not previously released products?
@@t.estable3856 IANAL, but in my opinion they can't 'void' the old OGL. They can just refuse to offer it for new products. Or maybe they can't even do that, but this is where the lawyers will have to weigh in.
A lot of projects will be affected by the new OGL. One medium that no one is talking about is Pathfinder's excellent video game series. The new OGL will simply no longer allow them to publish any video games unless a special and specific deal is struck. I think most companies will simply walk away from D&D in all its forms.
It is entirely possible that the "Real" OGL that WotC wants to release sucks compared to the OGL 1.0a but it would not go over well with the fans so they "leaked" a "draft" of a real stinker to get the community hugely upset. Then when they "revise" the OGL to a more acceptable one (the one they wanted to release all along) the public accepts it as a big improvement as if they won the fight but really still losing the freedom they once had with OGL 1.0a.
We'll see.
This was not their first time trying to mess with the OGL. This is corporate greed and the well known saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." They're trying to pull the rug out on us again and even if they revert this time, this will not be the last. They've lost my trust and I've pulled my subscriptions from any platforms that I funnel money to them. For those that still have faith, tread carefully.
I do still have faith but I am watching them like a hawk. I completely understand your unwillingness to continue forward with them at the helm.
I think we should push back as far as possible. We need to hurt Hasbro to make it back down. No compromises, give them an inch and they will take a freaking mile. To these people the content they sell couldn't mean less, it's all about big numbers at the end of a business year. So we need to make them quiver in fear about these numbers.
I'm beginning to form the same opinion as I respond to all of these comments.
The only way for WotC to get out of this mess I see is the following:
They have to update the OGL 1.1 to the exact terms of 1.0(a) with the only change being to clarify that it is irrevocable and that retroactive updates are not possible and updates mean a new license.
That would be the only way I see to build back the trust they just lost. Even if they were just playing with the thought internally and it got leaked (it was more than that, but let's be generous), if they want to assure as that they don't want to pull that stunt, they have to leave the OGL untouched except for fixing exactly the loopholes they inteded to exploit. Maybe someone with a bit of reach should start a petition for them to do exactly that, just to put them on the spot. I can't get that idea trending, but maybe someone who reads this can.
I’m not even sure I’d be able to get that into their view but you can bet they’ve seen the multitude of videos posted on this topic and they know they messed up.
This is the first of these videos that I have chosen to comment on. In fact, this may well be the first comment I have ever made on any UA-cam video; despite years of utilizing UA-cam as a primary media source. I do this to say thank you. This is easily the most level headed commentary on this subject I have yet to come across. Though my own 5e content is received only by my play group, and not available for sale or consumption by anyone else, I (and by extension, my players) have enjoyed the variety and vibrancy that 3rd party content has brought to our game experience. The capacity of these creators is at an all time high (with momentum trending dramatically upward) and has fed my hobby and kindled the imagination of my players well beyond the capacity of D&D’s core content to do so alone.
This is a clear case of a rising tide raising all ships - not a zero sum pie, from which WotC is finding others taking from their share. Content producers have inspired me to put more time and effort into the hobby; buying more core WotC products, as well as supporting 3rd party creators. This is a state where the growth of one benefits all and to restrict that growth will hurt all.
Thank you again for reflecting, so clearly, my own feelings on this subject. I hesitated clicking on this video, as I too am already tired of all the ‘panicked’ chatter on this topic. I want to see my hobby thrive. I want D&D, and it’s parent company, to be at the heart of this shared success. Yet, we got here because D&D became a community in which that success belonged to us all. Let us share in the success of preserving that relationship.
Thank you so much for this comment and for expressing your own feelings so elloquently--even as they mirror my own. It means a lot to feel so understood by other members of the community and I, too, think this relationship is stronger than D&D itself.
I know you didn't want to make this video, CC, but thank you for making it. This is my thoughts EXACTLY on the subject, hell even down to wanting to believe better out of WoTC and Hasbro, I think a lot of us wanted to believe that they wouldn't err toward becoming so anti-creator in ways of legalese. No shame in it, this is a game and hobby we all love and it's only natural we'd want to hope for the best.
Though you've made an interesting point in this. One that makes me feel not so crazy, I wholeheartedly believe that the leak of this version/draft of the new OGL is intentional and in order to gauge backlash and community response. It simultaneously reads like a lot of the other heinous and big business greed and bullying we see that gets released in the hopes that they'll be able to get away with something, then shot down by communities and in court. While also smelling of company/corporate uncertainty, like there are people standing against this draconic bullshit on the inside and we are being given a chance to still have a say in this hobby, this game that we've all cultivated together. If so, then there's something big going on internally.
If so, we need to answer the call and push back, tell them this is wrong and not okay with videos like this. In their surveys and every chance we get.
This game and hobby would not be where it is without its community and creators, so to turn around and do this, hell to even try and hammer out competition and monopolize everything just won't fly. If that's lands unchanged, Hasbro and WoTC will find themselves in hot water for so many different reasons, from a community standpoint and legally.
Yes they can tie people up in courts, sure they're within their rights in some respects to some of the language, but there is a thing as going too far. Things that won't hold in court. Things the community won't stand for in social sense and if you destroy the trust of people who play your game and the people who propped it up...then nothing else matters.
More large companies have cannibalized themselves this way than I can count in recent years and are only persisting on the money they've made and not money they're making.
So hop into those surveys folks!! Give 'em an earful!!
So extremely well put, Stella! Thank you for the support here. I’m holding out hope that this is just Hasbro pulling the strings and WOTC giving the community a chance to prove to them why they’re wrong. Probably wishful thinking on my part but I don’t care haha.
This is so gross!
In fact, this is exactly the kind of BS that Activision Blizzard pulled with mods for their products and "services" a few years ago - If you make a mod using their game engines, anything you make according to their licensing agreement is _their_ IP.
And now Wizards of the Coast is pulling the same disrespectful act on its users!
It's less surprising when you realize that Hasbro has been pulling leaders in from that space to manage the monetization of DND for a little while.
I want to thank you for your take on this subject. It was very well-spoken and constructed, as well as gave ideas, and alternatives to the matter at hand. If the leaked OGL doesn't change, I wouldn't be surprised if a huge majority of players drop DND for something similar, but just different enough so they can enjoy the hobby.
Happy to share my thoughts with the community that has given so much to me. It would be hard to completely shut out dnd but I think I’d move on if my hand was forced like this.
Pretty glad i've spent the last 10+ years designing, playtesting and creating my own replacement ttrpg system to replace anything WOTC related.
Dungeon World: "But our game is only thematically related to D&D. We don't even use 20-sided dice, they're all 6-sided dice!!"
WoTC: "All your dice are belong to us."
That seems to be the gist of what they're trying.
For me there are several red lines. One is the revocation of 1.0a. The ability to change terms. The ip theft. And the overly aggressive monetization via royalties.if a single one remains I'm done. Even if they walk all back I have no trust for them at all.
Yeah I think anything less than the original OGL with an irrevocable clause is a mistake at this point.
Regardless of their final decision I really hope creators, publishers and the community in general turn their back on D&D to embrace world of wonderful RPG outside of their strangling bubble. I'm rooting for Cypher System to pick the gauntlet.
Oh I’ll definitely be letting my eye wander a lot more at this point. Even though I’m a big apple fan-I do love my bubbles.
I've been working on building my own system. I've hit a bit of a block right now mostly cause I want to playtest a few things before moving forward but it's been coming together pretty well
I'm a bit partial to the FATE system.
@@angelagranger760 I've read a little about it and I liked it. But I fell in love with the mechanics of the Cypher System. The emphasis on roleplay and the flexibility to adapt it to almost any setting and genre is fascinating for me. I also would really like to try the Year Zero System but I still have to find a group for it.
I am in full support of buying and supporting other small creators, publishers and systems. What will suck is the loss of the common tongue that has been D&D. I got into TTRPG because of livestreams and learned D&D rules because of homebrews and streams etc. The OGL has allowed for D&D to be an entry point into all things gaming. If we all play other systems, the TTRPG community will lose as a whole I think
Very very well said.
Idk this fracturing of the dnd community has already been happening as more and more communities have formed from ICRPG, OSE and other systems pirpose built to cut out WOTC. Gives rise to what i believe was always the gygax spirit to tabletop gaming; make it your own, create an experience you can have fun with.
This has happened before, in the 90s (for different causes). D&D fell out of favor as an entry point because of business moves made by TSR. At the time, other companies jumped in to become the de facto entry point. White Wolf especially became many people's first experience at that point. I'm looking around now and wondering who is positioned well to step in the same way this time.
You've earned my subscription, and I have a good deal of respect for you already. I'm not typically quick about giving either.
There were quite a few "commentators with followings" that felt the way you did, and unlike you, they didn't decide to say nothing. Some of them got, diplomatically speaking, aggressively rude with anyone who said anything even moderately skeptical of what the future might hold while they trusted and defended Hasbro. Some of them are digging in and some have, like you, realized they may have been mistaken.
Even without having talked about your feelings on the matter before, you show more disappointment in being wrong, and empathy for those who were raising alarm, than many who went on the attack, including one who, in his video about changing his mind (without admitting he might have been, as you say, naive) -still- took the time to take another swing at the people who had been concerned.
With that awareness of your audience, I look forward to seeing what comes next for you.
(And I really hope this doesn't sound patronizing. It's not intentional, but is not an uncommon accusation.)
Thank you very much for the accolades here! I am no stranger to being wrong and I'd rather not waste mine and everyone else's time trying to rationalize my thoughts after they've already been deemed incorrect. Welcome to the Chaos!
Basically, Critical Role and Dimension20 need to team up to kickstart, design and release their own game system with its own SRD and OGL, and stop using actual D&D for their longplays. That’ll get people in board. All you need to do is preserve use of the d20 to determine action results, and find an equally fast, elegant way to express varying levels of character health and magic resources as the story progresses. Just use “magic points” instead of spell slots and “health” instead of HP.
I would be so down for that and you know they’ve been working plenty close already.
There's no way WotC could copyright the use of the term "hit points". Practically every game that includes a form of combat uses that term.
I and my group have gotten into D&D purely thanks to the third party content. Over the years we bought every WotC publication and many other third party books minis and dice as well. If these changes come to pass i think we will as a group sit and think and talk for a long time about either changing to a different TTRPG or jus sticking with what we bought already and either not using or pirating the new stuff if its at all interesting.
This is basically WotC saying "Look we cant make the stuff people want anymore and are getting stompted on by some randos on the internet, so why dont we steal their shit instead?" its shameful especially for a hobby that supposedly promotes fan creativity and diversity of content... well it seems those were just corporate buzzwords.
I just don't understand why approaching those creators with generous licensing deals wouldn't have made WOTC more money in the end than this anyway.
You should feel this way, you have an obligation to state your opinions while making any D&D content. D&D is already dead just from the leak itself. I'm already done with it, no going back. This was their intent so there can be no forgiveness.
I can totally understand your sentiment here. I just really hope they roll it back.
It's truly disgusting that we've come to *expect* these kinds of practices from businesses: releasing something terrible, getting backlash, and then "backpedaling" to a less inflammatory version that is still worse than where we were before, but not nearly as bad as what we are originally "told." WotC has already had a declining reputation in several aspects, and this, for me at least, is just about the last straw. I refuse to give more of my hard-earned money to a company that's just going to try to milk me and everyone else that enjoys the hobby for all we've got.
Is that stance a bit hyperbolic? Sure. But it doesn't change the fact that scummy business practices should be met with the proper consequences rather than just a slap on the wrist PR-wise.
Absolutely
Hasbro brought on former microsoft executives to lead the monetization of D&D. This is pretty similar to the way that software licenses work. Basically, what it seems they're doing is trying to set themselves up as a licenser. They'll claim 25% of all of your revenue (Note, revenue is not profit.) if you want to make content for D&D. Then if your content is wildly popular they will steal it, use their professionals to make something similar, and sell it to the community. This way, not only does wizards get to keep 25% of the money made from the community forever, but they can also exploit popular content for a 100% profit. You can expect that in the future there will be absolutely ZERO modules written by wizards, except perhaps one or two upon launch. Wizards will save tons of money by not needing to hire very many professionals, instead they can rely on the creativity of the community and then exploit that creativity.
TLDR; Wizards are corrupt greedy assholes who have taken a lesson from Microsoft on how to make a monopoly. I will personally continue playing 3.5 and will continue to bring 5E players to my table where they're amazed at the depth and complexity of the system. "It's like 5E, but MOOORE!"
Well, that’s unsettling to hear. I actually didnt know about that! I’ve been so blissfully unaware!
That is why I downloaded all the character sheets for my characters and campaigns from DND Beyond and then canceled my subcription. I refuse to be used as an ATM by some corporate asshats who just want to squeeze every cent out of us that they can.
@@SteamS01dier Good on you. I haven't bought any edition since 3.5. Back then we had an example character sheet in the back of the player's handbook which they explicitly told you to photocopy. So that's what we did. After a decade those old sheet just don't hold enough info, so we used to make our own on pieces of paper.
you truly are an optimist and i respect that. If like you said this was leaked on poupous and it designed to the best case sicario for the company and they want to bring it back to something everyone can agree on than it was a good move, maybe, but I think that the level of competence needed to think of that is smoothing they do not have or would try to achieve, after all D&D is "under monetized".
You may be right on that. After all, I’m seeing a lot more “I’m leaving dnd regardless” comments than I anticipated.
Yep, weather they carry though with this or not, I'm never giving Wizards another cent. They make something I want ever again, I'm pirating it. The fact they even consider this proves they don't deserve my money anymore.
I’m sad to hear it but I can totally understand that sentiment
I find it difficult to believe the larger companies like Paizo, Goodman Games, and Troll Lord Games will have to stop publishing their own derivitive systems. It will be interesting to see how the federal court would view the case/cases. Companies founded on the OGL, operating and growing for two decades, building careers and employeeing many people, suddenly told to stop publishing their systems or pay up….well I think Hasbro is on shaky ground. I am no lawyer but it seems that these companies will be fine, but that the products coming after the new OGL will be affected most. I guess we will see.
I'm also very curious to see how this plays out if the new OGL doesn't get walked back. But I think I'm just most upset by the attempt here.
Make a respectful non toxic call to their office saying you have played for x amount of years and because of the OGL you will no longer buy their products unless this is changed. Call campaigns do A LOT more than videos and tweets and emails, which WotC (Hasbro) can ignore.
Well, if anyone is curious, this is the CS number for WOTC: 1 (800) 324-6496
I feel you brother. I hope the community stands together against this, and that WoTC listen to us.
Thank you. From what I've seen, the community is united in this. My guess is that WOTC was expecting this and will be somewhat receptive to changes. I wouldn't be surprised if this was only done due to pressure from Hasbro. Of course, this is all HIGHLY speculative.
@@ConstructedChaos As a MTG fan, I wouldn't hold my breath on any outcries from the community meaning anything. Hasbro does not care about WotC or it's IP's at all. All they care about are fulfilling a temporary plan that they gave their shareholders which 5 years ago was to double profits over the course of 5 years and now to increase it an additional 50% over the next 3. They only care about the short term benefits for their shareholders and will burn this company and all of its IP's to the ground. They haven't been hitting D&D as hard as they have been MTG for all of these money grabbing schemes (mostly due to the fact that MTG makes them far more money) but now they are showing that they have their eyes firmly locked on D&D now too. It wouldn't surprise me if these changes to the OGL are a way for them to compensate for the money they have been losing since their failure of the MTG 30 Year Aniversary which tanked their stocks by 15% and has been causing players to stop spending money on new products or just leaving the game entirely in some cases.
They won't. One D&D will release and I would wager will be bigger than 5e or at least on par. The vast majority of the hobby are casual players who don't know or care about this stuff.
@@TheElectrikCow what's stupid is increasing by those percentages just isn't reasonable. An increase of 5-10% per year is very reasonable and shows for a successful company
Important note- Hasbro can't actually do anything about Pathfinder, or anything published under the old OGL. They *could* potentially sue creators publishing new content under the old OGL, saying that they are no longer issuing such licenses, but that gets legally complicated.
That said, the old OGL offers no way to be forcefully updated for already released content. IP holders are under no obligation to use a new license, and any suit by Wizards would likely be thrown out pre trial. Pathfinder in particular used an even more permissive OGL, and has the money to afford decent lawyers.
The people most fucked by this are the player base who will see a massive shrink in fan related content, low level creators who would have made that content, and honestly the D&D IP. Short term profits over long term sustainability in a nutshell.
actually there is. "Section 9 of OGL 1.0a:9. 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."
In OGL1.1 it specifically states that OGL1.0 is "de-authorized" and therefor no longer applies. Of course this is the kind of move that will ultimately have to be decided in court, but the intention is clear.
@@michaelmaguire4147 You've misread that. What I'm talking about is expiry- a license is a contract, and the wording of this license does not make it clear that an "unauthorized license" expires. If anything, it sounds like an unauthorized license is just one that is no longer given out- hence the delineation between previously published works and works published after 1.1 releases.
I wish I knew enough to even chime in here.
@@ConstructedChaos Well, I'm not a lawyer, so take it all with a grain of salt 😂 but that said, all my points are things that would have to be worked out in the midst of a court case. What an OGL being unauthorized means is something that would have to be decided by a judge.
There are two hurdles to clear for WOTC. The first is pre-trial, where a defendant might claim that WOTC's claim has no merit, and give the OGL's lack of definition on what an unauthorized license means as an example of my argument. The judge then has to decide if the case has enough merit to go to court. If it does, it doesn't mean the argument is bad, just not good enough to outright dismiss the case.
That said, there's a good chance there's case law I'm unaware of, local or state laws that might impact things, or other legal minutiae I'm unaware of. At the end of the day, this is all best guessing, and the answer won't be known unless the OGL is tested in court.
The absolute biggest impact this has is that it's chilling effect on content creators. Even if you have a winning argument, the cost of going to court may be too high, and at the end of the day this is a statement about what WOTC is willing to go to war for.
Oh, and as a last second edit- Pathfinder is gonna be fine. In addition to having an even more permissive OGL, they've been operating for so long that WOTC probably wouldn't even have standing to sue. Though again, not a lawyer.
@@ClockwerkMan This lawyer says I'm right ua-cam.com/video/f_dVH-0Yf8o/v-deo.html
This is classic really. They push something they know no one wants, then backpedal to something still incredibly in their advantage which would also have seemed unacceptable if it wasnt for their worse version, now everyone thinking that they are listening whilst they were never planning to in actuality
I hope they remove it entirely but I think I know deep down that they won't.
@@ConstructedChaos well what haswizards forgets is there are other Systems out there and that they might have actually killed their cash cow, after all we can just not buy their stuff anymore
@@keit99 You're entirely right. I still don't want to see them do it but there is some consolation in that.
Something like this has always been the worry since a huge corporation like Hasbro picked up WotC and their IPs. While this completely and utterly sucks, other options exist. There is a whole world of other RPGs out there aside from D&D, many of which manage a very similar game style quite credibly. Let consumers speak with their purses. The late 1980s and early1990s had a large number of alternative RPGs hit the scene, the effects of which are still evident to this day (Cyberpunk 202x and Vampire most notably), and with RPGs being more popular than ever, the seeds are sewn for a new RPG renaissance. In time, Hasbro will either concede or sell off a devalued property and D&D will live on.
Cyberpunk was awesome, Vampire was good but preferred Mage or Changeling, loved that they worked together as well the WhiteWolf system is pretty good
@@noughtypixy I preferred Mage personally, but Vampire was BY FAR the most popular of the lot and had the greatest impact over the years. My comment has nothing to do judging those systems or settings, but that they have had sustained impact to this day as RPG born IPs that hold value as IPs. And the market is ripe for even better things in the modern era, since RPGs are so popular and now exist in the mainstream. Alternatives to D&D exist, and people need to see beyond just one particular brand.
Thanks for the suggestions! There seem to be no shortage of alternatives!
First time watcher and now a subscriber. While DnD is not my favorite system I know it's an important foundation of ttrpgs. The leak is terrifying me to the point that I'm encouraging other devs, big and small, to begin talking to lawyers. People need to prepare for litigation and if possible present a united front against WotC and Hasbro in regards to the OGL
Thanks for the sub and welcome to the chaos!! That’s very forward thinking of you and I’d love to see WOTC and Hasbro have to face what they’ve done if they don’t back down here.
I know that if other developers try to stand alone they'll lose. Wotc is too big and has hasbro money. They will have a good chance of they work together. Hopefully the ogl changes back.
I don't think there is any threat for anything already published - or published before the new OGL comes into effect.
After that, you need to decide if you want to use the new OGL or you'd rather not use any OGL material at all for any future works.
They cant stop the general player base from doing what they want. (After all I can just claim im not playing DND), but what worries me is content creators who will be other more scrutiny. Especially with that 50k dollar thing.
I mean, content creators are one thing. It’s the material we’ll be lacking from 3rd party designers and publishers that I’m most worried about.
So I just read the OGL 1.0a. From this line below it appears to me, and I Am Not A Lawyer, that 5e is excluded from the OGL 1.1. Here is the relevant text.
-----------------
9. 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.
---------------
From what I read here that 5e OGL content was published under 1.0a and can't be brought under any other license. But again I Am Not A Lawyer.
Many have brought this up but, unfortunately, the document itself is being "revoked" as it was not "irrevocable". The new OGL is not just a new version. It explicitly states that the old one is not a valid document.
I still remember that the DnD books had "This books are simple guides for our dear players and GMs, as anything inside this books are not "rules", they can be changed, added, etc by the players discretion."
Also DnD: If you sign this, we own your house.
Right?! The expectation is for players to fill the gaps in their rules and lore but they also want to own what you create. It's the worst of both worlds.
We all need to boycott one DnD and WotC until they smarten up
I wonder if hasbros has anything to do with the current toe-dipping pushes to test these waters.
@@savokgrim4131 wouldn't be surprising hasbro is extremely greedy and this reeks of their flavor of greed similar to what's been happening to MtG
@@savokgrim4131 It's likely and that makes things worse actually, Hasbro wants this power, I never expected the original OGL could ever be revoked, but now that we see it can WoTC has no credibility anymore why trust anything out of the company at all.
Hopefully we'll hear from WOTC sooner rather than later and it won't come to this.
@@savokgrim4131 Can't be sure... but I'd still bet a little money on it.
I think variety is the solution to this. Obviously there is a reason D&D is the most popular, but it isn't the only option. Playing other RPGs and developing new ones is in my opinion one of the biggest ways we get away from this kind of corporate behavior. If they aren't making money they have to listen to the consumers as to why that is.
I've been seeing a lot of suggestions for other TTRPGs in the comments. While this excites me, it also worries me that the hobby will fall back into a bunch of little communities instead of what we have now. Overall, it's just a paradigm that doesn't appeal to me as much and was apparently part of the reason for the OGL in the first place.
Erebus leans close to Lorgar, "You know, there are...other RPGs that will accept your homebrews, my lord."
Yes, indeed! I'm thrilled to try out some new stuff! That doesn't make me any less sad about all this, though.
You may turn out being right about this.
Compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game will become a popular term again. We have had that dodge since the 70's.
That’s a great point!
@@ConstructedChaos we have this before. Gaming is not going to stop. Chin up stay positive and creative.
D&D PLAYER: I feel disenchanted by my own hobby.
MTG PLAYER: First time?
WOTC: **steals wallet(s)**
Hahaha sadly, commander is probably my second favorite way to spend free time 😂
Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. As long as you don't use copyright material you are good (ie drow can't be used but dark elves can)
Moving forward, yes. But this leaves a lot of great companies and creations in limbo.
@@ConstructedChaos not so much limbo as having to go through and edit out the actual copyright material.
One thing I find concerning is that what WotC actually owns and can legally act on is being vastly overstated. At this point the community is aware and concerned (as it should be) what we need now is a practical call to action.
What UA-cam ttrpg creators need to do is start pushing for the creation of a sanitized public domain version of 5e. Make a wiki, reword the SRD, remove or rename anything actually copyright (see drow).
Great video. My thoughts: your willingness to say "I was wrong" is admirable. You are a young man. I am much older and I have done this many, MANY times. It's a right of passage and a great learning experience. Next--I agree that the OGL may have been intentionally leaked. Gozmodo is owned by G/O media, which also owns Kotaku. WoTC has a close relationship with Kokatu, which has given fawning coverage and reviews of D&D product releases. Ever notice that WoTC does NOT reach out to youtubers but loves Kotaku and always gives them the scoop? So WoTC has connections with G/O media. Next, a skilled corporate negotiator will ALWAYS ask for ridiculous things and pare their demands back to what they really wanted in the first place. Perhaps WoTC's intentions are less far reaching. If they scale back their demands, gamers might believe they "won," and made a difference. Meanwhile, Hasbro got what it wanted in the first place. Not saying it's true, but it would not surprise me.
Thanks so much for the accolades here! I couldn’t agree more that this seems to be the likely explanation.
Time for this vibrant community to make a community-created open source RPG, don't you think?
I would be so down for it!
If something isn't broken there's no need to fix it.
Exactly.
Unfortunately, in America, if a business or company is not growing their profits faster and faster year after year, they consider it broken.
Seems like I got into this hobby at a bad time. Damn.
I started this channel in earnest about a year ago so I know how you feel haha. But I have a feeling this will roll over eventually. I can’t imagine they’d be that stupid shooting themselves in the foot.
Or you got in at a great time, shop around for other systems now before the sunk cost has set in too hard
@@ConstructedChaos I've been playing 3.X for around 20 years. Join us. Dnd 3.5 has 66 total books full of published material (Not counting adventure modules) You've got enough classes and splatbooks to last you for decades of play.
Nah, your timing isn’t bad. Just buy up all of the current and older stuff you can possibly afford, and give em the middle finger on One. You’ll be ok.
@@ravener96 What do you mean 'sunk cost'? It's not like we have to stop using WotC content in our games. It just means there might be less 3rd party content specifically designed for D&D.
I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. Many people already use content from other systems in their D&D games.
Of course it will reduce the visibility of the D&D brand. But that's solely WotC's problem.
Worth noting that the cut is revenue, NOT profits. If you make $100 revenue and it takes 10% of that to make the book, now it took you 35% of that to make the book. It's also worth noting that profit margins on printed media are actually WAY WAY slimmer than that example. This number would be suffocating and hold down any 3pp publisher from being a big or even medium sized company.
Yep! That's what I was speaking towards in regards to the crowdfunding example. Absolutely insane. I could MAYBE understand 10% of PROFITS.
Jay Martin talked about this not too long ago, He brought up a good point about Hasbro being the reason being that they are the parent. I wouldn't blame Wizards of the Coast too much being that they don't really have a huge say in the matter in the long run.
That's exactly what I'm thinking.
I think it’s ridiculous some of what they’re doing when they weren’t the ones involved in the creation of the third party content. They tried to seal homebrew on dnd beyond behind a subscription to… not great effect before too.
I feel like they’re getting more and more committed to treating dnd like a subscription service as a whole. Or rather that is what I fear.
I fear the third party publishers backing out of dnd entirely due to this.
That's probably where we're headed if they don't take this back.
Personally, I've been just developing my own RPG system for my table that works for my group. After I run my current 5e campaign, it will likely be the last D&D campaign I run before moving on to my own game. It's a lot of work, but with a lot of the proposed changes to One D&D, WotC's acquisition of DNDBeyond meaning it will always skew more toward the newest edition, and now this whole OGL thing, I certainly don't want to play much anymore. Could just run good old pen and paper 5E, of course, but at that point I feel like making my own system is something I can make more intuitive when it comes to pen and paper roleplay. So that's what I'm doing!
Good on ya and good luck with the new system! Will it be released anywhere where I can check it out?
@@ConstructedChaos thanks for the interest but I don't have any plans to release it at the moment. Still making sure I can get everything working well and it's in super early stages!
Great video as always!
For future content I would also suggets promoting other TTRPG that do not use OGL, as a way to providing alternatives for the players in the meantime this whole thing is happening.
Absolutely! I plan to at least consider running other TTRPGs on the channel depending on how this all unfolds.
@@ConstructedChaos thank you for your efforts!
@@Dracobyte Of course! It's *usually* all fun for me anyway.
H.G. Wells created 'Little Wars' which is a wargame system- the Non-military Wargame. Kriegspiel being the german wargame rules. It allows for Wargames and card games.
Sounds fun! :D
They're killing magic and think they can come for us next
Sadly, commander is probably my second favorite hobby 😂😭
I appreciate you and your honesty on this. I feel that what they're proposing is a bunch of crap, based in greed, not the success of the game franchise...and definitely not in our enjoyment of the game.
110% agree. I'm just hoping that this is mainly Hasbro speaking through WOTC and that they know to take their finger off the trigger after all the backlash.
The unilateral change clause also needs to go. By even floating this thing, they've lost any trust they've built up with previous OGLs. If that clause stays, there's no reason to believe they won't just re-introduce these other objectionable parts (or functionally similar stuff so as to not remind the community of this whole debacle) at a later date.
The retroactive change to previous editions also has to go. While i can't imagine this standing up in court (you generally can't change old contracts or licenses just by publishing a new one, the people bound by the old licenses would have to agree to the new one first) it definitely WOULD bind anyone who agreed to the new OGL. So i can't imagine anyone who's got a good thing going publishing 5e content under the existing OGL would want to touch anything published under the new one out of fear of suddenly owing WOTC $$$ or otherwise being on the hook for all their legacy content.
The 4e version of OGL is part of the reason that edition never took off like 3e or 5e. I understand WOTC (and probably more, their parent company Hasbro and all the accountants) wants more money but i imagine that this thing, as leaked, will lead to another dead edition and them making less money.
I don't know enough legal speak to argue for or against your points here. But, everything I've read says that they can technically do this no problem anyway. And, if anyone were to take it to court, I'm sure Hasbro has a legal team on retainer that would cost them nothing to deploy against whatever they want to.
@@ConstructedChaos I'm not a lawyer, but unless they included one of those "we can change the contract whenever we like" clauses they're bound by it same as the other people. The actual legal analysis i saw suggests they don't have that kind of clause in the previous contracts, but i guess we'll see.
Overall, this strongly feels to me like a corporate attempt to extract money out of a community at the cost of the community's long term health.
Fortunately one thing that this will have done is that there is definitely a math major D&D player out there who is now working on a new dice system that isn't D20, probably starting with D6 since those dice have existed since antiquity and can't be copyrighted, new rules etc. Also many of the creatures in D&D are public domain so I foresee that there will be a ton of new systems being developed and published soon and even with Hasbro's money behind them WotC won't be able to keep up with claims, plus they have drawn a huge target on their back now for trial lawyers if they go through with some of the things they mentioned.
I'll miss all my pretty dice sets but I would gladly consider other options if this gets pushed through.
20 side dice is not a D&D creation the oldest known version was found in Ptolemaic Egypt and is believed to date to 300 bce. Also any dice protection only apply to the dice itself.
@@mattm8870 I stand corrected I guess it's because D20 has become closely linked with D&D it's just a natural assumption, which makes everything funnier since that would mean most of "their" system is technically available in public domain they'll go bankrupt trying to make a copyright stick.
If they go through with this, I'd love to see a class-action lawsuit by 3rd party publishers for anticompetitive behavior and maybe breach of contract. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how realistic that is, but BOY would that be satisfying.
EDIT: The OGL granted a "perpetual" license. Logically, this should override whatever language allows them to update the OGL, to the point where there can be no update that retracts that perpetual license. But that's assuming copyright law is logical and that words mean what everyone thinks they mean.
Sadly, in legal jargon “perpetual” only means that there is no definite expiration date. The key term we would want to see is irrevocable-which is not listed. And, apparently, these kinds of documents are revocable by default.
From the OGL 1.0a:
"9. 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." (emphasize mine)
This is the problem. Not for anything already published - they won't be able to do anything about that - but for any future works.
@@harmless6813 oh, and that is the thing *authorized*. If this is brought to court, what would happen if the judge declares 1.1 illegitimate and unauthorizes it? Everything published under 1.1 will revert to 1.0a, maybe?
I agree with you CC. The fact that WotC have created Terms that let them Steal and Profit from other people's works...it infuriates me.
I live and breath D&D...it's gotten me through very hard times in my life where my sanity was literally at stake...the fact my hobby..my anchor, is trying to do thus....sickens me to my Core.
Our Voices need and Must be Heard. A game is nothing without its players. It's fans, it's supporters. This is a Betrayal of Trust and Faith.
Gary Gygax would be rolling in his grave to see what has become of his beloved Dungeons and Dragons.
It’s truly a sad thing to see. I only hope that they can make this right somehow. But if not, other commenters have reminded me that the hobby is ttrpg’s, not necessarily dnd. No matter who is printing the books, there will always be more fun to be had.
Don't make a brand your hobby. D&D is just one part of the TTRPG hobby. WotC can't ruin the whole thing.
Gygax would hate seeing what’s happened to D&D, but I do have to say that TSR were some of the most ruthless people on earth when it came to third party creation. One of numerous things that led to their demise.
It's been headed this way for a long time. it all started when Lorraine Williams kicked Gary Gygax out of TSR!!!
I just thought we were past all this.
Here's the thing, even if they come back and say "ok, ok, ok, we'll take down all this new ogl and go back to the way things were", how do content creators feel going forward continuing to make content for 5e and One DND knowing that this type of rule could just be over the horizon? WoTC has shown that they have had this on their table of consideration. If someone threatened to rob you, but decided against it would you feel comfortable continuing to be around that person?
That's a great point. I think the best recovery would be to create an OGL that specifically states it is irrevocable for One D&D. That's the agreement we THOUGHT we had before. So I think that would give creators the confidence they need to continue creating.
I hope that no one falls for the fake apology WotC is bound to put out soon enough. They want to make people feel out by going too far then walking ot back slightly to make them seem less scummy.
Also, Pathfinder 2e has no reference to the OGL so at least that's safe.
I was under the impression that it is under the OGL. I'm pretty sure still that it is. Other commenters have corroborated this.
@@ConstructedChaos I think that 1e Pathfinder is, but not 2e. I might be very wrong though, that's just what I've been hearing.
We as the community are not chained to a single corporate overlord. If wotc want to f*uck us, we just go to one of a hundred other rpg systems and have fun there. As a content creator, you should tell people about all the other great systems there are. Roleplaying is NOT only d&d, as some beginners think.
I completely agree. My channel has largely centered around DND content thus far but I'll certainly entertain a pivot should all this go through.
Best thing about this…i found new content creators i can follow.
Thank you sir.
Haha well, welcome to the chaos! Glad to have you along!
Ive been reading and learning about pathfinder 2.0 and it is honestly better. Maybe its time for everyone to switch to Pathfinder 2.0
It’s seems like pathfinder may or may not be adversely affected by this since they do technically use the OGL 1.0 but I guess time will tell.
Seeing that we were headed to 6e I was going to try my hand and writing a setting within the OGL for it. With all of this, trust is lost. No matter what they do at this point another corpo could just reverse the decision the next day. If I do start a project it would not even include the OGL 1.0. I would rather call it 6e compliant and take the legal risk.
It’s such a scary thought at this point. It’s starting to look like system agnostic is the way to go now.
Just writing "compatible with Wizards sucking my sweaty balls" gets the message across
First of all, I am working on my first homebrewed campaign that is taking a lot of effort to built up. There will be new monsters, locations, lore, and more but is using 5E so now I am worried that my hard work can be legally stolen from me.
Second, this happens from time to time. Where we hear something insane like the 25% royalty no matter what if you make profit over a certain amount. This is a haggle that the shop keep would give to a customer in hopes that they'll either accept the insane price or lower it enough to make them think they are getting a deal when in fact they are still over paying it.
My best advice is to boycott WOTC by not buying anything from them. Though, this might not work because the main target isn't us players. The main target are those already established markets like pathfinder and TV shows/podcasts that make a living do what they love. But, my best guess, is that those established markets may lawyer up since this can hamper their markets with this sudden change in OGL. Not sure how fair they can go but it might be a grandfather in effect with their already published ideas and only works to anything that has been created past the new OGL timeframe.
I understand why they didn't want to wait until 6E gets released, but doing it now tells me that they have something pretty unfair for the whole community later down in the line.
I fear you may be right on here.
This new OGL overstepped some serious lines and I suspect they’re going to partially backpedal to earn good will and profit. They can fight me if they want me to adhere to their new OGL
I worry they burned too many bridges in the process. So many people are already talking about just moving on.
@@ConstructedChaos I’m gonna go build my own system, I’ve already got my own classes, races, defense options (replacement to AC) and a few different home brewed magic systems I’ve been working on.
I love D&D… played and dm’ed for nearly 10 years… if I gotta let it burn to build something better… that’s fine… I’ll… I’ll need a minute to gather my composure, but I always wanted something bigger and better so…. Why not make it now as WoTC and Hasbro burns everything down?
Paizo should be fine because PF2 is so far removed from any dnd version, and I doubt they would win in court for "deciding things by a dice roll". The systems are incredibly different, and Golarion (paizo's world) is a completely different place than whatever the official dnd one is called (shows how important wotc material is to me).
I’d be interested to see that play out too. I’d really really love to see paizo adapt pathfinder in a way that makes them untouchable and untethered from dnd completely-even if that meant a 3e
@@ConstructedChaos I mean have you seen 2e? The best you can do is "some stuff is named the same" but everything does different things between games. Combat is a completely different system, and there is zero confusion on what game is what
Somebody get this guy a cushion!
😂😭😭😭
Let me tell you a story: long ago, there was a company named TSR. It made a much beloved game called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but it was greedy and wanted everyone to be at its whim.
One day, they saw a zine from Nottingham which many people enjoyed, who also was friends with a citadel that made miniatures many thought were iconic. They were good at making modules and helping people show their works and everyone who bought it could use it for their D&D games, but never mentioned anything that D&D owned! Nonetheless, TSR in its greed called the zine from Nottingham and said "Hey, you are making money with our stuff! Give it to us!". Many times this has worked and made the small men cower in fear, but not this zine! They were good at making adventures, and had ambitions of their own, and so they replied "We don't think we shall!".
So, they turned around and told their fans that sadly, they would not make modules for D&D, but that a new exciting game would be made, a game they all could play with the miniatures made by the nearby citadel, and so one day they showed it to them, a game where you could replicate your favourite fantasy battle such as the battle for Minas Tirith! And people *loved* it! They loved it so much in fact that the zine from Nottingham grew and grew the more people bought the game, the more they bought the miniature and the zine, and they dedicated all its time and money to make a whole Old World which then died and rose in a new age, and then looked beyond in the stars, into a grim dark galaxy that knows only war. Sadly they also became greedy, but they thrived and all because, without even a licence, they stood up and said no.
Who knows, maybe this time too someone will find a path toward glory.
tl;dr Hasbro's BEST option is the rise of a new Pathfinder, because it may very well create a new Warhammer
Two things to say off the bat here: I’m not a lawyer, and this is in now way a legal analysis… but if indeed the leaked draft is actually the 1.1 OGL that is put into place, it seems very unlikely that it would actually stand up to legal scrutiny in terms of revoking the previous OGL.
The original OGL, and 1.0(a) revision include a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use the content. That contract does not include language that allows them to revoke it, or impose updated conditions on content published under earlier editions. That is the contract you previously agreed to and they cannot use language in a later contract you are not yet bound by to affect the language of a contract previously formed.
In that case, for example, you and I could form a contract for me to buy a house. We could sign all the paperwork, exchange keys, and cash, and then later, you could unilaterally write a new contract that says “this contract is a revision of the old contract which is no longer in force and actually, the house still belongs to me, but I don’t have to give you the money back”.
It is true, the previous OGL includes a clause that grants WOTC the right to modify the terms of the license - which, without sounding too callous here, was ALWAYS something we knew was possible, and something publishers explicitly agreed to when they chose to publish under the previous OGL, everyone agreed to a condition your dad specifically told you to be concerned about - however, both the language of the contract, and the way it has been previously interpreted and applied by WOTC indicate that previous versions of the OGL will remain valid and authorized, for content originally published under them, in addition to the freedom to update to a newer version to get access to newer OGL licensed content.
The way it is written means it doesn’t seem that they would actually be able to enforce the terms of the updated license on content published under a previous one.
The clause “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” seems to cover, for example, you including some content from a source published under a 1.0 or 1.0(a) license in your new product published under the 1.1 license, but doesn’t seem to work the other way - they can’t take 1.0 licensed content and impose 1.1 terms on it.
The language of “unauthorized” does, I think, clearly indicate that you cannot use any content 1.1 licensed content in products published under a 1.0 or 1.0(a) license - ie, you can’t incorporate any of the changes introduced in OneDND or the new SRD, nor anything that comes from publishers that have chosen to publish new content under a 1.1 license - in your new work and still publish it under a 1.0 or 1.0(a) license, but I do not think it gives them the ability to prevent publishers from incorporating, editing, modifying, or including any content published under a previous version of the OGL in their own work published under the same terms. IE, if you only include 1.0 or 1.0(a) licensed content in your work, I don’t see any way they can prevent you from publishing under the same terms.
Also, it’s worth saying, vast majority of the protections WOTC would have are relatively weak.
In general, you cannot copyright: the mechanical system (eg, rolling dice to determine outcomes), concepts - including classes like fighter, wizard, rogue, etc: races and enemies like elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, dragons, etc: abilities like spellcasting, levels, feats, etc. - and other broad elements like vaguely medieval high fantasy settings, guilds, adventure parties, dungeons, etc.
These things are too broad or generic to receive copyright or other IP protection, and mechanics are specifically excluded from any copyright protection under Baker v. Selden.
What is protected are the specific expression of those ideas, in addition to certain elements of “trade dress”.
So, even if the OGL was to go away completely, (or even if I simply don’t want to use it) I could write content that is 100% compatible with any version of DND, or any other game system for that matter, as long as I steer clear of a few things.
As long as I don’t copy any of their specific wording or descriptions, and avoid using their trade dress, I can almost certainly
publish fully compatible content under any license I choose, including an open document license, Creative Commons licence, or full copyright license, and they couldn’t stop me.
Their IP protections really only extend to those sufficiently unique elements that set apart, for example, a DND elf from those that are common to the broader fantasy genre, the specific distinctive features of the DND version of a particular monster that sufficiently and significantly diverge from their general representation, or unique monsters and settings created specifically for the DND universe such as the setting of the Forgotten Realms or the Beholder as a monster. As long as I don’t infringe specifically on their trade dress, or their specific copyrightable expressions of the underlying concepts (the wording, artwork, unique design elements), or their trademarks, everything else is really not “protectable” for them anyway.
The OGL simplifies things significantly, by allowing creators to copy and paste content, and use WOTC’s unique trade dress, but wouldn’t stop someone like, for example, Piezo, from continuing to publish new editions of Pathfinder without the OGL at all.
They have already gone to lengths to rewrite any WOTC content, and remove their trade dress from the pathfinder system, and the only reason they continue to publish under the OGL is as a measure of protection for publishers, so that they can more easily “port” dnd content to Pathfinder, or vice versa, or even just cover third party publishers who grew up on DND, and continue to intentionally or unintentionally slip “DNDisms” into their pathfinder modules without worrying about the legal ramifications for them. But the OGL is not, in any way, a prerequisite for publishing third party content that is compatible with DND, pathfinder, or any other system. To be sure, if the 1.1 update is truly as problematic as some assume, then there will certainly be a few headaches while people remove any last vestiges of WOTC trade dress or copyrighted expressions, but they absolutely would not ultimately be able to prevent third party publishers from continuing to publish mechanically compatible content for any current or previous version of their product.
As I understand it, the key word we would need is "irrevocable" as documents such as this are "revocable" by default. Apparently, "perpetual" only means that it has no specified expiration date.
@@ConstructedChaos not exactly. Perpetual means “no fixed or ANTICIPATED end date”, but you are right, it does, in some circumstances mean it can still be revoked. The obvious reason this would be the case would be a breach of terms, which the OGL contains specific language about… you have a perpetual license, but lose that if you breach the terms. You would rarely want to use language of “irrevocable” in a contract like this, because, arguably that would mean you could never revoke those rights, even in the event of a breach of contract.
It is also true, courts have occasionally found that perpetual licenses can be withdrawn more broadly in some other specific cases, but none of those seem to apply here. The other usual reason a license can be withdrawn is if it was either made under some false pretences, or if there is no quid pro quo - that is the license issuer ends up receiving no benefit from the licensee in exchange for the license. Examples of this would be things like if the licensee is granted a license based on a particular use case but materially misrepresents what they intend to use it for, and end up using it for some other reason, or if they grant a license, for example, to give you a perpetual license to use their product in exchange for the some specific and articulable benefit that never materializes. In those cases, courts may rule that the license may be revoked.
But none of those cases seem to apply here. Key language is “in consideration of…” this means, in contract law, the benefit and detriment both parties agree to in exchange for the contractual promises. Since they wrote the contract - and as a general principle, in contract law, the benefit of any uncertainty usually falls in favour of the licensee, and against the person who wrote it, since the contract writer had the ability to clarify anything in their favour if they wanted to- and included language clear consideration by both parties, and have received clear benefit as a result - it would be impossible to argue that the wealth of third party OGL licensed content hasn’t grown their brand and increased the appeal of, and appetite for their core product - and the OHL was not granted with any implicit or explicit assumptions about how it would be used which are now being transgressed, it would be functionally impossible to argue they can withdraw it now.
There is also the fact that individuals and companies have made specific decisions based on the language of the contract, and WOTC’s past interpretation of it. The terms of the contract are much harder to renege on in the case of it being a license in active use, than when compared to a hypothetical or theoretical one. If they had published 1.0, immediately regretted it, and updated it to 1.1 before anyone had chance to use that version, their argument would perhaps hold a little more water, than if it hadn’t been in use for 20+ years.
Finally, it’s wort saying, we are reading into this intentions that may not be there. We are assuming that the language of “no longer authorized” is there to try and revoke 1.0 and 1.0a. I truly don’t think this is the case at all.
There is a clause in 1.0 and 1.0(a) that says “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.” As written, this would have meant, you could have used 1.1 licensed content and “backport” it into products published under 1.0 or 1.0(a).
By including language in 1.1 that says earlier versions are no longer authorized, it removes that possibility. Any content released with a 1.1 licence can only be reproduced, republished, modified, or incorporated into content also published under 1.1. That appears to be the explicit and implicit intent of this language.
It does not revoke 1.0 or 1.0(a) in and of themselves, or prevent 1.0 or 1.0(a) content from continuing to be used under those terms. And until, and unless we see WOTC suing people for using 1.0 after 1.1 is published, I’m not sure I’m willing to guess at their intentions based on a leaked draft of a document we aren’t even sure is it’s final form.
The flexibility and free use aspects definitely need to be fixed but I don't really see the real problem with 25% of anything over $750,000.
They seemingly don't take much before that(he likely would've mentioned it if it was a problem). Meaning that you're freely making nearly 3/4 of a million dollars using their product as a base before they start taking any large amount.
Problem is that it's on revenue and not profit. Unless you run on huge margins you could easily be hit with a half million dollar bill from hasbro after making little more than that in profit.
I see where you’re coming from and I felt similarly until I realized that 25% at any point is too much. If a company ran a kickstarter and got flooded with $2M of orders, they may not have been prepared to pay WOTC over $300K on top of their production costs, the costs of crowdfunding, etc.
This stuff scales in weird ways behind the scenes. Your expenses don’t just magically cut off at $750K, sadly.
@@JoeSmith-oy3hk lol you either need to go take some math lessons or stop talking about extremes. Hasbro/Wizards would only be able to hit you with an half a million dollar bill if you made 2.75 million dollars off of their OGL alone. Good luck doing that.
Except for the part that says they can change that amount at any time.
Or the fact that they can claim 100% of your work as their own then revoke your origional work from further distribution.
Also to you .. me ya 750k is a lot of money .today .... but inflation catches quick.
but remember that 25% is not Net profit its Gross.
For a company like Kobald press that could be the difference between staying in business.
Also the freezing effect this will have you would be mad to engage with DnD after this knowing they could take all your work in an instant.
@@ConstructedChaos I may be wrong here because I can't really find anything confirming or denying it but as a Canadian, I don't think I've ever heard of someone including donations received in name of another company being counted as Gross Income. That just doesn't make any sense at all either.
I left DND for a long time over this. I’m happy to leave them again.
Seems like a lot of people share that sentiment. The dark ages may yet be upon us again.
How much should we push back? To their doorstep, WotC has become increasingly complacent and this new OGL would remove any incentive for them to produce anything but the bare minimum. Without the OGL allowing for the rise of a serious competitor 5e would likely not be as dynamic as it is. They were all in on 4e until Pathfinder came in and kicked its teeth in.
I'm starting to agree as I have more time to sit with my thoughts on this.
When I heard it was going to be called one D&D a direct reference to the One Ring of Sauron I knew that they were going to pull this I think the developers pitched the name one D&D because all of the profit engineering from the corporates was the thing they were trying to warn us about
Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?
This is more than sad, D & D is such an imagination inspiring game, in many ways the best game ever.
Now the corpos that own the title are abusing the fan base. Abhorrent
I couldn’t agree more but I’m holding out hope for this to get rolled back. It doesn’t have to be this way if they see what they did was a mistake-assuming the leak is even real!
@@ConstructedChaos boycotts aren't respected anymore. Doubt they will go back on this, unless they seriously made a legal mistake that opens up class action lawsuits.
Hasbro is a big corp. They want a huge, growing, revenue stream. They know DnD is more popular now than it's ever been. They haven't put out much good content in the last couple of years, nothing compelling.
It sounds to me like they are gonna put out even less content, and just feed off royalties from content creators.
It's sad because I think the same amount of revenue increase could have been obtained by going in the opposite direction. Now they'll probably lose money in the long run.
I think the "lets play Pathfinder then" might not be a bad choice either way, Paizo has a strong incentive to fight for the OGL, and after this leak... I find it very hard to trust Wizards.
I do honestly think Paizo stands to gain a lot here and could come out on top.
WotC caving is NOT a resolution. The document being a trial balloon is not good. They have announced that they WANT To do these things, so if you continue to work within an OGL with them you are a fool unless they release a 1.0B that simply takes the 1.0A and adds ONLY provisions that make it irrevocable and unable to be unauthorized.
I also agree that I won’t be 100% happy at this point unless they walk it back.
The only OGL worth settling for is an OGL with minimal changes, With the only conceivable exceptions to me being prohibition of third parties making D&D NFTs, and downright plagiarizing and pirating content.
...either way, I'm... I'm done supporting WotC and, moreso Hasbro, until come a day they own up to their mistakes and show genuine attempts to ammend them...
...not that I have much faith that'll ever happen but never say never. I sense these big corporations would rather go bankrupt than admit they're wrong.
Hasbro especially, yes. I would love for WOTC to stick to what they said they wanted originally-just a slight refresh of the old OGL.
Well, yes, public corporations might rather go bankrupt - because the CEOs will still make money and they'll just go to the next company.
As per usual, you don't need the OGL if you don't use any of the SRD for your publication or TM or copyright matérial. For the other creators, just use other rules sets (like any OSR games like old school essential or even homebrew).
I think the challenge in the past has been getting the mass adoption creators might strive for without having something that screams “made for 5e” on the cover.
@@ConstructedChaos Well, you can still put, Made for 5e. Not d&d 5e. But you can write 5e. Like the Neverland settings
Most people probably don't even know what falls under the OGL currently. I think that's why there is such a reaction. They hear OGL issues and think that ends all possible dnd system related materials. Everyone treats it as if your product even smells like a DnD product then all the money you've ever made just gets cut by Wizards. If you look at the stipulations, even crowdfunding over $750,000 may not qualify due to the people giving the money having to receive a product based on the OGL. Any money from donators that didn't receive OGL based products is not counted toward the applicable total.
After seeing the issues going on in mtg, I'm not surprised that this is happening. Ever since Hasbro got their hands on wotc their IP's have really gone downwards.
Absolutely. Hasbro seems to be slowly poisoning the waters until now--when they just dumped all their greed and hatred into it.
I only know of 2 shills that seem to be okay with this XD
One of them claimed Hasbro already backed down. But I've not seen the update yet if any.
I assume Hasbro, even if they did pull back on the new OGL and opted to not.
They would likely still just do it under the table.
Because the Hasbro CEO openly said they want to monetize D&D more... There is no way for them to do that without forcing people into their new microtransacrion ladden hell hole they intend to build.
They can't do that without a game licence that lets them actively steal your ideas, shut down platforms that let you play any suggestion of the game, and collectivize it like TSR wishes they could have.
Interesting. I haven't seen a single internet personality openly admit that they're okay with this.
I think this is the playtest ogl. Jokes aside, what the ogl specifies about taking your product or revoking the previous ogl is absolutely illegal. We should also take so called “leaks” with a grain of salt.
Revoking the old OGL is actually not illegal. The documents specific verbiage apparently implies in legal jargon only that it has no specific expiration date. If a legal document does not specify that it is irrevocable, then it is revocable by default.
Couldn’t agree more on taking leaks with a grain of salt, though. I’ve been waiting for a while before even considering making this video and I still made sure to consistently remind viewers that it isn’t exactly 100% confirmed.
@@ConstructedChaos I don't think this would necessarily hold up in court, this line of reasoning seems very flimsy and not at all in line with general legal principles for how contracts work. I think they'd be taking an awful risk if say Paizo took them to court over this.
@@ConstructedChaos No, it's not revokable. In paragraph 4 it says:
"In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a _perpetual_ , worldwide, royalty-‐‑free, non-‐‑ exclusive license" (emphasis mine)
The problem is this:
"9. 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." (emphasis mine)
So if they can 'deauthorize' the older version, you won't be able to publish anything new under the old license.
@@harmless6813 perpetual does not mean irrevocable, which is why in the new language that flips everything around from protecting your right to giving wotc the rights says both perpetual AND irrevocable while the original only says perpetual.
@@michaelmaguire4147 "perpetual does not mean irrevocable"
Huh? What else is it supposed to mean?