Open Games License: Wotc

[rredmond]

You failed your Save vs. Twitter black rabbit hole Dave.
Of course every spin master in the WotC PR department is on the job at this point. Soon it’s going to be hard to know what’s real and what’s fantasy.

[Inferno]

Soon it’s going to be hard to know what’s real and what’s fantasy.

Seems fitting for a fantasy rpg corporation.

[rredmond]

[Rex]

That was already true I think.

[rredmond]

[Norjax]

They are obsessed with this:

No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,
discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,
obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you
covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

Some of these definitions are in constant flux. What is obscene? Claiming an invading orc army must be exterminated? What is harmful? Drawing a picture of an obese pixie?

[Rex]

Far to loose on definitions and they are the sole arbitrator. I could point out a ton of stuff from D&D over the years that could meet any number of those definitions. This continues to be mess and I suspect it will for some time.

[Inferno]

For me, that's the least of WotC's crimes. I mean, whoever owns D&D has been defining morality since the satanic panic. SSDD.





(From 1982, and this article from 2018)

[Rex]

My issue isn't with them defining it for themselves. My issue is them telling others how it has to be in their games.

[Inferno]

Agree! But that goes beyond defining morality. They have no right to tell others how anything has to be in their games.

[Norjax]

For me, that's the least of WotC's crimes. I mean, whoever owns D&D has been defining morality since the satanic panic. SSDD.

(From 1982, and this article from 2018)

I don’t have a problem with this. They can make D&D a milk toast version of its heyday; It’s their IP. This ^ example is for writing that would be published as a Dungeons and Dragons product (module, Dragon magazine article, etc.). What WOTC is attempting to do is claim any product published under the OGL and its myriad of branches may be “cancelled” based on WOTC’s “morality” definitions.

I’ve seen a lot of “Just use Pathfinder or Dungeon Crawl Classics” comments. Both use the OGL. Anything published as a DCC product must use the same OGL. Goodman Games has a pre-approval requirement before branding any product as DCC-compatible, but it’s pretty informal. There is a publication called Hubris: A World of Visceral Adventure that was approved by Goodman Games despite its visceral nature (graphic gore, evil game content, language, etc.). It’s marketed as DCC Compatible. Hubris would probably not meet WOTC’s standards.

What WOTC has done is forced the creation of competing game systems; the exact reason the OGL was established to prevent. The OGL authors knew that most players will stick with a system they are comfortable and invested in. The current OGL, with its cross-genre compatibility, promotes just that. One can take any OGL module, monster, magic item, etc. and with little or no modification utilize it in whatever OGL game they prefer to play. WOTC is destroying this.

[Inferno]

What WOTC is attempting to do is claim any product published under the OGL and its myriad of branches may be “cancelled” based on WOTC’s “morality” definitions.

Correct, because WotC believe they are now licensors of game rules, which they aren't. That's the real problem from which everything stems. This isn't about morality clauses. It's about thinking you have ownership over something you don't, which permits you to enforce your morality clause on it. The morality clause is just the symptom of the disease.

WotC's notion that they can retroactively deauthorize a perpetual OGL is what should be cancelled... in court.

[Norjax]

WotC's notion that they can retroactively deauthorize a perpetual OGL is what should be cancelled... in court.

Let's hope so.

[Rex]

Ultimately it can only be resolved in court, which I think Wotc wants to avoid. Not just because they are on shaky ground legally but also because it would be very bad press.

[Scott308]

From what I have read, perpetual does not mean it cannot be revoked. It simply means it does not expire. That makes it different from a license that expires in one year, or that allows you to publish 10,000 items using the license. With those, the license expires on a certain date, or after a specific period of time, or after a specified criterion is reached. But the original granter could revoke that license if they choose (or if certain conditions are met).

What people want is for WotC to deem 1.0 irrevocable, which is what the original drafters believed it to be, but because that exact term was not used, it may be revoked. This is what Wizards is trying to do.

And whether they are on shaky ground or not, I'm afraid WotC might win if it goes to court, simply because they (Hasbro) can throw enough money at it to cause smaller publishers to drop any suits. As a 1.3 billion dollar company, Wizards could take $13 million, just one percent of sales, and effectively shut down any/ all legal challenges by tying them up in court until the small publishers drop the suit or go bankrupt.

[Norjax]

As a 1.3 billion dollar company, Wizards could take $13 million, just one percent of sales, and effectively shut down any/ all legal challenges by tying them up in court until the small publishers drop the suit or go bankrupt.

Lawfare Tactics.

[Inferno]

And whether they are on shaky ground or not, I'm afraid WotC might win if it goes to court, simply because they (Hasbro) can throw enough money at it to cause smaller publishers to drop any suits.

Sure. Our legal system (like our medical system and our political system) advantages the wealthy. But as Rex said, WotC still don't want to go to court because:

-They have no legal standing. It's questionable whether you can copyright game mechanics in the first place, let alone unilaterally cancel a binding license/contract. Can you cancel open software licenses? If WotC lose in court, they lose almost everything. Court is defcon 1 for WotC.

-They'll definitely lose the PR battle. Fan backlash has already proven a threat. Can you imagine the authors of the OGL testifying against WotC?

So WotC really don't want to go to court, hence this week's latest charm offensive.

US has the right idea. Ignore this nonsense. Continue to use the OGL. Make WotC take you to court.

[Rex]

Agreed, they are going to do everything they can to avoid a lawsuit. They are the Goliath and they know it, but they don't want to create a David either.

[dmw71]

“What’s a Gary Gygax?”

A Message From WotC About OGL

[Rex]

LOL, that was pretty good.