Roleplaying Geeks Unite

[TehPW]

Thoughts (because i don't want to create a new thread for what is a nitch topic)?

 

What i am concerned about is video games like Dungeon & Dragons Online (a legacy 3.5-based MMO still active), NWN1 and NWN2 (legacy PC games long gone save a few Persistent Worlds)? how does this legal crap that HASBRO is pulling work?

How does this affect fan-skit operations like VivaLaDirtLeague, All for 1 or Critical Roll?

Edited January 9, 2023 by TehPW
I'm mostly worried about DDO...

[mikeszekely]

I'm not a legal expert, but there's a ton of gloom-and-doom videos on YouTube right now about this.  I suppose it's understandable that content creators whose livelihood revolves around D&D are going to focus on the potential worst-case-scenarios, although the crotchety gen x-er in me can't help but see a level of entitlement around the cries of "how dare Hasbro/WOTC want more control over how my business uses that thing they own!"  Like, there didn't have to be an OGL in the first place.

In any case, while I do the points behind some of their concerns, I think it might be a bit overblown.  Like, it shouldn't affect D&D Online, Neverwinter, NWN, etc at all, because they weren't produced under the OGL, they were licensed D&D products.  Likewise, I've heard more than one creator bring up the KOTOR games, but again in the 2000s WOTC was the publisher of the official Star Wars RPG, which used a d20 system similar to the then-current 3rd edition of D&D, so I don't think KOTOR is an OGL product.

And the YouTubers?  Skits like VivaLaDirtLeague and All for 1 have a lot of leeway, because a.) there's nothing uniquely D&D vs any generic RPG about them, and b.) parody is always fair use.  I believe fair use is still going to apply, too, to discussions about the game (eg. "10 best Cantrips!" "Ranking each D&D Class" etc).  Stuff like Critical Role, where they're more or less filming their actual D&D sessions, is maybe in a bit more trouble, but it's worth pointing out that Critical Role already has a relationship with WOTC, who have published two official 5e books based on Critical Role material (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and Call of the Netherdeep).  

No, what WOTC is really after here isn't old video games or XP to Level 3's "Fireball" video.  What they're really going after are the books and supplements being published under the OGL (and even then, only a percentage on earnings over $750,000 a year).  See, at it's core, the new OGL is all about Paizo and Pathfinder.  Sure, with the changes and what not Paizo made to Pathfinder 2e the game might be different enough now that Paizo could defend it as its own thing, but the fact is that Pathfinder 1e was very much a modified D&D 3.5e they made with the OGL that wound up becoming WOTC's biggest competition.

There's also the small matter of the fact that the original OGL was written in such a way that if WOTC did change it that creators were free to stick to the old version.  Again, not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how that works exactly - it might also mean sticking to an older version of the SRD, so maybe a creator couldn't make something for the upcoming One D&D under the old OGL, but maybe WOTC couldn't stop them for making something compatible with 3e or original 5e.

Regardless, I think this is a topic that's going to generate a lot of noise for awhile.  WOTC might even make a few amendments to the new OGL.  But in the end One D&D's still going to sell, and YouTuber's are still going to make their videos, and you won't be hearing a peep about this a year from now.

[mikeszekely]

So, WOTC released a statement on the backlash that the leaked OGL draft was generating.  The TLDR version is that a new version of the OGL is coming, but they'll be walking some of it back.

That said, some of the language they used is pretty telling.

"When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products"

Some creators (I'm thinking specifically of the DnD Shorts guy) were concerned that the language of the new OGL would give WOTC the ability to just shut you down if they decided they didn't like you.  Not a lawyer here- this may be technically true, and the wording of the OGL should be more clear, and you can't necessarily rely on a corporation's goodwill to protect you.  That said, I'd be willing to bet that this was almost 100% about their lawsuit with Ernie Gygax and TSR LLC over the alleged racist content in the leaked playtest for Star Frontiers: New Genesis.

"Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements."

This statement is interesting if you look at it from the other side.  Sure, they're saying that you can't use the OGL to make a NFTs and junk because the OGL only applies to TTRPG content... but if the OGL only applies to TTRPG content, then it (even the new version) doesn't apply to a ton of other content.  Critical Role livestreaming their games, making comic books about their characters, making an anime, Youtube discussion channels, skits and parodies, all that sort of stuff would not have been affected.

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

Hence the provisions for paying royalties only if you made over $750,000, and only on the money you make over $750,000.  I think this is the most telling part of WOTC's message, as it's more or less a confirmation of what I said earlier.  WOTC doesn't really care about XP to Level 3's Quest-O-Nomicon.  They're mad that Paizo used the old OGL to create D&D's biggest competitor in Pathfinder RPG.  Ironically, Pathfinder 2e changed enough from "3.5e but slightly different" original edition, and used very deliberate language in the process, that WOTC would probably have an uphill battle proving Paizo owes/owed them anything.  Apparently, Paizo only included published Pathfinder 2e with the OGL to make it easier for fans to create Pathfinder content.  Regardless, it sounds like when the new OGL is finished and goes into effect it will NOT have any royalty structure in it.

I didn't address it before, but another major concern people had was the license back provision.  Creators were concerned that it more or less meant that if they made something for D&D using the OGL that WOTC would own it.  WOTC's reasoning: "The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities." My opinion on this was sort of like my opinion on the objectionable content thing- I don't believe that WOTC actually intended the worst-case scenario, but if it allowed for the worst-case scenario then the language should have been more clear about what WOTC can and cannot do.  Which seems to be their intention (at least now): "Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point."

Ultimately, I'm back where I started.  Was the leaked OGL bad?  Yes, but arguably over unclear wording than greed or malice.  Small-time content creators and fans were right to concerned, and I'm very glad to see WOTC address those concerns, but the reaction to those legitimate concerns seemed to me a bit overblown and, at times, suffering from hints of entitlement.

[TehPW]

2 hours ago, mikeszekely said:

So, WOTC released a statement on the backlash that the leaked OGL draft was generating.  The TLDR version is that a new version of the OGL is coming, but they'll be walking some of it back.

That said, some of the language they used is pretty telling.

"When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products"

Some creators (I'm thinking specifically of the DnD Shorts guy) were concerned that the language of the new OGL would give WOTC the ability to just shut you down if they decided they didn't like you.  Not a lawyer here- this may be technically true, and the wording of the OGL should be more clear, and you can't necessarily rely on a corporation's goodwill to protect you.  That said, I'd be willing to bet that this was almost 100% about their lawsuit with Ernie Gygax and TSR LLC over the alleged racist content in the leaked playtest for Star Frontiers: New Genesis.

"Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements."

This statement is interesting if you look at it from the other side.  Sure, they're saying that you can't use the OGL to make a NFTs and junk because the OGL only applies to TTRPG content... but if the OGL only applies to TTRPG content, then it (even the new version) doesn't apply to a ton of other content.  Critical Role livestreaming their games, making comic books about their characters, making an anime, Youtube discussion channels, skits and parodies, all that sort of stuff would not have been affected.

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

Hence the provisions for paying royalties only if you made over $750,000, and only on the money you make over $750,000.  I think this is the most telling part of WOTC's message, as it's more or less a confirmation of what I said earlier.  WOTC doesn't really care about XP to Level 3's Quest-O-Nomicon.  They're mad that Paizo used the old OGL to create D&D's biggest competitor in Pathfinder RPG.  Ironically, Pathfinder 2e changed enough from "3.5e but slightly different" original edition, and used very deliberate language in the process, that WOTC would probably have an uphill battle proving Paizo owes/owed them anything.  Apparently, Paizo only included published Pathfinder 2e with the OGL to make it easier for fans to create Pathfinder content.  Regardless, it sounds like when the new OGL is finished and goes into effect it will NOT have any royalty structure in it.

I didn't address it before, but another major concern people had was the license back provision.  Creators were concerned that it more or less meant that if they made something for D&D using the OGL that WOTC would own it.  WOTC's reasoning: "The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities." My opinion on this was sort of like my opinion on the objectionable content thing- I don't believe that WOTC actually intended the worst-case scenario, but if it allowed for the worst-case scenario then the language should have been more clear about what WOTC can and cannot do.  Which seems to be their intention (at least now): "Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point."

Ultimately, I'm back where I started.  Was the leaked OGL bad?  Yes, but arguably over unclear wording than greed or malice.  Small-time content creators and fans were right to concerned, and I'm very glad to see WOTC address those concerns, but the reaction to those legitimate concerns seemed to me a bit overblown and, at times, suffering from hints of entitlement.

Thank you. Now I have a word for you.

Control.

That's the word that I have heard said on several occasions, on some more... reputable streams on YT, on WotC (Really Hasbro, since I'll bet a weeks rations of Navy Beans its them via Hasbro's stockholders Shareholders dictating terms to WotC). They want to control the market and show some effort in increasing their profitability, since folks finally put Two & Two together on just how Habro makes their cash in the past two decades: WotC (thus now applying just a liberal amount of pressure on the Toy Giant...)

Edited January 14, 2023 by TehPW
concept correction, as only in the past year have i become one of those shareholder types... derpy.

[mikeszekely]

1 hour ago, TehPW said:

Thank you. Now I have a word for you.

Control.

That's the word that I have heard said on several occasions, on some more... reputable streams on YT, on WotC (Really Hasbro, since I'll bet a weeks rations of Navy Beans its them via Hasbro's stockholders Shareholders dictating terms to WotC). They want to control the market and show some effort in increasing their profitability, since folks finally put Two & Two together on just how Habro makes their cash in the past two decades: WotC (thus now applying just a liberal amount of pressure on the Toy Giant...)

I have no doubt that the shareholders want maximum profit, and that has lead Hasbro to pressure pretty much every division in the company to cut costs, generate revenue, or both.  As a fan on the Transformers side I've seen plenty of that in higher prices, fewer accessories, and plastic-saving cutouts in various parts.  And we know that WOTC isn't exempt from that pressure- I don't play Magic: the Gathering, but even I'm aware of some of the blatant cash grabs that have gone on with the brand in just the last year.

As far as it pertains to D&D, sure, it's not immune.  One D&D seems less about the need for another rules revision and more about the fact that they've had a hard time selling books besides The Player's Handbook to anyone but DMs, so they want a new Player's Handbook out there.  They're also pushing hard to expand the brand into other areas- the upcoming film, a newly-announced show on Paramount+, and just today I was at Target and saw action figures for both the new movie and the old '80s cartoon.  I guess the real question is how much of the new OGL was due to that pressure?  I guess the trendy thing is to jump on the anti-corporation bandwagon, and I'm sure that the revenue sharing was definitely motivated by trying to get money back off of companies like Paizo that have benefitted tremendously from the original OGL.  But, like I said, I'm inclined to believe that the OGL draft was more poorly-worded than intentionally greedy.

[Bolt]

The backlash is happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/jan/12/dungeons-and-dragons-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl

And an 8 episode series is coming..

[Seto Kaiba]

I've got no horse in this race, but this popped on my YouTube subscriptions page and figured it was topical... especially since it lacks the hysterical hot takes of most coverage of the situation.