Hmm. If OGL v1.0a truly is revoked -- and my nonlawyerly reading of the purported leaked draft is that 'OGL v1.0a is unauthorized' might apply only if one accepts v1.1 (v1.0a and v1.1 are clearly immiscible, v1.1 and v1.0a each require things the other disallows) -- then the restrictions it places on you should be revoked also, yes? So that restriction on not being able to take 'open content' and make to 'closed content' should similarly disappear, freeing you to rerelease an OGL-free version. Lots of rewriting to make sure it's SRD-free, of course, but that should be how it works. In a fair system (yes, I read that it is not a fair system, I'm just being logical).
(The bit in Section 13 about termination meaning your license is terminated if you breach but your sublicenses are still valid shouldn't apply either -- this isn't termination due to breach, it's revocation of the license entirely.)
It's not even that complicated. If you have a clear copyright of the work, -- permission from all the authors, you can relicense at will. Dual-licensing is an option, too.
certainly... but licensing under OGL v1.0a does not imply permission to sublicense under terms other than OGL v1.0a. That is, if I have only my creation in what I'm releasing under OGL v1.0a I can release it under another license also... but if I've got other sources via OGL v1.0a I'd need to get other permission from each to release under a different license.
So... yes, true, but probably impractical in most cases.
Edit: Mind you, probably have much the same problem if the OGL v1.0a is revoked and I no longer have _that_ permission either, but revocation of OGL v1.0a removes the obligation to release as open content (which was my intended point).
I'm not an experienced designer, but you can certainly count me in as someone who wants to see a good OPEN game and I'm willing to work on that. I'm not planing on buying any WotC's One D&D or 5E books at this point, until this is resolved, and even then, at this point, it feels like treason. I never played Pathfinder, and I certainly now hope that Paizo (or anyone else for that matter) comes up with a good system to remove WotC from this hobby. It's not only a SAD day, but a complete disaster. I don't think that WotC will be able to recover from this. When I received this email, I had already almost 10 other publisher offering fire sale of their stuff because of that. AND I've been ordering some other RPG's book in order to be able to play them at some point, in CASE OF.
I’m so thrilled your conclusion is to simply abandon the OGL. There are so many games and systems out there, better than D&D imo, just waiting for more attention.
Let WoTC enjoy their island of diehard fans as their talent, innovations, and content slowly stagnates.
I believe this will be healthy for the rest of the community overall, as we embrace a more open and rich ecosystem that we dictate collectively as people and hobbyists.
I left the gaming world in 1989 when I graduated college and received my commission as a US Army officer. Years went by, married, children, etc......and I returned to it on the thoughts of giving my children the lessons and fun I had from them. I was led to ACKS by the route of a blog my wife follows, Vox Dei, many years ago.....never regretted it, Mr. Macris made the game what it should have been back in the 80s. I am poor but proud, Mr. Macris, where you lead, I and my family will follow, even if I have sink more money for a new and I am positive a better system, so be it. A grunt like me can still learn a few things, so if I can figure a way to help or support your endeavors I Will! I can't stand bullies, and that is what Wotc is in my simple mind, should you and others decide to do a class action I am sure I can find some money to pledge........."This we shall defend"
For those of us heavily invested in ACKs I, what should be the approach? I think all Imm missing are some of the Axioms and maybe one of the books. Grab a copy before the 13th? Wait for ACKs II? Will there be a "conversion" package?
A class action is certainly possible. However, the case would drag on for years, and during that entire period we'd all be uncertain as to the outcome. And since litigating against Wizards is, according to Wizards, a termination of their license, every participant would be risking being ruined if we lost or didn't see it through to the end, not to mention potentially deplatformed.
That might be an option at some point (though I'm not sure it's viability), but it would take years to get it to be resolved. At that time, most publisher that used the OGL would be dead.
So, just how deep does the OGL problem go? Is it a matter of changing the labels and your good to go, or does the entire 6 stats and a d20 system have to get reworked as well?
Well, that's inconvenient, to say the least, but if it's mostly a matter of swapping some names, that's not the end of the world, thankfully. I love your work, and can't go back to straight D&D anymore after playing it. Hopefully youvan get through this without too much loss of profit!!
I don’t even agree with “WOTC wants the end of open gaming.” Neither part of it is true. While WOTC is owned by Hasbro and has to go with what Hasbro tells them, this is really coming from Hasbro. And their actions make it clear that they’re targeting open D&D, not open gaming. For example, they haven’t tried to pull a TSR by trying to patent basic RPG processes/mechanics to try to tie up
the entire industry.
WOTC wants to end open gaming among non-D&D clone ecosystem? Not really in evidence.
Hasbro wants to end/encumber open gaming in the D&D clone ecosystem, to maximize their monetization of third party content? seems to be the case.
They have had a huge stock devaluation, and need to show their stock holders that they’re maximizing company value in every sector… especially after the major backfire of over printing legacy MTG cards (that they shouldn’t have brought back in the first place).
"While WOTC is owned by Hasbro and has to go with what Hasbro tells them, this is really coming from Hasbro."
The idea that gobbled up entities inside corporations have any distinction from the corporation is a legal fiction if even that. WOTC is Hasbro because its merely a subdivision; it doesn't really exist. Its only a cost-center within a corporation, a code used to charge internal costs against. Externally it only exists as a Trademarked name, and that's it because that name is owned by Hasbro and so is just a brand of Hasbro. Maybe I know this because I'm in IT and deal with accounting software, but I would think anyone who has worked for a large corporation would know this. Unless you've only ever worked for private corporations (i.e. not stock market traded) you should have experienced a merger and know this.
Which supports what I said: Hasbro is the bad actor. The people invoking WOTC are invoking a brand and not the corporate leadership making these decisions. It is Hasbro, not WOTC, that is doing this. WOTC is a brand and division, Hasbro is the corporation.
And I have worked at, and work at, large corporations. And companies that were purchased by larger ones. And at a large corporation that bought a smaller one. I currently work in the division that was formerly a company that my employer purchased (I was part of the larger company that purchased the division). I was at Cygnus (gcc/gdb) when Redhat bought them in 1999/2000. I am at Apple and work in the division that used to be a company called Topsy (purchased in 2004 or 2005 I think).
The above claim of “end of open gaming” depends on one completely false claim:
That the OGL is the only license available for open gaming license that non-D&D-clones can use. You sort of hint at that when you mention your upcoming kickstarter, but the fact is that there are existing open content licenses that can easily be adopted. FSF/GNU’s FDL. The FreeBSDDL (in both of those “DSL” means document license, suitable for use on documents/books). And of course variants of the Creative Commons license. The FSF has a great page listing all of the various document licenses (stated from
an angle of programming documentation, but still applicable to gaming books).
If you’re not tied to the OGL (because your game isn’t a D&D clone), then any publisher should be looking to jump off of the OGL ASAP.
To be clear, I didn't say it would be the end of open gaming. I said WOTC wanted it to be, but it could instead be a new beginning. I'm not entirely blackpilled!
I agree with you, though, there are other licenses we can use, and I'll be doing so.
"The above claim of “end of open gaming” depends on one completely false claim"
What Macris wrote may be *technically* wrong but in practice, given the current dominance of WotC material in the TTRPG open gaming world, it's correct for all practical purposes. Given time (and money!) we'll see alternatives pop up & become widespread (like ACKS II & Ascendant I hope), and with any luck WotC will crash and burn as they so thoroughly deserve to... but (a) that takes time, and (b) meanwhile how many indie companies and creators will disappear?
"It was not only inevitable but intended for big business to get bigger and the little guy to get screwed. For example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes in such a way that independents were nearly run out of business, even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theaters in America were independently owned."
-Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg
That was written about FDR's New Deal, but it sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As I said, open gaming isn’t just d&d clones. Other open games only need to replace their license pages with any of the existing alternative open document licenses. It’s not a someday, it’s today.
This makes GW look tame in comparison, which is hilarious. WotC basically saw GW and went, "Hold my beer".
I will support you in any way that I can. I am at war with this license - how dare this company steal my hobby and hurt my friends.
Hmm. If OGL v1.0a truly is revoked -- and my nonlawyerly reading of the purported leaked draft is that 'OGL v1.0a is unauthorized' might apply only if one accepts v1.1 (v1.0a and v1.1 are clearly immiscible, v1.1 and v1.0a each require things the other disallows) -- then the restrictions it places on you should be revoked also, yes? So that restriction on not being able to take 'open content' and make to 'closed content' should similarly disappear, freeing you to rerelease an OGL-free version. Lots of rewriting to make sure it's SRD-free, of course, but that should be how it works. In a fair system (yes, I read that it is not a fair system, I'm just being logical).
(The bit in Section 13 about termination meaning your license is terminated if you breach but your sublicenses are still valid shouldn't apply either -- this isn't termination due to breach, it's revocation of the license entirely.)
I concur with this assessment.
It's not even that complicated. If you have a clear copyright of the work, -- permission from all the authors, you can relicense at will. Dual-licensing is an option, too.
certainly... but licensing under OGL v1.0a does not imply permission to sublicense under terms other than OGL v1.0a. That is, if I have only my creation in what I'm releasing under OGL v1.0a I can release it under another license also... but if I've got other sources via OGL v1.0a I'd need to get other permission from each to release under a different license.
So... yes, true, but probably impractical in most cases.
Edit: Mind you, probably have much the same problem if the OGL v1.0a is revoked and I no longer have _that_ permission either, but revocation of OGL v1.0a removes the obligation to release as open content (which was my intended point).
I'm not an experienced designer, but you can certainly count me in as someone who wants to see a good OPEN game and I'm willing to work on that. I'm not planing on buying any WotC's One D&D or 5E books at this point, until this is resolved, and even then, at this point, it feels like treason. I never played Pathfinder, and I certainly now hope that Paizo (or anyone else for that matter) comes up with a good system to remove WotC from this hobby. It's not only a SAD day, but a complete disaster. I don't think that WotC will be able to recover from this. When I received this email, I had already almost 10 other publisher offering fire sale of their stuff because of that. AND I've been ordering some other RPG's book in order to be able to play them at some point, in CASE OF.
This is a terrific post and lays out the problem perfectly.
-Anthony Valterra, former brand manager for D&D and publisher of the OGL "Book of Erotic Fantasy"-
Thanks for the kind words Anthony. (I own BEF! Great to see that not everything is bowdlerized - though I fear it will be under OGL 1.1)
Don’t sign it. You never needed a license to create 3rd party content. Game rules and mechanics are not protected by copyright—only the art and lore.
https://zandoriastudios.com/2018/10/05/games-are-not-protected-by-copyright/
WotC certainly *seem* to think that they are, and it's unlikely they'd be prepared to litigate to that effect if they couldn't back up the sentiment.
I’m so thrilled your conclusion is to simply abandon the OGL. There are so many games and systems out there, better than D&D imo, just waiting for more attention.
Let WoTC enjoy their island of diehard fans as their talent, innovations, and content slowly stagnates.
I believe this will be healthy for the rest of the community overall, as we embrace a more open and rich ecosystem that we dictate collectively as people and hobbyists.
I left the gaming world in 1989 when I graduated college and received my commission as a US Army officer. Years went by, married, children, etc......and I returned to it on the thoughts of giving my children the lessons and fun I had from them. I was led to ACKS by the route of a blog my wife follows, Vox Dei, many years ago.....never regretted it, Mr. Macris made the game what it should have been back in the 80s. I am poor but proud, Mr. Macris, where you lead, I and my family will follow, even if I have sink more money for a new and I am positive a better system, so be it. A grunt like me can still learn a few things, so if I can figure a way to help or support your endeavors I Will! I can't stand bullies, and that is what Wotc is in my simple mind, should you and others decide to do a class action I am sure I can find some money to pledge........."This we shall defend"
For those of us heavily invested in ACKs I, what should be the approach? I think all Imm missing are some of the Axioms and maybe one of the books. Grab a copy before the 13th? Wait for ACKs II? Will there be a "conversion" package?
Leave it to WOTC to destroy a good thing.
I see the post on ACKs II now. So that will work as the conversion. As for the rest, it will be updated?
Yes, though it'll take me a little bit :-)
An excellent and sobering read. Lacking a legal background, I'm curious about one thing though: What about a class action lawsuit against WotC/Hasbro?
A class action is certainly possible. However, the case would drag on for years, and during that entire period we'd all be uncertain as to the outcome. And since litigating against Wizards is, according to Wizards, a termination of their license, every participant would be risking being ruined if we lost or didn't see it through to the end, not to mention potentially deplatformed.
Thanks for the clarification, I expected that would likely be the answer. It all sounds quite grim.
That might be an option at some point (though I'm not sure it's viability), but it would take years to get it to be resolved. At that time, most publisher that used the OGL would be dead.
So, just how deep does the OGL problem go? Is it a matter of changing the labels and your good to go, or does the entire 6 stats and a d20 system have to get reworked as well?
No one really knows. My own IP attorney, an expert in the field, concluded that I needed to change these terms:
- At least 3 of the stats
- Armor Class
- Hit Points
- Saving Throw
But I did not need to change these terms:
- gold piece (gp)
- fighter
- class, level
So my upcoming game will have "Resistance Throws" "Armor Rating" etc.
Well, that's inconvenient, to say the least, but if it's mostly a matter of swapping some names, that's not the end of the world, thankfully. I love your work, and can't go back to straight D&D anymore after playing it. Hopefully youvan get through this without too much loss of profit!!
Thanks for an excellent read, lucid and comprehensive.
I don’t even agree with “WOTC wants the end of open gaming.” Neither part of it is true. While WOTC is owned by Hasbro and has to go with what Hasbro tells them, this is really coming from Hasbro. And their actions make it clear that they’re targeting open D&D, not open gaming. For example, they haven’t tried to pull a TSR by trying to patent basic RPG processes/mechanics to try to tie up
the entire industry.
WOTC wants to end open gaming among non-D&D clone ecosystem? Not really in evidence.
Hasbro wants to end/encumber open gaming in the D&D clone ecosystem, to maximize their monetization of third party content? seems to be the case.
They have had a huge stock devaluation, and need to show their stock holders that they’re maximizing company value in every sector… especially after the major backfire of over printing legacy MTG cards (that they shouldn’t have brought back in the first place).
"While WOTC is owned by Hasbro and has to go with what Hasbro tells them, this is really coming from Hasbro."
The idea that gobbled up entities inside corporations have any distinction from the corporation is a legal fiction if even that. WOTC is Hasbro because its merely a subdivision; it doesn't really exist. Its only a cost-center within a corporation, a code used to charge internal costs against. Externally it only exists as a Trademarked name, and that's it because that name is owned by Hasbro and so is just a brand of Hasbro. Maybe I know this because I'm in IT and deal with accounting software, but I would think anyone who has worked for a large corporation would know this. Unless you've only ever worked for private corporations (i.e. not stock market traded) you should have experienced a merger and know this.
Which supports what I said: Hasbro is the bad actor. The people invoking WOTC are invoking a brand and not the corporate leadership making these decisions. It is Hasbro, not WOTC, that is doing this. WOTC is a brand and division, Hasbro is the corporation.
And I have worked at, and work at, large corporations. And companies that were purchased by larger ones. And at a large corporation that bought a smaller one. I currently work in the division that was formerly a company that my employer purchased (I was part of the larger company that purchased the division). I was at Cygnus (gcc/gdb) when Redhat bought them in 1999/2000. I am at Apple and work in the division that used to be a company called Topsy (purchased in 2004 or 2005 I think).
The above claim of “end of open gaming” depends on one completely false claim:
That the OGL is the only license available for open gaming license that non-D&D-clones can use. You sort of hint at that when you mention your upcoming kickstarter, but the fact is that there are existing open content licenses that can easily be adopted. FSF/GNU’s FDL. The FreeBSDDL (in both of those “DSL” means document license, suitable for use on documents/books). And of course variants of the Creative Commons license. The FSF has a great page listing all of the various document licenses (stated from
an angle of programming documentation, but still applicable to gaming books).
If you’re not tied to the OGL (because your game isn’t a D&D clone), then any publisher should be looking to jump off of the OGL ASAP.
To be clear, I didn't say it would be the end of open gaming. I said WOTC wanted it to be, but it could instead be a new beginning. I'm not entirely blackpilled!
I agree with you, though, there are other licenses we can use, and I'll be doing so.
"The above claim of “end of open gaming” depends on one completely false claim"
What Macris wrote may be *technically* wrong but in practice, given the current dominance of WotC material in the TTRPG open gaming world, it's correct for all practical purposes. Given time (and money!) we'll see alternatives pop up & become widespread (like ACKS II & Ascendant I hope), and with any luck WotC will crash and burn as they so thoroughly deserve to... but (a) that takes time, and (b) meanwhile how many indie companies and creators will disappear?
"It was not only inevitable but intended for big business to get bigger and the little guy to get screwed. For example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes in such a way that independents were nearly run out of business, even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theaters in America were independently owned."
-Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg
That was written about FDR's New Deal, but it sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As I said, open gaming isn’t just d&d clones. Other open games only need to replace their license pages with any of the existing alternative open document licenses. It’s not a someday, it’s today.