SmiteWorks Official Statement about OGL 1.1 and Open Gaming Licenses

[ddavison]

SmiteWorks established Fantasy Grounds as the first virtual tabletop (VTT) to receive an official license for D&D back in 2015. In many ways, SmiteWorks paved the way forward for online D&D and for online roleplaying from many other game publishers and game systems. Our partnership with Wizards of the Coast has benefitted us greatly and I believe it has similarly benefitted Wizards of the Coast.

Regarding the OGL 1.1

I shared my thoughts with Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) privately on Monday, January 9th, regarding the OGL 1.1. I view it as being harmful to the RPG community, an overreach by WOTC, and I view it as being harmful to WOTC as well. I genuinely want Wizards of the Coast to succeed and continue to grow. I want them to do this alongside the many amazing game publishers and creators that coexist in the RPG space.

My thoughts were detailed on how I viewed the language in the OGL 1.1 to be anti-competitive and contrary to WOTC's stated goals. I predicted a very strong community response to the proposed language, and we've seen that play out very much as predicted. My hope is that WOTC will course correct in a very public way and will reinforce the OGL 1.0a and/or similar documents.

D&D is the most popular system for playing fantasy RPGs and this is based on a mix of name recognition, branding, quality of content, historical contributions, and intelligent design choices. It is also due to the OGL, where WOTC was viewed as a benevolent leader for an entire industry.

I look forward to an official announcement by Wizards of the Coast on this subject and I sincerely hope they succeed in regaining some trust that they have lost with this recent event. We want to help them in this endeavor and we would like to continue releasing great D&D content in an environment that is fair to everyone.

At the same time, I publicly offer my support for the Open RPG Creative (ORC) license proposed by Paizo, Kobold Press, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, Chaosium, and other publishers. We are happy to continue working with all publishers, big and small, to provide players with the greatest choice of games available and to lift all boats.

We are committed to our fans above all others. Our license with D&D is still live and active. It renews annually and has been renewed already for 2023. Should we ever lose our license, customers will continue to have access to anything they have purchased. This includes being able to reinstall content. This is the same for every single publisher on our platform. If something is ever unable to be sold due to license issues, we would still be able to provide access to customers for anything they've ever purchased.

We appreciate the support that our fans have provided us since 2004 and since I took ownership of SmiteWorks in 2009. We are eternally grateful and we will do our best to support your gaming needs and wishes for decades to come.

[ddavison]

Wizards of the Cost has just released their statement and it is what I hoped it would be.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

[celestian]

Wizards of the Cost has just released their statement and it is what I hoped it would be.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

I hope you're right but I'm not very hopeful.



Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that.


That OGL was given to people to sign a week or so ago. They didnt solicit anything or draft, you dont send a draft as a contract to sign...

[Shannara]

Thank you for making a statement. I, along with many other FG users, I'm sure, have been and will continued to be, concerned. My love and support of Fantasy Grounds will continue, whatever WotC ultimately does, though I hope they will come to see the value of the community that they claim to see now and keep renewing their relationships.

[Muagen]

I don't mean to seem cynical, but the fact that they canceled their livestream yesterday seems to undercut their sincerity here. If all this was their original intent, if this was all just a draft for review, if this was all for our benefit, then why not carry that narrative into the livestream as planned?

It seems as though they were forced to adjust their narrative, and they needed time to regroup and recalibrate their messaging.
Which is fine. Companies frequently need to adjust their tone for the sake of optics.

But this isn't just an adjustment in tone. Like many others, I took a look through the OGL 1.1. That document's brazen intent was profitability and broad-stroke intellectual property barony.

And today--after monitoring what must have been a painful exodus of DnD Beyond subscribers over the last 24 hours, as well as having to endure censure by other tabletop and general gaming industry leaders and influencers at every level--today their message is vague contrition hummed in a tone of, "Oops, shrug. You got us."

Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not — which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided — so we are.

They didn't want our feedback. This wasn't presented to us for our feedback.

This was leaked, because it had to be. Otherwise, we would have awoken today to news stories of how WotC suddenly shut out all their competition, how they secured broad power over tons of small press intellectual property, and how the tabletop gaming market was simultaneously shaken to its core, at the same time it lay nearly completely in Wizards' iron grasp.

So today we wake up to news that it was all just a drill to procure feedback. It was all for our own good.

[...]you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won — and so did we.


However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1.
Wink, grin and nod.

[ddavison]

I’m heartened to see that the RPG community looks out for one another.

[drempel]

The statement is pretty much what I expected it to be in face of the backlash, but it doesn't go anywhere near to regaining trust. There's some pretty boldface lies in that statement about how things went down...they were never intending on asking for feedback, that's provable (and seriously..."we didn't even think about stealing content"....riiiiight....do they really expect us to believe these people at the top of the industry are really this stupid, that they wrote all that without thinking of it? Hanlons Razor aside given what's been pretty much confirmed about how this went down behind closed doors I think it's far more likely they think we are stupid enough to believe them).

I am not going to be buying any more WotC stuff. I'll keep supporting creators for 5E as long as they are able, or the successor to 5E arrives (probably Black Flag).

5E returning to the OGL after the 4E GSL debacle was their second chance. We'd be fools to give them another. They've told us who they are by letting that license get as far as it did. That's the part we should believe. Not the PR Damage Control version they want to present to us.

All that being said your support of ORC is wonderful news. I look forward to many more happy years using FG, with what ever rulesets may land :)

[SmackDaddy]

Doug, thank you for your response and am also looking forward to what the future holds on both sides of the aisle (Open RPG and OGL) -- I am glad what I have purchased for 5e will be available for me to use, no matter what. As a DM this was my BIGGEST concern - whether i was going to have to invest hundreds (or thousands) in another ruleset/system or continue to use what I've paid for over the last 2 years!

Keep up the great work Smiteworks!

[Tyrannosaurus VeX]

I saw the community rallying this time last week. There were internal discussions at Grim Press about what this meant for our future. We're a big 3P publisher in the Fantasy Grounds pond, but we're a little publisher in the larger D&D pond. It was scary. We have/had projects planned, some already finished just waiting to be posted to Kickstarter. But this kind of halted us all in our tracks.

After watching several videos and reading commentary by lawyers (at least claiming to be), I thought this was building to a lawsuit. And since almost everyone was against this, I thought it would be a massive class action against WotC/Hasbro over the OGL "revocation/deauthorization". And then I considered how WotC could possibly fight such a large legal battle and remain solvent. And since WotC has been pretty much the only profitable part of Hasbro for years, how would Hasbro respond to a threat of a lawsuit they couldn't afford to fight and probably wouldn't win?

So I was pretty sure they'd back down from OGL 1.1. But I guess the most astonishing thing has been the way the community at large has responded. While it's been great to see the big 3rd Party Publishers like Kobold Press, Paizo, Nord, Frog God, etc. step up and announce they're moving on from WotC and the OGL, the really amazing thing has been how the average player/DMs out there who aren't 3PPs have stepped up in support. So many people cancelled their DnDBeyond subscriptions that the DnDBeyond cancellation portal crashed (or they took it down in fear).

There's something magical about a community that is usually pretty divisive, outspoken, argumentative, and opinionated suddenly coming together in support of one goal ... #opendnd

[Guybie]

The only way WotC can recover any face is by decoupling the OGL from thier corporation... ahla what Paizo are suggesting.... I can't really see that happening though.

[Rewe]

Fantasy Ground is the main reason i came back to play RPG after a decade long hiatus. And right my main source of a very humble income, as i fulfilled my dream to become a profesional gm.

Love everything about it. The soft, the devs, the comunity, the tools. And right, this post is a confirmation to all of that.

DnD popularity gave us a lot of reach, but that was mainly a 3rd party merit (critical role). And i will be forever grateful for that.

RPG are a form of Art, that its about the comunity, not the system. No one can own that, in the same way no one can own music.

No matter the game rules, or the publisher. We will keep playing, we will keep together. Last weak was a massive statement about that.

Here to stay.

[Muagen]

There's an interesting idea in a post on the dndnext (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10b0esl/wotc_needs_to_be_pressured_to_license_under_the/) subreddit.

If WotC really wants to bury the hatchet, they could voluntarily license under the ORC. That saves them the effort of coming up with their own language and proves that their earnest intention is to build out the ttrpg community, and that they have no intention of pulling this nonsense again.

[madman]

Agreed. It will never Happen! JMHO...

[dyoung1978]

Good to see FG has been in contact with WOTC. Hopefully we dont all get screwed here. This platform has saved my gaming group personally. Hate to see this go away before of WOTC bottom line.

[SirMotte]

It's good to see that Smiteworks is on top of it. It seems some solid licensing agreements are in place.

Wizards/Hasbro wants to make their VTT their cash cow. A digital store for all things DnD with a plethora of micro-transactions for (3d) tokens, emotes, skins, fx, digital dice, 3d assets and so on and so forth. The OGL update was forged to keep 100% control on anything that would be created there and get all the revenue possible by enslaving everyone else. Creators would always live in fear of the wills and whims of WotC. What a nightmare!

Instead of farsight they favored short term profits by making a sad attempt to disseize the work of others. Absolutely UNFORGIVABLE.
It would be so easy for them to get more earnings by expanding merchandise, offering more official classes, quality maps, dice, Wyrmwood like gaming utensils, plush's, minatures.... The list goes on.
But no, this would require too much of an investment, right?

I was shocked. The company that enabled me to have great fun with friends and family or even strangers, that I had thought to be morally exceptional, suddenly turns EA, turns Blizzard, turns evil. Their answer is a sad joke full of false information and claims, so easy to see through. Their Plot failed and they have irreparably damaged their IP, their community and any trust they once had.

That is how I see it and that is how I will act upon. I was thrilled for One DnD, for the new rules and enhancements. I was happily discussing the UEA material with my players and was dreaming of what would come next. All of this has turned sour. So much so, that I will take strolls to other systems, I may just find one that provides a similar experience. If I do, there is little that will hold me back from changing to it. WotC will have to move heaven and earth to make me think otherwise.
This I don't see happening. I'm sorry for all the wonderful people that work at WotC, their leadership has shown its ugly mug.

Goodbye DnD.

[Transbot9]

Wizards of the Cost has just released their statement and it is what I hoped it would be.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

They still want to de-authorize 1.0a, which is still very problematic. Trust has been broken and will not easily be re-earned.

[damned]

They still want to de-authorize 1.0a, which is still very problematic. Trust has been broken and will not easily be re-earned.

I dont believe it says that.
They will be releasing new data (they can also re-release existing data) under 2.0 or whatever, but to me it reads that they are leaving 1.0a alone.

[Transbot9]

I dont believe it says that.
They will be releasing new data (they can also re-release existing data) under 2.0 or whatever, but to me it reads that they are leaving 1.0a alone.

This:

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

It indicates that they are still wanting to sunset OGL 1.0a. Content already released under 1.0a was always going to be fine. Future releases? Ehhhhh....let's just say I am looking forward to the ORC license.

[damned]

1.0a did not invalidate 1.0. It says that creators can use whichever one they chose.
2.0 will cover stuff released under 2.0.

[wndrngdru]

The truth is WOTC can put anything they want to in a FAQ. We won't know anything until the license is actually released/leaked and the language itself can be scrutinized.

[ZooSKP]

Thank you for this statement. My goal for my table is whether I can continue to host the game I want to host in Fantasy Grounds, regardless of what WOTC ultimately does.

If I read the above correctly, I understand I can continue using the Fantasy Grounds modules of official D&D content that I have bought already and also buy new copies of official modules through 2023 at least.

The unanswered question here, though is: what happens to Fantasy Grounds modules licensed from MCDM, Kobold Press, and others that are themselves released under OGL 1.0a. Does Smiteworks lose the ability to host that content?

[damned]

Thank you for this statement. My goal for my table is whether I can continue to host the game I want to host in Fantasy Grounds, regardless of what WOTC ultimately does.

If I read the above correctly, I understand I can continue using the Fantasy Grounds modules of official D&D content that I have bought already and also buy new copies of official modules through 2023 at least.

The unanswered question here, though is: what happens to Fantasy Grounds modules licensed from MCDM, Kobold Press, and others that are themselves released under OGL 1.0a. Does Smiteworks lose the ability to host that content?

It is highly unlikely that anything released with an OGL license attached will be revoked.
In the event it is, it is not that difficult for most products to remove the license and rewrite any SRD content they have included.
The publishers you have mentioned are all actively doing or considering doing just that.

[ddavison]

The unanswered question here, though is: what happens to Fantasy Grounds modules licensed from MCDM, Kobold Press, and others that are themselves released under OGL 1.0a. Does Smiteworks lose the ability to host that content?

That delves into what would very likely be a legal battle. For now, nothing is affected or contested.

[WinterSoldier7]

Forgive me if this is a daft question, as I try to keep-up with things I barely understand, but if someone like Kobold Press or MCDM create their own systems, as they have suggested they will, is there scope to have those featured on FGU in future?

[damned]

Forgive me if this is a daft question, as I try to keep-up with things I barely understand, but if someone like Kobold Press or MCDM create their own systems, as they have suggested they will, is there scope to have those featured on FGU in future?

There is scope.
There are lots of things that have to align for that to happen.
There are game systems from several other publishers already.

[WinterSoldier7]

You're right, there totally are - though I personally haven't used them. That makes sense then, though I know there are a lot of unknowns at the moment.

[Milke]

A rising tide lifts all ships.

Good post, Doug.

[CampbellR66]

Any thoughts on the impact of the impact of the wotc VTT and probably closed shop content.

How will this impact fgu and other vtt platforms?

Can we look forward to seeing better support for other game systems?

[Milke]

Any thoughts on the impact of the impact of the wotc VTT and probably closed shop content.

How will this impact fgu and other vtt platforms?

Can we look forward to seeing better support for other game systems?

There are already multiple threads on the boards covering this topic. In the tavern section, for one.

[andrewcr]

I appreciate the clarification and support for the broader industry. Not locked into one system is why (in addition to the fantastic tools why I went for FG and not a one branded - trick pony).

Two things come to mind.

1) Will we get a heads-up to purchase and complete our 5e official collection before its locked if 2024 is not renewed (note - I am not planning to buy any WOTC products from now on, I will be 5e compatible products from other publishers tho).


2) The other strategic option for WOTC is to offer the owners for FGU a bucket of cash to buy you out and basically force us to use their product (I would image for users there will be a sweetner - here will will give you all the 5e stuff you own in our platform), or they will manipulate a licence term that we signed on too when we purchased our products and say your stuff isn;t supported any more after X you will need to pay to move on.

I won't blame you if offered a big bucket of cash you can't refuse but its certainly a strategy to consolidate that avoids the court system.

[ddavison]

Hey, I'm not saying I can't be bought... but my price is very high. :)

Our agreement means that we would would have at least a 60 day notice before termination of our agreement and we would be able to continue selling content at that point. When I've spoken with WOTC, they indicated that they don't see any reason why we shouldn't be allowed to continue to serve our fans. I try not to take it for granted, but there is a compelling reason for WOTC to allow other VTTs to continue. Some people will naturally go with whatever WOTC offers. Some others may prefer that VTT over our VTT. Allowing FGU to continue in the official VTT space provides WOTC more opportunities to appeal to a broader range of customer tastes. It makes good business sense. We pay a higher percentage royalty than WOTC gets for physical books and I don't see them stopping that anytime soon either. We have no cost to operate and any revenue we bring in goes right to their bottom line.

[esmdev]

Hey, I'm not saying I can't be bought... but my price is very high. :)

Our agreement means that we would would have at least a 60 day notice before termination of our agreement and we would be able to continue selling content at that point. When I've spoken with WOTC, they indicated that they don't see any reason why we shouldn't be allowed to continue to serve our fans. I try not to take it for granted, but there is a compelling reason for WOTC to allow other VTTs to continue. Some people will naturally go with whatever WOTC offers. Some others may prefer that VTT over our VTT. Allowing FGU to continue in the official VTT space provides WOTC more opportunities to appeal to a broader range of customer tastes. It makes good business sense. We pay a higher percentage royalty than WOTC gets for physical books and I don't see them stopping that anytime soon either. We have no cost to operate and any revenue we bring in goes right to their bottom line.

I'm curious about the last sentence, did you mean they have no cost to operate? I assume you have a considerable cost to operate.

[ddavison]

I mean that WOTC doesn't incur any costs for us to operate. Other than sending us files whenever a new product is ready to print, and getting reports and payments, we are pretty low maintenance for them.

[andrewcr]

I mean that WOTC doesn't incur any costs for us to operate. Other than sending us files whenever a new product is ready to print, and getting reports and payments, we are pretty low maintenance for them.

Hi Doug.

Thanks for the reply. Nice to know you are not "cheap" and I would not assume to presume.

But what might be on the table:

With a sale price per user for DnD Beyond is around $14USD each (10M users at $146M sale price).

Steam gives a guess at your user numbers https://steamcharts.com/app/1196310 and and https://steamplayercount.com/app/252690 and you also gave us some data on users https://www.fantasygrounds.com/reports/2020Q4/

So I (and you) can probably calculate an offer price range. lol :)

An issue for us/Smiteworks is that should there be an end of the licence for 5e that leaves you with maintenance and customer service costs for 5e (which is the biggest game base).

I do hope the right decision is made.

[kinocetus]

WoTC isn't going to be happy until people can only play any version of D&D using their tools so they can charge outrageous prices. Everyone should cancel their subscription to D&D Beyond and support northing WoTC does going forward. I'm okay with making a profit on your own IP, but this is just greed. )-;

[Nylanfs]

They were making money before the license with WotC, so I'm not worried. :)

[ddavison]

Hi Doug.

Thanks for the reply. Nice to know you are not "cheap" and I would not assume to presume.

But what might be on the table:

With a sale price per user for DnD Beyond is around $14USD each (10M users at $146M sale price).

Steam gives a guess at your user numbers https://steamcharts.com/app/1196310 and and https://steamplayercount.com/app/252690 and you also gave us some data on users https://www.fantasygrounds.com/reports/2020Q4/

So I (and you) can probably calculate an offer price range. lol :)

An issue for us/Smiteworks is that should there be an end of the licence for 5e that leaves you with maintenance and customer service costs for 5e (which is the biggest game base).

I do hope the right decision is made.

DDB was actually pretty cheap IMO, but it was also because DDB was worth almost nothing if they lost the D&D license. They had ALL their eggs in one basket and basically had no choice. I don’t have any knowledge of what those discussions looked like, but if you name your company D&D Beyond, you benefit from the name but are also beholden to it.

[andrewcr]

DDB was actually pretty cheap IMO, but it was also because DDB was worth almost nothing if they lost the D&D license. They had ALL their eggs in one basket and basically had no choice. I don’t have any knowledge of what those discussions looked like, but if you name your company D&D Beyond, you benefit from the name but are also beholden to it.

I'd say the original terms had an option to buy at a set price and WOTC exercised it. Adam Bradford left DDB a bit before hand which I through I was a bit weird at the time given he was a founder. I guess the deal was basically done well in advance and he left at the time that best suited the forthcoming arrangement.

Will see what we will see. But I look forward to many more decades of smiteworks owners remaining as profitable and caring owners.

[Myrdin Potter]

Doug landing the first official license and Smiteworks steadily improving Fantasy Grounds without getting way over extended is enough for me.

I play more than 5e, so their VTT doing only their system never would work for me. Glad that FG will still have 5e content this year and if the license is not renewed I can still keep using what I have.

[andrewcr]

Looks like Wizards might be coming to the party with today's annoucement https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license.

I think the reputational and financial damage is likely done. The movie, one D&D and books are off my list.

I do hope Smiteworks doesn;t force us to one D&D (can;'t use the 5e ruleset) but I wonder how you can manage module compatability with two systems? Be a good talk when you know.

I am certainly looking forward to Black Flag and I hope with the relationship that Paizo. MCDM and Kobold Press has with Smiteworks it will get a go on this platform.

I would like to see these three companies work together on a single better core system they all can use. Fragmentation is problematic to maintain momentum.

[celestian]

Update from WoTC.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license

IGnore me, fella above posted same. Feel free to delete this post.

[Griogre]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience is (bolding mine):

"Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

This WOKE stuff is part of what is leading to them to try to censor who can use their IPs and once you start censoring things for one reason - its easy to start censoring for other "good reasons."

[celestian]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience is (bolding mine):

"Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

This WOKE stuff is part of what is leading to them to try to censor who can use their IPs and once you start censoring things for one reason - its easy to start censoring for other "good reasons."

I dont think thats key to the license. I think it's something they are using to improve the chances people will accept it. They seem like they are concerned about such things w/o doing anything.

The problem we should all see in that quote tho is "Our language and requirements in the draft OGL"

When we know it wasn't a draft since it was sent out with contracts to sign. You dont have people sign a contract for a draft. I just can't take them at their word with those kind of responses.

[damned]

Any child of the OGL really should not need signing.

Re the censorship. It will be a topic that has supporters and detractors. I am against censorship. Readers/listeners should make their own choices based on what they read/hear. Other people should not be making those decisions for us.

[Neovirtus]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience...


What problem is Paizo having with their core audience?

[Griogre]

What problem is Paizo having with their core audience?

*Part* of the Paizo's followers are irritated with the Wokeness of Paizo and it's impact on their adventures and settings, particularly the latest ones. They have gotten to the point where they feel obligated to have non-straight NPCs.

I don't want to really go too far down that rabbit hole but a Google Search on "Is Paizo Woke?" will spit out some results you can look at. Keep in mind there is a lot of hyperbole in both directions.

[Kelrugem]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience is (bolding mine):

"Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

This WOKE stuff is part of what is leading to them to try to censor who can use their IPs and once you start censoring things for one reason - its easy to start censoring for other "good reasons."

Creating an inclusive environment means increasing accessibility for everyone; nothing against a bigger variety of NPCs and a more reasonable and grown-up handling of sensible subjects and topics.

("Funnily", especially people and politicians who claim something about the "woke enemy" are usually the ones who start to censor for the "good reasons", there are many of such examples in politics right now. Having just one word where you can put all your frustration on is an easy answer, but it is usually not that easy)

So, no, the problem with WotC and its OGL stuff is certainly not based on that reference you were citing

[Griogre]

I'm against censorship, period and I don't have a problem with Paizo or any company writing however they want.

However, I don't feel the need to have my Goblins not be Evil in a fantasy world or the need to substitute the word "species" for "race" either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Redemption77]

Then dont make your goblins evil. There is not some weird overseer who comes with RPG books who forces you to play one way or another. By defination there is a big difference between race and species and it actually makes more sense to use species than race. Race is a system of classification of human beings only, whereas species is the most refined division of all life forms. Again though, call things what you want. Getting up in arms over "wokeness" seems ludicrous and its not a hill worth dying on

[Valatar]

It is, for two reasons:
1. It hands control over a product you've made to another company's arbitrary judgment with no recourse. And I'm not talking someone trying to port Racial Holy War or FATAL or any other blatantly racist or insane thing, we can look at WotC's own trainwreck over the Hadozee in the Spelljammer 5e book. Flying monkey people. In a setting with hippo people, dragon-centaurs, mantis people, and a whole host of other animal people, but there was a monkey person (who was also in the original Spelljammer) and suddenly racism and censorship and apologies all around. I would not trust those people to arbitrate a senior bingo night, much less cultural insensitivity in roleplaying books where they have unmitigated power to yank the license from whomever they choose.

2. Bad acting. If that clause was in the original OGL, how much do you want to bet that Pathfinder would've had its OGL yanked for some alleged impropriety? I bet a whole lot that as soon as Paizo started eating WotC's lunch in the market, they would've come down with a real sudden case of the bigots. WotC did not put any standard that any product had to meet to qualify for a license revocation in anything they've published thus far, all they have to do is say, "Well gee, we're pretty sure this thing is bad and makes us look bad." If you don't think they'd abuse that in a heartbeat to weed out the competition, you have not been paying attention to the things corporations do as a matter of course.

[celestian]

Had there been any actual issues WoTC would have taken the individuals to court (which they have done I might add, with 1.0a) so I'm not entirely sure it's as large an issue as its made out to be. They already have means to solve the problem with 1.0a as has been pointed out by folks more legally educated than me ;)

Unfortunately it's more wait and see as nothing can really be known until we see writing, on paper. They can say anything they want right now.

[esmdev]

When Star Frontiers was released my table played it, we had diverse characters and a diverse playerbase, and we had fun.
When Spelljammer pirated the Yazarians we played it and we had fun.
When new Spelljammer came out we played it and had fun.
We watched the drama and thought it was odd.
We're a pretty 'woke' group but didn't find anything so offensive that the PR department needed to issue an apology for a race that has technically been around since the 80s, though apparently they also feel the need to apologize for the 80s and the 90s as well.

I was joking about Paizo's recent race change in that a sprite or halfling can now easily hit the game with an 18 strength which seems like super extra fantasy fantasy. "The sprite steps up to the table to arm wrestle the ogre and it's a draw!", lol.

[ddavison]

The latest post from Wizards of the Coast on OGL 1.2 is now up for everyone to read.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

I will be reviewing this and providing feedback to WOTC with my thoughts on it after I've had time to fully digest and research everything. If you have any concerns or input, please feel free to add them here as I will be sharing my opinion on how it will be received among our community. Our contacts at Wizards of the Coast did have a quick meeting with me and they told me what they were planning to do and they wanted to hear my feedback again. So far, everything all sounded good to me.

[Redemption77]

Valatar I was in no way defending WOTC, what theyre doing is wrong. What I was pushing back on was the idea that "Wokeness" was ruining things and the driving cause behind this. That is patently false. The driving cause behind this ogl mess and WOTC mishandling everything from the rip on this is corporate financial greed and mismanagement at the top levels of Hasbro.

[SmackDaddy]

I think the reputational and financial damage is likely done. The movie, one D&D and books are off my list.

I do hope Smiteworks doesn;t force us to one D&D (can;'t use the 5e ruleset) but I wonder how you can manage module compatability with two systems?

Agreed - most I know have said 5e or another system - OneD&D can suck it, as can their books and movie. We need people to continue the bleed, their release of the OGL 1.2 today, I think, is an attempt to stop the bleeding and prevent further loss, but I think it's a little too late for that.

I also worry they will revoke the 5e agreement with FG where I have hundreds of dollars in WotC material and 3rd party 5e stuff. If they pull 5e from SW use, then I am definitely going to one of the new Open RPG rulesets that will come out.... *sigh* time will tell

[esmdev]

Agreed - most I know have said 5e or another system - OneD&D can suck it, as can their books and movie. We need people to continue the bleed, their release of the OGL 1.2 today, I think, is an attempt to stop the bleeding and prevent further loss, but I think it's a little too late for that.

I also worry they will revoke the 5e agreement with FG where I have hundreds of dollars in WotC material and 3rd party 5e stuff. If they pull 5e from SW use, then I am definitely going to one of the new Open RPG rulesets that will come out.... *sigh* time will tell

From what I recall of the current license, anything purchased remains usable even if one side or the other no longer continues the license, so you're dollars are safely spent.

[JohnD]

The latest post from Wizards of the Coast on OGL 1.2 is now up for everyone to read.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

I will be reviewing this and providing feedback to WOTC with my thoughts on it after I've had time to fully digest and research everything. If you have any concerns or input, please feel free to add them here as I will be sharing my opinion on how it will be received among our community. Our contacts at Wizards of the Coast did have a quick meeting with me and they told me what they were planning to do and they wanted to hear my feedback again. So far, everything all sounded good to me.

Doug you most certainly will want to look at the verbiage of the VTT section (I'm not telling you anything you don't already know I suppose). The statements about only doing what you can at the table and not displaying a Magic Missile crossing the screen can be extrapolated to not being able to show Fog of War, LoS, lighting, water ripples, other effects, etc....

[esmdev]

Doug you most certainly will want to look at the verbiage of the VTT section (I'm not telling you anything you don't already know I suppose). The statements about only doing what you can at the table and not displaying a Magic Missile crossing the screen can be extrapolated to not being able to show Fog of War, LoS, lighting, water ripples, other effects, etc....

It isn't super clear, probably should be survey noted, but one could also argue that Fog of War, LoS, Lightning, Water Ripples, and other effects are not actually animations connected to a game element (like a magic missile animations) and thus are not within their power to regulate.

[celestian]

VTT piece I found extremely relevant...



Using VTTs to replicate the experience of sitting around the table playing D&D with your friends.
So displaying static SRD content is just fine because it’s just like looking in a sourcebook. You can put the text of
Magic Missile up in your VTT and use it to calculate and apply damage to your target. And automating Magic Missile’s
damage to replace manually rolling and calculating is also fine. The VTT can apply Magic Missile’s 1d4+1 damage
automatically to your target’s hit points. You do not have to manually calculate and track the damage.

What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your
imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT
integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game.


This needs to be removed from the VTT policy.

Not only do some systems use animated effects, they use lighting systems. Imagine getting in trouble because your players characters are all carrying torches and those have flickering lights. This could also be applied to Fog of War systems.

This is clearly them trying to restrict VTT systems so their own will be seen as better instead of it actually being chosen because it was.

[LordEntrails]

IANAL, but after a careful read through here are my thoughts:

First, "giving the core mechanics" is the height of arrogance. Game mechanics already are well understood not to be able to be protected as intellectual property, and therefore WotC is giving us nothing we don't already have.


OGL 1.2
1(b) "static files" is a dubious classification. Every digital file is static, until it is changed. Such changes can be done systematically to epubs and pdfs just as well as any file type. What are data types that this does not apply to? And what is the attempt to protect? What are they trying to protect or prevent? Database derived character management applications?


6(f) Anything illegal is already covered under 6(e), so therefore any illegal hate speech etc is already covered and leads this to indicate that the purpose of this section is not to actually prevent illegal hate speech (etc), but for some other unstated reason. No definition of the terms are defined and with no means for third party arbitration or legal intervention, effectively means that WotC can declare anything void under this section and there is no recourse to the creator (i.e. this section could easily be used to void competitive content).


9(d) Effectively means that the first time this license is challenged in court, and any part of it is deemed void, WotC can pull the entire license from everyone. Effectively making all previous content released under the OGL 1.2 unlicensed and illegal. Therefore this is not an irrevocable license. Not acceptable.


9(e) How can one even support removing the ability to dispute a legal contract via a class action or joint action? This does not, to me, indicate good will and faith that they are doing "the right thing". But rather that they expect to be challenged, and want to minimize the feasibility of their future actions in regards to this license by making it so most potential complainants could not afford to pursue action.


9(g) Why? Again this indicates bad faith and the expectation of legal action against this license. Why bother to release it if you expect action against it?


VTT Policy
No working definition of what a VTT is. And limiting such to "replicating sitting around the table" is very unimaginative, and debatable. I would argue that current VTT's in many ways go beyond the experience of sitting around the table and therefore already might not be covered by this policy. And their example of animating a magic missile spell is already troublesome and well within current VTT technologies.


Static content... see comment on 1(b) above.


In short, this VTT policy adds nothing to the community. It only appears to be an attempt to limit VTT development in some uncertain way without a clear intent.

I'll admit, this is better than there first attempt, but it has a long way to go.

[JohnD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z54eLyxF1ng

Tenkar has a video out on this.

Personally, I'd not be willing to cede to WotC any kind of a "morality clause" as outlined in their document. That is ready to be abused for all sorts of crap which has been rife in society the past number of years.

[Temmpest]

"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."

How will this affect future FGU development?

[BaneTBC]

It doesn't impact FG at all. SmiteWorks isn't using the OGL, they have a direct license with WotC to reproduce their content in this medium.

[celestian]

It doesn't impact FG at all. SmiteWorks isn't using the OGL, they have a direct license with WotC to reproduce their content in this medium.

FG supports multiple OGL systems.

[JohnD]

It doesn't impact FG at all. SmiteWorks isn't using the OGL, they have a direct license with WotC to reproduce their content in this medium.

And if WotC pulls the license?

[LordEntrails]

And if WotC pulls the license?
They can't pull the license, but they don't have to renew it. Doug said earlier that current license is good through 2023, and is renewed annually with a 60? day notice. If the license is not renewed for 2024 (Doug seems to indicate he feels this is very unlikely) then everything already purchased by users would still be accessible to those users indefinitely. Without a license, they would be unable to make new sales or convert new content.

[Muagen]

VTT piece I found extremely relevant...



This needs to be removed from the VTT policy.

Not only do some systems use animated effects, they use lighting systems. Imagine getting in trouble because your players characters are all carrying torches and those have flickering lights. This could also be applied to Fog of War systems.

This is clearly them trying to restrict VTT systems so their own will be seen as better instead of it actually being chosen because it was.

I find their insistence on conflating OGL issues with NFTs suspicious.

First, they are not against NFTs. Hasbro does NFTs.

Second, the pushback they are receiving has had nothing to do with NFTs. Nobody that I have seen wants to set up a Bored Aboleth Club. Broadly speaking, the bottom has fallen out of that market, and no one is interested.

The NFT aspect of this seems to be their attempt to add a leering paper tiger to the mix--something they're keeping us safe from. That, and they are most likely still looking for ways to sell us on "collectible" content for our ttrpgs.

[hagrid70]

Well stated sir.
thank you.

[ddavison]

I got the link right before I posted and I’ve only had time to read the announcement and what was mentioned in my meeting with WOTC. I had other personal commitments. They mentioned a desire to prohibit video games while still allowing VTTs and I expressed concern that it would be very hard to legally differentiate the two. They asked me to read over it and provide my feedback. It sounds like that section is not going to work out for us. They addressed much of my original feedback, but there are still a few problematic areas I think should be removed or rewritten. All in all, I still view this as a positive step forward. We will keep working with them to hopefully get a version that satisfies the vast majority of the RPG community.

I hope to be able to read through it fully tomorrow. Your feedback is very helpful.

Also, the Creative Commons license sounds good at first glance. Do you think this causes any negative, unforeseen consequences?

[Voctor]

I'm no expert, but as I understand it there's a pretty wide range on what the different versions of Creative Commons licenses allow. I believe that is the reason it wasn't used originally, they wanted to be more clear about what they were opening up for others to use. Any lay interpretation is likely to miss things, you'd really need a lawyer who specializes in copyright law to go over the particular version of Creative Commons that they picked and compare that to what the OGL 1.0a allows.

Other than that, the 1.2 does look better. It still seems to have some loopholes that could let them legally dodge the "we can't change this" promise in the same way that they're trying to say that the "authorized version" part of the OGL 1.0a let's them remove the SRD from it. Now that they've shown that they are willing to play those sorts of legal games every potential gap becomes suspicious. I also don't like the VTT stuff because it comes off as anti-competitive. There's nothing inherently damaging to WoTC about someone making a VTT that has animations, lighting effects, LoS displays, or other UI elements that go beyond what someone could do on a non-digital table. It seems like the only reason to add that language would be if they wanted to have the ability to make the flashiest VTT on the market themselves while locking potential competitors from ever even trying to offer a similar product.

[Zeruel_Kagenie]

It's about control and money. Nothing else.

Among the things that most affect Smiteworks and Fantasy Grounds are:

1) Wizards of the Coast is the one who defines what a VTT is for its competition based on a very vague description of replicating the experience of getting together with friends around a table to play D&D, but later they summarize it to be a replacement for a book + a space where a group meets + a calculator.

A VTT must be a virtual space that allows anyone to play a board game with digital tools, augmented reality, or virtual reality, whatever they are. Just like it is around a real table, where if I want to create a battle map, I can draw it, show an image or video on a tv, create one with miniature terrains or a shoebox, play with or without music, with ambient lights, or whatever the group wants and has at their disposal.

2) With the DEAUTHORIZATION of OGL 1.0a I think they are eliminating their biggest competitor for D&D ONE which is D&D 5e and I think that is the true intention of the new OGL. I think that nothing will be able to be published / developed for 5e and any other system that has been using any version of the OGL prior to the next OGL. I'm not even sure if these products can be sold in the future. Furthermore, the document mentions the obligations that any VTT or website has under the DMCA to remove them. If the document is approved as such, it seems to me that Smiteworks will be forced to remove any module or extension that uses the current OGL.

[damned]

Doug you most certainly will want to look at the verbiage of the VTT section (I'm not telling you anything you don't already know I suppose). The statements about only doing what you can at the table and not displaying a Magic Missile crossing the screen can be extrapolated to not being able to show Fog of War, LoS, lighting, water ripples, other effects, etc....


It isn't super clear, probably should be survey noted, but one could also argue that Fog of War, LoS, Lightning, Water Ripples, and other effects are not actually animations connected to a game element (like a magic missile animations) and thus are not within their power to regulate.


VTT piece I found extremely relevant...



Please do remember that the 2E and 5E products on FG are not used under an OGL license.

I point this out, not defending the OGL 1.2, but highlight that the 2E and 5E Core products on Fantasy Grounds are licensed directly with WoTC not under an OGL.

[damned]

FG supports multiple OGL systems.

I think these guys are all rewriting any OGL content and moving forward without it.
For a lot of products the OGL thing was almost habit to include.
A product like Castles and Crusades Classic Monsters needs a lot of work but most products do not need that much and then WoTC has no hold on them at all.
Ultimately it will likely benefit these companies in the end as they will own all of their content instead of most of it.

[bayne7400]

Using Creative Commons is basically the same thing as saying "WOTC" can take your stuff. Just Google commercial use of CC license. Anyone can take your creation remix and sell it. All they have to do is give attribution. So a 3pp could make something awesome using CC. Anyone including WOTC could take it make a few changes and sell it with attribution.

https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/#:~:text=CC%20BY%2DSA%3A%20This%20license,modified %20material%20under%20identical%20terms.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say Smiteworks adapts a game using CC to FG. That work also has to use CC. What does that mean for Smiteworks IP which is locked into the code?

[Zeruel_Kagenie]

Please do remember that the 2E and 5E products on FG are not used under an OGL license.

I point this out, not defending the OGL 1.2, but highlight that the 2E and 5E Core products on Fantasy Grounds are licensed directly with WoTC not under an OGL.

That could be the case with official products licensed with Wizard of the Coast. But, what will happen to the same SRD 5.1 created by Smiteworks, or products made by Kobold Press, MCDM, AAW Games, Paizo, or any other product that has OGL 1.0a written in the module once the deauthorization of the OGL 1.0a?

[esmdev]

I got the link right before I posted and I’ve only had time to read the announcement and what was mentioned in my meeting with WOTC. I had other personal commitments. They mentioned a desire to prohibit video games while still allowing VTTs and I expressed concern that it would be very hard to legally differentiate the two. They asked me to read over it and provide my feedback. It sounds like that section is not going to work out for us. They addressed much of my original feedback, but there are still a few problematic areas I think should be removed or rewritten. All in all, I still view this as a positive step forward. We will keep working with them to hopefully get a version that satisfies the vast majority of the RPG community.

I hope to be able to read through it fully tomorrow. Your feedback is very helpful.

Also, the Creative Commons license sounds good at first glance. Do you think this causes any negative, unforeseen consequences?

I was thinking about WotC's view of a physical tabletop and what is possible in the 80s vs. now vs. 10 years from now, and things have really changed. In the 80s my friends and I sat around the living room with books, paper and dice. These days we sit around with laptops on TV trays, some people have big screen monitors built into their tabletops. Technology is only increasing and nothing they can do is going to stop that. With the current version of the VTT license it is possible that 10 years from now VTTs will be less capable than what can be done at home.

I don't claim to know the future but just seeing how gaming has changed especially in the field of VR and AR it seems like making a lightning effect go from one figure to another should be pretty possible 10 years from now.

The WotC definition looks like it was written by someone who watched Stranger Things and assumes that is what it looks like today with no understanding of how things have been changing. The.WotC VTT license is also a massive overreach because it says for you to be a VTT in their licensing FG cannot provide the ability to perform animations which ripples to every other ruleset that they don't own because they can argue if it can be unlocked for one ruleset it could potentially be extensioned on D&D. That seems dangerous and to comply you might end up having to maintain two separate software systems.

There are so many unforeseeable potential side effects from the VTT license because it is not a forward looking license but backwards, and that is not something to ever do in computing.

[esmdev]

I think these guys are all rewriting any OGL content and moving forward without it.
For a lot of products the OGL thing was almost habit to include.
A product like Castles and Crusades Classic Monsters needs a lot of work but most products do not need that much and then WoTC has no hold on them at all.
Ultimately it will likely benefit these companies in the end as they will own all of their content instead of most of it.

So here is an unanswered question that the new OGL and VTT don't address. If a product (let's say C&C) is written for FGU assuming the 1.0a license rewrites their whole game to be no longer OGL but is still layered on the 5E ruleset are they compliant with their change of license just for the fact it is 'called the 5E ruleset'. One could argue that it is simply mechanics that are being used but they could argue that the mechanics are irrelevant because when you load the game in Fantasy Grounds the chat window explicitly states that it is built on the CoreRPG > 5E > Whoever... The argument here is that even if you argue that your only using the mechanics just the term 5E can be considered a reference to prior licenses due to it being considered an industry standard term.

This is a problem with losing 1.0a is that even changing your books isn't enough, even changing your modules might not be enough.

[esmdev]

Please do remember that the 2E and 5E products on FG are not used under an OGL license.

I point this out, not defending the OGL 1.2, but highlight that the 2E and 5E Core products on Fantasy Grounds are licensed directly with WoTC not under an OGL.

My statement wasn't about the OGL it was about the VTT license wherein WotC tries to define what is and isn't a VTT in a technology blind statement which if implemented as written would leave near infinite room for ambiguity to define what specific animation elements constitute at or not at table features. They set themselves up as the final arbiter of what a VTT is and isn't allowed to do.

In clearer terms my argument was that it must be clearly defined that the animation limitation must only refer to animations of elements that they can copyright. They cannot copyright water effects, lightning effects, weather effects, lighting, fog of war, etc., despite trying to say you cannot use them, or are they? You see it is unclear because they just half-elf'd the whole statement by just declaring 'animations' to be the difference between a video game and a virtual table top (which is really a type of video game).

[ddavison]

Okay, I just finished my review of the OGL 1.2 and I posted my thoughts in a new thread. This will allow us to keep the discussion based on the latest, current version of the draft OGL.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?76532-SmiteWorks-OGL-1-2-Discussion&p=675027#post675027

[esmdev]

Maybe lock this one?

[superteddy57]

Locking this thread to allow discussion to move to https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?76532-SmiteWorks-OGL-1-2-Discussion&p=675027#post675027