The OGL, Ravenloft and You

[Speedwagon]

There's also been a significant number of D&D Beyond subscription cancellations from major creators. Ted from Nerd Immersion, Matt Colville from Matt Colville DMing, Jacob from XP to Level 3, even Ginny Di who helped announce OneD&D has cancelled their subscriptions. There have been so many cancellations that the website for DnDBeyond crashed at one point today iirc.

[HyperionSol]

And the plot thickens....

Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License

And Paizo says, "Don't split the party."

[Five]

If Paizo (or anybody else that's currently financially leeching) wants to avoid the 25% kickback to WotC (for twinning their IP), then that's that. But to get on with anything other than that, it's ridiculous. Smart, to try and stir up dust, but some of us can still see

If they want to go in the direction they say they want to go (noble-sounding), then cut ties and rebuild the engine. Simple. I'm no lawyer, but the bones are obvious to me. Unless there is something there legally that says WotC can't change terms then it's a non-issue, regardless of "interpretation" or "intent".

Either way, I don't really care, at the end of the day. I game as a hobby. And that won't change regardless of who says or does what. Might make it a bit harder rounding up bodies for the table should the current disband, but nobody can take my books from my shelf. Unless there are ninja on the payroll...heh

[alhoon]

There's also been a significant number of D&D Beyond subscription cancellations from major creators. Ted from Nerd Immersion, Matt Colville from Matt Colville DMing, Jacob from XP to Level 3, even Ginny Di who helped announce OneD&D has cancelled their subscriptions. There have been so many cancellations that the website for DnDBeyond crashed at one point today iirc.

But why would they cancel their D&D beyond subscription?

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

There's also been a significant number of D&D Beyond subscription cancellations from major creators. Ted from Nerd Immersion, Matt Colville from Matt Colville DMing, Jacob from XP to Level 3, even Ginny Di who helped announce OneD&D has cancelled their subscriptions. There have been so many cancellations that the website for DnDBeyond crashed at one point today iirc.

But why would they cancel their D&D beyond subscription?

Because WotC are only looking at D&DB subs as their financial metric. DNDshorts posted this leak from a WotC employee:

[alhoon]

Very interesting. Thanks Drinnik. To be honest, indeed DDB subscriptions and cancelations are the easiest way for them to assess their customer base. Management can't pull out the info on book sales as quickly or as reliably.

[tomokaicho]

So, by reading, you still retain ownership of your content.

WotC gets an unlimited, perpetual and irrevocable right to your IP and you may not designate product identity. Furthermore, WotC retains this right after termination of the agreement, but you are still bound by it's obligations.

I'm not sure how you managed to cherry pick that selection. If you think that all is this agreement says, you'll lose your rights if agreeing to it.

[Five]

Yeah, that part is a bit greasy for my liking. "You can make money with your creation(s), and have to kick us some when it generates X amount of dollars, but if we like it and use it then you'll get nothing from us. Afterall, we own it. Legally."

They should at least offer the creator a 20-25% cut of profit. If not, offer a lump sum buyout. Something. If, y'know, it truly is a reciprocal partnership. Otherwise, they are as greedy as the people they are currently trying to tax...

How can you truly own something if you automatically sign over rights?

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

But wait!

It gets worse!

[Rock of the Fraternity]

But wait! There's more...

[Joël of the FoS]

Nice mess. I'm impressed.

[Five]

Nice mess. I'm impressed.

Haha, yeah really! Corporate ineptness and pouncing for the title belt, played out in public, makes for a good chuckle indeed. One corp's crap is another corp's treasure I spose.

Whatever.

Dunno about any of you but my game is still on schedule. And I doubt there'll be any mention of any of this beforehand...

[Five]

System neutral OGL/ORC.

Thoughts?

Personally, I don't really see the point outside of that "hit 'em when they're down" factor. Campaign promise. Moral victory translation into (hopeful) investment/sales. Fan-thunder steal. Etc.

Indie pushback because of royalties? They will (or risk ) essentially freeze/cap/slow personal financial growth if they join this proposed confederation outside of maybe the short term, due to no exclusivity of their work. You'll get out what you put in but you'll Paizo/Moriarty your competition. Eventually. And if you don't care that much about money, then what's the real problem?

Pushback over creative ownership? By joining a group that (sounds like right now) will offer shared or communal ownership? Either way you cut it you'll give up ownership. So, what's the real problem?

Am I missing something, or is this just dust that got kicked up during the scrap? Why would I sign on to something that leaves me where I am right now, or, worse-off?

And rhetorically-speaking, why such anger over WotC's (botched) antics, when some of the social platforms being used to express that anger have done so much worse for/to personal liberty? Why boycott Wizards (who seem to deserve a good tongue-banging, don't get me wrong!) but not them?

I'm genuinely both amused and baffled. I will admit that I am and always will be disconnected from this new wave of D&D fans (the blenders/outraged/torches and pitchforks kind); I just game in a world created and fuelled by a bunch of people's imaginations, full stop, but still.

[Speedwagon]

Personally, I fully support this move from Paizo. While I would like WotC to return to the original OGL, the damage to brand faith has already been done. By having two things like the OGL 1.0a and the ORC existing at once, if you're a 3PP who originally operated under the former and wants to switch to the latter but has products that were written with the former in mind that you were about to publish, this might give you some time to make that switch and not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially if it's a basket that possibly can be taken away from you. Of course, the current details on the ORC are not fully available yet, so I'm really just spit-balling here. Plus, the full legal draft will hopefully come out soon and then that'll clarify questions that you might have, Five. But so far, the majority of the TTRPG community, from what I've seen based on reaction to this news through various social media platforms and feeds, seems to be positive and the letter itself also gives off a much better tone than the smarminess of the WotC one (with them being like "restricting publishers was never on our minds" and "we never intended to split the community like this" and "some people say this is a loss for us and a victory for the fans but really this is a victory for the both of us") (paraphrasing but still).

As for your comment on why people are so angry at WotC but not other stuff like the platforms they express their anger through? Different issues and different audiences, methinks. Personally I'm not one for apathy and I don't use the platforms like Twitter or Facebook or whatever (with the exception of Reddit) out of distaste for the corporate practices and questions of moderation and data tracking, but seeing the community come together like this inspires hope in seeing future collective bargaining in other matters and on other platforms. I suppose you could say I'm part of the "new wave" (started DMing in 2017-2018) and while there have been moments of misguidedness within the hobby due to how outspoken the community can be, I'd rather things be occasionally misguided than completely apathetic.

There are a few articles currently covering the Paizo announcement and the WotC response, as well as analyses from both D&D figures in the community with big followings and legal experts (and even the overlap/crossover of both) that might be able to better explain what the recent news means, if that helps.

[Jester of the FoS]

So, by reading, you still retain ownership of your content.

WotC gets an unlimited, perpetual and irrevocable right to your IP and you may not designate product identity. Furthermore, WotC retains this right after termination of the agreement, but you are still bound by it's obligations.

I'm not sure how you managed to cherry pick that selection. If you think that all is this agreement says, you'll lose your rights if agreeing to it.

I didn't cherry pick the sections. I cut-and-pasted the only related parts to ownership. They would have owned everything that applies to the "license" but everything else you retain ownership of. (But it is not very clear.)

However, even before WotC's statement, it seemed to me like the bog standard "everything submitted we own" legalese that contests use so the company doesn't get sued when they coincidentally do something similar. Paizo did the exact same thing with RPG Superstar, so they wouldn't be sued when they invariably published a magic item close to what a contestant proposed.

While the 1.1 license was problematic and I'm glad WotC walked back the worst elements, I do think a lot of the blowback by the community really came down to a bunch of non-lawyer D&D fans reading the document and assuming the worst.
Like being able to cancel content for not meeting WotC's standards of decency. Which sounds problematic until you consider that people publishing offensive content as "D&D compatible" won't be seen as a 3PP by the media if it starts trending. And all the overtly horrible RPG products have have popped up over the years, like the unbelievably racist Star Frontiers reboot by nu-TSR or the OGL product Tournament of Rapists.