***A week after I published this video, we got bad news: ruclips.net/user/postUgkxTRw2ZMT_7ZOtg6hrmoSCJDCKiqQIad5H ✅ LIKE & SHARE: ruclips.net/user/BobWorldBuildervideos ✅ PATREON: www.patreon.com/bobworldbuilder
Small creators should make an alternative to 5e that is open source and simplified. WotC has had zero competition since 5e came out and its starting to cause issues.
I haven't read the Gizmodo article yet, but here's my take: I get the sense that WotC is trying to satisfy executive demands for more profit ("monetization," as they put it) but know that such an action will result in a Pathfinder situation and are trying to prevent that. I think their arrangements with VTTs like Roll20 and with storefronts like DMsGuild/DriveThruRPG gives them a lot more teeth than they had with the GSL/4e situation. 3P creators without the Creator Badge get shut out of all of those avenues, and I wouldn't be surprised to find anyone attempting to take the Paizo route with 5e being prevented from selling on DriveThruRPG through some legal justification. Admittedly that last conspiracy theory is my anti-capitalist bias speaking. That said, I think a Pathfinder situation is inevitable because they can't put that genie back in the bottle, and something so dependent upon the creative community as a TTRPG will find a way. The OSR movement was built on a DIY philosophy, and having that in its DNA is a big reason why 5e took off like it did. In fact, the Pathfinder equivalent may already exist-Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition looks pretty great. It, or some iteration of it, could win that mantle if OneD&D's OGL 1.1 turns out to be too restrictive.
I do feel like it's WotC sort of recreating their past mistakes but in a different way. Small creators probably won't have an issue with it (unless they lower that royalty cap "in the following years") but the huge content creators who are earning nearly a million dollars a year from the content they're creating could easily make their own TTRPG and potentially increase their profits, snatch up the D&D player base (WotC's customer base) AND not have to compromise their creative vision for whatever changes MIGHT be coming in One D&D. I'm not a creator for D&D outside the stuff I make for my home games so this doesn't affect me but I have started to look at other TTRPGs already as some of One D&D doesn't seem too inspiring to me. I'm hoping it's an amazing step forward for D&D but if it's not there won't be a shortage of fantasy RPGs to play.
Right haha, that's why my BIG question is: what are they secretly offering to the big third party publishers to keep them from creating their own 5e clones?? We'll see!
if you want a great system more on the rules light side, check out icrpg, if you want something more like 5e but with more tactical and character creation options, check out pathfinder 2e (i havent played personally, but ive heard lots of great stuff).
@@Peppershaker I much prefer PF2e, but the players at my table are new to RPGs so it was a tough sell to get them on board. That's the only reason I run 5e-they had heard of it.
@@BobWorldBuilder I'm guessing marketing, D&D Beyond tie ins, reduced DM's Guild fees. I don't have any real shit to base this on, but that's what I would guess. I'm right every once in a great while.
Since this has been put to print and companies will make financial decisions based on it, if they tried to lower that cap later on they may be opening themselves to litigation via promissory estoppel
I have a friend that still runs 3rd edition and I know a lot of people play 3.5 and Pathfinder. Worst case scenario is that I play 5e forever and never move on to One D&D the way those players never moved on.
My take is that the 3rd party creators are the reason why 5e is as strong as it is. OG 5e might have been good enough to get people to play but 3rd party stuff gets people to stay. I value yours and other 3rd party creators contributions to DnD higher than the half baked stuff the megacorporation puts out and would continue to view your content without any badge they might want to make you use.
In gaming analogue terms is modders who make mods for a franchise game that needs them to be optimal or juicier to play, after the original developers are taking a hiatus between updates or worse, moved on from the game. The community are keeping it alive with alot of talent
100%. I've stopped buying WotC books as of about 2 years ago with their changes in tone and messaging, but I'm regularly buying 3rd party content from creators whose style meshes with mine. Were it not for them I'd have stopped buying 5e content entirely.
I think it goes: Stranger Things makes D&D mainstream > 5e system makes D&D relatively easy to learn > 3rd party content makes D&D more fun for people who want to play outside the official rules. It's a big part of why 5e is so popular, but not the biggest from my perspective. Regardless, it's very valuable to our whole rpg community!
Thank you! It's a little hard to stay calm when it seems like everyone else isn't. My trick is to remember that I'm deep in a bubble about D&D and most of the world doesn't even care about any of this lol
Love how level-headed you come off as when you address and discuss things. You really seem to come across as looking for the bright parts of things. I guess in other words, you are refreshingly optimistic.
Thanks very much! Like I said at the beginning, I am still concerned. It's going to change many jobs and mine personally in one way or another. At the end of the day I'm not a lawyer who can get WotC to change their policies, so the best we can do is try to understand it and adapt
I suggest reading about TSR vs. Mayfair Games rulings. Unless you specifically need to attach the D&D brand and IP to your indie D&D publication, you have no need to use the OGL. It's settled case law that TTRPG mechanics are algorithms, which cannot be copyrighted because it's just math.
Coming in late, but if you copy the *text* of the SRD, you *do* need the OGL. Some creators get along fine without it, e.g. Kevin Crawford of Sine Nomine rewrote D&D-esque mechanics from scratch. But if you used any part of the SRD *text* to bootstrap your D&D-like game, you need the OGL. (Conversely, if you carefully remove *all* the SRD text later, you can remove the OGL.) WotC recently put the SRD under Creative Commons which has much less onerous requirements, but that's only if you used *exactly* the text in SRD 5.1. If you started with SRD 5.0 (or 3.x or some other OGL content) then you're still stuck with the OGL.
The other (big) reason tracking projects/creators that earn over 50K is useful is in valuating the D&D brand itself. If all you have is direct sales of your own products, and anecdotal reports from fans, it's hard to judge just how big your brand is. If you can point to a massive market of 3rd-party producers who have all attached themselves to your brand, you can use that as leverage when trying to get funding to produce other material (like Hollywood films; "look at how much money all of these people are willing to spend!").
100% agree with the effort to try and quantify the size of the interaction with the D&D brand beyond the sales of books. Right now, WotC has no way of describing this “halo” of interaction or love for the brand for investors. I imagine it would be a HUGE boost to the brand view (stock price) if they can show investors that they not only sell X number of Players Handbooks but also have Y interactions in the 3rd Party Creator realm. It also sounds like WotC is trying to add some “future proof” language to limit access which has “Ready Player One evil corporation” vibes. Bobs image of wearing the WotC uniform and badge didn’t help. But it is probably more designed to keep WotC from getting blindsided by the next evolution they didn’t see coming (or weren’t fast enough to adapt to). I don’t know how but someone is gonna come up with playing an open world D&D over Tik Tok using Block Chain dice rolls, run in an Augmented Reality environment created by live updated images crafted by Mid Journey AI…
@@dustinalexander4342 My other problem with it is that if also smells of Amazon methods. For those not in the know, Amazon will use their data to see what is currently selling really well, they will then use that data to make cheaper knockoffs of said product and promote them more than the original on the storefront. With regards to D&D it wouldn't surprise me if they used this to see what things small time creators were making that 'popped off' and then use that data to creating something of their own and then promote it on D&D Beyond so that their version has 'easier intergration' without the need for the use of the Homebrew tool.
I suspect that WOTC wants to stamp out competitions in terms of website and phone apps hence why the wording static electronic content. Also the dmsguild is terrible since it takes 50% and you lose the rights to publish elsewhere. I think we should push for a better dmsguild too
@@BobWorldBuilder Not just mobile games, but it might suggest character sheet or spell card apps that currently can be distributed with SRD data as a starting point. Basically it would shut out anything that might compete with D&D Beyond.
@@johnny88j9 It's still better than some of the horror stories I have heard come from people who have worked with Kevin Siembieda! He likes to throw C&Ds at people trying to make his archaic game work in other systems, it works because most people just get scared off and/or don't have the money to fight it. Actually this sounds a LOT like the direction that WotC/Hasbro is trying to go in?! The other guys still around, KIND OF, but he sure ain't doing so great! Oh well, there's PLENTY of other VERY good TTRPGs out there!
To me, the most important thing is that we as a community are voicing our concerns and making angry noises. We've seen time and time again companies who own big IPs we love take away from us and only through backlash we can pull the tug of war rope our way a little bit. This is their way of pulling it their way, but we should always pull back. I'm happy as long as we're making noise.
Yeah, while I personally think some of the reactions to the leaks were a little extreme, that extremity is what made that concern heard! And we're all better off for it!
I honestly don't think WoTC is looking very seriously at the table-top market now. The person in charge of this transition, was formerly working on XBox for Microsoft, and is coming in strictly from video game background. The new management don't understand the tabletop market, and since they don't think it's important, this is basically sweeping those concerns under the rug so they can focus on what they think their real money-maker is going be: VTTs with micro-transactions. At least, that's what I'd gamble on.
Its true, mechanics are not copyrightable. The OLG alowys you to use some IP that is included in the SRD, or, just lift and use the text to use as you like in a 5E document. The OGL, regardless of what people say is not necessary to create 5E compatible stuff. :)
@@BobWorldBuilder Seems like TTRPGs need a niche legal community like the open-source software movement has. The "open culture" movement (e.g. Wikipedia) has a bunch of such lawyers too. There's gotta be a friendly D&D-playing lawyer somewhere who can a) explain this stuff to people better and b) represent someone pro bono if WOTC goes berserk
@@BobWorldBuilder Bob, a good person to reach out to and talk to about this is Matt Finch. He has the answers and would be a great expert to have on your show to talk about it. Finch is one of the founders of the OSR movement.
@@BobWorldBuilder True enough, but It is worth at least understanding your rights & exposure as a content creator playing in some other company's sandbox. For instance, even major authors like Weis, Hickman, and Salvatore all have had their fights with TSR-then-Wizards, but they are very clear on what they have created & own, what WotC owns, and what is up-for-grabs/public domain.
From the sounds of it, what you won't be able to do under OGL 1.1 is create websites, or mobile apps, that provide active content. Like a catalogue of SRD-available creatures or spells that someone can search through, a portable electronic character sheet, or something like Kobold Fight Club - i.e. services that might compete with D&D Beyond.
The OGL Product badge on the cover is one of the things you saw a lot with the 3rd edition OGL. Almost every book published under that license had a little d20 and OGL (two separate logos) printed on the back cover near the barcode.
Yup, just dug into this in another comment. But basically if you didn't participate in the official D20 System, your books/products were not available in stores, whether that was the local FLGS/comics shop, or a mall/big-box store like B. Dalton's/Waldenbooks/Barnes & Noble. While digital distribution theoretically means anyone can publish directly, it seems like consumers now are trained to go to one or two platforms for their D&D 3PP content, and there are many fewer side-channels to get your books in front of new customers.
I really appreciate you taking the time to make this video instead of jumping to a conclusion, like many did (not that those concerned were ill-intended) Thank you for your contributions to the D&D community
my thought on the badge is that its meant to be a clear way of saying "this is not made by wizards". For us in the hobby its gonna be obvious but for new people coming in it'd help make sure there's no confusion. which sounds like something a lawyer would probably say is a good idea.
and in addition -- if the work doesnt clearly carry the badge, but gets into the wild, it shows us the creator hasn't done thier bit -- maybe adding caution to its use/purchase....
That's how I understood it as well - that you're supposed to make it clear on the cover that you are not officially affiliated with WoC and that they can't be made responsible for what you're publishing, as to avoid confusion with the customers on whether they're buying official content or a third party product.
@@troffle you're of course right, but there are many ways one can (and many do) design a cover to look like it's official WoC even without their official trademark badge (color scheme, font, layout). Having a 'this is not affiliated with WoC' badge might not be legally necessary, but still something that makes it very explicit. I'm not saying I think it's good that they are requiring it in the future, nor am I sure that my interpretation is right and Bob's is wrong - but I think legal necessity and marketing necessity is not the same.
The badge - and the registration requirements - sound like the old D20 business model that the 3.0 OGL was released in parallel to. When Wizards (later Hasbro) took over from TSR, they wanted to create a less-litigious, more symbiotic environment for D&D-compatible pubs. As someone who shopped FLGS for books back then, not having the Official D20 logo meant you were not getting on shelves, outside of the fanzine/store-locals section (if any). Who knows how that will shake out in a digital-first era, but people still seem to go to marketplaces/platforms, even for small/self-published 3rd party stuff. This new OGL 1.1 also sounds even more restrictive than the 4e GSL - don't think that one had royalties, although it did make the video game (and card/boardgame) exclusion more explicit. Technically the OGL *never* allowed for derivative works outside the context of TTRPGs, but Atari (D&D game license holder at the time) was really hardcore about crushing fan mods & games that mistakenly assumed the SRD was fair game for their own video games.
So glad to see you made this video! When I saw the news I knew there would be an impact but wasn’t sure how to process it. Thanks for breaking things down and keeping it level headed an approachable!
It can be helpful to remember that companies often have internal debates about these sort of things all the time. That’s part of why it can take them longer to post something that addresses the rumor mill, and why they often don’t commit to very specific details. I see the same thing in the Apple fan community. Giant company with lots of employees that all have different opinions, and some of them are arguing for the same things we do on the outside. We can help them have the ammunition they need to help win that argument, but not usually by going crazy with speculation. Bob’s cool head and thoughtful examination helps!
They don't have an agreement with Foundry (yet). The creator of Foundry said as much on their Discord server. They're obviously trying to fix that, but there's work to be done there.
The second I saw these news rolling in my feed I started waiting for your take on this! I knew it wouldn’t be in vain. Thanks for all the info, but also for caring about it that much. The way you put it (and edit it!) - even without a word by word script - is really important for our community. Let’s keep hoping for a more inclusive future for D&D. Cheers from Brazil 💜
They want that info about the over 50K projects because they are absolutely desperate for any sort of data about what is successful and what is not. The people running the show are using people from industries like video games where all the data is freely given up by the consumer. It's probably a nightmare to walk into an industry like board games where there is NO DATA about why the customers do what they do. WotC has created an awful scenario where they have basically funded their own competition who has created new marketplaces that the original OGL could have never foreseen. Another corporation should create a new game. But that ain't easy because the real value of 5E is the playtesting that went into it making it the most player friendly RPG to ever exist. Another major RPG would be good for everyone except for maybe Hasbro. At least the NFT losers are losing their minds about this new OGL and hopefully they will just give up.
Well they do have a TON of data on what's successful because they have all their own sales data and sales from DMs Guild. That's why I can't believe they haven't made a crafting book yet lol Honestly I do want to see more competition for D&D in the form of RPGs from the big 3pps. I think that would be exciting for us and ultimately improve game from the top
I don't really understand the worry about "stamping their label", I read the inclusion of the "community partners badge" as like cutting out the tedious wast of pages for printing the entire OGL, instead, you just have to add this badge and it works functionally the same way. I personally read this as a means of preventing fraud that might tarnish the brand, but maybe I'm being too optimistic.
Trademark already serves that purpose. The OGL's purpose is not to reduce fraud. Copyright and trademark are different things. The purpose of the badge is to lock people in with a visual signal that they must comply with the new commercial license (no longer an open license). Eases the pain for lawyers to go and hunt for non-compliant publications.
@@FinalSonicX It does better signal to the consumer that something is published by WotC or by a third party, preventing someone buying for example mr Rhexx's new book with the assumption that it is from WotC due to the quality. On the flip side, you do get a small benefit as third party creator that it is visually recognizable for consumers that your product is for O-DnD. While it might be detrimental to a creator (can't say for sure until it is put into practice), it is beneficial for the consumer. That is under the assumption that it is not so detrimental that a lot of creators stop
@@lordfrogIII Exactly, this move is to protect their brand identity and to clearly distinguish between WotC and Community projects. They also probably don't want another nuTSR situation where someone prints racism and bigotry into third party content and it gets confused for official faire and WotC gets the heat.
Thats definately part of it I imagine however there's likely more of an effort to establish a difference between official and unofficial content through that.
Good on you, Bob, for not being all doom and gloom. Yes, there is a lot of speculation going on, even now after this "announcement." To add to that is the same issue that the original OGL still has within it. The lines stating that they can at anytime change the conditions of the OGL, this does include older versions. Though they have never done that. The conversation that is being avoided and has been for quite some time is the one of Copywrite. Back in the day, the joke was that TSR stood for "They Sue Regularly." Seriously, search for the court cases involving "Old TSR" not the so-called Nu-TSR. Many of these lawsuits were meant to protect the "Brand Identity," such as the one filed against Gary Gygax (after he was kicked out) to change the name of Dangerous Dimensions to Dangerous Journies. It was an issue of the two D&Ds being too close to one another and thus causing "Brand Confusion." Anyhow, at its most basic, the OGL allows you to copy and paste certain parts of information concerning the game contained in the SRD. In particular, that "expression" of the rules contained in the SRD. This is why, as you mention, those particular things are not allowed: No mindflayers, beholders, Githyanki, and other IPs that are part of the "protected class" of the D&D brand. Still, there is something to be considered when this conversation comes up. How does an entire community that has never had an OGL continue to exist? Those creators operate under the umbrella of the so-called OSR. Sure, it's not 3rd, 4th, or even 5th edition material, but it still openly uses D&D as the backbone. I'm not a "modern" D&D player, nor am I a contract/copywrite lawyer, and I often get poopooed for comments like this. I hope things work out and Hasbro is less litigious than the old TSR.
I appreciate your non-cynical take on this. There are definitely questions we all still have that need to be answered, but I don't think there's cause for panic at this time.
Thanks! I mostly see it as "we know things are going to change" and I can't win a legal battle against WotC to stop them lol, so it's best to just try and understand the changes and adapt!
"Official" content endorsement, marketing, and/or access to Hasbro publishing/manufacturing logistics are all things I can see WotC using to entice the big OGL-based companies to move over to 1.1 and pay royalties.
Bob, thank you - as always - for your calm, fact focused and veeery informative perspective on DnD topics. I very much enjoy your content. Happy Holidays to you and your familiy. Keep building!
I’ve been trying to hear all the opinions on the OGL business but you have presented all of it in a way that isn’t panic inducing for me. Your content is very soothing and makes all of this much easier to process.
This video is outdated, the major concerns content creators are having is that the the leaked 1.1 OGL states that WotC owns any 3rd party content that is created (and will have the right to distribute said content as their own without paying royalties), can change the OGL at any point by giving 30 days notice, and finally WotC can terminate this agreement with any content creator for no reason. Also making previous OGLs (ie 1.0a) de-authorized, meaning people cannot create any DnD content without signing up to the 1.1 OGL. I suspect due to all the pushback, WotC will provide a watered down version of this leaked OGL however the reputation and damage has been done imo
The Thing is there is a good reason to Not give official a Statement at First but Tell the largest Publishers. A official Statement forces them in a path and makes them less flexible on the other Hand large Publishers need to know Changes early to bei able to adapt to them. I find all this really reasonable even more so with the Statement. (Edith: the badge thing is Most Likely so your stuff doesnt seem Like official Material which i also Fond reasonable)
My guess is there was also an attempt to reach out to big publishers to avoid some of the old 4e mistakes of causing large publishers to make stuff for a system that wasn't even legally sellable due to having different publishing regulations from different editions.
@@theepicduck6922 This is also why you see no new 3rd party content for 4e whilst 1e/2e still gets content via the OSR movement, 3.5e still gets content mainly aimed at Pathfinder and 5e will still get content because of its version of the OGL...4e, however, is dead in the water and I suspect if WotC push too hard on the royalties front that you'll see, as Bob mentions, the big creators just making their own, improved, 5e clone and focusing on that. Currently WotC offer almost no incentive for them to do otherwise, all they have to do is a slap a 'compatible with 6e/5.5e' on the cover (which is how people got around it with not putting stuff on the DMsGuild, it just had a 'compatible with 5e' note attached, since WotC don't like refering to editions anymore but everyone else uses them).
Fun fact about copyright of game mechanics: In Brazil, Hasbro originally licenced Monopoly to be sold by a company called Estrela that was the biggest producer and seller of games in the country with the name "Banco imobiliário". Many years later, Hasbro decided to end the contract and sell it themselves, now Estrela still sells "Banco Imobiliário", and we got a "new" game called Monopoly from Hasbro. The differences between them are the names of the streets and companies, the shape of the pieces and basically a few other words and designs. The copyright laws here also don't cover game rules and mechanics. Hasbro tried to sue Estrela widout success.
Interesting that WotC only refers to an OGL not an Open Gaming License. ?Could this new OGL be the One Gaming License? A less restrictive than 4e, but not open?
Yeah lol, I also realized that the "OGL" acronym is used in the statement, but it doesn't spell out what it stands for. However, they still say it will be version 1.1, referring to the current 1.0a of the actual OGL. I think it was just an oversight, but who really knows at this point?
@@BobWorldBuilder Going down that road seems so transparently misleading that I’m not sure who would even consider it - especially after 4E. But… it’s not like there isn’t a reason. Changing the name would’ve likely have been seen as confirming everyone’s worst fears. But… in Open Gaming License 1.0a, the contract we’ve all agreed to, Wizard agreed to letting us distribute future OGL content using the current terms: > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Even if OGL 1.1 had language *explicitly forbidding this*: 1. The contracts would contradict each other. 2. They’re adhesion contracts written by Wizards, so any ambiguity is 100% Wizard’s fault, so generally you’d interpret in favor of the other party. 3. The name change for 4E suggests Wizards knew the significance of the name, suggesting deliberate bad faith behaviour… so you’d generally interpret in favour of the other party. 4. There would only be presumed agreement to OGL 1.1 because it’s a shrink-wrap contract. The publisher would’ve clearly and demonstrably accepted OGL 1.0a by putting it into their work. So you’d generally resolve the contradiction in favor of the term both parties clearly agreed to.
The creator badge does sound a lot like the DMs Guild logo. Which is worrying because DMs Guild takes 50% of revenue. I hope that doesn't mean they're restricting sales to that portal.
I've been seeing stuff about the OGL pop up in my feeds, but haven't had the time to give it more than a passing glance. As soon as I did, I said to myself "I need Bob to explain this to me." And here I am. We love you, Bob.
This is not the first time ive become invested in a major WotC or Hasbro property. This doesn't actually relieve any stress for me, as they tend to move incrementally. I trust this marginally more than the vtt move, but feel the endgoal is the same- fixing what they themselves have described as an undermonetization of DnD. The only faith I have in them not increasing the pressure on these restrains every year is my faith in the people to leave.
Someone who speaks sense. It really feels like people are ignoring this because when they started talking about microtransactions and fixing what they say is an "undermonitization" aspect of D&D it's a giant blood red flag and cause for concern. And if it continues this way, 3rd Party material be slowly but surely shut out. One D&D will get to the point where only approved 3rd Party creators will continue to exist like Critical Role but the smaller ones? Well they're SOL.
True. One comment from here that I found hopeful is how Hasbro is probably not looking at the TTRPG itself here. The new OGL is probably just meant to keep dnd-inspired mobile games from popping up because they know that's where the real money is, for example, rather than tabletop.
Hmm, royalties on big creators/products is probably one of the more ethical ways to "square the circle" of Hasbro/WotC wanting to monetize the brand more, and players/customers not wanting the game to be microtransactioned to hell & back. It also *could* address concerns that there would be a bifurcation of VTT-compatible & -incompatible content, since larger pubs could submit their material for virtual-support, for a fee (or as an included service with their royalty payments).
@@BobWorldBuilder To clarify, the OGL has not now, and never has been needed to prevent folks from making any sort of video game (or digital app, database, etc) involving D&D content. Short version of US copyright is that Hasbro automatically owns all the rights to everything they've created in D&D - and can slice up the licensing to do/make things accordingly. Atari held video game publishing rights for a long while, now (after a messy lawsuit) the rights reverted back to Hasbro/WotC. All those entities like HeroBuilder, dice rollers, VTTs, etc all stuck to making generic frameworks that you had to insert your own rules into (or "share" rules peer-to-peer), or have referenced generic fantasy genre stuff that were never copyrightable in the first place, like "elves", "dwarves", or "health points" (HP can mean whatever you like LOL). But whenever any digital tool or app/game steps over the line into something WotC does own, whether it's mentioned in the SRD or not, best believe that they'll get a polite, but firm letter from one of Hasbro's many, many contracted law firms. [I'm not a lawyer, but am an app & game developer, and have been on the receiving end of this...]
I'd invent your own badge. Unofficial Castles & Crackins (C&C) . It would probably make for an interesting legal battle if someone were to argue that it all stems from Tolken and WotC does not have any right to exclusivity in the first place.
Yeah most 3pp stuff, big and small, uses some kind of "5e" stamp just to let the consumer know what system it's for. I can see someone designing a free-to-use standardized one in the next edition to compete with the official badge
Bob, thank you for all the helpful information and the reasonable approach that you take with these things. It's so easy to get caught up in the drama and the rumors because DnD is something we love so much.
I can imagine one thing that would be a great incentive to creators particularly the big ones like Kobolt Press and Ghostfire Gaming who own their settings and could easily make a deal with Paizo to publish a Pathfinder 2.0 version of their setting or make their 5e clone games. That would be gaining access to DnDBeyond and the new OneDnD VTT. I would love to be able to access Midgard or Grim Hollow content on my DnDBeyond sheet. It would be a huge hassle to program but it would make the continued revenue share more enticing
A while back, much before this whole hullabaloo, Matt Colville from MCDM hinted that he is interested into creating his own system, I willing to bet this is when they finally commit to it, and that prospect is exciting!
Hi Bob, Thank you so much for taking the time to make this video. As one who shares this hobby and has even considered joining up on DMS Guild. I have had questions about these changes. I have seen some rumors but avoided them like the plague. I desired facts but wasn't sure where to get them. I am thankful you made this video because you disected the rumors and stuck to the FACTS and cited your sources for said facts. I feel more hopeful for the game and have a better understanding of what all the fuss is about. It seems to me, that in general, It's going to be business as usual for most gamers and content creators. I am very curious to see those ripple effects on third party gaming spaces because of the Royalties. 5e is a great and popular edition. I wonder if we will get a 5e spin off because of this.
wondering if we're going to see a massive shift towards more indie systems, where the devs will just be happy to have the name of their game out there, and wont bother trying to cash grab people who are actually supporting their system, and basically providing free promotion. sure, WotC isn't actually taking much from the smaller businesses yet, but most indie TTRPGs don't see the need or value of something like an OGL, and have their rules and mechanics as open source for homebrewing and 3rd Party content. The OSR space, for example, is really good with this AFAIK, and they need the money more than a company that is being backed by hasbro of all things. This just seems like a really not great way of controlling stuff that doesn't need controlling, or claiming partial ownership of the products of small businesses. Really hope my fears are unwarranted here. Great video, as always Bob!
Thanks! I think that could happen, but ultimately D&D will be fine no matter what happens. It would just be cool if everyone tried out more systems alongside D&D! I also hope my fears are unwarranted.
I'm not currently a creator for anything D&D, but I have been playing D&D for over 40 years. I just wanted to say thank you for all of your videos and creativity, but most importantly, I appreciate you positive, always up-beat thoughts on One D&D, the OGL, and everything in general you discuss on your channel. With so many negative things in the world going all the time, it is refreshing to have a pin point of light in the otherwise dreary and dark reality. Thanks for everything you do. It is your calming, positive, and entertaining personality that keeps me coming back to your channel, despite the fact I actually don't play D&D 5e. LOL THANKS AGAIN
Thank you for posting this video. You really did a great job of stating 'this is what we know. This is what we don't know, but don't panic or base your actions/reactions on rumors and speculation. It's natural to be concerned about the unknowns, though.' That was my take on your presentation. I suggest to everyone to fill out your playtest surveys, even if you only read the document and were unable to actually playtest it. Include in your comments section a request for WotC to put out a survey/poll inviting the community's thoughts and concerns regarding the future of the SRD and OGL. They have been listening to the community's feedback on the other playtest surveys. Perhaps they would respond to such a request if enough ppl did so.
Dude, you did this video with just some speaking points? Excellent presentation. My take on the SRD/OGL news is I'm hopeful that there will be an honest recognition as to what is WotC's D&D and what is generally known as public domain. As to creators being anxious over making their content, I would see this as a challenge to create system agnostic content. Truthfully, I've been adapting official D&D products to serve me in my Ironsworn and 5 Torches Deep games.
I will point out that they have explict notes on what is and isn't owned by WOTC in the current OGL document, it's mainly the exact names for the various different afterlfie planes (like 'The Arborea Glades of Olympus') and specific monsters that are unique to D&D like Beholders, Mindflayers, Displacer beasts etc. Even then you can get around it by calling a Beholder an 'Eye Tyrant' or a Mindflayer a 'Brainsucker' since WotC can't really own the concept of 'a floating ball covered in eyes' or 'human with a squid for a head'.
I expect many creators to continue using the 5e SRD & OGL, advertise as 5e & OneDnD compatible, and ignore the more restrictive and costly OneDnD OGL. Also, this is the first time I remember hearing about your second channel, but I don't see a link anywhere! Would love to check it out :D
What do you think, how reliable is this WotC's PR talking and does it really mean anything? I've heard people say that this respond from WotC is just a pasic PR trick done in a panic, and that it is actually meaningless response because WotC is removing OGL anyway. And that's why I'd be interested to know what's going on since it seems that people don't trust what WotC says about OGL and its future.
I do think the statements were made out of panic, but I highly doubt they're lies. Things might change, but I'd be really surprised if they did without the OGL after publicly stating all this. We'll see!
I really appreciate this entire break down and deep thought about OGL. Honestly, if you wanna make more videos where you just talk off the cuff, I'm here for it. You always have a very measured calm demeanor in all your thoughts on DnD. I will also say, the negative possibilities of OGL give me the same discomfort as the current AI art stuff that has been popping up. I am an illustrator (freelance) and I tend to work with people outside the WotC material and the AI stuff already seems destabilizing enough. This new change also is not fun. I hope voices are calm voices are heard like yourself. Thank you for this.
A few actual lawyers have actually chimed in, and there’s precedent that game rules cannot be copyrighted. The thing that is copyrighted is the prose in the SRD and the books themselves. WotC also has a few trademarks on things like “Beholder” and “Mind Flayer.”
Bob, I just have to say, you give the same vibe as Bob Ross when talking about D&D so to me you are the Bob Ross of D&D. I love your energy keep being awesome.
Bob, are you familiar with bethesda's Creation Club? They charged for mods for their games on their own store while public mods are still available barely anyone sane on PC uses pre bought mods, I can see few people using OneD&D license if it will cost them
Oh I think a LOT of people will use the One D&D license. Just like DMs Guild--WotC literally owns anything you publish there and could do whatever they want with it, and that site is very popular for creators because it's the best way to sell stuff. I think the new license will have the same effect
Great video! You mentioned incentives: integration with D&Ds upcoming VTT would be the one big draw I could see WOTC offering as this will give a platform to those 3rd parties they didn't previously have. If that more than makes up for the loss in profits due to royalties then it could be a win-win for both parties.
Thank you for being a sane voice in this. I understand why a lot of people are concerned, but right now there are a lot of speculation/rumors driving a very doom and gloom attitude about the future of the OGL and SRD.
I have seen a lot of speculation on social media, and most of it seemed pretty melodramatic and not particularly well informed. I hadn't yet had the energy to do the research, so it was good to hear what the facts are, especially presented in such a level headed way.
The royalties make sense - WOTC is a company, companies want money. By targeting only the largest, they're trying to ensure the community doesn't notice or get too interested. But the restriction to static content is probably more strategically important - it potentially lets them solidify their acquisition of DnDBeyond as the one place for character sheet and campaign automation, because everything else either can't use OneD&D stuff (stuck in the past) or violates the license. This is where the community should be investigating and pushing back.
Could be. Critical Role would be fine since that's aired for free online. Dimension 20 being behind a paywall would be a no-go under the fan content policy as I currently understand it. However, maybe that's 'Fair Use' too because it's a different form of entertainment *using* the rules, not just sharing the rules on a video or something.
13:35 my favorite vesion of that is in the gnu license, in summary it goes "by using/distributing this you agree tp this license. you dont have to agree to this license, but no other document gives you permission ti use/distrubute this"
Thanks Bob for the video. I think it would be unfortunate if they change the OGL in this way, I hope 3rd parties are heard by WotC, and hope that WotC will make sure that 3rd parties given the space they need. If I think about how much DnD content I consume from 3rd parties compared to official content it's not a contest. I love all the things that 3rd parties bring out and it would be sad to see them step away because they can't do it to the same capacity if the OGL changes too much.
D&D3e had these same stumbling block with the d20 System Trademark License (d20STL) and we moved on from that. Plus remember that there is still material coming out for OD&D, so I don't think there will be a lack of space for people to find an outlet for their creative content. If anything I hope this gets people to focus on things other than D&D, branch out and check out some other games, modern and previous. There are lots of great games out there, look around, encourage your group to try something new, maybe give your GM a break and run one yourself!
I think the badge is similar to the "Compatible with 5e" statement you see on many OGL products. But there is no official seal for that. Everyone makes there own. Not only will a badge help to solidify the brand, it acts as a further verification that you have accepted the terms.
WotC needs to establish a symbiotic relationship with the 3PD community that is both satisfying to their shareholders and acceptable to the creators (and players who support them). At times they've been too far to one side or the other of that balance. If they stray too far into parasitic territory again the backlash will (as demonstrated) be intense, so it behooves them not to get too greedy. I think that's important to remember: they know that their goal is find something that earns them money without drawing an overwhelming amount of negative response. With that being said... there isn't really much more for this story until they release an actual document and some actual lawyers (and CPAs) go over it.
"so it behooves them not to get too greedy" - did you not see the 30th anniversary addition debacle? They've long been 'too greedy' with MTG. Its why Hasbro stock tanked, was demoted, and now they're reaching for anything to pull their pants back up...even mobilizing legal bullshit if they have to.
I think one clear and obvious incentive WotC will give royalty payers is letting that content be on dndbeyond so it has an even wider audience and looks even more official.
After what wotc has done with magic and now this, my main positive takeaway is that I get to break out my 3rd party games more often. I sat out of 4e but own a lot of 2nd, 3.5, and the entire catalogue of 5th so even if I want to run dnd I won't be lacking for resources. This is also a great time to get into OSE
There's a lot they can potentially offer with the new OGL to make it worth the while. The biggest thing I can think of is opening up the content that has been locked away behind the SRD wall for third parties since the inception of the OGL 1.0a. There's a lot that people want to look at for that stuff. Also, being able to publish stuff from One D&D would *seem* like an incentive on the surface, because that's where WotC is hoping the majority of the player base will shift. You don't see million dollar kickstarters for AD&D content on a regular basis; they're likely expecting the One D&D incentive to be enough. It remains to be seen whether that will be the case and I think they're putting their eggs in the wrong basket, but it's likely a train of thought. Also, the idea that charging a royalty in and of itself on amounts above $750,000 will drive publishers out of business or drive jobs out doesn't make a ton of sense. It is NOT royalties on companies that make that much; it's royalties on income ABOVE that amount. If the royalty is as high as 15% (which would be fairly high for a royalty) and the company makes a million dollars, they're not paying $150,000 in royalties, they're paying $37,500. Is that a lot? Yes. But it's not a bankrupting amount unless they're already struggling. We also don't know how WotC is going to be defining income. In terms of large publishers, that ends up being a slightly more nebulous term. Just the amount that a Kickstarter grosses is not income but it is revenue which then gets paid out in taxes and salaries. I have a feeling they're going to be going after profits more than revenue, since driving third party publishers out of business means they get nothing from the OGL 1.1.
Others have said here that the big incentive is probably marketing the 3pp books on D&D Beyond, and I think that would be a huge incentive! And yeah the second part is kind of up to interpretation. I'm looking at "income" as "revenue before publishing expenses" and yeah it's just the amount over 750k. The issue is that writing commissions in the ttrpg industry already don't pay well. Any pressure to lower them or keep them low is not good for the industry.
Yeh so a video I saw yesterday that was saying Video Games use the OGL was just wrong. I thought that sounded weird but I wasn't sure and I spent a really long time looking up if it would effect Baldur's Gate 3 but couldn't find anything. Thanks for clearing that up!
The big thing to look out for when they release the actual license document will be its update terms. If it maintains the original OGL's terms of "you can keep using the current license if we update it and you don't like it", then while it's still bad, you know it can't get worse. But if it has a "new updates supercede it go to this URL to read it" or some other thing, you know they will plan on ratcheting the royalties down and down over time.
Excellent video and it feels like one of the few videos where the content creator isn't going wild about boycotting anyting related to WotC and will refuse to even mentioned certain monsters and such. Thank you for the level headed breakdown!
Why are we so sure that OGL 1.0 will remain after 1.1 is released? I feel like it could easily be the case that anything new published stuff just wouldn't be able to use OGL 1.0, and only already-published material get to exist under that license.
I really feel like WotC is creating a more 'Approved Content Club' where those who do get the badge will be seen as "optional canon systems" Essentially trying to control what homebrew gets popular and is used by their core fanbase
Nothing wrong with that as long as its through licensing contract. What they are trying to implement is literally a 'tax' though. They can't enforce it though so its really just coercion to get people to buy their stuff just as you say but the blowback will lose them more money they'll ever make. Its a phenomaly bad decision.
Bob you nailed it. 5e HAS an OGL. You can continue using 5e. One D&D is not supposed to be a different system, so yeah. Can't mention Ardlings, oh no. And yeah, if it's too restrictive, Pathfinder 5e will become a thing I'm sure.
@@obiwankenobi9439 A license can only be revoked if the terms of the license include a clause allowing the granter to revoke it. Contract law 101, the only terms that apply are those written and agreed upon by both parties. OGL is a perpetual license with no terms to revoke it built-in, making it impossible to revoke in any way, shape, or form.
10:40 WoTC said they’re releasing the new OGL in early 2023, not the new SRD. The OGL is a license only. You likely won’t see the new SRD until 2024 when OneDnD drops. That means if you feel you need OGL protection, because you think the SRD is required to reference DnD, you have to wait.
Thank you for coming at this from a factual based and generally positive place. There will be things some people don’t like. They can’t make everyone happy and shouldn’t try. If they are listening and willing to be as open as they can be with where they are at in a 2+ year process that’s good enough for me. The whole process is evolving so people need to expect changes.
There's a 5E OGL based video game called Solasta: Crown of the Magisters, and judging by the post that sort of thing wouldn't be allowed under the new OGL. Any game that uses D&D rules would have to be by special agreement with WOTC even if it doesn't use any product identity. It feels like Hasbro executives looked at that game and got mad they couldn't profit off of it.
I love this channel! Level headed information without being all doomsday about it. We survived 4e. We blossomed after 4e. Even if OneDnD turns sour the hobby and community will endure. This is the first I heard of this (I don't have social media outside here) but it sounds like baby steps toward a more control of their IP. What will likely happen is they will push a certain chunk of the creatives of the community away. It also seems that they are trying to get a hand into the market for movies, shows, video games etc. They are focused on money making elements outside the tabletop.
What could be very cool about all this is that all of these registered products might also be promoted on say, D&D Beyond! Imagine being able to add alternative rules from say Grimhollow, to your DnD Beyond character sheet. Being aware of the route that D&D are taking, I feel they are going to try and be More inclusive. Having that “stamp of approval” might sign you up to being seen as an official product that can be used within their online systems. Perhaps you will even be able to be looked up within their online products. That royalty might be a small fee they take for adding your published works to their websites to be purchasable there too.
As someone who actually enjoyed 4e and could never figure out why everyone hated it so much, a lot of pieces clicked into place when I learned they had switched from an OGL to a GSL.
There were a lot of moving parts to the anti-4e push, and yeah, several were more about the business-side than the gaming side. Draven Swiftbow I think gave the best, most complete rundown in his D&D Retrospective series - there were 3eps on 4e, with the middle one (IIRC) focused on the OGL/GSL/Paizo aspect. *So much* about how this 6e lead-up is unfolding matches the 4e lead-up beat-for-beat (digital tools/subs, VTT overpromising, perfect backwards compatibility, 3rd-party hesitation) that I'm really very curious to see how this unfolds, despite not having a group right now.
***A week after I published this video, we got bad news: ruclips.net/user/postUgkxTRw2ZMT_7ZOtg6hrmoSCJDCKiqQIad5H
✅ LIKE & SHARE: ruclips.net/user/BobWorldBuildervideos
✅ PATREON: www.patreon.com/bobworldbuilder
Small creators should make an alternative to 5e that is open source and simplified. WotC has had zero competition since 5e came out and its starting to cause issues.
You should make a community post about it
I haven't read the Gizmodo article yet, but here's my take: I get the sense that WotC is trying to satisfy executive demands for more profit ("monetization," as they put it) but know that such an action will result in a Pathfinder situation and are trying to prevent that. I think their arrangements with VTTs like Roll20 and with storefronts like DMsGuild/DriveThruRPG gives them a lot more teeth than they had with the GSL/4e situation. 3P creators without the Creator Badge get shut out of all of those avenues, and I wouldn't be surprised to find anyone attempting to take the Paizo route with 5e being prevented from selling on DriveThruRPG through some legal justification. Admittedly that last conspiracy theory is my anti-capitalist bias speaking.
That said, I think a Pathfinder situation is inevitable because they can't put that genie back in the bottle, and something so dependent upon the creative community as a TTRPG will find a way. The OSR movement was built on a DIY philosophy, and having that in its DNA is a big reason why 5e took off like it did. In fact, the Pathfinder equivalent may already exist-Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition looks pretty great. It, or some iteration of it, could win that mantle if OneD&D's OGL 1.1 turns out to be too restrictive.
Punch Wotcis.
@@DevinParker It's more than that. They want free reign to cancel and destroy anyone who isn't for the current thing.
I do feel like it's WotC sort of recreating their past mistakes but in a different way. Small creators probably won't have an issue with it (unless they lower that royalty cap "in the following years") but the huge content creators who are earning nearly a million dollars a year from the content they're creating could easily make their own TTRPG and potentially increase their profits, snatch up the D&D player base (WotC's customer base) AND not have to compromise their creative vision for whatever changes MIGHT be coming in One D&D. I'm not a creator for D&D outside the stuff I make for my home games so this doesn't affect me but I have started to look at other TTRPGs already as some of One D&D doesn't seem too inspiring to me. I'm hoping it's an amazing step forward for D&D but if it's not there won't be a shortage of fantasy RPGs to play.
Right haha, that's why my BIG question is: what are they secretly offering to the big third party publishers to keep them from creating their own 5e clones?? We'll see!
if you want a great system more on the rules light side, check out icrpg, if you want something more like 5e but with more tactical and character creation options, check out pathfinder 2e (i havent played personally, but ive heard lots of great stuff).
@@Peppershaker I much prefer PF2e, but the players at my table are new to RPGs so it was a tough sell to get them on board. That's the only reason I run 5e-they had heard of it.
@@BobWorldBuilder I'm guessing marketing, D&D Beyond tie ins, reduced DM's Guild fees.
I don't have any real shit to base this on, but that's what I would guess. I'm right every once in a great while.
Since this has been put to print and companies will make financial decisions based on it, if they tried to lower that cap later on they may be opening themselves to litigation via promissory estoppel
I have a friend that still runs 3rd edition and I know a lot of people play 3.5 and Pathfinder. Worst case scenario is that I play 5e forever and never move on to One D&D the way those players never moved on.
My take is that the 3rd party creators are the reason why 5e is as strong as it is. OG 5e might have been good enough to get people to play but 3rd party stuff gets people to stay. I value yours and other 3rd party creators contributions to DnD higher than the half baked stuff the megacorporation puts out and would continue to view your content without any badge they might want to make you use.
In gaming analogue terms is modders who make mods for a franchise game that needs them to be optimal or juicier to play, after the original developers are taking a hiatus between updates or worse, moved on from the game. The community are keeping it alive with alot of talent
100%. I've stopped buying WotC books as of about 2 years ago with their changes in tone and messaging, but I'm regularly buying 3rd party content from creators whose style meshes with mine. Were it not for them I'd have stopped buying 5e content entirely.
I think that for a significant section of the D&D community you'd be right. But nowhere near to all of them.
I think it goes: Stranger Things makes D&D mainstream > 5e system makes D&D relatively easy to learn > 3rd party content makes D&D more fun for people who want to play outside the official rules. It's a big part of why 5e is so popular, but not the biggest from my perspective. Regardless, it's very valuable to our whole rpg community!
I’ve never really gotten into any 3rd party stuff. Is there any that you or anyone recommends? I just never got into them.
I love your calm demeanor and positive attitude. Thanks for being you, Bob.
Thank you! It's a little hard to stay calm when it seems like everyone else isn't. My trick is to remember that I'm deep in a bubble about D&D and most of the world doesn't even care about any of this lol
@@BobWorldBuilder You and me both, pal!
I second this statement (Thanks Bob 2e, so to speak). You are a trustworthy, transparent, and reliable source.
Love how level-headed you come off as when you address and discuss things. You really seem to come across as looking for the bright parts of things. I guess in other words, you are refreshingly optimistic.
Thanks very much! Like I said at the beginning, I am still concerned. It's going to change many jobs and mine personally in one way or another. At the end of the day I'm not a lawyer who can get WotC to change their policies, so the best we can do is try to understand it and adapt
I suggest reading about TSR vs. Mayfair Games rulings. Unless you specifically need to attach the D&D brand and IP to your indie D&D publication, you have no need to use the OGL. It's settled case law that TTRPG mechanics are algorithms, which cannot be copyrighted because it's just math.
Correct no process can be copyrighted. Words with friends and scrabble is an example.
Coming in late, but if you copy the *text* of the SRD, you *do* need the OGL. Some creators get along fine without it, e.g. Kevin Crawford of Sine Nomine rewrote D&D-esque mechanics from scratch. But if you used any part of the SRD *text* to bootstrap your D&D-like game, you need the OGL. (Conversely, if you carefully remove *all* the SRD text later, you can remove the OGL.)
WotC recently put the SRD under Creative Commons which has much less onerous requirements, but that's only if you used *exactly* the text in SRD 5.1. If you started with SRD 5.0 (or 3.x or some other OGL content) then you're still stuck with the OGL.
The other (big) reason tracking projects/creators that earn over 50K is useful is in valuating the D&D brand itself. If all you have is direct sales of your own products, and anecdotal reports from fans, it's hard to judge just how big your brand is. If you can point to a massive market of 3rd-party producers who have all attached themselves to your brand, you can use that as leverage when trying to get funding to produce other material (like Hollywood films; "look at how much money all of these people are willing to spend!").
My thought as well. The reporting is basically free markteing data.
Tracking people is WotC trying to bully its way into tricking people to give up info the WotC has ZERO RIGHT TO. DO NOT HAND OVER YOUR INFORMATION.
Very true. They already have this with the DMs Guild, but they probably want to capture as much as possible
100% agree with the effort to try and quantify the size of the interaction with the D&D brand beyond the sales of books. Right now, WotC has no way of describing this “halo” of interaction or love for the brand for investors. I imagine it would be a HUGE boost to the brand view (stock price) if they can show investors that they not only sell X number of Players Handbooks but also have Y interactions in the 3rd Party Creator realm.
It also sounds like WotC is trying to add some “future proof” language to limit access which has “Ready Player One evil corporation” vibes. Bobs image of wearing the WotC uniform and badge didn’t help. But it is probably more designed to keep WotC from getting blindsided by the next evolution they didn’t see coming (or weren’t fast enough to adapt to). I don’t know how but someone is gonna come up with playing an open world D&D over Tik Tok using Block Chain dice rolls, run in an Augmented Reality environment created by live updated images crafted by Mid Journey AI…
@@dustinalexander4342 My other problem with it is that if also smells of Amazon methods. For those not in the know, Amazon will use their data to see what is currently selling really well, they will then use that data to make cheaper knockoffs of said product and promote them more than the original on the storefront. With regards to D&D it wouldn't surprise me if they used this to see what things small time creators were making that 'popped off' and then use that data to creating something of their own and then promote it on D&D Beyond so that their version has 'easier intergration' without the need for the use of the Homebrew tool.
I suspect that WOTC wants to stamp out competitions in terms of website and phone apps hence why the wording static electronic content.
Also the dmsguild is terrible since it takes 50% and you lose the rights to publish elsewhere. I think we should push for a better dmsguild too
Excellent point! They're probably mostly worried about mobile games popping up
@@BobWorldBuilder Not just mobile games, but it might suggest character sheet or spell card apps that currently can be distributed with SRD data as a starting point. Basically it would shut out anything that might compete with D&D Beyond.
+
WOTC treating writers terribly? who'd have thought?
@@johnny88j9 It's still better than some of the horror stories I have heard come from people who have worked with Kevin Siembieda! He likes to throw C&Ds at people trying to make his archaic game work in other systems, it works because most people just get scared off and/or don't have the money to fight it. Actually this sounds a LOT like the direction that WotC/Hasbro is trying to go in?! The other guys still around, KIND OF, but he sure ain't doing so great! Oh well, there's PLENTY of other VERY good TTRPGs out there!
To me, the most important thing is that we as a community are voicing our concerns and making angry noises. We've seen time and time again companies who own big IPs we love take away from us and only through backlash we can pull the tug of war rope our way a little bit. This is their way of pulling it their way, but we should always pull back. I'm happy as long as we're making noise.
Yeah, while I personally think some of the reactions to the leaks were a little extreme, that extremity is what made that concern heard! And we're all better off for it!
I honestly don't think WoTC is looking very seriously at the table-top market now. The person in charge of this transition, was formerly working on XBox for Microsoft, and is coming in strictly from video game background.
The new management don't understand the tabletop market, and since they don't think it's important, this is basically sweeping those concerns under the rug so they can focus on what they think their real money-maker is going be: VTTs with micro-transactions. At least, that's what I'd gamble on.
Excellent point! They're probably mostly worried about mobile games popping up
And 4E went the same way until the head developer started killing people.
Micro transactions are a big never for me. I got caught up in one several years ago, and I will never do that again.
Game mechanics cannot be protected, but characters can be and their flavour text. And unique names they have come up with, like some spells etc.
Its true, mechanics are not copyrightable. The OLG alowys you to use some IP that is included in the SRD, or, just lift and use the text to use as you like in a 5E document. The OGL, regardless of what people say is not necessary to create 5E compatible stuff. :)
I want to believe this, but I also believe that regardless of the law, Big Corp wins court case against little guy every time
@@BobWorldBuilder Seems like TTRPGs need a niche legal community like the open-source software movement has. The "open culture" movement (e.g. Wikipedia) has a bunch of such lawyers too. There's gotta be a friendly D&D-playing lawyer somewhere who can a) explain this stuff to people better and b) represent someone pro bono if WOTC goes berserk
@@BobWorldBuilder Bob, a good person to reach out to and talk to about this is Matt Finch. He has the answers and would be a great expert to have on your show to talk about it. Finch is one of the founders of the OSR movement.
@@BobWorldBuilder True enough, but It is worth at least understanding your rights & exposure as a content creator playing in some other company's sandbox. For instance, even major authors like Weis, Hickman, and Salvatore all have had their fights with TSR-then-Wizards, but they are very clear on what they have created & own, what WotC owns, and what is up-for-grabs/public domain.
Make a video about the dndtubers you watch! I'm super interested in who you take inspiration from
Thanks for the idea! :)
Thanks for covering, love your content! Patiently waiting for the rest of the ability score irl series
Haha thank you! I've got some plans, but it'll be a little while until the next one :)
From the sounds of it, what you won't be able to do under OGL 1.1 is create websites, or mobile apps, that provide active content. Like a catalogue of SRD-available creatures or spells that someone can search through, a portable electronic character sheet, or something like Kobold Fight Club - i.e. services that might compete with D&D Beyond.
The OGL Product badge on the cover is one of the things you saw a lot with the 3rd edition OGL. Almost every book published under that license had a little d20 and OGL (two separate logos) printed on the back cover near the barcode.
Ooo thanks for pointing this out!
Yup, just dug into this in another comment. But basically if you didn't participate in the official D20 System, your books/products were not available in stores, whether that was the local FLGS/comics shop, or a mall/big-box store like B. Dalton's/Waldenbooks/Barnes & Noble. While digital distribution theoretically means anyone can publish directly, it seems like consumers now are trained to go to one or two platforms for their D&D 3PP content, and there are many fewer side-channels to get your books in front of new customers.
I really appreciate you taking the time to make this video instead of jumping to a conclusion, like many did (not that those concerned were ill-intended)
Thank you for your contributions to the D&D community
Right, I do regret not stating how the creators who exposed this info had the best intentions.
@@BobWorldBuilder well…
I was too optimistic about OGL 1.1
My thoughts are, “No matter what happens to DND, Bob the World Builder will thrive and be just fine.”
Haha I hope so! Thanks :)
my thought on the badge is that its meant to be a clear way of saying "this is not made by wizards". For us in the hobby its gonna be obvious but for new people coming in it'd help make sure there's no confusion. which sounds like something a lawyer would probably say is a good idea.
and in addition -- if the work doesnt clearly carry the badge, but gets into the wild, it shows us the creator hasn't done thier bit -- maybe adding caution to its use/purchase....
That's how I understood it as well - that you're supposed to make it clear on the cover that you are not officially affiliated with WoC and that they can't be made responsible for what you're publishing, as to avoid confusion with the customers on whether they're buying official content or a third party product.
@@troffle you're of course right, but there are many ways one can (and many do) design a cover to look like it's official WoC even without their official trademark badge (color scheme, font, layout). Having a 'this is not affiliated with WoC' badge might not be legally necessary, but still something that makes it very explicit. I'm not saying I think it's good that they are requiring it in the future, nor am I sure that my interpretation is right and Bob's is wrong - but I think legal necessity and marketing necessity is not the same.
Yeah it's hard to say. Any third party stuff, outside of DMs Guild, already cannot use the terms "D&D" or "Dungeons & Dragons" anywhere on the product
The badge - and the registration requirements - sound like the old D20 business model that the 3.0 OGL was released in parallel to. When Wizards (later Hasbro) took over from TSR, they wanted to create a less-litigious, more symbiotic environment for D&D-compatible pubs. As someone who shopped FLGS for books back then, not having the Official D20 logo meant you were not getting on shelves, outside of the fanzine/store-locals section (if any). Who knows how that will shake out in a digital-first era, but people still seem to go to marketplaces/platforms, even for small/self-published 3rd party stuff.
This new OGL 1.1 also sounds even more restrictive than the 4e GSL - don't think that one had royalties, although it did make the video game (and card/boardgame) exclusion more explicit. Technically the OGL *never* allowed for derivative works outside the context of TTRPGs, but Atari (D&D game license holder at the time) was really hardcore about crushing fan mods & games that mistakenly assumed the SRD was fair game for their own video games.
So glad to see you made this video! When I saw the news I knew there would be an impact but wasn’t sure how to process it. Thanks for breaking things down and keeping it level headed an approachable!
Glad it was helpful!
It can be helpful to remember that companies often have internal debates about these sort of things all the time. That’s part of why it can take them longer to post something that addresses the rumor mill, and why they often don’t commit to very specific details. I see the same thing in the Apple fan community. Giant company with lots of employees that all have different opinions, and some of them are arguing for the same things we do on the outside. We can help them have the ammunition they need to help win that argument, but not usually by going crazy with speculation. Bob’s cool head and thoughtful examination helps!
They don't have an agreement with Foundry (yet). The creator of Foundry said as much on their Discord server. They're obviously trying to fix that, but there's work to be done there.
Ah thanks for the clarification! I'm pretty sure there was another big one beside Roll20 that came up, but now I'm not sure which it is.
@@BobWorldBuilder Fantasy Grounds will be the other big one. You can buy 5e material for use on the FG platform.
@@IcarusGames You're the man, Anto!
The second I saw these news rolling in my feed I started waiting for your take on this!
I knew it wouldn’t be in vain. Thanks for all the info, but also for caring about it that much. The way you put it (and edit it!) - even without a word by word script - is really important for our community.
Let’s keep hoping for a more inclusive future for D&D. Cheers from Brazil 💜
That means a lot! Glad you enjoyed this one :)
Thank you! I had no idea what this was, and even without scripting you were so through!
Glad it was helpful! :)
They want that info about the over 50K projects because they are absolutely desperate for any sort of data about what is successful and what is not. The people running the show are using people from industries like video games where all the data is freely given up by the consumer. It's probably a nightmare to walk into an industry like board games where there is NO DATA about why the customers do what they do.
WotC has created an awful scenario where they have basically funded their own competition who has created new marketplaces that the original OGL could have never foreseen.
Another corporation should create a new game. But that ain't easy because the real value of 5E is the playtesting that went into it making it the most player friendly RPG to ever exist. Another major RPG would be good for everyone except for maybe Hasbro.
At least the NFT losers are losing their minds about this new OGL and hopefully they will just give up.
Well they do have a TON of data on what's successful because they have all their own sales data and sales from DMs Guild. That's why I can't believe they haven't made a crafting book yet lol
Honestly I do want to see more competition for D&D in the form of RPGs from the big 3pps. I think that would be exciting for us and ultimately improve game from the top
I don't really understand the worry about "stamping their label", I read the inclusion of the "community partners badge" as like cutting out the tedious wast of pages for printing the entire OGL, instead, you just have to add this badge and it works functionally the same way. I personally read this as a means of preventing fraud that might tarnish the brand, but maybe I'm being too optimistic.
Trademark already serves that purpose. The OGL's purpose is not to reduce fraud. Copyright and trademark are different things. The purpose of the badge is to lock people in with a visual signal that they must comply with the new commercial license (no longer an open license). Eases the pain for lawyers to go and hunt for non-compliant publications.
@@FinalSonicX It does better signal to the consumer that something is published by WotC or by a third party, preventing someone buying for example mr Rhexx's new book with the assumption that it is from WotC due to the quality. On the flip side, you do get a small benefit as third party creator that it is visually recognizable for consumers that your product is for O-DnD.
While it might be detrimental to a creator (can't say for sure until it is put into practice), it is beneficial for the consumer.
That is under the assumption that it is not so detrimental that a lot of creators stop
Great point! It's not clear what the "badge" is yet, so I hope you're right!
@@lordfrogIII Exactly, this move is to protect their brand identity and to clearly distinguish between WotC and Community projects.
They also probably don't want another nuTSR situation where someone prints racism and bigotry into third party content and it gets confused for official faire and WotC gets the heat.
This was helpful info! Someone needs to do a collab with Legal Eagle to narrow down on the legal details of it all
To be clear, Foundry does NOT currently have a custom agreement with WotC to use their content.
Thanks for the clarification! I could've sworn I heard that before. #notanexpert
It's not WotC, it's Paizo. Paizo and Foundry have a partnership for PF2E.
Idk, the creator badge thing kinda feels "as long as you wear a uniform that marks you as not with us, but in our sphere of vassalage" to me
Thats definately part of it I imagine however there's likely more of an effort to establish a difference between official and unofficial content through that.
Haha yeah that makes sense too. I think people already recognize third party stuff when they see it though. It can't say "Dungeons & Dragons" anywhere
I think the quality would also be a great indicator lol.... 3rd party stuff is almost always more fun/powerful/creative
Good on you, Bob, for not being all doom and gloom. Yes, there is a lot of speculation going on, even now after this "announcement." To add to that is the same issue that the original OGL still has within it. The lines stating that they can at anytime change the conditions of the OGL, this does include older versions. Though they have never done that.
The conversation that is being avoided and has been for quite some time is the one of Copywrite. Back in the day, the joke was that TSR stood for "They Sue Regularly." Seriously, search for the court cases involving "Old TSR" not the so-called Nu-TSR. Many of these lawsuits were meant to protect the "Brand Identity," such as the one filed against Gary Gygax (after he was kicked out) to change the name of Dangerous Dimensions to Dangerous Journies. It was an issue of the two D&Ds being too close to one another and thus causing "Brand Confusion." Anyhow, at its most basic, the OGL allows you to copy and paste certain parts of information concerning the game contained in the SRD. In particular, that "expression" of the rules contained in the SRD. This is why, as you mention, those particular things are not allowed: No mindflayers, beholders, Githyanki, and other IPs that are part of the "protected class" of the D&D brand.
Still, there is something to be considered when this conversation comes up. How does an entire community that has never had an OGL continue to exist? Those creators operate under the umbrella of the so-called OSR. Sure, it's not 3rd, 4th, or even 5th edition material, but it still openly uses D&D as the backbone. I'm not a "modern" D&D player, nor am I a contract/copywrite lawyer, and I often get poopooed for comments like this.
I hope things work out and Hasbro is less litigious than the old TSR.
I appreciate your non-cynical take on this. There are definitely questions we all still have that need to be answered, but I don't think there's cause for panic at this time.
Your take on this and Bob's have been calm voices in a sea of over-reaction.
Thanks! I mostly see it as "we know things are going to change" and I can't win a legal battle against WotC to stop them lol, so it's best to just try and understand the changes and adapt!
"Official" content endorsement, marketing, and/or access to Hasbro publishing/manufacturing logistics are all things I can see WotC using to entice the big OGL-based companies to move over to 1.1 and pay royalties.
Excellent point! I bet that's the big one
Bob, thank you - as always - for your calm, fact focused and veeery informative perspective on DnD topics. I very much enjoy your content.
Happy Holidays to you and your familiy.
Keep building!
You are very welcome! Thanks, and happy holidays to you too!
Bob, you're one of my favorite YT channels because you always have a measured, nonsensationalized take on subjects.
Thanks for the info!
I’ve been trying to hear all the opinions on the OGL business but you have presented all of it in a way that isn’t panic inducing for me. Your content is very soothing and makes all of this much easier to process.
This video is outdated, the major concerns content creators are having is that the the leaked 1.1 OGL states that WotC owns any 3rd party content that is created (and will have the right to distribute said content as their own without paying royalties), can change the OGL at any point by giving 30 days notice, and finally WotC can terminate this agreement with any content creator for no reason. Also making previous OGLs (ie 1.0a) de-authorized, meaning people cannot create any DnD content without signing up to the 1.1 OGL.
I suspect due to all the pushback, WotC will provide a watered down version of this leaked OGL however the reputation and damage has been done imo
The Thing is there is a good reason to Not give official a Statement at First but Tell the largest Publishers.
A official Statement forces them in a path and makes them less flexible on the other Hand large Publishers need to know Changes early to bei able to adapt to them. I find all this really reasonable even more so with the Statement.
(Edith: the badge thing is Most Likely so your stuff doesnt seem Like official Material which i also Fond reasonable)
My guess is there was also an attempt to reach out to big publishers to avoid some of the old 4e mistakes of causing large publishers to make stuff for a system that wasn't even legally sellable due to having different publishing regulations from different editions.
I agree!
@@theepicduck6922 This is also why you see no new 3rd party content for 4e whilst 1e/2e still gets content via the OSR movement, 3.5e still gets content mainly aimed at Pathfinder and 5e will still get content because of its version of the OGL...4e, however, is dead in the water and I suspect if WotC push too hard on the royalties front that you'll see, as Bob mentions, the big creators just making their own, improved, 5e clone and focusing on that. Currently WotC offer almost no incentive for them to do otherwise, all they have to do is a slap a 'compatible with 6e/5.5e' on the cover (which is how people got around it with not putting stuff on the DMsGuild, it just had a 'compatible with 5e' note attached, since WotC don't like refering to editions anymore but everyone else uses them).
Fun fact about copyright of game mechanics:
In Brazil, Hasbro originally licenced Monopoly to be sold by a company called Estrela that was the biggest producer and seller of games in the country with the name "Banco imobiliário".
Many years later, Hasbro decided to end the contract and sell it themselves, now Estrela still sells "Banco Imobiliário", and we got a "new" game called Monopoly from Hasbro.
The differences between them are the names of the streets and companies, the shape of the pieces and basically a few other words and designs.
The copyright laws here also don't cover game rules and mechanics.
Hasbro tried to sue Estrela widout success.
Interesting that WotC only refers to an OGL not an Open Gaming License. ?Could this new OGL be the One Gaming License? A less restrictive than 4e, but not open?
Yeah lol, I also realized that the "OGL" acronym is used in the statement, but it doesn't spell out what it stands for. However, they still say it will be version 1.1, referring to the current 1.0a of the actual OGL. I think it was just an oversight, but who really knows at this point?
@@BobWorldBuilder Going down that road seems so transparently misleading that I’m not sure who would even consider it - especially after 4E.
But… it’s not like there isn’t a reason. Changing the name would’ve likely have been seen as confirming everyone’s worst fears. But… in Open Gaming License 1.0a, the contract we’ve all agreed to, Wizard agreed to letting us distribute future OGL content using the current terms:
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
Even if OGL 1.1 had language *explicitly forbidding this*:
1. The contracts would contradict each other.
2. They’re adhesion contracts written by Wizards, so any ambiguity is 100% Wizard’s fault, so generally you’d interpret in favor of the other party.
3. The name change for 4E suggests Wizards knew the significance of the name, suggesting deliberate bad faith behaviour… so you’d generally interpret in favour of the other party.
4. There would only be presumed agreement to OGL 1.1 because it’s a shrink-wrap contract. The publisher would’ve clearly and demonstrably accepted OGL 1.0a by putting it into their work. So you’d generally resolve the contradiction in favor of the term both parties clearly agreed to.
The creator badge does sound a lot like the DMs Guild logo. Which is worrying because DMs Guild takes 50% of revenue. I hope that doesn't mean they're restricting sales to that portal.
I've been seeing stuff about the OGL pop up in my feeds, but haven't had the time to give it more than a passing glance. As soon as I did, I said to myself "I need Bob to explain this to me." And here I am. We love you, Bob.
Level headed and thoughtful as always. Thanks for covering this.
Much appreciated!
This is not the first time ive become invested in a major WotC or Hasbro property. This doesn't actually relieve any stress for me, as they tend to move incrementally. I trust this marginally more than the vtt move, but feel the endgoal is the same- fixing what they themselves have described as an undermonetization of DnD. The only faith I have in them not increasing the pressure on these restrains every year is my faith in the people to leave.
Someone who speaks sense. It really feels like people are ignoring this because when they started talking about microtransactions and fixing what they say is an "undermonitization" aspect of D&D it's a giant blood red flag and cause for concern.
And if it continues this way, 3rd Party material be slowly but surely shut out. One D&D will get to the point where only approved 3rd Party creators will continue to exist like Critical Role but the smaller ones? Well they're SOL.
True. One comment from here that I found hopeful is how Hasbro is probably not looking at the TTRPG itself here. The new OGL is probably just meant to keep dnd-inspired mobile games from popping up because they know that's where the real money is, for example, rather than tabletop.
Hmm, royalties on big creators/products is probably one of the more ethical ways to "square the circle" of Hasbro/WotC wanting to monetize the brand more, and players/customers not wanting the game to be microtransactioned to hell & back. It also *could* address concerns that there would be a bifurcation of VTT-compatible & -incompatible content, since larger pubs could submit their material for virtual-support, for a fee (or as an included service with their royalty payments).
@@BobWorldBuilder To clarify, the OGL has not now, and never has been needed to prevent folks from making any sort of video game (or digital app, database, etc) involving D&D content. Short version of US copyright is that Hasbro automatically owns all the rights to everything they've created in D&D - and can slice up the licensing to do/make things accordingly. Atari held video game publishing rights for a long while, now (after a messy lawsuit) the rights reverted back to Hasbro/WotC.
All those entities like HeroBuilder, dice rollers, VTTs, etc all stuck to making generic frameworks that you had to insert your own rules into (or "share" rules peer-to-peer), or have referenced generic fantasy genre stuff that were never copyrightable in the first place, like "elves", "dwarves", or "health points" (HP can mean whatever you like LOL).
But whenever any digital tool or app/game steps over the line into something WotC does own, whether it's mentioned in the SRD or not, best believe that they'll get a polite, but firm letter from one of Hasbro's many, many contracted law firms. [I'm not a lawyer, but am an app & game developer, and have been on the receiving end of this...]
I'd invent your own badge. Unofficial Castles & Crackins (C&C) . It would probably make for an interesting legal battle if someone were to argue that it all stems from Tolken and WotC does not have any right to exclusivity in the first place.
Yeah most 3pp stuff, big and small, uses some kind of "5e" stamp just to let the consumer know what system it's for. I can see someone designing a free-to-use standardized one in the next edition to compete with the official badge
Bob, thank you for all the helpful information and the reasonable approach that you take with these things. It's so easy to get caught up in the drama and the rumors because DnD is something we love so much.
I appreciate that! And I agree it’s too easy to get caught up in the news
I can imagine one thing that would be a great incentive to creators particularly the big ones like Kobolt Press and Ghostfire Gaming who own their settings and could easily make a deal with Paizo to publish a Pathfinder 2.0 version of their setting or make their 5e clone games.
That would be gaining access to DnDBeyond and the new OneDnD VTT. I would love to be able to access Midgard or Grim Hollow content on my DnDBeyond sheet.
It would be a huge hassle to program but it would make the continued revenue share more enticing
Very informative, Bob! You did great despite the lack of script!
Thanks! :)
*Hank Hill Voice*
“Did somebody say bOGLle?”
A while back, much before this whole hullabaloo, Matt Colville from MCDM hinted that he is interested into creating his own system, I willing to bet this is when they finally commit to it, and that prospect is exciting!
thank you for the breakdown! I tried watching some others explain but yours made the most sense!
Hi Bob, Thank you so much for taking the time to make this video. As one who shares this hobby and has even considered joining up on DMS Guild. I have had questions about these changes. I have seen some rumors but avoided them like the plague. I desired facts but wasn't sure where to get them. I am thankful you made this video because you disected the rumors and stuck to the FACTS and cited your sources for said facts. I feel more hopeful for the game and have a better understanding of what all the fuss is about. It seems to me, that in general, It's going to be business as usual for most gamers and content creators. I am very curious to see those ripple effects on third party gaming spaces because of the Royalties. 5e is a great and popular edition. I wonder if we will get a 5e spin off because of this.
wondering if we're going to see a massive shift towards more indie systems, where the devs will just be happy to have the name of their game out there, and wont bother trying to cash grab people who are actually supporting their system, and basically providing free promotion.
sure, WotC isn't actually taking much from the smaller businesses yet, but most indie TTRPGs don't see the need or value of something like an OGL, and have their rules and mechanics as open source for homebrewing and 3rd Party content. The OSR space, for example, is really good with this AFAIK, and they need the money more than a company that is being backed by hasbro of all things. This just seems like a really not great way of controlling stuff that doesn't need controlling, or claiming partial ownership of the products of small businesses.
Really hope my fears are unwarranted here.
Great video, as always Bob!
Thanks! I think that could happen, but ultimately D&D will be fine no matter what happens. It would just be cool if everyone tried out more systems alongside D&D! I also hope my fears are unwarranted.
Thank you for a level-headed and serene recap of the latest news.
Hey Bob! love the content, keep doing what your doing (:
Until you realize what he's talking about. This is possibly serious.
Thank you! Will do :)
I'm not currently a creator for anything D&D, but I have been playing D&D for over 40 years. I just wanted to say thank you for all of your videos and creativity, but most importantly, I appreciate you positive, always up-beat thoughts on One D&D, the OGL, and everything in general you discuss on your channel. With so many negative things in the world going all the time, it is refreshing to have a pin point of light in the otherwise dreary and dark reality. Thanks for everything you do. It is your calming, positive, and entertaining personality that keeps me coming back to your channel, despite the fact I actually don't play D&D 5e. LOL THANKS AGAIN
Thank you for posting this video. You really did a great job of stating 'this is what we know. This is what we don't know, but don't panic or base your actions/reactions on rumors and speculation. It's natural to be concerned about the unknowns, though.'
That was my take on your presentation.
I suggest to everyone to fill out your playtest surveys, even if you only read the document and were unable to actually playtest it. Include in your comments section a request for WotC to put out a survey/poll inviting the community's thoughts and concerns regarding the future of the SRD and OGL. They have been listening to the community's feedback on the other playtest surveys. Perhaps they would respond to such a request if enough ppl did so.
Dude, you did this video with just some speaking points? Excellent presentation.
My take on the SRD/OGL news is I'm hopeful that there will be an honest recognition as to what is WotC's D&D and what is generally known as public domain.
As to creators being anxious over making their content, I would see this as a challenge to create system agnostic content. Truthfully, I've been adapting official D&D products to serve me in my Ironsworn and 5 Torches Deep games.
I will point out that they have explict notes on what is and isn't owned by WOTC in the current OGL document, it's mainly the exact names for the various different afterlfie planes (like 'The Arborea Glades of Olympus') and specific monsters that are unique to D&D like Beholders, Mindflayers, Displacer beasts etc. Even then you can get around it by calling a Beholder an 'Eye Tyrant' or a Mindflayer a 'Brainsucker' since WotC can't really own the concept of 'a floating ball covered in eyes' or 'human with a squid for a head'.
I expect many creators to continue using the 5e SRD & OGL, advertise as 5e & OneDnD compatible, and ignore the more restrictive and costly OneDnD OGL. Also, this is the first time I remember hearing about your second channel, but I don't see a link anywhere! Would love to check it out :D
I liked seeing Ted's thumbnail at the start of the video. I basically bounce between here and the Nerd Immersion channel for DnD content.
Thanks for this breakdown Bob. I've been finding it hard to keep on top of everything especially with all of the speculations.
What do you think, how reliable is this WotC's PR talking and does it really mean anything? I've heard people say that this respond from WotC is just a pasic PR trick done in a panic, and that it is actually meaningless response because WotC is removing OGL anyway. And that's why I'd be interested to know what's going on since it seems that people don't trust what WotC says about OGL and its future.
I do think the statements were made out of panic, but I highly doubt they're lies. Things might change, but I'd be really surprised if they did without the OGL after publicly stating all this. We'll see!
This is essentially damage control. Their underlying intentions of monetizing dnd more won't change.
I really appreciate this entire break down and deep thought about OGL. Honestly, if you wanna make more videos where you just talk off the cuff, I'm here for it. You always have a very measured calm demeanor in all your thoughts on DnD.
I will also say, the negative possibilities of OGL give me the same discomfort as the current AI art stuff that has been popping up. I am an illustrator (freelance) and I tend to work with people outside the WotC material and the AI stuff already seems destabilizing enough. This new change also is not fun. I hope voices are calm voices are heard like yourself. Thank you for this.
A few actual lawyers have actually chimed in, and there’s precedent that game rules cannot be copyrighted. The thing that is copyrighted is the prose in the SRD and the books themselves. WotC also has a few trademarks on things like “Beholder” and “Mind Flayer.”
Bob, I just have to say, you give the same vibe as Bob Ross when talking about D&D so to me you are the Bob Ross of D&D. I love your energy keep being awesome.
Bob, are you familiar with bethesda's Creation Club? They charged for mods for their games on their own store while public mods are still available
barely anyone sane on PC uses pre bought mods, I can see few people using OneD&D license if it will cost them
Oh I think a LOT of people will use the One D&D license. Just like DMs Guild--WotC literally owns anything you publish there and could do whatever they want with it, and that site is very popular for creators because it's the best way to sell stuff. I think the new license will have the same effect
Great video! You mentioned incentives: integration with D&Ds upcoming VTT would be the one big draw I could see WOTC offering as this will give a platform to those 3rd parties they didn't previously have. If that more than makes up for the loss in profits due to royalties then it could be a win-win for both parties.
Thank you for being a sane voice in this. I understand why a lot of people are concerned, but right now there are a lot of speculation/rumors driving a very doom and gloom attitude about the future of the OGL and SRD.
I have seen a lot of speculation on social media, and most of it seemed pretty melodramatic and not particularly well informed. I hadn't yet had the energy to do the research, so it was good to hear what the facts are, especially presented in such a level headed way.
The royalties make sense - WOTC is a company, companies want money. By targeting only the largest, they're trying to ensure the community doesn't notice or get too interested.
But the restriction to static content is probably more strategically important - it potentially lets them solidify their acquisition of DnDBeyond as the one place for character sheet and campaign automation, because everything else either can't use OneD&D stuff (stuck in the past) or violates the license. This is where the community should be investigating and pushing back.
nice to see your review! seems like videos or streams of online gameplay would be covered by the "fan content"?
Could be. Critical Role would be fine since that's aired for free online. Dimension 20 being behind a paywall would be a no-go under the fan content policy as I currently understand it. However, maybe that's 'Fair Use' too because it's a different form of entertainment *using* the rules, not just sharing the rules on a video or something.
I am very much trying to learn about this from someone who is gonna talk about it soberly so ty BoWB
13:35 my favorite vesion of that is in the gnu license, in summary it goes "by using/distributing this you agree tp this license. you dont have to agree to this license, but no other document gives you permission ti use/distrubute this"
Thanks Bob for the video. I think it would be unfortunate if they change the OGL in this way, I hope 3rd parties are heard by WotC, and hope that WotC will make sure that 3rd parties given the space they need. If I think about how much DnD content I consume from 3rd parties compared to official content it's not a contest. I love all the things that 3rd parties bring out and it would be sad to see them step away because they can't do it to the same capacity if the OGL changes too much.
D&D3e had these same stumbling block with the d20 System Trademark License (d20STL) and we moved on from that. Plus remember that there is still material coming out for OD&D, so I don't think there will be a lack of space for people to find an outlet for their creative content. If anything I hope this gets people to focus on things other than D&D, branch out and check out some other games, modern and previous. There are lots of great games out there, look around, encourage your group to try something new, maybe give your GM a break and run one yourself!
What they wanna say is "we support creators as long we can milk them". Be redy for microtransaction,loot boxes,dlc and all this fun thing in one d&d
I think the badge is similar to the "Compatible with 5e" statement you see on many OGL products. But there is no official seal for that. Everyone makes there own. Not only will a badge help to solidify the brand, it acts as a further verification that you have accepted the terms.
I appreciate your moderated and reasonably hopeful opinion on this.
WotC needs to establish a symbiotic relationship with the 3PD community that is both satisfying to their shareholders and acceptable to the creators (and players who support them). At times they've been too far to one side or the other of that balance. If they stray too far into parasitic territory again the backlash will (as demonstrated) be intense, so it behooves them not to get too greedy. I think that's important to remember: they know that their goal is find something that earns them money without drawing an overwhelming amount of negative response. With that being said... there isn't really much more for this story until they release an actual document and some actual lawyers (and CPAs) go over it.
"so it behooves them not to get too greedy" - did you not see the 30th anniversary addition debacle? They've long been 'too greedy' with MTG. Its why Hasbro stock tanked, was demoted, and now they're reaching for anything to pull their pants back up...even mobilizing legal bullshit if they have to.
Yeah I just wish it wasn't so secretive!
I think one clear and obvious incentive WotC will give royalty payers is letting that content be on dndbeyond so it has an even wider audience and looks even more official.
Yeah, that didn't cross my mind, but I totally agree that would be a HUGE incentive
After what wotc has done with magic and now this, my main positive takeaway is that I get to break out my 3rd party games more often. I sat out of 4e but own a lot of 2nd, 3.5, and the entire catalogue of 5th so even if I want to run dnd I won't be lacking for resources. This is also a great time to get into OSE
Just checked this channel again, congrats on 100k
There's a lot they can potentially offer with the new OGL to make it worth the while. The biggest thing I can think of is opening up the content that has been locked away behind the SRD wall for third parties since the inception of the OGL 1.0a. There's a lot that people want to look at for that stuff. Also, being able to publish stuff from One D&D would *seem* like an incentive on the surface, because that's where WotC is hoping the majority of the player base will shift. You don't see million dollar kickstarters for AD&D content on a regular basis; they're likely expecting the One D&D incentive to be enough. It remains to be seen whether that will be the case and I think they're putting their eggs in the wrong basket, but it's likely a train of thought.
Also, the idea that charging a royalty in and of itself on amounts above $750,000 will drive publishers out of business or drive jobs out doesn't make a ton of sense. It is NOT royalties on companies that make that much; it's royalties on income ABOVE that amount. If the royalty is as high as 15% (which would be fairly high for a royalty) and the company makes a million dollars, they're not paying $150,000 in royalties, they're paying $37,500. Is that a lot? Yes. But it's not a bankrupting amount unless they're already struggling. We also don't know how WotC is going to be defining income. In terms of large publishers, that ends up being a slightly more nebulous term. Just the amount that a Kickstarter grosses is not income but it is revenue which then gets paid out in taxes and salaries. I have a feeling they're going to be going after profits more than revenue, since driving third party publishers out of business means they get nothing from the OGL 1.1.
Others have said here that the big incentive is probably marketing the 3pp books on D&D Beyond, and I think that would be a huge incentive! And yeah the second part is kind of up to interpretation. I'm looking at "income" as "revenue before publishing expenses" and yeah it's just the amount over 750k. The issue is that writing commissions in the ttrpg industry already don't pay well. Any pressure to lower them or keep them low is not good for the industry.
Yeh so a video I saw yesterday that was saying Video Games use the OGL was just wrong. I thought that sounded weird but I wasn't sure and I spent a really long time looking up if it would effect Baldur's Gate 3 but couldn't find anything. Thanks for clearing that up!
The big thing to look out for when they release the actual license document will be its update terms.
If it maintains the original OGL's terms of "you can keep using the current license if we update it and you don't like it", then while it's still bad, you know it can't get worse.
But if it has a "new updates supercede it go to this URL to read it" or some other thing, you know they will plan on ratcheting the royalties down and down over time.
Excellent video and it feels like one of the few videos where the content creator isn't going wild about boycotting anyting related to WotC and will refuse to even mentioned certain monsters and such. Thank you for the level headed breakdown!
Very informative info for me, who cares about D&D, but doesn't really pay attention. Thanks, Bob.
Dnd can't stop us all!
Why are we so sure that OGL 1.0 will remain after 1.1 is released? I feel like it could easily be the case that anything new published stuff just wouldn't be able to use OGL 1.0, and only already-published material get to exist under that license.
I really feel like WotC is creating a more 'Approved Content Club' where those who do get the badge will be seen as "optional canon systems"
Essentially trying to control what homebrew gets popular and is used by their core fanbase
Nothing wrong with that as long as its through licensing contract. What they are trying to implement is literally a 'tax' though. They can't enforce it though so its really just coercion to get people to buy their stuff just as you say but the blowback will lose them more money they'll ever make. Its a phenomaly bad decision.
I could see that happening
Bob you nailed it. 5e HAS an OGL. You can continue using 5e. One D&D is not supposed to be a different system, so yeah. Can't mention Ardlings, oh no. And yeah, if it's too restrictive, Pathfinder 5e will become a thing I'm sure.
Licenses can be revoked?
@@obiwankenobi9439 The current version of the OGL is a perpetual license. There is no legal mechanism for it to be revoked or rescinded.
@@obiwankenobi9439 A license can only be revoked if the terms of the license include a clause allowing the granter to revoke it. Contract law 101, the only terms that apply are those written and agreed upon by both parties. OGL is a perpetual license with no terms to revoke it built-in, making it impossible to revoke in any way, shape, or form.
@@obiwankenobi9439 It was made to be irrevocable, it's set in stone.
10:40 WoTC said they’re releasing the new OGL in early 2023, not the new SRD. The OGL is a license only. You likely won’t see the new SRD until 2024 when OneDnD drops. That means if you feel you need OGL protection, because you think the SRD is required to reference DnD, you have to wait.
Thank you for coming at this from a factual based and generally positive place. There will be things some people don’t like. They can’t make everyone happy and shouldn’t try. If they are listening and willing to be as open as they can be with where they are at in a 2+ year process that’s good enough for me. The whole process is evolving so people need to expect changes.
There's a 5E OGL based video game called Solasta: Crown of the Magisters, and judging by the post that sort of thing wouldn't be allowed under the new OGL. Any game that uses D&D rules would have to be by special agreement with WOTC even if it doesn't use any product identity. It feels like Hasbro executives looked at that game and got mad they couldn't profit off of it.
I love this channel! Level headed information without being all doomsday about it. We survived 4e. We blossomed after 4e. Even if OneDnD turns sour the hobby and community will endure.
This is the first I heard of this (I don't have social media outside here) but it sounds like baby steps toward a more control of their IP. What will likely happen is they will push a certain chunk of the creatives of the community away. It also seems that they are trying to get a hand into the market for movies, shows, video games etc. They are focused on money making elements outside the tabletop.
I don't have a lot of faith in Wotc especially with how greedy they have been with Magic. Still seeing a lot of holes that need answering.
That was one of the most engaging videos from your channel that I've watched. I think you shouldn't script as many of your videos.
Happy holidays!
You too!
Glad there's someone level headed out there that doesn't jump on the bandwagon.
What could be very cool about all this is that all of these registered products might also be promoted on say, D&D Beyond! Imagine being able to add alternative rules from say Grimhollow, to your DnD Beyond character sheet. Being aware of the route that D&D are taking, I feel they are going to try and be More inclusive. Having that “stamp of approval” might sign you up to being seen as an official product that can be used within their online systems. Perhaps you will even be able to be looked up within their online products. That royalty might be a small fee they take for adding your published works to their websites to be purchasable there too.
As someone who actually enjoyed 4e and could never figure out why everyone hated it so much, a lot of pieces clicked into place when I learned they had switched from an OGL to a GSL.
There were a lot of moving parts to the anti-4e push, and yeah, several were more about the business-side than the gaming side. Draven Swiftbow I think gave the best, most complete rundown in his D&D Retrospective series - there were 3eps on 4e, with the middle one (IIRC) focused on the OGL/GSL/Paizo aspect. *So much* about how this 6e lead-up is unfolding matches the 4e lead-up beat-for-beat (digital tools/subs, VTT overpromising, perfect backwards compatibility, 3rd-party hesitation) that I'm really very curious to see how this unfolds, despite not having a group right now.