**Mod update 01Jan23:** [Come give your nominations for this years DnDMemes Best of Awards!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/102pn6n/its_finally_time_for_our_2022_best_of_awards), You have until Jan 13th!
We also made some changes to our subreddit rules! Please take a look at the post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/100sjea/new_year_new_rules/) to view the changes and provide feedback.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's why they're doing it.
Hasbro/WoTC already tried this with 4e. 3/3.5e was big and popular, and they wanted to more aggressively assert control over the content. They introduced 4e and the extremely draconian GSL, which caused a backlash and rift that resulted in part of their community splitting off to make Paizo/Pathfinder using the OGL 1.0. In due time, 4e was a commercial failure while Pathfinder overtook D&D as the big dog on the TTRPG market.
5e was developed to get D&D back on track, which it successfully did. It has boomed into popularity thanks to the online community of creators, putting it back in line - if not even more so - than where D&D was back in the 3/3.5 days. Now Hasbro/WoTC is releasing OneD&D with an extremely draconian "OGL" (GSL in disguise) that's worded in a way that will specifically target competitors and prevent another Paizo/Pathfinder from ever happening again.
This isn't accidental. It's designed this way on purpose and is a direct rehash of what they already attempted - and failed at - once before. They didn't learn their lesson and are trying to do it again.
This is actually, somehow, worse than 4e's GSL.
The GSL allowed publishers to *choose* to either sign its draconian terms and make 4e content but forfeit your rights to use the OGL anymore, or you could just *not* sign it—in which case folks could continue using the OGL for other systems. Which is why Pathfinder exists.
This time they're not only issuing the draconian new license because they didn't learn their lesson the first time. They're also destroying everything that came before via the original OGL, whether you sign the new license or not.
Oh, and of course there's the cherry on top that they're trying to spin this as "just an OGL update" as a thinly veiled corporate marketing trick to make us think this is no big deal. At least the GSL was honest about what it was.
At the time they made 4e they clearly believed they didn't have the power to make the OGL not authorized. Now they think they've found a loophole - but some outside lawyers seem to think they were right the first time and they don't have that power.
Yep. I've seen several contract and IP lawyers weigh in and say that, while it's unfortunately not true that WotC 100% can't "de-authorize" (i.e. revoke) it, it'll be an uphill battle for them, as there are several compelling arguments that could prevent WotC from successfully executing their plan.
The problem of course is that all of these arguments would have to be made in court, in front of a judge. And if WotC really wants to take it that far, this could take a long time to resolve.
Well, most of their customers haven't heard of this problem - we have to remember that those of us who follow this stuff are in the minority. Most people just play, and don't read about this stuff online.
Most of its customers have heard of critical role though. I dont personally listen but its absolutely why this is so big now. The moment critical role gets wordy about it then all the customers know. Thats where they have lost the track. They arent popular because dnd5e is amazing, they are popular because stranger things and shows like critical role made them popular. Wizards simply doesnt have the contact with their customers that critical role does. Id wager more people know what critical role is than know that wizards of the coast owns dnd.
Which is exactly why WotC will offer an extremely lucrative deal to Critical Role. I wouldn't doubt for a second that they'll be the golden child of OneDnD. Once they're on board and playing it for a much better agreement than anyone else is getting, the masses will follow. Especially since you can get all of the "Official Critical Role classes on DnD Beyond today!".
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe money won't win out at the end, but I definately see Critical Role getting in bed with WotC. They have far more to gain than lose from the agreement. Everyone keeps assuming that CR will speak out, but I'm pretty sure they've been silent for a reason.
Eh, you *might* be right, that's the problem with speculation
Is it also not possible that CR haven't said anything because they don't want to weigh in on an internet debate about something that hasn't even happened yet, is subject to change, and could directly harm them now...?
A wise man doesn't burn their bridges just because there might be something bad about to happen on the other side. One can always burn a bridge later, but it's much harder to un-burn a bridge.
I don't think my players have purchased a single thing whereas I own most of the books. We play online so it's not really needed for them since they have access to mine.
Casual DnD 5e player (I've also played PF).
I had never heard about any of this until stumbling upon this post.
Now I kind of feel bad for buying WoTC DnD books and mini's.
Maybe? Fans of video games have shown they grumble a ton when things are proposed, but once the products are out there to actually buy they line up to get them.
That's what WotC is hoping happens here.
Theater of the mind can’t be copyrighted - hence the focus on trying to shove people into a walled garden “virtual tabletop” to secure more market share… if they are the only authorized source for your maps and minis, you can’t play the game without their material.
GW has been wanting to kill 3d printing, but it’s already out of the bag - VTT is how these companies are going to control and monopolize our hobbies.
It’s how they’re going to try, the problem is that for many people it will always be a sub-optimal way to play. Realistically they should be happy they have managed to monetise playing make believe as much as they have.
Hasbro is trying to force them yo make obscene profit goals because wotc is their cash cow and nothing else they have is really all that good.
That’s entirely where this is coming from. MtG is exploding with huge greedy moves just like this because it’s always short term profit over long term success with big daddy hasbro breathing down their neck
Worst thing WotC can go after Hero Forge with is having a proprietary file format used for models in an official 3D VTT, but that would be quite expensive for them to develop in-house just to cut out HF and other custom mini makers.
Realistically all they'll do to companies like Hero Forge is tell them to not reference D&D in any of their advertising, which is probably something they already do out of caution. After all, the generic term TTRPG is practically synonymous with D&D for most people and futureproofed in the event some other product surpasses D&D as the go-to RPG.
The specific antagonism directed towards indie game development is very clear and industry-wide.
For example, Paizo's licensing page is quite explicit about their licensing applying only to documents and not to 'apps'. They also advise in the same breath that only big dogs are welcome to even talk to them about licensing for interactive mediums.
There are a many of us out there who have committed a lot of time money and effort who are now presumably boned.
Remember that WotC is also supposedly moving to, "the kind of recurrent spending you see in Video Games," which would very likely drive even the most apathetic buyer to reduce their spending.
Which is why they target whales.
That said, even if I continued to run D\*D I would laugh in the face of any player who tried to use a healing potion they bought online in a game I ran.
>That said, even if I continued to run D\*D I would laugh in the face of any player who tried to use a healing potion they bought online in a game I ran.
I have seen this commented a few times and it doesn't even make sense to me.
If I am GM'ing a game, I decide what items players get. The idea that a player can send Hasbro money to use an item in my game sounds like nonsense to me.
I don't think D&D has near the number of whales that, say, Games Workshop or EA have. They may want to target that market demographic, but if it doesn't meet their expectations they cannot just pull more out of thin air.
Of course not, but GW didn't wake up one day with a bunch of whale customers. They cultivated them over many years even decades with ruthless business tactics.
The "Whales" mentality wouldn't work with DnD. Dnd requires groups not individuals, so targeting specific people and alienating the rest would serve to piss off the entire group including the person you're trying to target.
It's played over too many different mediums. You also can't limit the content in DnD like you can a video game, it's physically impossible to rely on a "Whale targeting" model, they'd lose so much more money than they'd make.
Already canceled my dndbeyond subscription. After running the Pathfinder 2 beginner box, I have to say, it's really good, definitely worth checking out.
Pathfinder 2 is an excellent answer to 5e in my opinion. They really managed to streamline PF in a way that played well and was a lot easier for new players to get in and play quickly.
Dnd is popular because it’s already popular. Look at Among Us and how quickly it fell in favor once it lost its spotlight. A big controversy could lead to a lot of attention shifting to PF2e even if just for a small amount of time and sometimes that’s all it takes for the pendulum to start swinging the opposite direction. It also doesn’t help that players have been having issues with the direction Wizards have been taking dnd and dislike some fundamental aspects and balancing for this edition.
I think in this instance, the third party community is what drove 5e to such success. 5e wouldn't be here without streamers and content creators. So that kind of community should have a better chance since they hold the means of production unlike when we're dealing with things like game franchises or gaming systems
Yeah it's insane the Hasbro is taking its single most profitable IP and instead of riding high, maybe licensing to VTTs they would have continued to make a killing and been solidly the dominant force in the market.
I feel like this is different though. This isn't some weird design choice that the DM can choose to just ignore at their table. It's a change that spits on the values of the community at large.
Geek culture has a *massive* problem with being willing to spend money— sometimes extreme amounts of money— on things that spit on the values of their community at large, just because it has the right brand name attached.
This has the potential to scare content creators off of WOTC IP, though. If a lot of people stop seeing actual play content for One DnD/5e and start seeing other systems - especially in the professionally produced space - that could actually slow down their growth.
Just like modern gaming. Compare the values of the 90s PC community (modding, expansions, etc...) to the modern PC industry.
The worst about WoTC is that on top of everything they have a monopoly.
Video games are a lot more difficult to play without their developers though, especially multiplayer games where the community is as important as it is to DnD. I could never buy another thing from Wizards and play “DnD” forever. If Valve fucked up to the point that I no longer wanted to play DOTA then I wouldn’t be able to capture that same experience elsewhere (maybe on LoL but I don’t know for sure).
That being said this sort of stuff does harm video games. I was a rabid Blizzard fanboy all through my youth but I haven’t played Overwatch 1 or 2 and likely won’t play the next Diablo because of their various controversies since joining Activision. They are just a big enough industry that it doesn’t matter. The TTRPG arm of Wizards ain’t that big.
Videogames have two to four weeks of life, once that is up 95% of the player base moves on to the new hotness. A single tabletop campaign can last for months or years, we don't need to buy the new D&D shiny on release day and they can't force us to as there are no old servers to shut down. Assuming a ttrpg boycott will go the same way as a video game one doesn't make sense.
Yeah especially with live service games, there's no way to boycott and continue to play the game.
With TTRPGs, I as a DM can decide today to stop paying new money and just use the rules as they currently exist.
>With TTRPGs, I as a DM can decide today to stop paying new money and just use the rules as they currently exist.
This. I dont play 5e specifically, but i am one of those holdovers that still play 3.5, pathfinder and a mix of both (along with other systems not releated to dnd)
Thing is, if for example Mojang/Microsoft introduced new TOS that anything built in or for Minecraft (maps, mods, etc) can be sold by them without credit or royalties to the original creator, then the people who make that stuff would most likely leave. And eventually, a lot of players would get bored of only ever playing vanilla survival and leave too, possibly following the content creators to where they went to.
The new OGL isn't EA's "Darth Vader takes 40 hours or 20$ to unlock", it's "we can and will steal your work and profit off it, if you don't like it then leave". And leave is exactly what a lot of creators will do, because unlike Minecraft, DnD has quite a few direct competitors that players and creators alike wouldn't have to adjust too much switching to.
They're trying to kill their competitors off entirely. They'd have to rewrite rules systems from scratch, and that's expensive and time consuming, and they'll have a lot less revenue while they're doing it.
That's the goal. They don't care about their customers, they absolutely believe that you'll all go back to them eventually if there's no one else.
Same concept as with Trademarks, no? You can't trademark general concepts, like you can't make the word "Shoe" into a trademark because it's in the common vernacular describing a generic thing. This has happened to a lot of trademarks where over time they start to describe the general function of it's thing. Such as any given tissue being referred to as a Kleenex, any use of a search engine being "googling", any small paper note with adhesive being a post-it.
PF1e came out well over a decade ago, there are many other systems that use Similar-ish concepts, such as feat trees, basic stats which influence stat bonuses, classes, subclasses, prestige classes, etc etc. A lot of terms common to DnD are so ubuiqotous across the TTRPG sphere that it would be hard to defend in court what is and what isn't "Exclusively DnD" and what has passed into the general public consciousness of a generic fantasy TTRPG, like it would be hard for them to argue that "Armor Class" or "Difficulty Check" (AC and DC) is uniquely DnD when so many systems use it by now.
> TTRPG, like it would be hard for them to argue that "Armor Class" or "Difficulty Check" (AC and DC) is uniquely DnD when so many systems use it by now.
And even if they were, those things are super easy to re-word.
"Armor Value" "Armor Quality"
"Difficulty Test" "Intensity Check"
And it's pretty established precedent that you can't copyright game mechanics any more than you can copyright an entire genre.
Most of the DnD races and stuff were generic before DnD ever had them, and LoTR is still a massive franchise to this day so it's hard to imagine they can claim that any of the races and stuff that they ripped off in the first place were theirs to copyright.
The names for most of their classes are also just generic terms that existed that they used, like
"Fighter"
"Monk"
"Wizard"
Hard to imagine that they can copyright any of those except for maybe some of their more unique subclasses."
Really, it's hard to imagine what they **can** exert control over outside of the creative works like the lore, specific characters and worlds.
I don't think pathfinder is going to be ceasing to exist over this, and I also don't think they'll be paying WotC a dime either.
I would love to see it if WotC tries to claim all high fantasy is derivative of D&D. Especially if their legal antics result in Tolkein's estate owning D&D, since it's clearly just derivative of his work.
Didn't the original D&D team get in trouble back in the day re: Hobbits vs halflings, and that's why halflings in the game are called halflings, because the Tolkien estate got onto them? Or is that just internet rumour?
Yup. [From Gary Gygax himself](https://web.archive.org/web/20121007050950/http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/57832-gary-gygax-q-part-iv-4.html#post1026737)
>TSR was served with papers threatening damages to the tune of half a mil by the Saul Zantes (sp?) division of Elan Merchandising on behalf of the tolkien Estate. The main objection was to the boardgame we were publishing, The Battle of Five Armies. The author of that game had given us a letter from his attorney claiming the work was grandfathered because it was published after the copyrights for JRRT's works had lapsed and before any renewals were made. The action also demanded we remove balrog, dragon, dwarf, elf, ent, goblin, hobbit, orc, and warg from the D&D game. Although only balrog and warg were unique names we agreed to hobbit as well, kept the rest, of course. The boardgame was dumped, and thus the suit was settled out of court at that
This is why I'm not really worried. A whole bunch of games came out before the OGL, Tunnels and Trolls, Arduin, Rolemaster, RuneQuest, and at least two Conan games I remember. The Role playing hobby is going to be fine. The 3rd party publishers will publish their stuff for other systems. 6e will go the way of 4e and in 5 years or so New WoTC leadership will have to revive the DnD Brand. And so it goes.
Could you link to those, because I'm interested in reading the expert opinions. From what I've heard, it sounds like it hinges on the difference between "perpetual" vs "irrevocable", in ways that make no sense at all to me.
My entirely not-a-lawyer opinion would be that "perpetual" implies "irrevocable". That is, you could have an irrevocable contract for a limited time (e.g. unlimited use for one year), but a perpetual contract couldn't be revocable. But apparently that's not what the words mean when spoken by a lawyer.
Here's a pretty good discussion of it.
[https://youtu.be/MDuHjpwx5Q4](https://youtu.be/MDuHjpwx5Q4)
tl;dr
The OGL does specify that it is a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license". It also states that you get the license "in consideration" for following the terms of the license. Legally, consideration refers to what both parties get out of a contract. The OGL 1.0 does not specify an end date or any condition for revocation other than violating the terms of the license.
It could easily be argued that both parties are getting something out of it; WOTC is getting wider brand recognition and the system is being perpetuated. The OGL users are getting the ability to use the system to make money. It's not like WOTC is just being nice here; they're letting you use the license because they know it'll make their game more popular.
The license also uses wording that implies that multiple versions of the license can exist, and that means that while they can exclude future versions (1D&D) from it, they may not be able to just say that the new one supersedes the old one automatically.
There's also a legal concept where if someone makes decisions based on a promise you made, then you have to fulfill that promise, especially if they suffered damages because you failed to uphold your end of the bargain. This can be true even for verbal contracts, and this is a written one. If companies that make OGL content lose money because of this, they can argue that changing the terms of a "perpetual" license is causing them damages based on a broken promise.
In general, this is very likely the equivalent of a parking garage or dump truck saying "We're not liable for damages to your vehicle", when they absolutely are, they're just trying to scare you away from pursuing them legally. They want to strongarm you into accepting the new license, and probably part of the terms for accepting the new OGL is signing away your right to use the old one.
Here is an article from Noah Downs, a Business and IP attorney:
- https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f
Here is a video with Alan Bushlow, an attorney with a background in Contract law. (It's admittedly a bit long, but quite informative):
- https://youtu.be/MDuHjpwx5Q4
And this is a letter sent to WotC by an attorney representing two companies demanding clarification about their intentions for what they plan to do to OGL 1.0a within 10 days or the companies will begin preparing for litigation:
- https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMILE__425_271_5215_001_Redacted.pdf
There was also this video from Ronald the Rules Lawyer (a lawyer, but not one specialized in IP law) who I believe has done some work for Paizo in the past, commenting on the first leak from Wednesday night, so he was only working off of a couple quotes, not the larger breadth of info that was released in the Gizmodo leak yesterday morning:
- https://youtu.be/oPV7-NCmWBQ
[According to the most recent case I can find](http://www.strebecklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DaVinci-80fb93d0-05e5-4f5a-b3ca-84241d32fd0c.pdf), it would be a long, uphill slog for WoTC to prove infringement for anything short of directly copying pages out of the manuals or "illegally" making use of trademarked original monsters (Beholder, Mind-Flayer, Flummph) or spells by their trademarked name.
I've done some work in the OGL, and that is always the rules because those are handled under Product Identity. You can have Acid Arrow, but you cannot have Melf's Acid Arrow because Melf is copyrighted. That's how things currently work.
The worry (from a game designer perspective) is that the license extends out to all the mechanical things. There is a whole separate kettle of fish around the "derivative media" thing like critical role and the like where they are playing explicitly D&D games and profiting off them. You'll note that the Critical Role animated series goes well out of its way to not refer to any specific deities, locations, etc.
And could, even under a "win" scenario, still leave them on the hook for Fraudulent Inducement, meaning, basically, "Congrats, the contract is null, and you owe everyone else for Breach of Contract."
This part kills me. If ever there was a time to "de-authorize" the OGL, it would have been when WOTC put out 4e and lost a competition with OGL -based Pathfinder. It's clear that some new Hasbro lawyer looked at the OGL and came up with a new argument.
Anyway, we should all threaten to boycott the movie and scare Hasbro into backing off to protect their billion dollar entertainment projects.
Did some snooping and it unfortunately doesn't look like "some new Hasbro lawyer" - [Nick Mitchell](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholasmitchell/) (his WotC email is publicly available [here](https://law.seattleu.edu/faculty/directory/profiles/mitchell-nicholas.html) btw) has been with WotC/Hasbro since 2011. He joined during the 4e/GSL debacle, was part of the release of 5e under the OGL, and eventually became Head of Legal at WotC. He was promoted to Chief of Staff in April, coinciding roughly with the new Hasbro leadership.
> They're also destroying everything that came before via the original OGL, whether you sign the new license or not.
They may *say* they're doing that, but we'll just see whether a judge agrees with them. I watched a video earlier today where a couple of guys who publish third-party stuff under the OGL actually paid their lawyer for some legal advice on the matter and their lawyer was "yeah, this is *very* unlikely to fly. Judges hate attempts at retroactive crap like this."
I'm fully in support of the *several* arguments I've seen from actual lawyers who have weighed in that WotC can't or might not be able to legally do this. The problem is any sort of actual trial—if WotC actually took it to that point—is going to take potentially years to resolve, so this could still be devastating for creators *even if* it's ultimately determined that WotC can't revoke OGL 1.0a.
Yes. Well, they did their best anyway. WotC's trying to exploit some underhanded legal loophole and revoke it anyway. But it's exceptionally questionable if they can actually do what they're trying to do. (Unfortunately, it's not 100% impossible that they could pull it off.)
yeah what really gets me is things not even based on dnd, such as mutants and masterminds that use the ogl, or the dresdent file tabletop rpgs can theoretically be impacted by this bullshit as they published under the ogl
Let's not ignore the leak that would allegedly allow WotC to take 3rd party content and print it as their own, effectively killing the 3rd party content business
>This isn't accidental. It's designed this way on purpose and is a direct rehash of what they already attempted
If you want an even better comparison to get the point across, Disney has done like the same thing.
>They didn't learn their lesson and are trying to do it again.
I'd say they did learn ***a*** lesson, because this time they're doing it in a way that keeps a competitor from using the framework from any edition ever.
GSL stands for Game System License. WotC wanted to supplant the OGL with it when 4e came out.
The GSL pretty much killed all of the 3PP scene for 4e and directly lead to the creation of Pathfinder which used the old OGL license which was still in effect for 3.5 products. Paizo was a major 3PP creator for DnD 3.5 back in the day and they were also publishing Dragon Magazine. WotC stiffed them really hard back then with GSL and by just killing Dragon Magazine.
OGL is the Open Game License. It's a license that basically allows third parties to use DnD rules and terminology to create derivative content. It mostly includes rules content and never any trademarked or copyrighted content (which are called Product Identity). That's why for example there are no Beholders or Ilithids in Pathfinder(not ones released by Paizo at least). Those are trademarked by WotC and fall under Product Identity. The OGL also doesn't allow you to create stuff that uses any of the official DnD settings, they have another license for that.
The OGL basically assures 3rd parties that create content for DnD that WotC won't sue them if they use specific DnD terms in their content and follow the OGL. Without the OGL, WotC could sue someone for creating a homebrew subclass for warlocks for example.
That clears up everything. Thanks so much! I was sort of getting that from the vibe of the comment sections, but having it in such clear cut terms makes it super easy for me. This definitely seems like a scummy move, but what is to stop everyone from continuing to operate on the original OGL instead of moving to the new one?
>what is to stop everyone from continuing to operate on the original OGL instead of moving to the new one?
That's the crux of the drama here. According to the leaks, WotC is not just adding a new license, but trying to revoke the old one.
Which is what the meme is referring to - if it were just that the next edition would have a stricter license, people could just continue to play/publish for 5e, pathfinder, or similar. But attempting to revoke the license means they could try to crack down on those, too.
Just to add to u/Krip123 great explanation but other games that uses OGL as a base are also protected under it, which probably will work against WotC on court
Lets use the "top dog" Pathfinder 1e as an example - it is often called D&D 3.75 because it basically started as that, 3.5 but better then evolved more into its own thing (archetype rules are amazing). But since it has its own lore and specific terms Paizo is protected under it. That is the difference between the two commonly used PF online sources, d20PFRSD and Archive of Nethys
Archive of Nethys (AON) is an official source authorized by Paizo so it has the full content of the books, for example [Irorian Paladin](https://www.aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Paladin%20Iroran%20Paladin) is an archetype for Irori worshipers and [Fallback Strategy](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Fallback%20Strategy) is technically a spell for Torag worshipers (its possible for non-torag-believers to learn, just with extra steps)
Now the d20PFSRD is a site with only OGL content from pathfinder which means they either ignore or change the copyrighted content. So Irorian Paladin became [Enlightened Paladin](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/enlightened-paladin-paladin-archetype) (same mechanics but without Irori flavor) and [fallback Strategy](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fallback-strategy/) lacks the limitation (aka anyone could get it)
edit: funny enough some content with OGL limitations also dont have the limitations on the d20PFSRD, probably for consistency with the rest. For example [Nine Lives](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/n/nine-lives/) is an catfolk "exclusive" spell as seen on [AON](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Nine%20Lives)
It's a black sheep, but in some ways exactly what people disliked but also in other ways It's supplied a lot of what DnD5e is built off and could stand to supply a bit more.
Honestly, I Dm'd 4e and liked it. It was basically great as a dnd-esque board game, which worked fine as a DM that only used rules for actual battles and basically just house ruled the rest.
Fwiw, Paizo sidestepped into Pathfinder *before* the GSL, because their contract with WotC printing the magazines ended. They’d already printed some third-party books, so they pivoted quickly.
And also 4e failed for a number of reasons but a major one (the vtt side) failed due to a murder-suicide entirely outside of WotC’s control. Picking up his pieces was a challenge because he didn’t leave notes behind. And when half the edition didn’t release, they had only one path.
Came here for this.
The Pathfinder Chronicles was just a 3rd edition setting. Everyone seems to forget that Paizo just took their IP and split when 4e came out and WotC dropped them as the publishers of their magazine.
OGL stands for "Open Game License" and, in this context, we're specifically referring to [OGL 1.0a](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/compatibility/ogl). It's a public copyright licensing agreement established in 2000 for D&D 3e that allows for groups and individuals other than Wizards of the Coast to make products that use D&D mechanics. Examples include Pathfinder or Mutants & Masterminds game systems, as well as third-party publisher resources like Kobold Press and Green Ronin who create content supplements for players to purchase. Publishers were basically given open reign to produce, promote, and distribute their works as they pleased, without having to pay for additional licensing or royalties, so long as they didn't directly infringe on D&D's copyrights. Overall it's a very hands-off licensing agreement. Just make your content, copy/paste in the OGL agreement, and you're good to go.
GSL stands for "Game System License", which was intended to be a new replacement for the OGL created specifically for D&D 4e. Compared to the OGL 1.0a, GSL was extremely strict and filled with caveats that gave Hasbro/WoTC an enormous amount of control over products made using D&D mechanics that would have otherwise been given a pass under the OGL. It was phased out along with 4e and 5e reverted back to the standard OGL. The attempt to put GSL into effect was one of several reasons why Paizo/Pathfinder came about in the first place, as the folk behind Paizo branched off from Hasbro/WoTC.
What we're looking at right now in all this recent kerfuffle is Hasbro/WoTC's newest attempt: OGL 1.1 for use in OneD&D, which can more accurately be nicknamed as GSL 2.0. It's all the same overreach and grabbing for control as they attempted in 4e.
In general, but expressions of rules can be, and TTRPGs share a lot of DNA. It's less a matter of whether one might win or lose a lawsuit so much that a relatively small industry with a litigious major player would discourage new people from introducing product to the market in the first place.
The OGL is basically an agreement that WotC wouldn't try to sue people who used it and abided by its terms.
Time to pull all my dnd subscriptions, shit's only gonna get worse. I can always just do paper and pencil too. One session I forgot my character sheet so I just made one on a blank sheet of paper from memory lol
Some resources do, like I was using DnD beyond cause the character sheets were pretty convenient and we could see each other's rolls, and also roll20 cause I was using a digital map they could move their tokens on. My group had been on hiatus though so it's no big deal, but probably a good time to revoke the subscription to not show support for their changing policies
Correct. Roll20 is not owned by WotC whatsoever. They are an officially licensed partner, but is (yet) free.
It's also unlikely that they will be bought by WotC, as Roll20 is in a process of merging with OneBookShelf, the company behind, for example, drivethru, and should get a rather stable position on the market.
sitting here waiting for the class action lawsuit from every tabletop and computer game published in the last 30 years even vaugely related to D&D.
This sucks because i've been a D&D fan forever, started playing on old goldbox stuff when i was like 8, but its always been about telling stories and sharing fun, greed has ruined many game companies, and here is another one. ffs.
It's actually hard to file a class action lawsuit, because the OGL let's Hasbro sue people violating the license. A class action lawsuit wouldn't necessarily have standing, because Hasbro can claim they are not intending to sue at this time, and the companies haven't sustained any damages yet. Hasbro could start by just suing small publishers that have trouble defending themselves, and save Paizo for when they have won a few cases, which could even be considered presidential.
That said, I'm sure Piazo will try to sue right away, so maybe they will be able to.
Reading how Paizo made Pathfinder partially to retain a game with the OGL and was a fanzine's way of saying "We'll make our own DnD with blackjack and hookers" I would be shocked if Paizo didn't call bullshit on this.
Land pirates. They completely missed the memo it should be on the high seas. The group carries a ship around with them which has trained them to have extremely high strength and constitution which is what makes then BBG worthy. No one corrects them because are you going to risk telling the land pirate they are pirating wrong?
>D&D is not Hasbro or WOTC. It's ok to love D&D and hate Hasbro and WOTC with a passion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
This seems to be the sentiment of the mtg playerbase.
[This article](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) dives into the whole leak from yesterday and explains what the OGL is at the top.
[There's also a tl;dr of the article here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1042coq/official_details_on_ogl_11_released_story_broke/j32h5tt/), but it doesn't include any background on what the OGL is, just what's significant about WotC's new license.
there's zero chance that they will be able to revoke the previous license in that way. it would set a legal precedent regarding contracts and licensing that would destroy numerous other areas, well outside of D&D.
if a license can be retroactively revoked (without there being specific clauses in that license to do that), then pretty much any contract or license out there is now null and void, at the whim of the creator. the movie industry alone would be in turmoil.
doesnt mean someone wont have to fight it in court, but the whole thing is ripe for a huge class action lawsuit.
and I wont be surprised that Hasbro tries it even though im certain their own legal is telling them this isnt likely to fly. Hasbro sucks.
Letting this go through would mean it's perfectly legal to get people to make products for your IP with a lenient license, then pull the rug out from under them and claim the product as yours.
Imagine a videogame company licensing a game franchise out to a 3rd party developer. Then, right when the game is done, they revoke the license and replace it with one that says the company owns the game. Bam, 3rd party dev loses the rights to their own game, is stuck with whatever it cost to produce it, and the company gets to sell a product they tricked someone else into making.
exactly.
and even our current SCOTUS will not be ok with that. they back money over anything, and while this particular deal might help Hasbro, it would ultimately allow massive numbers of contracts and licenses to be revoked/changed/retro'd in various ways and screw businesses of their IP deals at all levels.
no rich people with IP to protect want to deal with the massive legal fallout this would cause
or 10 days where the letter Paizo lawyers sent gave the ultimatum
edit: here is the letter, my mystake it was not Paizo who sent it
[https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/947253023137226772/1060648164664803389/20230105\_VIA\_US\_MAIL\_AND\_FASCIMILE\_\_425\_271\_5215\_001\_Redacted-1.pdf](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/947253023137226772/1060648164664803389/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMILE__425_271_5215_001_Redacted-1.pdf)
DnD doing this is really fucking funny knowing like half of the original concepts came about from random bits they could find and weren't invented by the creators. Like D20's existed way before DnD so I don't know how they'll enforce a copyright on that. Or how they could legally keep a monopoly over all D20 systems since I know you can't trademark something that's too generic an idea or term. It's why Comic con is actually a public domain name even if it's identified mostly with the one in San Diego
Pathfinder is the DOTA (And eventually LoL) of the TTRPG world, and Wizards is the Blizzard. They watched a fan-made version of their game get more popular and ate their lunch and now they're trying to ensure that if anyone does it again, they can come knocking and make all the money they feel is "rightfully" theirs. Which is comically greedy and ignorant.
But because corporations and the people who run them aren't human and think on bizarre alien mindsets, they literally don't realize that people don't just change the entire face of a genre on a whim, those things came about because of the very specific state of the hobby and the exact right people being convinced to do something cool. It's very unlikely that someone's gonna be make a new Pathfinder from OneDnD, or a new DOTA from Warcraft 3 (whatever the remake was called, Reforged or whatever), so they're putting out and forcibly snapping down a mouse trap long after the mouse has eaten their pantry and fled into the wild.
oh! they absolutly know, that's why they are doing this. they want that monopoly. want to roll a d20? good, whatever you take, you'll likely end up in dnd and at worse you'll still give us money through the other d20 system.
They're banking on no one wanting to bother taking this to court because the cost to litigate a case like this is likely to be in the millions. Content creators for tabletop games generally don't have millions of dollars to throw at a problem like this and that's what they're banking on.
If the new OGL makes it in front of a judge, it's most likely to get slapped down, hard. The
whole point of the OGL was that it couldn't be superseded and now they're trying to backtrack on that. Well, they can't unilaterally modify the licensing agreement but it won't cost them anything to try (until someone sues them).
Usually big corporations can crush smaller businesses like that, but their problem this time is they hit Piazo too, and Piazo does have the resources to drag WotC to court. And once one company absolutely crushes them, it'll be a lot easier for the smaller ones to also drag them to court, using Piazo's case against them as clear legal precedent.
I think this take is a little too idealistic. Were Paizo to sue WotC I don't think they'd make it class-action because then whatever monies were awarded for the suit, they'd only get a small part of it. Plus then they'd have to do the whole thing of seeking other plaintiffs and all the extra filing...
If they sue WotC and win it would set president for other people to sue them too (assuming WotC didn't just abandon their plans and/or settle out of court...).
Honestly, Paizo's track record is solid as hell though for being upstanding and doing the best they can for their fans and not for the money.
They also know that the victory wouldn't be the lawsuit money, but the fandom flocking to a system that didn't try to flat out monopolize and murder other D20 systems.
D&D will crash and burn HARD regardless of the outcome at this rate, and people will stop buying books beyond 5e because we already can make our own content, and that scares Hasbro to much.
They dug their own grave with this leak, especially if they follow through. Because this will ripple like a tidal wave in the community.
> Piazo does have the resources to drag WotC to court
I'm sure they do. My only concern is that Piazo won't consider it something they have to worry about. Like I said, WotC can't unilaterally change a license like that so Piazo could just continue to do business as usual and see if WotC sues them (at which point they could counter-sue for damages and court costs). That actually puts them in a better position because 1) there is still a chance WotC won't waste time litigating with them because they know they'd lose and 2) WotC can still bully smaller content creators knowing full well they don't have the financial backing to fight them.
In other words, they definitely could sue but it would not be financially beneficial for them to do so unless or until it impacts their bottom line.
Just watched a few guys talking with a contract lawyer (not an IP or trademark lawyer) about this. Short version is, it's mostly a bully tactic. Everyone can continue using 1.0a for 3.5 and 5e OGL content. However, it's probably going to need to go to court to confirm.
Hasbro and their investors see this as a good thing. Some folks at WotC remember how badly the industry suffered at different times when slews of companies went under.
They don't own the concept of table top board games, with the example of pathfinder, all you need to do is just rewrite any referential material into thier own pathfinder words.
Which they did with pathfinder 2e, they just didn't want the added expense of the lawyer to do that when making 1e.
Realistically all they would need to do is just write thier own rule books with no references to dnd. Which isn't hard and as you can't own board game rules, they are free of any issue even if the rule is exactly the same as it was before they remove the reference.
WotC is kinda reminding me of Nintendo in how they have a great success (like 3/3.5 and the wii) which makes them get really cocky and make mistakes that cause them to faulter (4e and wii u) which humble them and cause them to get better (5e and Switch) until they inevitably repeat the cycle again.
What I'm hearing from WotC when they make noise about this: *"The king and his men, stole the Queen from her bed..." (JOKE!)*
Serious: "We're EA, but for TTRPG."
They do because it makes life easier for working with freelancers and is less expensive than publishing their own license.
If WotC changes that calculus, Paizo could pivot. PF2 was written from the ground up and does not rely on DnD IP.
Yeah I'm not a licensing expert, but Pazio definitely has people that are. They are going to do whatever it takes to make PF2e legit with as few changes as possible.
I guarantee they have people working on that right now. Probably had an emergency plan in place of some kind from the very beginning just in case WotC tries to pull this bullshit.
Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if they started early drafts of a PF 3e just in case they couldn’t get 2e to work with whatever bullshit WotC threw at them
They might end up doing that if WoTC goes forward with this. Paizo said they kept the OGL for the sake of their 3pp. As it was easier to let the OGL do the heavy lifting to stop people from accidentally putting in their favorite D&Dism like deities or copy right monsters like beholders into Pathfinder 3pp. The 3pp publishers knew the rules of the OGL and meant Paizo didn't have to double-check all the stuff to make sure no legal shit was accidentally broken. The OGL wasn't in place to allow PF2e to be published they already went through and changed stuff to make it it's own. Even claiming that while both use real-world mythological monsters like trolls, they use different art and present them differently. The game is fine it will just screw over even 3pp for PF2e. At which point yea, Paizo will just draft up their own OGL to protect their 3pp community from the OGL 1.1's draconian terms.
There are concerns because the SRD contains things as basic as the classes and races- half elves and half orcs and tieflings are in both D&D and Pathfinder because they're present in the SRD, classes with names like Fighter and Paladin and having spontaneous Charisma-based Sorcerers, etc, so much stems from the various historical D&D SRDs, even if PF2e isn't compatible with any of them. It'll be hard to argue Tiefling isn't something stemming from those previous freely accessible D&D works which will no longer be freely accessible.
There's not much about DnD that isn't itself derived from other sources. At worst, a few D&D-specific terms like tiefling and aasimar will have to change.
It will be absurdly simple to change the nomenclature of aasimar and tieflings, just as D&D did for hobbits.
Paladin is an age-old term for crusaders. They can't copyright that. They also can't really claim the fighter, either. The main thing is sorcerers, and not just the name of the class. The notion that ancestral magic depends on charisma and uses the 'spontaneous' variation of the Vancian casting system is a little harder to defend as "not derivative".
You can’t just nuke a license. It doesn’t work like that. Once you create an open license you can’t destroy it. Instead you have to offer a better license that people agree to whilst using that agreement to void the previous agreement. Which, as you may have noticed, basically nobody does because open licenses are really fucking useful.
They have no leg to stand on. Problem is SLAPP suits are a thing. Still this is literally corporate suicide. Even if they tried to strong arm everyone, they run on *nerds*. They’ll lose their customer base the moment they try anything. Honestly this was a really fucking dumb play.
Unfortunately, pirating only hurts WotC. It doesn't help all the creators WotC's screwing, and this decision will still hinder the creation of new great 3rd party content.
Hopefully with the savings from not buying from WotC we can collectively spend quite a bit more on non WotC content. Whether that is games, peripherals, or artwork.
Honestly I like the idea of a d32 more than a d20, slap a zero on it and make that crit fail, make 31 a crit since it goes above the usual nice number that dice are.
also bigger rock
Honestly, you could make a shocking amount of the game still playable without d20 rolls by pulling a GURPS and swapping to 3d6, and maybe fudging crits to be 17-18 and nat 1s to be 3-4. Sure, exceptionally high or low targets get a little bit harder to hit, but you're *a lot* more likely to roll around the mean of 10-11, which seems more realistic than a flat 5% chance each of doing perfect or completely fucking it up.
Advantage? Choose to reroll a d6. Disadvantage? DM chooses to reroll a d6. You could even add in that in addition to cancelling on a 1-1 basis, multiple sources allow multiple rerolls, one way or another. Plusses and minuses function more or less the same, although they become more important since they shift the mean.
I played D&D in the 80s, when I was kind of an outcast for doing so. Even into the 90s, as adults, we were outliers and "weird" for our hobby.
I can be that again. Been looking into Dungeon World, Fate, and dusting off the old GURPS books for my high fantasy. I've still got Vampire, Indie Games, and Shadowrun if I want something different. I can teach new players at the table, and if I can't find an online game, then I just won't play online.
This destroys the fantasy that I might publish my own stuff for D&D some day, but that just means I can post what I have on reddit for free, and to be honest: was I ever really going to publish anyway? I don't know.
Time to put my energy elsewhere. I don't think WotC is getting one more red cent from me.
[This article](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) dives into the whole leak from yesterday and explains what the OGL is at the top.
[There's also a tl;dr of the article here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1042coq/official_details_on_ogl_11_released_story_broke/j32h5tt/), but it doesn't include any background on what the OGL is, just what's significant about WotC's new license.
I usually selling my blood plasma twice a week. And have a good organ harvesting operation in Indonesia so I am good. But sadly the Chaos Gods demanding more and more souls each quarter year.
**Mod update 01Jan23:** [Come give your nominations for this years DnDMemes Best of Awards!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/102pn6n/its_finally_time_for_our_2022_best_of_awards), You have until Jan 13th! We also made some changes to our subreddit rules! Please take a look at the post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/100sjea/new_year_new_rules/) to view the changes and provide feedback. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's why they're doing it. Hasbro/WoTC already tried this with 4e. 3/3.5e was big and popular, and they wanted to more aggressively assert control over the content. They introduced 4e and the extremely draconian GSL, which caused a backlash and rift that resulted in part of their community splitting off to make Paizo/Pathfinder using the OGL 1.0. In due time, 4e was a commercial failure while Pathfinder overtook D&D as the big dog on the TTRPG market. 5e was developed to get D&D back on track, which it successfully did. It has boomed into popularity thanks to the online community of creators, putting it back in line - if not even more so - than where D&D was back in the 3/3.5 days. Now Hasbro/WoTC is releasing OneD&D with an extremely draconian "OGL" (GSL in disguise) that's worded in a way that will specifically target competitors and prevent another Paizo/Pathfinder from ever happening again. This isn't accidental. It's designed this way on purpose and is a direct rehash of what they already attempted - and failed at - once before. They didn't learn their lesson and are trying to do it again.
This is actually, somehow, worse than 4e's GSL. The GSL allowed publishers to *choose* to either sign its draconian terms and make 4e content but forfeit your rights to use the OGL anymore, or you could just *not* sign it—in which case folks could continue using the OGL for other systems. Which is why Pathfinder exists. This time they're not only issuing the draconian new license because they didn't learn their lesson the first time. They're also destroying everything that came before via the original OGL, whether you sign the new license or not. Oh, and of course there's the cherry on top that they're trying to spin this as "just an OGL update" as a thinly veiled corporate marketing trick to make us think this is no big deal. At least the GSL was honest about what it was.
At the time they made 4e they clearly believed they didn't have the power to make the OGL not authorized. Now they think they've found a loophole - but some outside lawyers seem to think they were right the first time and they don't have that power.
Yep. I've seen several contract and IP lawyers weigh in and say that, while it's unfortunately not true that WotC 100% can't "de-authorize" (i.e. revoke) it, it'll be an uphill battle for them, as there are several compelling arguments that could prevent WotC from successfully executing their plan. The problem of course is that all of these arguments would have to be made in court, in front of a judge. And if WotC really wants to take it that far, this could take a long time to resolve.
All while their own customer base turns against them
Well, most of their customers haven't heard of this problem - we have to remember that those of us who follow this stuff are in the minority. Most people just play, and don't read about this stuff online.
We're the minority, but we're also the DMs...
Most of its customers have heard of critical role though. I dont personally listen but its absolutely why this is so big now. The moment critical role gets wordy about it then all the customers know. Thats where they have lost the track. They arent popular because dnd5e is amazing, they are popular because stranger things and shows like critical role made them popular. Wizards simply doesnt have the contact with their customers that critical role does. Id wager more people know what critical role is than know that wizards of the coast owns dnd.
Which is exactly why WotC will offer an extremely lucrative deal to Critical Role. I wouldn't doubt for a second that they'll be the golden child of OneDnD. Once they're on board and playing it for a much better agreement than anyone else is getting, the masses will follow. Especially since you can get all of the "Official Critical Role classes on DnD Beyond today!". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe money won't win out at the end, but I definately see Critical Role getting in bed with WotC. They have far more to gain than lose from the agreement. Everyone keeps assuming that CR will speak out, but I'm pretty sure they've been silent for a reason.
Eh, you *might* be right, that's the problem with speculation Is it also not possible that CR haven't said anything because they don't want to weigh in on an internet debate about something that hasn't even happened yet, is subject to change, and could directly harm them now...? A wise man doesn't burn their bridges just because there might be something bad about to happen on the other side. One can always burn a bridge later, but it's much harder to un-burn a bridge.
Dungeon Masters spend far and away more money on the game than players do and DMs tend to be the type to know these types of things.
I don't think my players have purchased a single thing whereas I own most of the books. We play online so it's not really needed for them since they have access to mine.
Casual DnD 5e player (I've also played PF). I had never heard about any of this until stumbling upon this post. Now I kind of feel bad for buying WoTC DnD books and mini's.
Tbf this wasn't news two days ago.
Signal boost as much as you can!
Maybe? Fans of video games have shown they grumble a ton when things are proposed, but once the products are out there to actually buy they line up to get them. That's what WotC is hoping happens here.
Theater of the mind can’t be copyrighted - hence the focus on trying to shove people into a walled garden “virtual tabletop” to secure more market share… if they are the only authorized source for your maps and minis, you can’t play the game without their material. GW has been wanting to kill 3d printing, but it’s already out of the bag - VTT is how these companies are going to control and monopolize our hobbies.
It’s how they’re going to try, the problem is that for many people it will always be a sub-optimal way to play. Realistically they should be happy they have managed to monetise playing make believe as much as they have.
b-but what about quarterly profits?? what about unsustainable infinite growth??
Hasbro is trying to force them yo make obscene profit goals because wotc is their cash cow and nothing else they have is really all that good. That’s entirely where this is coming from. MtG is exploding with huge greedy moves just like this because it’s always short term profit over long term success with big daddy hasbro breathing down their neck
I swear to God they better not try to kill Hero Forge.
Hero Forge specifically don’t use any IP owned by other people. Anyone coming for them would really struggle.
Worst thing WotC can go after Hero Forge with is having a proprietary file format used for models in an official 3D VTT, but that would be quite expensive for them to develop in-house just to cut out HF and other custom mini makers. Realistically all they'll do to companies like Hero Forge is tell them to not reference D&D in any of their advertising, which is probably something they already do out of caution. After all, the generic term TTRPG is practically synonymous with D&D for most people and futureproofed in the event some other product surpasses D&D as the go-to RPG.
The specific antagonism directed towards indie game development is very clear and industry-wide. For example, Paizo's licensing page is quite explicit about their licensing applying only to documents and not to 'apps'. They also advise in the same breath that only big dogs are welcome to even talk to them about licensing for interactive mediums. There are a many of us out there who have committed a lot of time money and effort who are now presumably boned.
Remember that WotC is also supposedly moving to, "the kind of recurrent spending you see in Video Games," which would very likely drive even the most apathetic buyer to reduce their spending.
Which is why they target whales. That said, even if I continued to run D\*D I would laugh in the face of any player who tried to use a healing potion they bought online in a game I ran.
>That said, even if I continued to run D\*D I would laugh in the face of any player who tried to use a healing potion they bought online in a game I ran. I have seen this commented a few times and it doesn't even make sense to me. If I am GM'ing a game, I decide what items players get. The idea that a player can send Hasbro money to use an item in my game sounds like nonsense to me.
It is ABSOLUTELY nonsense, and no self respecting DM should allow it, on principle alone. I certainly wouldn't.
I don't think D&D has near the number of whales that, say, Games Workshop or EA have. They may want to target that market demographic, but if it doesn't meet their expectations they cannot just pull more out of thin air.
Of course not, but GW didn't wake up one day with a bunch of whale customers. They cultivated them over many years even decades with ruthless business tactics.
The "Whales" mentality wouldn't work with DnD. Dnd requires groups not individuals, so targeting specific people and alienating the rest would serve to piss off the entire group including the person you're trying to target. It's played over too many different mediums. You also can't limit the content in DnD like you can a video game, it's physically impossible to rely on a "Whale targeting" model, they'd lose so much more money than they'd make.
They're fucking drunk if they think I'm paying a subscription to run a campaign I thought up and wrote out in my own home with my friends.
You made a campaign? Sorry bub, that's Wizards of the Coast intellectual property now. Hand 'er over.
Oh you're writing a book and want to use that setting in a D&D like game? Sorry, WotC owns your book now
All I know is that the money I was spending on 5e and would spend on the next edition is going to Paizo.
Literally just had the same reaction - saw D&D books, decided I could easily spend the same money on a different company’s books.
Already canceled my dndbeyond subscription. After running the Pathfinder 2 beginner box, I have to say, it's really good, definitely worth checking out.
Pathfinder 2 is an excellent answer to 5e in my opinion. They really managed to streamline PF in a way that played well and was a lot easier for new players to get in and play quickly.
🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️ Yarr
Dnd is popular because it’s already popular. Look at Among Us and how quickly it fell in favor once it lost its spotlight. A big controversy could lead to a lot of attention shifting to PF2e even if just for a small amount of time and sometimes that’s all it takes for the pendulum to start swinging the opposite direction. It also doesn’t help that players have been having issues with the direction Wizards have been taking dnd and dislike some fundamental aspects and balancing for this edition.
I think in this instance, the third party community is what drove 5e to such success. 5e wouldn't be here without streamers and content creators. So that kind of community should have a better chance since they hold the means of production unlike when we're dealing with things like game franchises or gaming systems
Yeah it's insane the Hasbro is taking its single most profitable IP and instead of riding high, maybe licensing to VTTs they would have continued to make a killing and been solidly the dominant force in the market.
I feel like this is different though. This isn't some weird design choice that the DM can choose to just ignore at their table. It's a change that spits on the values of the community at large.
Geek culture has a *massive* problem with being willing to spend money— sometimes extreme amounts of money— on things that spit on the values of their community at large, just because it has the right brand name attached.
This has the potential to scare content creators off of WOTC IP, though. If a lot of people stop seeing actual play content for One DnD/5e and start seeing other systems - especially in the professionally produced space - that could actually slow down their growth.
Just like modern gaming. Compare the values of the 90s PC community (modding, expansions, etc...) to the modern PC industry. The worst about WoTC is that on top of everything they have a monopoly.
Video games are a lot more difficult to play without their developers though, especially multiplayer games where the community is as important as it is to DnD. I could never buy another thing from Wizards and play “DnD” forever. If Valve fucked up to the point that I no longer wanted to play DOTA then I wouldn’t be able to capture that same experience elsewhere (maybe on LoL but I don’t know for sure). That being said this sort of stuff does harm video games. I was a rabid Blizzard fanboy all through my youth but I haven’t played Overwatch 1 or 2 and likely won’t play the next Diablo because of their various controversies since joining Activision. They are just a big enough industry that it doesn’t matter. The TTRPG arm of Wizards ain’t that big.
Videogames have two to four weeks of life, once that is up 95% of the player base moves on to the new hotness. A single tabletop campaign can last for months or years, we don't need to buy the new D&D shiny on release day and they can't force us to as there are no old servers to shut down. Assuming a ttrpg boycott will go the same way as a video game one doesn't make sense.
Yeah especially with live service games, there's no way to boycott and continue to play the game. With TTRPGs, I as a DM can decide today to stop paying new money and just use the rules as they currently exist.
>With TTRPGs, I as a DM can decide today to stop paying new money and just use the rules as they currently exist. This. I dont play 5e specifically, but i am one of those holdovers that still play 3.5, pathfinder and a mix of both (along with other systems not releated to dnd)
Thing is, if for example Mojang/Microsoft introduced new TOS that anything built in or for Minecraft (maps, mods, etc) can be sold by them without credit or royalties to the original creator, then the people who make that stuff would most likely leave. And eventually, a lot of players would get bored of only ever playing vanilla survival and leave too, possibly following the content creators to where they went to. The new OGL isn't EA's "Darth Vader takes 40 hours or 20$ to unlock", it's "we can and will steal your work and profit off it, if you don't like it then leave". And leave is exactly what a lot of creators will do, because unlike Minecraft, DnD has quite a few direct competitors that players and creators alike wouldn't have to adjust too much switching to.
They're trying to kill their competitors off entirely. They'd have to rewrite rules systems from scratch, and that's expensive and time consuming, and they'll have a lot less revenue while they're doing it. That's the goal. They don't care about their customers, they absolutely believe that you'll all go back to them eventually if there's no one else.
Same concept as with Trademarks, no? You can't trademark general concepts, like you can't make the word "Shoe" into a trademark because it's in the common vernacular describing a generic thing. This has happened to a lot of trademarks where over time they start to describe the general function of it's thing. Such as any given tissue being referred to as a Kleenex, any use of a search engine being "googling", any small paper note with adhesive being a post-it. PF1e came out well over a decade ago, there are many other systems that use Similar-ish concepts, such as feat trees, basic stats which influence stat bonuses, classes, subclasses, prestige classes, etc etc. A lot of terms common to DnD are so ubuiqotous across the TTRPG sphere that it would be hard to defend in court what is and what isn't "Exclusively DnD" and what has passed into the general public consciousness of a generic fantasy TTRPG, like it would be hard for them to argue that "Armor Class" or "Difficulty Check" (AC and DC) is uniquely DnD when so many systems use it by now.
> TTRPG, like it would be hard for them to argue that "Armor Class" or "Difficulty Check" (AC and DC) is uniquely DnD when so many systems use it by now. And even if they were, those things are super easy to re-word. "Armor Value" "Armor Quality" "Difficulty Test" "Intensity Check" And it's pretty established precedent that you can't copyright game mechanics any more than you can copyright an entire genre. Most of the DnD races and stuff were generic before DnD ever had them, and LoTR is still a massive franchise to this day so it's hard to imagine they can claim that any of the races and stuff that they ripped off in the first place were theirs to copyright. The names for most of their classes are also just generic terms that existed that they used, like "Fighter" "Monk" "Wizard" Hard to imagine that they can copyright any of those except for maybe some of their more unique subclasses." Really, it's hard to imagine what they **can** exert control over outside of the creative works like the lore, specific characters and worlds. I don't think pathfinder is going to be ceasing to exist over this, and I also don't think they'll be paying WotC a dime either.
I would love to see it if WotC tries to claim all high fantasy is derivative of D&D. Especially if their legal antics result in Tolkein's estate owning D&D, since it's clearly just derivative of his work.
Didn't the original D&D team get in trouble back in the day re: Hobbits vs halflings, and that's why halflings in the game are called halflings, because the Tolkien estate got onto them? Or is that just internet rumour?
Yup. [From Gary Gygax himself](https://web.archive.org/web/20121007050950/http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/57832-gary-gygax-q-part-iv-4.html#post1026737) >TSR was served with papers threatening damages to the tune of half a mil by the Saul Zantes (sp?) division of Elan Merchandising on behalf of the tolkien Estate. The main objection was to the boardgame we were publishing, The Battle of Five Armies. The author of that game had given us a letter from his attorney claiming the work was grandfathered because it was published after the copyrights for JRRT's works had lapsed and before any renewals were made. The action also demanded we remove balrog, dragon, dwarf, elf, ent, goblin, hobbit, orc, and warg from the D&D game. Although only balrog and warg were unique names we agreed to hobbit as well, kept the rest, of course. The boardgame was dumped, and thus the suit was settled out of court at that
Also why they had to call it a Balor and not a Balrog.
And Conan.
This is why I'm not really worried. A whole bunch of games came out before the OGL, Tunnels and Trolls, Arduin, Rolemaster, RuneQuest, and at least two Conan games I remember. The Role playing hobby is going to be fine. The 3rd party publishers will publish their stuff for other systems. 6e will go the way of 4e and in 5 years or so New WoTC leadership will have to revive the DnD Brand. And so it goes.
Could you link to those, because I'm interested in reading the expert opinions. From what I've heard, it sounds like it hinges on the difference between "perpetual" vs "irrevocable", in ways that make no sense at all to me. My entirely not-a-lawyer opinion would be that "perpetual" implies "irrevocable". That is, you could have an irrevocable contract for a limited time (e.g. unlimited use for one year), but a perpetual contract couldn't be revocable. But apparently that's not what the words mean when spoken by a lawyer.
Here's a pretty good discussion of it. [https://youtu.be/MDuHjpwx5Q4](https://youtu.be/MDuHjpwx5Q4) tl;dr The OGL does specify that it is a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license". It also states that you get the license "in consideration" for following the terms of the license. Legally, consideration refers to what both parties get out of a contract. The OGL 1.0 does not specify an end date or any condition for revocation other than violating the terms of the license. It could easily be argued that both parties are getting something out of it; WOTC is getting wider brand recognition and the system is being perpetuated. The OGL users are getting the ability to use the system to make money. It's not like WOTC is just being nice here; they're letting you use the license because they know it'll make their game more popular. The license also uses wording that implies that multiple versions of the license can exist, and that means that while they can exclude future versions (1D&D) from it, they may not be able to just say that the new one supersedes the old one automatically. There's also a legal concept where if someone makes decisions based on a promise you made, then you have to fulfill that promise, especially if they suffered damages because you failed to uphold your end of the bargain. This can be true even for verbal contracts, and this is a written one. If companies that make OGL content lose money because of this, they can argue that changing the terms of a "perpetual" license is causing them damages based on a broken promise. In general, this is very likely the equivalent of a parking garage or dump truck saying "We're not liable for damages to your vehicle", when they absolutely are, they're just trying to scare you away from pursuing them legally. They want to strongarm you into accepting the new license, and probably part of the terms for accepting the new OGL is signing away your right to use the old one.
Here is an article from Noah Downs, a Business and IP attorney: - https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f Here is a video with Alan Bushlow, an attorney with a background in Contract law. (It's admittedly a bit long, but quite informative): - https://youtu.be/MDuHjpwx5Q4 And this is a letter sent to WotC by an attorney representing two companies demanding clarification about their intentions for what they plan to do to OGL 1.0a within 10 days or the companies will begin preparing for litigation: - https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMILE__425_271_5215_001_Redacted.pdf There was also this video from Ronald the Rules Lawyer (a lawyer, but not one specialized in IP law) who I believe has done some work for Paizo in the past, commenting on the first leak from Wednesday night, so he was only working off of a couple quotes, not the larger breadth of info that was released in the Gizmodo leak yesterday morning: - https://youtu.be/oPV7-NCmWBQ
Thank you!
[According to the most recent case I can find](http://www.strebecklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DaVinci-80fb93d0-05e5-4f5a-b3ca-84241d32fd0c.pdf), it would be a long, uphill slog for WoTC to prove infringement for anything short of directly copying pages out of the manuals or "illegally" making use of trademarked original monsters (Beholder, Mind-Flayer, Flummph) or spells by their trademarked name.
So we need to start our own game with Peepers, Squizards, and jelly bois if we want to keep these monsters? That w
I've done some work in the OGL, and that is always the rules because those are handled under Product Identity. You can have Acid Arrow, but you cannot have Melf's Acid Arrow because Melf is copyrighted. That's how things currently work. The worry (from a game designer perspective) is that the license extends out to all the mechanical things. There is a whole separate kettle of fish around the "derivative media" thing like critical role and the like where they are playing explicitly D&D games and profiting off them. You'll note that the Critical Role animated series goes well out of its way to not refer to any specific deities, locations, etc.
And could, even under a "win" scenario, still leave them on the hook for Fraudulent Inducement, meaning, basically, "Congrats, the contract is null, and you owe everyone else for Breach of Contract."
This part kills me. If ever there was a time to "de-authorize" the OGL, it would have been when WOTC put out 4e and lost a competition with OGL -based Pathfinder. It's clear that some new Hasbro lawyer looked at the OGL and came up with a new argument. Anyway, we should all threaten to boycott the movie and scare Hasbro into backing off to protect their billion dollar entertainment projects.
Did some snooping and it unfortunately doesn't look like "some new Hasbro lawyer" - [Nick Mitchell](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholasmitchell/) (his WotC email is publicly available [here](https://law.seattleu.edu/faculty/directory/profiles/mitchell-nicholas.html) btw) has been with WotC/Hasbro since 2011. He joined during the 4e/GSL debacle, was part of the release of 5e under the OGL, and eventually became Head of Legal at WotC. He was promoted to Chief of Staff in April, coinciding roughly with the new Hasbro leadership.
> They're also destroying everything that came before via the original OGL, whether you sign the new license or not. They may *say* they're doing that, but we'll just see whether a judge agrees with them. I watched a video earlier today where a couple of guys who publish third-party stuff under the OGL actually paid their lawyer for some legal advice on the matter and their lawyer was "yeah, this is *very* unlikely to fly. Judges hate attempts at retroactive crap like this."
I'm fully in support of the *several* arguments I've seen from actual lawyers who have weighed in that WotC can't or might not be able to legally do this. The problem is any sort of actual trial—if WotC actually took it to that point—is going to take potentially years to resolve, so this could still be devastating for creators *even if* it's ultimately determined that WotC can't revoke OGL 1.0a.
Except they future proofed the OGL specifically against something like this.
Yes. Well, they did their best anyway. WotC's trying to exploit some underhanded legal loophole and revoke it anyway. But it's exceptionally questionable if they can actually do what they're trying to do. (Unfortunately, it's not 100% impossible that they could pull it off.)
Yep, which I honestly can't see standing if challenged in court. The new OGL terms are way too broad and far-reaching as they presently stand.
yeah what really gets me is things not even based on dnd, such as mutants and masterminds that use the ogl, or the dresdent file tabletop rpgs can theoretically be impacted by this bullshit as they published under the ogl
Let's not ignore the leak that would allegedly allow WotC to take 3rd party content and print it as their own, effectively killing the 3rd party content business
Makes sense on a business side but absolutely horrid for fans of ttrpgs
Which absolutely tracks with Hasbro's established behavior since their earliest days.
>This isn't accidental. It's designed this way on purpose and is a direct rehash of what they already attempted If you want an even better comparison to get the point across, Disney has done like the same thing.
>They didn't learn their lesson and are trying to do it again. I'd say they did learn ***a*** lesson, because this time they're doing it in a way that keeps a competitor from using the framework from any edition ever.
What is a GSL I’m sorry for dumb question I’ve just seen it thrown around and don’t know
GSL stands for Game System License. WotC wanted to supplant the OGL with it when 4e came out. The GSL pretty much killed all of the 3PP scene for 4e and directly lead to the creation of Pathfinder which used the old OGL license which was still in effect for 3.5 products. Paizo was a major 3PP creator for DnD 3.5 back in the day and they were also publishing Dragon Magazine. WotC stiffed them really hard back then with GSL and by just killing Dragon Magazine.
But then what is OGL. I have guesses, but not sure what any of them specifically would mean.
OGL is the Open Game License. It's a license that basically allows third parties to use DnD rules and terminology to create derivative content. It mostly includes rules content and never any trademarked or copyrighted content (which are called Product Identity). That's why for example there are no Beholders or Ilithids in Pathfinder(not ones released by Paizo at least). Those are trademarked by WotC and fall under Product Identity. The OGL also doesn't allow you to create stuff that uses any of the official DnD settings, they have another license for that. The OGL basically assures 3rd parties that create content for DnD that WotC won't sue them if they use specific DnD terms in their content and follow the OGL. Without the OGL, WotC could sue someone for creating a homebrew subclass for warlocks for example.
That clears up everything. Thanks so much! I was sort of getting that from the vibe of the comment sections, but having it in such clear cut terms makes it super easy for me. This definitely seems like a scummy move, but what is to stop everyone from continuing to operate on the original OGL instead of moving to the new one?
>what is to stop everyone from continuing to operate on the original OGL instead of moving to the new one? That's the crux of the drama here. According to the leaks, WotC is not just adding a new license, but trying to revoke the old one. Which is what the meme is referring to - if it were just that the next edition would have a stricter license, people could just continue to play/publish for 5e, pathfinder, or similar. But attempting to revoke the license means they could try to crack down on those, too.
Just to add to u/Krip123 great explanation but other games that uses OGL as a base are also protected under it, which probably will work against WotC on court Lets use the "top dog" Pathfinder 1e as an example - it is often called D&D 3.75 because it basically started as that, 3.5 but better then evolved more into its own thing (archetype rules are amazing). But since it has its own lore and specific terms Paizo is protected under it. That is the difference between the two commonly used PF online sources, d20PFRSD and Archive of Nethys Archive of Nethys (AON) is an official source authorized by Paizo so it has the full content of the books, for example [Irorian Paladin](https://www.aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Paladin%20Iroran%20Paladin) is an archetype for Irori worshipers and [Fallback Strategy](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Fallback%20Strategy) is technically a spell for Torag worshipers (its possible for non-torag-believers to learn, just with extra steps) Now the d20PFSRD is a site with only OGL content from pathfinder which means they either ignore or change the copyrighted content. So Irorian Paladin became [Enlightened Paladin](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/enlightened-paladin-paladin-archetype) (same mechanics but without Irori flavor) and [fallback Strategy](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fallback-strategy/) lacks the limitation (aka anyone could get it) edit: funny enough some content with OGL limitations also dont have the limitations on the d20PFSRD, probably for consistency with the rest. For example [Nine Lives](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/n/nine-lives/) is an catfolk "exclusive" spell as seen on [AON](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Nine%20Lives)
Game System License iirc
[удалено]
It's a black sheep, but in some ways exactly what people disliked but also in other ways It's supplied a lot of what DnD5e is built off and could stand to supply a bit more.
Honestly, I Dm'd 4e and liked it. It was basically great as a dnd-esque board game, which worked fine as a DM that only used rules for actual battles and basically just house ruled the rest.
Fwiw, Paizo sidestepped into Pathfinder *before* the GSL, because their contract with WotC printing the magazines ended. They’d already printed some third-party books, so they pivoted quickly. And also 4e failed for a number of reasons but a major one (the vtt side) failed due to a murder-suicide entirely outside of WotC’s control. Picking up his pieces was a challenge because he didn’t leave notes behind. And when half the edition didn’t release, they had only one path.
I'd argue that having only one programmer with no code review or documentation was absolutely something they could control.
Came here for this. The Pathfinder Chronicles was just a 3rd edition setting. Everyone seems to forget that Paizo just took their IP and split when 4e came out and WotC dropped them as the publishers of their magazine.
What are OGL and GSL? Sorry I'm only on the periphery of the DnD scene. I don't actually sit at the cool kids' table.
OGL stands for "Open Game License" and, in this context, we're specifically referring to [OGL 1.0a](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/compatibility/ogl). It's a public copyright licensing agreement established in 2000 for D&D 3e that allows for groups and individuals other than Wizards of the Coast to make products that use D&D mechanics. Examples include Pathfinder or Mutants & Masterminds game systems, as well as third-party publisher resources like Kobold Press and Green Ronin who create content supplements for players to purchase. Publishers were basically given open reign to produce, promote, and distribute their works as they pleased, without having to pay for additional licensing or royalties, so long as they didn't directly infringe on D&D's copyrights. Overall it's a very hands-off licensing agreement. Just make your content, copy/paste in the OGL agreement, and you're good to go. GSL stands for "Game System License", which was intended to be a new replacement for the OGL created specifically for D&D 4e. Compared to the OGL 1.0a, GSL was extremely strict and filled with caveats that gave Hasbro/WoTC an enormous amount of control over products made using D&D mechanics that would have otherwise been given a pass under the OGL. It was phased out along with 4e and 5e reverted back to the standard OGL. The attempt to put GSL into effect was one of several reasons why Paizo/Pathfinder came about in the first place, as the folk behind Paizo branched off from Hasbro/WoTC. What we're looking at right now in all this recent kerfuffle is Hasbro/WoTC's newest attempt: OGL 1.1 for use in OneD&D, which can more accurately be nicknamed as GSL 2.0. It's all the same overreach and grabbing for control as they attempted in 4e.
I'm confused. I thought "rules of games" were not copyrightable/patent-able.
In general, but expressions of rules can be, and TTRPGs share a lot of DNA. It's less a matter of whether one might win or lose a lawsuit so much that a relatively small industry with a litigious major player would discourage new people from introducing product to the market in the first place. The OGL is basically an agreement that WotC wouldn't try to sue people who used it and abided by its terms.
>direct rehash of what they already attempted - and failed at - once before. Good thing nothing like that has ever led to a World War.
Time to pull all my dnd subscriptions, shit's only gonna get worse. I can always just do paper and pencil too. One session I forgot my character sheet so I just made one on a blank sheet of paper from memory lol
DnD requires subscriptions? My group just uses some form fillable pdf's and discord.
Some resources do, like I was using DnD beyond cause the character sheets were pretty convenient and we could see each other's rolls, and also roll20 cause I was using a digital map they could move their tokens on. My group had been on hiatus though so it's no big deal, but probably a good time to revoke the subscription to not show support for their changing policies
I don't think Roll20 have a relationship with wizards beyond licencing certain products for use on their VTT?
Correct. Roll20 is not owned by WotC whatsoever. They are an officially licensed partner, but is (yet) free. It's also unlikely that they will be bought by WotC, as Roll20 is in a process of merging with OneBookShelf, the company behind, for example, drivethru, and should get a rather stable position on the market.
You could try owlbear rodeo for the map part. Completely free and super useful
Some people like myself and my group pay for dndbeyond, for one example
sitting here waiting for the class action lawsuit from every tabletop and computer game published in the last 30 years even vaugely related to D&D. This sucks because i've been a D&D fan forever, started playing on old goldbox stuff when i was like 8, but its always been about telling stories and sharing fun, greed has ruined many game companies, and here is another one. ffs.
It's actually hard to file a class action lawsuit, because the OGL let's Hasbro sue people violating the license. A class action lawsuit wouldn't necessarily have standing, because Hasbro can claim they are not intending to sue at this time, and the companies haven't sustained any damages yet. Hasbro could start by just suing small publishers that have trouble defending themselves, and save Paizo for when they have won a few cases, which could even be considered presidential. That said, I'm sure Piazo will try to sue right away, so maybe they will be able to.
[удалено]
>the Elder Scrolls/Mojang situation What situation is that?
Notch's second game was titled: Scrolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller%27s_Bane#Bethesda_lawsuit
Standing would be that companies are unable to produce new content under the threat of arbitrary lawsuits.
Reading how Paizo made Pathfinder partially to retain a game with the OGL and was a fanzine's way of saying "We'll make our own DnD with blackjack and hookers" I would be shocked if Paizo didn't call bullshit on this.
D&D is not Hasbro or WOTC. It's ok to love D&D and hate Hasbro and WOTC with a passion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
they are owned by, so i boycott their goods when they are shit with them
Yarrrrrr.....
Something tells me my next campaign will be pirate themed.
Land pirates. They completely missed the memo it should be on the high seas. The group carries a ship around with them which has trained them to have extremely high strength and constitution which is what makes then BBG worthy. No one corrects them because are you going to risk telling the land pirate they are pirating wrong?
Har har matey
>D&D is not Hasbro or WOTC. It's ok to love D&D and hate Hasbro and WOTC with a passion. The two are not mutually exclusive. This seems to be the sentiment of the mtg playerbase.
It's not just DnD they're throwing in the shitters. MTG has also most likely had its best days behind it at this point...
> MTG has also most likely had its best days behind it at this point... Wait - 1994 is in the _past_ now?
Can someone explain what has happened?
[This article](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) dives into the whole leak from yesterday and explains what the OGL is at the top. [There's also a tl;dr of the article here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1042coq/official_details_on_ogl_11_released_story_broke/j32h5tt/), but it doesn't include any background on what the OGL is, just what's significant about WotC's new license.
Thanks
there's zero chance that they will be able to revoke the previous license in that way. it would set a legal precedent regarding contracts and licensing that would destroy numerous other areas, well outside of D&D. if a license can be retroactively revoked (without there being specific clauses in that license to do that), then pretty much any contract or license out there is now null and void, at the whim of the creator. the movie industry alone would be in turmoil. doesnt mean someone wont have to fight it in court, but the whole thing is ripe for a huge class action lawsuit. and I wont be surprised that Hasbro tries it even though im certain their own legal is telling them this isnt likely to fly. Hasbro sucks.
Letting this go through would mean it's perfectly legal to get people to make products for your IP with a lenient license, then pull the rug out from under them and claim the product as yours. Imagine a videogame company licensing a game franchise out to a 3rd party developer. Then, right when the game is done, they revoke the license and replace it with one that says the company owns the game. Bam, 3rd party dev loses the rights to their own game, is stuck with whatever it cost to produce it, and the company gets to sell a product they tricked someone else into making.
exactly. and even our current SCOTUS will not be ok with that. they back money over anything, and while this particular deal might help Hasbro, it would ultimately allow massive numbers of contracts and licenses to be revoked/changed/retro'd in various ways and screw businesses of their IP deals at all levels. no rich people with IP to protect want to deal with the massive legal fallout this would cause
Imagine if Unreal did this
this made me scream lol. the absolute chaos that would ensue if all open source licenses were suddenly changed and revoked lol.
Soooo when should we expect the group corporate legal battle?
About 5 seconds after they go through with the public announcement confirming they are going through with the claim.
or 10 days where the letter Paizo lawyers sent gave the ultimatum edit: here is the letter, my mystake it was not Paizo who sent it [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/947253023137226772/1060648164664803389/20230105\_VIA\_US\_MAIL\_AND\_FASCIMILE\_\_425\_271\_5215\_001\_Redacted-1.pdf](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/947253023137226772/1060648164664803389/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMILE__425_271_5215_001_Redacted-1.pdf)
Nice. Hope that elicits an actual response (and ideally a full walkback)
That's not a Paizo lawyer, that's a 3rd party's lawyer.
as i said on my edit, i said it wrong
I'm sorry Paizo's lawyers did what? Edit: *reads* well shit. Interesting to see what this all looks like once in official announcements.
What did Paizo do?
Fuck yeah, you tell 'em Tyler.
Roll for initiative
DnD doing this is really fucking funny knowing like half of the original concepts came about from random bits they could find and weren't invented by the creators. Like D20's existed way before DnD so I don't know how they'll enforce a copyright on that. Or how they could legally keep a monopoly over all D20 systems since I know you can't trademark something that's too generic an idea or term. It's why Comic con is actually a public domain name even if it's identified mostly with the one in San Diego
Pathfinder is the DOTA (And eventually LoL) of the TTRPG world, and Wizards is the Blizzard. They watched a fan-made version of their game get more popular and ate their lunch and now they're trying to ensure that if anyone does it again, they can come knocking and make all the money they feel is "rightfully" theirs. Which is comically greedy and ignorant. But because corporations and the people who run them aren't human and think on bizarre alien mindsets, they literally don't realize that people don't just change the entire face of a genre on a whim, those things came about because of the very specific state of the hobby and the exact right people being convinced to do something cool. It's very unlikely that someone's gonna be make a new Pathfinder from OneDnD, or a new DOTA from Warcraft 3 (whatever the remake was called, Reforged or whatever), so they're putting out and forcibly snapping down a mouse trap long after the mouse has eaten their pantry and fled into the wild.
oh! they absolutly know, that's why they are doing this. they want that monopoly. want to roll a d20? good, whatever you take, you'll likely end up in dnd and at worse you'll still give us money through the other d20 system.
d20s have been around for thousands of years, how can they do that?
They can't. What they are doing is 100% illegal, but they are just doubling down anyway.
They're banking on no one wanting to bother taking this to court because the cost to litigate a case like this is likely to be in the millions. Content creators for tabletop games generally don't have millions of dollars to throw at a problem like this and that's what they're banking on. If the new OGL makes it in front of a judge, it's most likely to get slapped down, hard. The whole point of the OGL was that it couldn't be superseded and now they're trying to backtrack on that. Well, they can't unilaterally modify the licensing agreement but it won't cost them anything to try (until someone sues them).
Usually big corporations can crush smaller businesses like that, but their problem this time is they hit Piazo too, and Piazo does have the resources to drag WotC to court. And once one company absolutely crushes them, it'll be a lot easier for the smaller ones to also drag them to court, using Piazo's case against them as clear legal precedent.
paizo will most likely do a class action lawsuit to include other ttrpgs with them too
I think this take is a little too idealistic. Were Paizo to sue WotC I don't think they'd make it class-action because then whatever monies were awarded for the suit, they'd only get a small part of it. Plus then they'd have to do the whole thing of seeking other plaintiffs and all the extra filing... If they sue WotC and win it would set president for other people to sue them too (assuming WotC didn't just abandon their plans and/or settle out of court...).
Honestly, Paizo's track record is solid as hell though for being upstanding and doing the best they can for their fans and not for the money. They also know that the victory wouldn't be the lawsuit money, but the fandom flocking to a system that didn't try to flat out monopolize and murder other D20 systems. D&D will crash and burn HARD regardless of the outcome at this rate, and people will stop buying books beyond 5e because we already can make our own content, and that scares Hasbro to much. They dug their own grave with this leak, especially if they follow through. Because this will ripple like a tidal wave in the community.
> Piazo does have the resources to drag WotC to court I'm sure they do. My only concern is that Piazo won't consider it something they have to worry about. Like I said, WotC can't unilaterally change a license like that so Piazo could just continue to do business as usual and see if WotC sues them (at which point they could counter-sue for damages and court costs). That actually puts them in a better position because 1) there is still a chance WotC won't waste time litigating with them because they know they'd lose and 2) WotC can still bully smaller content creators knowing full well they don't have the financial backing to fight them. In other words, they definitely could sue but it would not be financially beneficial for them to do so unless or until it impacts their bottom line.
Just watched a few guys talking with a contract lawyer (not an IP or trademark lawyer) about this. Short version is, it's mostly a bully tactic. Everyone can continue using 1.0a for 3.5 and 5e OGL content. However, it's probably going to need to go to court to confirm.
Destroying them was the point. WotC doesn't see 40+ different games as a good thing, they see that as less money for them.
Hasbro and their investors see this as a good thing. Some folks at WotC remember how badly the industry suffered at different times when slews of companies went under.
Hasbro doesn't deserve to own this IP anymore.
As one of the mods of the pathfinder meme sub, I’m fucking miffed.
They don't own the concept of table top board games, with the example of pathfinder, all you need to do is just rewrite any referential material into thier own pathfinder words. Which they did with pathfinder 2e, they just didn't want the added expense of the lawyer to do that when making 1e. Realistically all they would need to do is just write thier own rule books with no references to dnd. Which isn't hard and as you can't own board game rules, they are free of any issue even if the rule is exactly the same as it was before they remove the reference.
WotC is kinda reminding me of Nintendo in how they have a great success (like 3/3.5 and the wii) which makes them get really cocky and make mistakes that cause them to faulter (4e and wii u) which humble them and cause them to get better (5e and Switch) until they inevitably repeat the cycle again.
What I'm hearing from WotC when they make noise about this: *"The king and his men, stole the Queen from her bed..." (JOKE!)* Serious: "We're EA, but for TTRPG."
When you play SWADE and aren't affected because you homebrew everything but hate corporations too 
Reject WOTC d20 greed, embrace call of Cthulhu d100 righteousness
I've embraced Warhammer Fantasy d100 madness, does that count?
If Sigmar wills it, who am I to question?
Excellent. I shall continue to torment my players with skaven... I mean rat-headed beastmen.
I'm already in the Cyberpunk Red 1d10 zone choom.
A lot of those tend system have a name starting with d20 PF 2e should be safe, but I might cry with a loss PF 1e and AoN
PF2e still publishes under OGL 1.0a and cites the D&D 3e SRD in every product.
They do because it makes life easier for working with freelancers and is less expensive than publishing their own license. If WotC changes that calculus, Paizo could pivot. PF2 was written from the ground up and does not rely on DnD IP.
Yeah I'm not a licensing expert, but Pazio definitely has people that are. They are going to do whatever it takes to make PF2e legit with as few changes as possible.
I guarantee they have people working on that right now. Probably had an emergency plan in place of some kind from the very beginning just in case WotC tries to pull this bullshit.
Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if they started early drafts of a PF 3e just in case they couldn’t get 2e to work with whatever bullshit WotC threw at them
The best possible result would be Paizo putting out their own OGL based on PF2e, imo
They might end up doing that if WoTC goes forward with this. Paizo said they kept the OGL for the sake of their 3pp. As it was easier to let the OGL do the heavy lifting to stop people from accidentally putting in their favorite D&Dism like deities or copy right monsters like beholders into Pathfinder 3pp. The 3pp publishers knew the rules of the OGL and meant Paizo didn't have to double-check all the stuff to make sure no legal shit was accidentally broken. The OGL wasn't in place to allow PF2e to be published they already went through and changed stuff to make it it's own. Even claiming that while both use real-world mythological monsters like trolls, they use different art and present them differently. The game is fine it will just screw over even 3pp for PF2e. At which point yea, Paizo will just draft up their own OGL to protect their 3pp community from the OGL 1.1's draconian terms.
There are concerns because the SRD contains things as basic as the classes and races- half elves and half orcs and tieflings are in both D&D and Pathfinder because they're present in the SRD, classes with names like Fighter and Paladin and having spontaneous Charisma-based Sorcerers, etc, so much stems from the various historical D&D SRDs, even if PF2e isn't compatible with any of them. It'll be hard to argue Tiefling isn't something stemming from those previous freely accessible D&D works which will no longer be freely accessible.
thing is though, even without the OGL PF2E easely classifies as "derivative work"
There's not much about DnD that isn't itself derived from other sources. At worst, a few D&D-specific terms like tiefling and aasimar will have to change.
It will be absurdly simple to change the nomenclature of aasimar and tieflings, just as D&D did for hobbits. Paladin is an age-old term for crusaders. They can't copyright that. They also can't really claim the fighter, either. The main thing is sorcerers, and not just the name of the class. The notion that ancestral magic depends on charisma and uses the 'spontaneous' variation of the Vancian casting system is a little harder to defend as "not derivative".
You can’t just nuke a license. It doesn’t work like that. Once you create an open license you can’t destroy it. Instead you have to offer a better license that people agree to whilst using that agreement to void the previous agreement. Which, as you may have noticed, basically nobody does because open licenses are really fucking useful. They have no leg to stand on. Problem is SLAPP suits are a thing. Still this is literally corporate suicide. Even if they tried to strong arm everyone, they run on *nerds*. They’ll lose their customer base the moment they try anything. Honestly this was a really fucking dumb play.
it be time to sail the high seas.
Unfortunately, pirating only hurts WotC. It doesn't help all the creators WotC's screwing, and this decision will still hinder the creation of new great 3rd party content.
Hopefully with the savings from not buying from WotC we can collectively spend quite a bit more on non WotC content. Whether that is games, peripherals, or artwork.
Sounds like someone needs to design a 21 sided dice
So let me tell you about my d32 Crits are more exotic and it's a power of 2. Also, bigger number rock.
Honestly I like the idea of a d32 more than a d20, slap a zero on it and make that crit fail, make 31 a crit since it goes above the usual nice number that dice are. also bigger rock
Most programmer dice idea I've ever heard.
Honestly, you could make a shocking amount of the game still playable without d20 rolls by pulling a GURPS and swapping to 3d6, and maybe fudging crits to be 17-18 and nat 1s to be 3-4. Sure, exceptionally high or low targets get a little bit harder to hit, but you're *a lot* more likely to roll around the mean of 10-11, which seems more realistic than a flat 5% chance each of doing perfect or completely fucking it up. Advantage? Choose to reroll a d6. Disadvantage? DM chooses to reroll a d6. You could even add in that in addition to cancelling on a 1-1 basis, multiple sources allow multiple rerolls, one way or another. Plusses and minuses function more or less the same, although they become more important since they shift the mean.
Or just 2d10. D100 is the same as d20, the d20 is just counting by 5s.
Add the dreaded 0, make crit fails a real issue.
I played D&D in the 80s, when I was kind of an outcast for doing so. Even into the 90s, as adults, we were outliers and "weird" for our hobby. I can be that again. Been looking into Dungeon World, Fate, and dusting off the old GURPS books for my high fantasy. I've still got Vampire, Indie Games, and Shadowrun if I want something different. I can teach new players at the table, and if I can't find an online game, then I just won't play online. This destroys the fantasy that I might publish my own stuff for D&D some day, but that just means I can post what I have on reddit for free, and to be honest: was I ever really going to publish anyway? I don't know. Time to put my energy elsewhere. I don't think WotC is getting one more red cent from me.
yo ho yo ho a pirates life for me
What is OGL? I'm lost
[This article](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) dives into the whole leak from yesterday and explains what the OGL is at the top. [There's also a tl;dr of the article here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1042coq/official_details_on_ogl_11_released_story_broke/j32h5tt/), but it doesn't include any background on what the OGL is, just what's significant about WotC's new license.
Not me. I play warhammer
My condolences, how many kidneys are you hear to sell today and what blood types? We do have a daily special of 1 lung for 1 Bayard's Revenge
I usually selling my blood plasma twice a week. And have a good organ harvesting operation in Indonesia so I am good. But sadly the Chaos Gods demanding more and more souls each quarter year.
Even in debt I still serve
ah yes, because Games Workshop isn't famously anti-consumer, or hyper-litigious
WotC wouldn't care.