Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

OGLpocalypse: WotC's Response To The Public Wrath At Their Bad Faith Is Not NEARLY Enough (Patreon)

Published:
2023-01-13 17:42:36
Edited:
2023-01-14 05:12:27
Imported:
2026-10
Tags:

Content

I have talked about OGL facts before, but not previously written an opinion piece here on my blog about the bad faith efforts WotC prepared to try to force people to give up the OGL 1.0s, which has driven the creation of tens of thousands of products over 23 years, in favor of a draconian "OGL 1.1" which would bad for anyone who agreed to it.

If you aren't up to speed on this, check out Linda Codega's articles here, here, here, and here. They are at the front of this developing story.

So, here's the big kicker on why today's official WotC response is unacceptable. A non-starter that even with the tiny concession they want to use to turn down the heat of anger directed at them by the community doesn't even begin to address the root of the real problem with what they are trying to do. Taken from the very first paragraph of their response today.

"And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose."

No.

Fuck you, WotC corporate. You DON'T get to ensure that, and the fact you want to means you still think you can change the rules on how people interact with and use the OGL.

You released SRDs for 3.5, d20 Modern, and 5.1 under OGL 1.0a. That license was NOT released with any restrictions on who could use it, and you know it.

The OGL 1.0a was designed to be something you couldn't force people away from -- could NOT force them to used a changed version of it -- and you know it.

The OGL doesn't allow anyone to make "D&D" products with content you object to, as they can't even mention the name of your game, much less use its logo, and you know it.

You've benefited from the ubiquity of each edition of D&D you released an SRD for, reaped profits as a result, and you know it.

You don't get to bully or bamboozle people into changes now, because you don't like what the OGL 1.0a means for your current business plans.

[EDIT]

I feel it would intellectually dishonest not to include this, written 12 or so hours later. I'm not walking back anything I said above, but I have to acknowledge that writing the above happened on the same day I wrote the below.

"The ttRPG industry is small.

One thing that means is that dozens of people asked me to be one shows, consult on the future, or lead on the OGL issue. I have done my best.

But ANOTHER thing it means is I have hurt friends and family-of-choice in the process.

That was never my intent, but some soul-searching tells me I didn't give that possibility the weight of consideration I should have.Would I have done things differently? I don't know, but I should have given it more thought.

Apologies don't undo harm, but I'm sorry folks.

That said, I need to step back and ponder the current reality very, very carefully.

So, I'm taking the next few days off from any OGL-related news, links, or posts. I'll wake up Tuesday, and see what I think I need to do for my career, industry… and friends.

ALL my friends."

Comments

David Chart

In fairness, it could just be bad phrasing, which is par for the course. "Content already released under 1.0a will be unaffected" could mean that the 5.1 SRD (etc) will still be available under 1.0a and will be unaffected. They do explicitly say that they can't achieve all their goals while "staying true to [their] principles". However, the benefit of the doubt only extends as waiting until I see the actual language of the new license. I don't really expect them to behave well. Simply stating that they had their third goal proves that they were acting in bad faith or completely failed to understand their own licensing agreement.

George I

Thanks, Owen for putting this all together for us. I hope you're doing better today.

Beverly Marshall Saling

Yeah, this still smells like BS to me. I don’t doubt the parts about wanting to get feedback first—that’s what leaks are for—but the rest is disingenuous at best. The first draft signaled their intent, and their offer to “walk back” the worst bits doesn’t mean they can be trusted not to change their minds and try it again. The explicitly irrevocable ORC license that Paizo and others are offering is a much better deal for 3PP and I can’t imagine why anyone would choose WotC’s ever-changing OGL when there is such an alternative available.

William Paine

What I don't really understand is how the OGL has anything to do with what they want in the first place. If they want D&D to be in a walled garden on DnDBeyond - and have no influence from 3rd party publishers - they already have that. It's not impossible to bring a Kobold Press adventure into DnDB (just an example), but I wouldn't want to spend the time doing it. Also, if I add homebrew content, DnDB becomes their property already - as far as I can see. So - why are they altering the OGL deal in such an onerous way if it has little to do with their overall plan? Seems like a dumb distraction. The question that I wonder about is - who is this distraction for - is it because WotC attorneys don't understand RPG culture and the RPG publishing industry? - or - are they trying to distract the community while they do something even more onerous? I feel like I'm missing something - maybe quite a bit. Thank you, Owen!

Owen K.C. Stephens

It is my belief that WotC wants to make sure there is not alternative to their Walled Garden. When they released 4e, a lot of fans did not make the switch to the new rules and tools, and the OGl meant other publishers could keep making 3.5-like ttRPGs (most famously, Pathfinder). WotC already released a 5e SRD to the OGL 1.0a. They say One D&D will be 5-e compatible. So if the OGL remains viable, a new publisher could make an Open Garden with 5e-compatible options, as an alternative to WotC's plans.

William Paine

They obviously didn't notice that "dust off and nuke the site from orbit" didn't work out so well. Putting a 22 year old industry creating djinni back into a bottle is just not realistic to me. So unrealistic that I can't imagine the mindset of the corporate tool who is imagining that it would work.