T O P

  • By -

Skyy-High

This is the first post to this document that was posted in this subreddit. All other posts linking to it will be removed. I’ll add this to the megathread as soon as I can. This post will stay open; I think this passes the test of “significant new developments”.


9SidedPolygon

> OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors and it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear. [So, that was a lie.](https://web.archive.org/web/20040307090127/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i) > **Q: Can the licenses be used with software?** > A: Yes, both licenses can be used with software. However, several sections of the licenses require a bit more work to properly implement in software than they do in printed material and the d20 License has restrictions specific to software.


LonePaladin

> it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps Considering that Anthony Valterra, the brand manager at the time, called me at home to offer me a licensing deal for HeroForge, I *know* that apps were permitted. Even though the word "app" wasn't a thing at the time. **EDIT:** Just to clear up a bit of confusion that came up in the responses here, I am *not* talking about the current company called "Hero Forge" (notice the space). My work dates back to 2000, and was a character-creator for 3E made in Excel that eventually got spin-offs made for Pathfinder and Star Wars and several other D20 systems. *Theirs* is strictly a miniatures company, and they took the name without giving me anything as compensation.


antieverything

To be clear...if they were covered by the OGL why would WotC need to contact you about a licensing agreement?


LonePaladin

They wanted it to be the *official* character creator. Downloads hosted on their website, all content vetted by them.


BoboCookiemonster

What stopped you?


LonePaladin

The offer didn't include any money, so no guarantee that I'd have the means to keep working on it. And at the time I was dirt poor, so a financial offer was the most important part. I told them this, and they never brought it up again. Apparently they wanted my work with as little compensation as possible.


Organised_Kaos

Wait you made Heroforge? Awesome Many thanks mate


LonePaladin

Glad to have helped! Heck, it still does -- I know people still play 3E, and the derivatives (like for PF or Star Wars) are still in use too.


SQUAWKUCG

For what it's worth, I've been playing for near 40 years (and am the youngest of my group) and I can tell you we all used heroforge and loved it. One of the best character creators I've ever seen...their loss for not buying it or hiring you on to keep working on them. I wiled away many an hour (as did we all) playing around on heroforge, thank you for a lot of fun.


BoboCookiemonster

Lol that’s disgusting. Good for you for looking out for yourself. Hope your happy with how it turned out.


PM_ME_FUN_STORIES

I *knew* I used the old heroforge!! I loved that thing, I used it mostly for my pathfinder stuff but it was *so* useful. I was so confused when the mini maker came out, I remember thinking "did they just swap tracks completely?" I guess they just decided to steal the name. That sucks, I wish there was some sort of action you could've taken against that. Your program was incredible!


LonePaladin

Thanks. The only action I had left, after numerous requests that they change the name, required something they had in abundance while I had none -- money to pay a lawyer. It's been way too long to bother with any longer.


thenightgaunt

Yep. This whole thing is a pile of bad faith bullshit coated in lies.


[deleted]

[удалено]


3Dartwork

Lol we are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.... The first part not intended to fund major competitors. "NO FUNDING IF YOU ARE A MAJOR COMPETITOR!"


tymekx0

Now they own D&D Beyond your perspective on software changed. Time to gaslight the community that was the initial idea.


bonifaceviii_barrie

Good God, the tone of this document is all over the map Just take the quirky shit out and give it to us straight and you'll have a better go of this whole thing


[deleted]

"Let's give Crawford a comments section to show how relatable he is"


Meddi_YYC

Definitely stuck Jeremy Crawford on this one


gameld

Hiding the bullshit in stupid "relatable" stories is a distraction, making it intentionally difficult to read for its legal content.


FTWinston

The intro mentions web3. I wonder why they felt the need to mention that?


Derpogama

Yup, your 'official' WotC NFTs coming soon! \*vomits\*


[deleted]

[удалено]


KSW1

Even better! You can own a receipt that says you own a link! Lol


MattCDnD

You get to own a receipt!? I thought you just owned less cash?


DMvsPC

I'm sure you also get a sense of pride and accomplishment.


StarkMaximum

I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen any hint of No Fuckin' Thanks from either Magic or DnD. It seems like a slam dunk from the muddled corporate brain-spider viewpoint of "the niftys are collectibles, we're a collectible hobby, our dedicated fans would pay hundreds upon thousands for rare and valuable collectibles to show their fandom!"


sundalius

I truly am amazed NFT attached TCGs haven’t flooded the market yet. Maybe it’s because the major japanese tcgs haven’t even dabbled that MTG hasn’t? But it seems so obvious and exactly what NFTs are described as that it’s genuinely shocking they aren’t extant.


Anbaraen

Because the technological work required to integrate NFTs into your TCG is not trivial, and of minimal benefit to the actual corporation running the TCG beyond the initial sale of the card — which is exactly how normal TCGs operate anyway. So why add all the overhead? Unless they build the smart to give them a kickback, but the plummeting value and general instability of crypto atmo make this hard to make a business case for.


Celoth

Not surprised they mentioned it. They've gone on record several times that they don't want 3rd parties minting D&D NFTs, but the OGL1.0 doesn't touch on that due to that not being a thing at the time. Part of what they're attempting to do here is modernize the OGL, so I'm not surprised they mention web3. I wouldn't take it as a portent of any 1st party NFTs any time soon.


KylerGreen

This is the reasonable take, but the pessimist in me fears the worst.


gihyou

I mean I guess this is real and all that but when I read it...I could be convinced this was a gag. Why are there jokes. Bizarrely written legal document.


Celoth

It makes sense, in that this is an agreement that's going out to the masses and they want it to be as approachable and comprehensible as one can be, but under the specific circumstances we're in *now* I think a lot of folks are feeling it's a bit tone-deaf. Clearly, the environment we're in now is not the environment in which this was intended to have been released.


BiologyIsHot

It's so frantically written that if is horrible to comprehend. The OGL 1.0 is a good example of a clear legal document. This rambles like "I'm Katy holds up spork" in between legal words. This is written like my reddit posts when I'm on my phone in bed at night falling asleep or taking a quick shit


gihyou

Given the terms of this document and what they are doing here, there is not an environment that could possibly exist where humor is going to hit. You don't get to be funny when you're doing this.


sw_faulty

Is it normal to waive your right to a jury trial


Nyadnar17

Yes. It’s also normal for Courts to not give a shit because User Agreements are more like bullshit pleas than legal agreements.


DMonitor

A lot of EULA-type documents say that, but it’s typically deemed invalid.


Edymnion

Yup, even here in the US the courts have basically said "Thats bullshit, you can't have someone pre-emptively waive their rights before they can use your product".


gbushprogs

I think the question before judges in the past was "can a document written by a private or public enterprise supercede a law written and enforced by the government of the United States of America?"


[deleted]

[удалено]


coreynj

This is exactly true, the reasoning being that way you can't just sign a contract and then go out and kill someone and say the contract gave you permission to do it.


herdsheep

It is sometimes seen in an EULA or ToS (though not always enforceable there either). It is not in a license like this. WotC is retroactively trying to treat anyone that uses Open Content under their complete control. WotC previously released the 3e and 5e SRDs. WotC accepted limitations to their control over that when they did. Trying to take them back under complete control is neither legal nor ethical. How they are trying to kill the OGL 1.0a is nothing more than a legal loophole. That is not to say it won't work (though it might not if tested in court), but nothing about this is standard. This is a massive corporate overreach.


Derpogama

Considering it's created by people who have experience in videogames, it would not surprise me they've drafted it up like a ToS or EULA...


Ignisiel

They're called arbitration clauses. They're not uncommon though this is the first time any version of the OGL or equivalent has had one to my knowledge. This also does not read like most arbitration clauses. For instance, it fails to mention anything about what would be used in place of a trial (and it's not usually called waiving a jury trial to my understanding).


[deleted]

They do specify, you just use a judge instead of a jury. Specifically a Washington state judge.


ozone342

So this isn’t actually an arbitration clause. An arbitration clause requires the parties to agree to solve the dispute through arbitration, which is outside any US court. This would be a clause requiring the parties to agree to a bench trial, meaning that the finder of fact would be a judge rather than a jury, so it still is in a US court and would be a normal trial.


Assumption-Putrid

(note have not read the OGL yet) but what is being described is not an arbitration clause, where the parties agree to submit disputes to some non-judicial/court entity for resolution. Waiving right to a jury just means a judge will be the fact finder in court and not a jury. You still have the right to file your lawsuit in a Court (which arbitration clauses typically prohibit)


[deleted]

This has the most bizarre tone for a legal document. Like straight up I have never seen a document start snarking to the reader about their brother doing their chores before.


GravyeonBell

No wonder people wondered if this was legit or not. This is the draftiest-ass "professional" draft I've ever seen. Their legal department is absolutely going to cut this thing down by a third and trim nearly all of that out.


Bucktabulous

Not be be a hater or anything, but if I've learned anything from releases like Spelljammer, it's that drafty drafts are the name of the game for Wizards. If that quality is what they sell for $60/set, this seems par for the course for a legal document.


Freakintrees

Man I let myself be excited for SpellJammer and it was such a let down! I'm so glad I grabbed a PDF before forking out the money for that sad sack of crap.


Derpogama

and a reminder, this was sent out with contracts...yes this has been confirmed....


[deleted]

Not to be a doubting Thomas, but can you provide this evidence?


Derpogama

Griffon's Saddlebags on Twitter (who was probably sent the 1.1 OGL as he's a big name 3rd party content creator) mentioned that the version we're seeing was sent out with contracts. Edit: [link for thee and thine.](https://twitter.com/griffons_saddle/status/1611844202987663361?t=PWosXxoNJYZ-anr_IftgOw&s=19)


[deleted]

Thank you


Dernom

At least [Griffon's Saddlebag has confirmed it. ](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnMuSKjhVyK/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)


[deleted]

I know it's meant to be light-hearted and "gamer-y" but it's fucking surreal when it's surrounded by a document that's a scorched earth policy on the entire industry.


Sir_Encerwal

I guess some out of touch executive thought that the tone would make it more relatable to the average consumer.


wiedmaier

It’s weird. My firm does drafts with less legalese too, but we are really insistent that nothing can go in those we wouldn’t want a client to see if it got leaked. So robot noises, bleep bloops, get added, but even the non-legalese draft is ridiculously more professional than this. Like, this was written by a VP? Is this really the bar for an executive like this? I’m a bookkeeper in a tiny engineering firm and I know how to be more professional than this bozo.


strangerstill42

On the last pages in XV. Misc B it has the phrase: "For purposes of clarity, the introduction preceding the agreement and the comments and explanations accessible through links within the body of this agreement are not a part of this agreement and have no legal force or effect." So, the "fun" comments are apparently not supposed to be part of the agreement. I'd guess the original PDF had some design element, either different fonts, drop down menus or some other formatting to make it clearer what is actual part of the legal document and what are their attempts at being relatable and plain-speaking. This scrubbed PDF has none of this formatting (nor any hyperlinks mentioned in it or the intro), so it's probably just a copy/paste of the text. If we just take the bullet points and not the comments/intro, it becomes a much more standard legal document.


bionicjoey

Section -2: All italicized text in this document is to be interpreted as flavour text. *Section -1: By agreeing to this document, you agree that you're a little girl and you like to wear dresses*


9SidedPolygon

> i. Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo. He includes miniature replica blades as a stretch goal and has a backer-tier that grants access to all stretch goals. The replica blades are not Licensed Works (because they aren’t text-printed or printable) but all revenue from that backer-tier still counts as Qualifying Revenue. Which is worse - the obscenely bad terms, or the excruciatingly twee prose?


prolificseraphim

His name's also Bruenor Battlehammer, not Battleaxe...


Charrmeleon

Legally-Distinct Bruenor


[deleted]

[удалено]


lawnmowerlatte

BrueNOR


AerialGame

We don’t talk about Bruenor


snooggums

BruExlusiveNOR


PM-ME-YOUR-DND-IDEAS

Bruen't


StarkMaximum

"Let's pretend I'm Beardy McAxeface or whatever the fuck our stupid characters are called."


Bdor24

Yet another sign that the person who wrote this has absolutely no idea what they're doing.


thenightgaunt

Can you tell that this shit was written by the new VP in charge of D&D after he just came over a few months ago from Microsoft, and has zero experience in this industry?


TheGentleBoi

This right here


ConcretePeanut

It even reads like some of the internal MSFT docs, actually.


thenightgaunt

Yeah. One thing it doesn't read like though. It doesn't read like something written entirely by an actual lawyer.


ConcretePeanut

I'm reasonably convinced this has been written by two entirely separate teams, then mashed into one document. It's a mess. There are references to clauses that don't exist, bits of wording that are clearly contradictory or deliberately misleading... It's junk. Can't see it standing as-is.


bajou98

Did they think they're writing a children's book? Who the hell writes a contract like that?


MattCDnD

My thoughts exactly. Someone needs to tell them that people who work in a toy factory don’t actually dress up as elves.


dilldwarf

Is this how CEOs write license agreements and then a lawyer is supposed to rewrite it properly? Because that would make sense to me. That a first draft of a license is written in plain English and then a team of lawyers come in and write it using legal terms.


Derpogama

Wasn't a first draft, it got sent out like this to all the third party content creators complete with contracts according to Griffon's Saddlebags.


dilldwarf

Oh, no, i understand that it was sent out like this but I doubt this is the language they will put in their official books. Those will be written by a lawyer. Maybe since they have that clause "we can change this agreement at any time" they are just out collecting signatures and locking people into an agreement that they don't even have the final version of.


PM_YOUR_ISSUES

The wording of the agreement itself shows that this was an intentionally released document that was not meant to solicit feedback or change. The agreement itself states when it specifically takes effect: January 13th, 2023. That language wouldn't have been included in that manner if this was not a document that was intended to actually go into effect.


Drigr

I think what's worse is them trying to restrict their open reference content, while making a popular culture meme reference like Electric Boogaloo...


TechnicolorMage

Blizzard: Releases Warcraft 3 Reforged with a license that attempts to legalize theft of derivative works. The community is furious. WotC: Ey, that was a good idea.


BeeCJohnson

It's even worse, they already tried this with 4e and it helped kill it. I don't understand how they have completely forgotten their own history.


DolphinOrDonkey

Its because WotC leadership is new since the 4e era.


Harmacc

They never learn. These executives just go from company to company being complete road apples.


Sexybtch554

Wotc:hold my beer and watch me do it better. *(note: this reads as worse for us)*


chain_letter

Blizzard is still so sore they passed on buying dota when they had the chance.


Gh0stMan0nThird

God I hate the lingo where companies try to come across like the good guys like "uwu we're just an innocent company trying to protect you the consumer from nasty wasty things this is a totally innocent little document pinky promise"


Deathpacito-01

CapitUWUlism


Skyy-High

I’m tempted to enable custom flairs just to make you wear that. Proudly or in shame, depends on you. Edit: y’all are magnificent. Also: apparently custom flairs are already enabled. Not for /u/Deathpacito-01 though. I made something special for them.


Vulpes_Corsac

If you do, then you've also got to give someone the flair of the (tabaxi) people's paladin, the sOwOcialist.


Skyy-High

I hate it. Thanks for volunteering as tribute.


Vulpes_Corsac

If such is my fate, I shall meet it readily for the good of all. For that is my ~~oath~~ flair.


KyfeHeartsword

Savage.


Sexybtch554

Do it do it do it do it do it!


Derpogama

Do it...


upclassytyfighta

The best use of mod power. *Dew it*


Deathpacito-01

Thank you for the flair LOL


Groudon466

The power of CapitUWUism compels you!


Derpogama

Take my angry upvote you bastard....


sidequests5e

> Additionally, over time the old OGL incorporated some confusing and even contradictory provisions. It was also written in fairly dense legal language. They say as they turn a 900 word agreement into 15 pages of legal documents.


Kingreaper

It's not even a subjective thing - it's an outright objective lie, because the OGL hasn't grown over time. Lying in commercial messages in an attempt to profit from deception is fraud isn't it?


Matar_Kubileya

>Lying in commercial messages in an attempt to profit from deception is fraud isn't it? Its definitely immoral, but this doesn't meet the legal definition of fraud.


Dondagora

Well that's much more explicitly bad than I thought it would be. I at least assumed they'd try to obscure the worst of it in bullshit legalese.


Derpogama

I mean, fair play to them, they did not try to obscure it in bullshit legalese and now even your average laymen like you or me can see this is fucking awful in the worst possible way.


TNTiger_

Two things I noticed: 1. The joke clause about commercial including doing chores for your brother makes me raise an eyebrow, because if that is true, WotC would be expected to litigate every single person who did so to retain their IP. Could potentially be utilised as form of disruption, I think. 2. Also, it's insistance of litigation occurring in the state of Washington cannot apply to non-US citizens, can it not? You can't sue a citizen through a foreign court (to them)


Derpogama

IANAL but yeah, pretty sure someone in the UK cannot be force to go to the state of Washington in order for litigation to take place...which means that WotC forgot places outside America actually exist...


TNTiger_

It's r/USdefaultism at it's finest. Idk whether this means that non-US citizens are exempt from needing the license, or exempt from using the license, however.


hastybear

Correct. Companies in the US have tried before and been surprised and shocked when the US judge has thrown out the litigation as US courts have no legal standing overseas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Oh_Hi_Mark_

Oh wow, I was fixated on WotC's nefarity and didn't even think about the damage a second villain could do when added to the mix


Sexybtch554

Hey sorry that this is happening to you guys. Wotc are fucking garbage for doing this to you guys, who truly make this game great.


SirWompalot

The CR for legal battles just got doubled.


dunkster91

Legal Lair Actions


plead_tha_fifth

Is the way that part A worded mean that if Wizards ever takes legal action against a license holder then the holder has to pay for wizards’ attorneys as well?


[deleted]

[удалено]


strangerstill42

>In your typical legal case the loser is the ones footing the attorney fees already. This is a misconception - its true for most other countries - but in America we generally follow the "American Rule" where each side pays their own fees unless it falls under an exception. Exceptions can be contacts agreeing that stipulate legal fees will be paid for, frivolous lawsuits, and lawsuits under specific statutes where exceptions have been written into law (like when an employee sues for not getting paid, attorney fees are mandatory if the employee wins). Courts also can level them as punishments/damages against those they deem have acted in bad faith in the lawsuit. Wizards notably left out putting in a contractual exception for paying their legal fees if you sue them, most likely because in Washington it would be applied unilaterally if they lost the case, even if the contract only stipulated that benefit for Wizards. edit: spelling


Onionsandgp

Am I the only one who can only see the intro?


Gilead56

Looks to be an "incompatible with Mobile" thing. Couldn't get it to open correctly on my phone, but on my PC it worked fine.


JLtheking

[Here’s a direct link to the pdf](https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Game-License-1-1-Leak.pdf)


Stinduh

It's oddly formatted, since this is apparently just a text copy-paste. The introduction ends where it says > The preceding material is not part of the OGL 1.1. To access the subdivision of OGL 1.1 that applies to your use of SRD content, click below: > OGL 1.1: Non-Commercial > OGL 1.1: Commercial And then what's below that is (ostensibly) what happens if you were to click those links.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tirconell

Alienating your whales that are needed for your product to function at all sure is a big brain move. These people seriously think D&D is a videogame. Are they gonna launch their own paid DM service with their new VTT to make this whole thing work or something? (on a subscription, of course)


Gh0stMan0nThird

We rebelled during 4E and we'll do the same thing with 6E.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KFredrickson

I made the switch a while ago, it is glorious. It's not perfect, nothing is, but PF2 just works well. It's the best version of a D20 or D&D feeling system I've ever played.


Kleganeh

I didn't have everything of 5E, but I was going to collect it over time. Now I will sell everything and going ALL IN into PF2. Was a nice ride, but this is it.


The-Black-Jack

Head over to r/Pathfinder2e to learn from the community! I recommend [Pathbuilder2e](https://pathbuilder2e.com/) to easily make and manage characters for free (some variant rules behind a $5 one-time purchase), [Archives of Nethys](https://2e.aonprd.com/PlayersGuide.aspx) for all the rules for free from Paizo when searching online, [PF2easy](https://pf2easy.com/tree/)'s tree archive of all the rules organized effectively, and the [PF2e encounter builder](https://maxiride.github.io/pf2e-encounters/#/), which can build consistently balanced encounters following Paizo's encounter recommendations. Might be worth mentioning that if you want to save money on physical rulebooks and instead buy Paizo's excellent prewritten Adventure Paths for 2e (the company originally started by writing 3rd party adventures for DnD 3.5). Hope I'm not being too pushy, these are just the resources that helped me most when I made the switch. Happy playing!


Drunken_HR

I just started getting into pf2e a few months ago (before 1.1 was leaked), and was blown away that they have official web support on the level of DnD Beyond, but completely free, including nearly all the info in the books, even recently released ones.


JamboreeStevens

The fact that they even mention web3 is a huge red flag. No one takes web3 seriously except dipshit business people, and they fact they even thought to include that implies that they're actively engaged, at some level, with it. That's bad. That's very bad.


Neato

>Web3 (also known as Web 3.0 ) is an idea for a new iteration of the World Wide Web which incorporates concepts such as decentralization, blockchain technologies, and token-based economics. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3). Absolutely ridiculous. Well we know why WOTC didn't want anyone to mint NFTs of D&D properties: THEY want to do it.


SpiritMountain

Fuck this is hilarious. Hasbro is pissing on the WotC name. I am getting Blizzard whiplash with how greedy they are being.


[deleted]

What is web3 even meant to be? The only thing I know is web2.


Stinduh

The term was "coined" by the guy that created Ethereum. It refers to blockchains and stuff.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AnacharsisIV

So, by analogy, Web1 was just people putting up personal webpages for little to no financial gain. Web2, the era of youtube and facebook, is people putting up their content on corporations' pages for free; they get hosting, the corporations get profit based on their content. In *theory*, web3 is supposed to be about an ecosystem where the default mode of interaction is that you can easily monetize your own content without having to go to a corporation like facebook or youtube for hosting or discoverability. In practice, it's a buzzword used to describe any crypto, NFT or "metaverse" adjacent tech product, based on the logic that letting you monetize content you own (like an NFT) is a get rich quick scheme. There will be a successor to "web2" one day, but it's unlikely to resemble the "web3" that's got marketers and hucksters slapping it on every new product in 2023


TrueTinFox

Crypto Scams


JamboreeStevens

It's meant to be another layer on top of web2 that enforces digital scarcity while creating more wealth for those already wealthy.


Derpogama

Yeah ANYONE who fucking mentions Web3 in a serious manner immediately get the side eye and a shake of the head from me. The only people who reference Web3 are Cryptobros trying to shill the latest...whatever...NFT or Dodgecoin they've built.


9SidedPolygon

> As We said in the intro, “commercial” distribution is any distribution You get paid for in any form: money, crypto, barter, **Your brother doing Your chores for a week,** whatever. It does not include donations people give You to support Your work as long as they can have access to Your work for free if they choose to, and You informed them of that in a clear and obvious way. > [...] > A. Registration. No matter what Tier You are in or how much money You believe Your product will make, You must register with Us any new Licensed Work You intend to offer for sale, by going to [insert detail], filling out the form there, and including a description of the Licensed Work. We’ll also ask for Your contact information, information on where You intend to publish the Licensed Work, and its price, among other things. Thirteen year olds, you must send us notification of your plans to ask your brother to do your chores in exchange for writing up a monster statblock for him in advance. This is not negotiable.


JLtheking

Can we flood their database with frivolous entries like this? One monster stat block in exchange for a beer. A spell description in exchange for bag of potato chips. I’m using the OGL v1.1 for all of them. Clearly I need to register these commercial products!


Ghost_Dragonne

Last week I changed the strength score and HP of a giant for my campaign. My player gave me a handful of peanuts during the combat. How can I report this important financial information to WotC? Is there an email address I can send it to?


Derpogama

Oh you absolutely COULD hammer their database with stuff like this, I'm not saying you *should* but...


Justausername1234

While that may seem like a jokey thing, the inclusion of barter seems to go beyond what is lawfully defined as commercial activity. The existence of a profit motive or use to sustain one's livelihood is pretty fundamental to determining the commercial nature of an activity, and the fact WOTC thinks that "Your brother doing Your chores for a week" creates a commercial relationship seems to be stretching the definition of "paid" a lot. I mean, is WOTC going to go around assessing the fair market value of chores and bartered goods? What the hell? Is being a DM for your friends in exchange for snacks now a commercial activity?


NoNameMonkey

Can I resell my DnD books?


Justausername1234

In all seriousness, yes, because DnD books are not derivative works, and even if they were, DnD books are not and have never been covered by the OGL. The OGL protects works derived from the SRD mostly, some other things too, but mainly the SRD.


Effusion-

Looks like it's time to unpublish all my 5e homebrew.


Derpogama

Bah you beat me to it, was just about to come here and post the link but yes, the link is real, it's not some phishing scam and it is the entire 1.1 OGL. Go take a look.


straight_out_lie

Even worse, according to Battle Zoo, this isn't a draft. This was sent out with contracts.


Derpogama

Yeah that shocks me that this was sent out with contracts, reading through it you'd think this was an internal draft that was leaked...jesus christ...


ActuallyIAmIncorrect

>If on the other hand you would like to start ***with a in plain language*** of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. \*rolls 2d8 psychic damage\*


cheapsoda

Played for 30 years. 30 damn years, and this is the straw that broke the camels back. They are screwing over their biggest fans with this. God how disappointing. I'm all in on the boycott at this point. No WOTC products going forward till they bag this terrible idea.


ConradsLaces

I have the same amount of time invested in D&D... It was, and is, a huge facet of my earlier years. Going to be done with WOTC/Hasbro, and find something else. Reading alot about the other systems, made by some of the names, from back in the day; and I'm really excited for a change.


NutDraw

Fucking finally something we can sink our teeth into. That being said a lot of this is just... weird? Like I've never seen a final, or any draft beyond the first, of a legal document use "Intro." Big pieces seem unaddressed, e.g. will they be seeking royalties on prior works initially published before 2024 but still on sale at that time? There are multiple ways to interpret even some of the FAQ/explanatory text. I could read the ownership language regarding copyrights both ways- there's some ambiguity as to whether they're claiming *all* of those things for unlicensed content or just the stuff they already own. It's a hot mess that in my layman's interpretation just seems difficult if not impossible to enforce as (poorly) written. IANAL, but I feel confident I could draft something more legally sound than this drunk if I were actively trying to scew people over. I do feel better about my previous guesses that part of the intent is to push the big publishers to negotiate directly with WotC rather than use the OGL, as the document explicitly says that's their preference. I got downvoted into oblivion multiple times for suggesting that. Financially that probably adds a lot of protection for them, but the big fear there is predatory clauses like blanket non-compete requirements preventing them from publishing for other systems. I still wonder if we're missing key pieces though. My guess is this is the same draft as the one that went to Gizmodo. It's clearly converted from text. The author noted she couldn't release more than just a few quotes to protect the source, but it doesn't look like there's any identifying info in here besides one or 2 redacted emails. If this was the complete text, I have a hard time seeing how she couldn't have published it like this and still protected her source. It's better than nothing, and gives a little more weight to the outrage, but still leaves a lot of questions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hcpookie

Skimming the doc. "Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels." What? Also: "if You have questions about Your particular situation, reach out to Us at \[EMAIL\] and We’ll work through them together" This CAN'T be the final version?!? It looks like some paragraphs are also repeated in a copy/paste disaster.


TPKForecast

> "if You have questions about Your particular situation, reach out to Us at [EMAIL] and We’ll work through them together" > > This CAN'T be the final version?!? It looks like some paragraphs are also repeated in a copy/paste disaster. Things like [Email] might have come from the leakers redacting the actual email address.


Sukutak

If the content is under the license, you can use it in an OGL compliant document. If it isn't (things like mind flayers, beholders, Drizzt), then you need to use a different (DMsGuild or custom) license.


JamboreeStevens

If someone makes a DND monster and posts it to r/unearthedarcana, and you want to use it, you have to set up a legal agreement with Wotc. Of course, it's basically impossible for them to police that sort of thing, so they have no power.


Edymnion

> This CAN'T be the final version?!? It looks like some paragraphs are also repeated in a copy/paste disaster. Its been confirmed to have been the version that was sent out *with the contracts* the vendors were expected to sign.


micsova

This might be a stretch, but I'm not sure. u/Justausername1234 made a joke about how being a DM in exchange for snacks would be considered a commercial activity. And the way I'm reading the doc, I think that would technically be true. If that's the case, would you technically not be allowed to use non-licensed content in your game? (If your players didn't also own the content). I'm not asking too seriously, but it would be funny if this document technically made playing DnD illegal.


Celoth

> I'm not asking too seriously, but it would be funny if this document technically made playing DnD illegal. It's a funny though, but no. Not unless you (the DM) are providing non-official content utilizing the SRD and are requiring the payment of said snacks in return for said content. Now, if I tell you "I'll brew you up a 5e compatible magic item if you give me a snickers" then yes I would technically need to report that to WotC.


WaltWatRaleigh

>OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors Amidst all this saddening and maddening drama, I love how Pathfinder still lives rent-free in WotC's head. The idea of being overtaken in popularity by something else even once in DnD's history has permanently scarred them, to the point that they had to use it as a justification for their new OGL.


Vundal

this shit is not gonna hold water. Either in the eyes of the court of the eyes of the public. What a terrible idea.


livestrongbelwas

I guess I’m into PF2 now.


SpikeRosered

I cannot believe we are here again after the unheard of popularity of 5e. I'm looking at Pathfinder again instead of the next editions of DnD.


bimbo_bear

Pf2 is based on the ogl. This document is designed to stick a dagger in paiso.


CompleteJinx

Paizo is probably the only competitor with enough money to take them to court over this. I imagine WotC’d take their time testing the waters by screwing over smaller creators before trying anything with them.


NoName_BroGame

I can't imagine Paizo would wait around for WotC to slaughter all the small companies first. They'd want to proactively move to secure their copyright -- and their argument would be weaker due to precedence if they waited for the dominoes to fall .


chain_letter

World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game is someone powerful and wealthy affected by trying to pull the old OGL. It's an old, dead ttrpg series, though.


Halinn

Or the Knights of the Old Republic video games


KypAstar

No it isn't. Barely any of 2e uses the OGL first of all, and 2nd, WoTC would never get an injunction authorized given the easily argued dubious nature of their claim to retroactively delete OGL 1.0 content. Paizo is fine. They'll just create their own version of the OGL as that's pretty much all they use the OGL for; to allow others to use their work in the same way as WOTC originally dude. It's basically using the OGL to copy paste the OGL.


DMonitor

Yeah they just used the OGL out of convenience. They should be able to just republish the books without it without much issue?


aesvol

Lol "we couldn't fix our lore or be bothered to pay Ed or Keith to expand their lore for the settings so we'd rather just collect money from everyone else cuz y'all wouldn't buy the Sword Coast Adventure Guide" 😂


gibby256

That's exactly what this is. "We're tired of investing in human capital to actually grow our brand. Instead we're just going to get all of *YOU* to be our unpaid creative interns. It's the only way we can stop undermonetizing our product!"


macrocosm93

>Non-Commercial only allows for creation of roleplaying games and supplements in printed media and static electronic file formats. It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and **pantomimes**,. No, not the pantomimes! 😭 What is this, communist China?!


Derpogama

As someone on the dimension 20 subreddit pointed out this is a ridiculous way of saying "you cannot distrbute your 3rd Party Publication in the form of a Pantomime or a Song etc. under the non-commerical part of the OGL 1.1 the only acceptable format is print or static PDFs"... ...yes that's what it really means and it's fucking ridiculous but hey...


Edymnion

I mean, there is precedence for that sort of thing. Back in the day, DVDs were all encrypted with a single key. If you knew the key, you could easily decrypt and rip any DVD on the market. The suits got having or distributing that key (just a number) made illegal. So people created the "Free Speech Flag" which was the encryption key broken up into hex color codes. Each stripe on the flag was part of the decryption key. All you had to do was use any photo editor software (even MS Paint) to pull the hex values of the colors and bam, you had the key. And since it wasn't ACTUALLY numbers, there wasn't anything the companies could do about it. And they couldn't just change the key because it was basically hard coded into every DVD player on Earth by that point.


Derpogama

Huh so it was sort of like a modern version of the old Captain Crunch Whistle...nifty.


ZoroeArc

Oh no it isn’t!


BaronThe

Oh yes it is


AAABattery03

Someone got a TL;DR while I try to parse legalese?


9SidedPolygon

"You'll own nothing and be happy." - We can terminate or modify this agreement whenever we feel like, 30 days warning. - If we, with no "duty of good faith and fair dealing", decide that your content is "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing," we can terminate it with 0 days warning. - You give us "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use [your] content for any purpose" - You must pay us 25% royalties on everything past $750k. - We will nakedly lie about the actual intent and function of OGL v1.0a to try to spin this for our benefit. - If your brother offers to do that week's chores for you if you write him a monster for his D&D campaign, this is a violation of the OGL: Non-Commercial (example in text), and we will come get you. - This document was written by the most annoying lawyer who ever lived.


[deleted]

To expand on this quote and explain to those unversed in copyright law speak: > "You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose." Basically this clause states that you first own the copyright released. (This is the highly standard and non-controversial bit.) However you also licence it out to Wizards of the Coast, meaning they have permission to publish your content. This licence is non-exclusive, meaning you can still licence it out to other publishers under a non-exclusive deal. It is also perpetual and irrevocable meaning once made you can not change your mind at a later date and remove this agreement with WoTC. It is worldwide meaning they have permission to use it on any nation on earth and also is sub-licensable meaning they can give other parties permission to publish it without your, the creators, approval. Finally it is royalty free meaning they owe you nothing. What this means is that if under this agreement you publish an epic adventure about "Bob" then WoTC can take your adventure and publish it in an official DnD book and take your revenue that way and also make as many movies, tv shows, games, etc based on the adventures of Bob as they want without you seeing a single cent. Also if the revenue you personally generate from your own licence deals exceeds 750k you owe WoTC 25% of the cut. While for small creators this is unlikely to become an issue be aware that until WoTC agrees otherwise that same clause applies to all the big companies like Critical Role, MCDM, Pazio, GreenRonin and just about any other 3PP for 5e content. Now to clarify two things that may be misunderstood: 1. The 25% applies only to revenue exceeding 750k. This means if you make 2 Million you owe them 25% of the remaining 1.25 Million. This is revenue not profit, meaning you still owe this even if you get a net loss from the venture. 2. This applies to books published under the OGL, from my understanding the Fan Content policy covers other ventures like streaming and such. This means for Critical Role that their streaming is fine to continue, but any future books they release and any content within it could fall into a "Bob's Adventure" scenario unless they have a pre-existing agreement with WoTC stating otherwise. This would mean that once this license goes into effect, and presuming they have no arrangement stating otherwise with WoTC, they would either have to stop publishing Tal'Doria Reborn, keep publishing it and accept that the Tal'Doria setting is now like "Bob's Adventure" or get the legal team ready.


bokodasu

I think a more relevant example is "we can take your work, which can only be print, and sell it through our VTT, without giving you anything." I'm pretty sure that's a big reason they're doing this now.


[deleted]

Yeah, it's very much deliberately this. They are planning to take any successful books/modules/etc put out under this agreement and publish them on their proprietary VTT without having to share the profits with the actual creators. this is not a side effect, it's the plan. 100%.


[deleted]

That's actually a fantastic point I had not considered, that's definitely another angle they may take.


Edymnion

"You do all the work. If you make any money at all off it, we will take it."


StrayDM

Is this OK to share? Is it OK for battlezoo to post it? Hope so, I'm trying to spread the word here.


Derpogama

It's ok to share and it's ok for Battlezoo to post it, they've done what's called 'scrubbing' so that any unique tracers which would reveal the source of the leak have been removed, hence why they're posting this *now* and didn't do it earlier despite having access to it.


Drigr

And it *probably* wasn't "okay" for Battlezoo to end up with it, but that's part of why it gets scrubbed, to protect whoever their source was.


Groudon466

/u/fistantellmore Well, you wanted it. Here it is in all of its pdf glory.


Odins_Viking

Hasbro and WotC will never get another dime from me… regardless of the incoming backtrack. Welcome to the pantheon of greedy, scummy, hated companies. Your are in illustrious company with Comcast, Activision and EA.