The next was initially posted on social media, however I’m recording it right here as a result of who is aware of how lengthy a sure website will probably be usable . . . 

I used to be skeptical concerning the 1.1 doc till the Kickstarter semi-confirmation got here, however I simply sat down and skim it at present, and I’m extra upset now, not as a result of there have been issues I didn’t learn about, however due to the way it was expressed. One factor that provides credence to this doc is that a number of the language is similar to
what was printed within the D&D Past article about this. Simply with much more . . .

OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D

The pervasively annoying factor completed all through the doc is regressing to “players speaking to players” language, after slamming you with onerous authorized language about royalties and revoked licenses. There’s a joke about how in the event you design one thing on your brother in order that they do your chores counts as utilizing the business license. They seek advice from you coming into the next tier of paying royalties as leveling up. An instance crowdfunding undertaking is run by Bruenor Battleaxe.

Conflicting Narratives

A part of my downside with this doc as a complete is that it provides the “non-commercial use” license into the identical doc because the “business use” license, and type of frames everybody utilizing both as hobbyists. It’s additionally fairly clear that the 25% royalties tier exists to scare corporations making some huge cash into reducing their very own custom-made offers, because it mentions that as an choice just a few instances.

One of many assertions within the doc is that loopholes and contradictory clauses “slipped in” to the OGL “over time,” giving the impression of a residing doc that has grow to be too unwieldy, as a substitute of 1 that was painfully clear on what it was doing.

The most important downside with this framing is that the one main change to the OGL was so as to add the 5e SRD to it. Nothing “slipped in,” it mentioned what it was drafted to say. There’s a part that contends that no one on the time of the OGL may have identified that PDFs can be a significant solution to produce RPG materials, and nobody in any respect would have
conceived of non-physical methods of referencing guidelines content material.

The Mysterious Future

There are some issues with this interpretation of what individuals did and didn’t assume can be attainable, concerning the presentation of recreation guidelines. TSR offered a CD-ROM model of their recreation guidelines for AD&D 2nd version.

Superior Dungeons & Dragons CD-ROM Core Guidelines

The third version Gamers Handbook, the Gamers Handbook being developed similtaneously the OGL, included a CD for producing participant characters. Whereas PDFs could not have been used for recreation guidelines till some time later, they’ve existed since 1993.

Fantasy Grounds has been round since 2004. It’s humorous, as a result of the 1.1 doc spends extra time attempting to make the case that nobody would image the existence of internet sites to show guidelines or Digital Desk Tops than it did that video video games have been supposed underneath the OGL.

That is additionally a bit ironic, contemplating designers from WotC as soon as lamented that Lucasfilm was short-sighted for claiming that PDFs have been “digital video games” that wanted to be lined by one other license.

However regardless of arguing that PDFs blindsided them, solely print, PDF, and ePubs may be made with the brand new OGL. The long run ends now.

A Neighborhood of None

One factor I’ve not seen anybody else point out is that in line with this doc, there isn’t a solution to designate your individual materials as open-game content material, which means you could solely ever make SRD + Your Private Creations.

If you wish to discuss concerning the intent of the unique OGL, it was definitely that creators may share work that they produced with each other by way of the OGL. They don’t name it out, but it surely’s a stealth revision that’s fairly vital.


They point out that they will revoke your license in the event you impune their popularity, nevertheless, additionally they say you may criticize WotC. The issue is, the place is that line? Are you able to say that an journey is a large number and unplayable, however not say, for instance, that some content material within the e book is dangerous to marginalized communities? Is that too far, or does that also
rely as criticism, and never damaging their popularity?

Unintended Settlement

The “non-commercial license” provides WotC the very same rights over your materials that the business license provides, which you personal your materials, however they will use it every time they like. The non-commercial license additionally says that you just robotically comply with it in the event you produce one thing that falls inside its purview. So if somebody ever finds that Google doc together with your alternate encumbrance guidelines after 2024, you agreed to this.

There’s a line on this the place they assert that in the event that they by no means exercised their rights even after they may have, they nonetheless have the suitable to take action sooner or later, which I really feel like is attempting to place a bandaid on 22 years of the OGL being generally understood and un-revokable.

 Moreover, You waive any proper to sue over Our resolution on  these points. We’re conscious that, if We in some way stretch Our resolution of what’s or isn’t objectionable underneath these  clauses too far, We are going to obtain neighborhood pushback and dangerous PR, and We’re greater than open to being satisfied that  We made a unsuitable resolution. However no one will get to make use of the specter of a lawsuit as a part of an try to persuade Us. 

I had so as to add this as a direct quote, as a result of I can’t totally categorical how dangerous this sounds. I’m fairly certain you may’t pre-declare that your errors are proof against lawsuits.

I do know some individuals talked about that this doc didn’t sound like a authorized doc, and that’s what helped foster skepticism. The best way that is written, there’s a preamble earlier than the authorized, statements after which language to “make clear” the legalese between sections.

I don’t do that fairly often, however if you wish to see my notes as I used to be studying this doc, you may see them right here.

I actually hope that WotC addresses this quickly. Both to face behind it and provides individuals a transparent view of the longer term or to refute it because the precise plan going ahead, even when it was A plan that existed at one time.