Roll20 and OGL 1.1?

Speculation - I know.... How would the proposed OGL changes impact our Roll20 community? There us a large OGL creator community here and even Roll20 relies on the current OGL for much of what we have here. Are there risks of losing content or impacts to our terms of service?  Is it being looked at within the Roll20 business realm? I would assume "of course" but are there any thoughts to share?

Hi Glenn! You might want to share your thoughts here , rather than making a new thread.

Does everyone has access to the Pro forums? I'm not on this forum, I don't know. I made my own post here: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/11264279/roll20-and-ogl-changes/?pageforid=11265682#post-11265682" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/11264279/roll20-and-ogl-changes/?pageforid=11265682#post-11265682</a> My own TL;DR: If WotC/Hasbro pushes forward with OGL 1.1 (revoking 1.0), and Roll20 chooses to work with them as an authorized partner, I'm quitting Roll20 permanently.

Artofregicide said: Does everyone has access to the Pro forums? I'm not on this forum, I don't know. Good point. I would like to point out that if Roll20 decided to cut ties with Hasbro, then everyone would quit Roll20, because it would likely cease to be able to operate in any meaningful manner.

I get it. I think most of us are just wondering what R20 is going to look like in the near future and if we're needing to look elsewhere to fulfill our needs. I'm not a Pro member, so can't access the Pro forums. I was hoping for a formal response in the blog or...somewhere.

Ted C. said: I get it. I think most of us are just wondering what R20 is going to look like in the near future and if we're needing to look elsewhere to fulfill our needs. I'm not a Pro member, so can't access the Pro forums. I was hoping for a formal response in the blog or...somewhere. I would not expect a formal (or even informal) answer from any major licensee until after Hasbro/WotC actually publishes something official.

keithcurtis said: I would like to point out that if Roll20 decided to cut ties with Hasbro, then everyone would quit Roll20, because it would likely cease to be able to operate in any meaningful manner. Not sure I completely agree with this, after all, FVTT doesn't have any official agreements with Hasbro/WotC and they seem to do just fine. I do think it would require R20 to make some big changes in a very short amount of time to remain competitive, but...the nice thing about R20 is it can be used for games other than D&amp;D...after all, I've been a member since 2013 and have never run a single D&amp;D game.&nbsp; That said, I agree, there would likely be a huge financial impact that may require reducing staff, slowing development, etc.

As Finderski said, there's other VTT that do just fine without Hasbro/WotC. But it would definitely be a pretty huge loss, I'm just not sure it's one that can be avoided without bowing to Hasbro/WotC. On the other hand, With the fact that Hasbro most likely plans to sideline R20 (and other VTT's) once their own is up and running, that's a gambit to buy time at best... Best I can tell, a slim majority of games (slightly over half) on R20 are 5e. But I fully expect that to change regardless of whether 6e (or "OneD&amp;D" - which seems more ominous in the current light) is a success or failure. keithcurtis said: Artofregicide said: Does everyone has access to the Pro forums? I'm not on this forum, I don't know. Good point. I would like to point out that if Roll20 decided to cut ties with Hasbro, then everyone would quit Roll20, because it would likely cease to be able to operate in any meaningful manner.

True, that was hyperbole for effect. FVTT makes its money off of Pathfinder primarily, to my understanding. But my point was that it would be devastating to Roll20 to make this move (and possibly violate existing private contracts to the point that it would break the company, but that's outside my knowledge). And of course, the ill will and reaction from the vast majority of Roll20 users and D&amp;D players who would be affected by such a move, might indeed be catastrophic to Roll20. I don't see this happening.

If Roll20 cut ties with Hasbro, wouldn't that include shutting down DMs Guild? That seems like a doubly bad business decision. Cut off your nose to spite your face, then poke an eye out for emphasis.

As I understand it, the OGL does not cover (aka allow), things like VTTs. It only allows things like PDFs. VTT programs, liek Roll20, are not covered and not allowed. I can understand this since it also appears WotC is creating their own VTT and WANTS every player and DM using it. That being said, roll20 may not have a choice whether they want to cut ties or not. Otherwise it would not be possible to monetize every player of D&amp;D like they want. You could just use Roll20 and not even touch their oneD&amp;D app. Unless, they are forced to pay WotC for every player using the system. In which case would probably lead Roll20 being forced to charge for even its basic service to cover costs; or, DMs may be forced to pay a service fee based on the number of players they allow.

The whole OGL has been released and can be found here. I don't think there's any language in there that will affect Roll20 (or OneBookshelf) itself, though content creators will likely need to make decisions or adjustments. Link removed. It was the whole text (not hard to find) but still labeled as a "leaked" document.

I‘m pretty sure Roll20 itself is safe &amp; will have an individual agreement. From my current understanding (not a legal expert, though), already publish products should also be fine. Future content from 3rd party creators like myself could be a problem. Personally, I‘m looking into switching systems exactly because of that. If WotC returns to the old (or a comparable) agreement, I‘ll probably continue to publish under 5E at least for a while. But to be honest, a lot of trust was destroyed, and I’ve heard many creators talking about switching systems, no matter what WotC does now. And again, personally, I’ll probably set up an alternative system for my releases at the very least alongside my 5E releases. It just doesn’t feel like a good idea anymore to rely on WotC‘s goodwill for business purposes.

From reading the OGL 1.1 the only 3rd party content that should have any trouble is if the creator is making over $750,000 revenue and then the only part that will be owed is what's over. So if the creator earns $750,100 then they only pay revenue on that $100.

Artofregicide said: My own TL;DR: If WotC/Hasbro pushes forward with OGL 1.1 (revoking 1.0), and Roll20 chooses to work with them as an authorized partner, I'm quitting Roll20 permanently. I ask that anyone with these intentions takes a moment to reconsider. Your feelings toward Hasbro and their business practices are absolutely valid and I would never suggest otherwise. However, remember that R20 and other companies like them are not the parties at fault. They may decide that becoming an authorized partner is the best course of action for their business,&nbsp;but this does not necessarily mean they agree with what's happening. Do I agree with increased gas prices? Hell no. But unfortunately, I have to give my money to those stupid companies anyway so I can drive to work. Signing this agreement may be R20's only course of action to stay afloat and continue providing their services—at least until they are able to find a suitable alternative. With the added &nbsp;royalties and the limitations imposed on third-party content,&nbsp; it is likely that such a decision would negatively impact R20's revenue. Which means losing their users would make things exponentially worse. If you enjoy R20 (or any other relative service for that matter) and want them to continue existing, give them a fighting chance to overcome this. Don't bail on them when they need you most. Try your best to be patient and show some support as R20 wades through this crap.&nbsp;

I'm sticking with Roll20 for D&amp;D because DMs Guild integration is coming. No OGL needed. I'll keep buying 3rd party products on Roll20 (like stuff from Kobold Press) because giving them the money to pay lawyers does a whole lot more for them than getting on a high horse and boycotting Roll20, an innocent bystander. And I'll keep playing D&amp;D, because&nbsp; I'm an old man who's been through so many of these tempests in a teacup. Does anybody remember the original Unearthed Arcana book? Kender? 4e, before its image got rehabilitated? Or any of the many video game lawsuits? So much anger. Everything blows over and we move on to new faux outrages. If you really want to do something useful, give some money to a food bank. Donate some D&amp;D books to a library. Pet your pets. Stop putting off your prostate exam.

Terry W. said: I'm sticking with Roll20 for D&amp;D because DMs Guild integration is coming. No OGL needed. I'll keep buying 3rd party products on Roll20 (like stuff from Kobold Press) because giving them the money to pay lawyers does a whole lot more for them than getting on a high horse and boycotting Roll20, an innocent bystander. And I'll keep playing D&amp;D, because&nbsp; I'm an old man who's been through so many of these tempests in a teacup. Does anybody remember the original Unearthed Arcana book? Kender? 4e, before its image got rehabilitated? Or any of the many video game lawsuits? So much anger. Everything blows over and we move on to new faux outrages. If you really want to do something useful, give some money to a food bank. Donate some D&amp;D books to a library. Pet your pets. Stop putting off your prostate exam. I agree with Terry W.&nbsp; Scheduling the prostate exam is important.&nbsp; I also agree with JHans about jumping off the D&amp;D ship completely, as it will only hurt Roll20 and those small business creators even more than OGL 1.1 already will. But what is also important to remember is that the OGL covers production, not distribution.&nbsp; Roll20 could be considered more of a distribution platform rather than a development platform.&nbsp; So, WOTC can still distribute their official content on Roll20 Marketplace.&nbsp; People can buy it and use it in their games, if they want.&nbsp;&nbsp; At this point, the OGL 1.1 covers "tabletop roleplaying games and game supplements", not necessarily maps, tokens, images, and other content.&nbsp; So, most developers in the Roll20 marketplace will still be "business as normal".&nbsp; For those (of us) making playable content (i.e., campaigns, one-shots, magic items, sub-classes, etc.) and trying to sell them, we are, of course forced to work under OGL 1.1. That being said, Roll20 is NOT creating game supplements, but providing a means of distribution... which is NOT covered under OGL 1.1.&nbsp; Therefore, I believe with the exception of certain character sheets (which would have to be reportable to WOTC under OGL 1.1 since they are added as a subscription), Roll20 can continue to function as it has. I understand the frustration with content creators regarding OGL 1.1, but whereas it is still in "draft", it is quite possible that it will change yet again.&nbsp; If you want to boycott WOTC and all their official content, then I support you in that.&nbsp; The good news is that even if you boycott WOTC or continue to purchase WOTC content, I believe platforms like Roll20 can and will continue to operate. My 2cp.&nbsp; Tell the trolls to chill for a bit and let's see how this plays out.&nbsp;&nbsp;

I am curious if new, bad OGL products (bad OGL, not bad products) can be added to the compendium. Are those considered static pages? Plus, Kobold Press has made an announcement that I expect will generate similar announcements from other 3rd party publishers and possibly solicit an olive branch from WotC.&nbsp; I hope that when this all blows over, a new, truly open set of rules appears and gets some adoption.

I wonder why you are not upset by terms like " nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”, i.e. steal content from people (even those who do not have a commercial license) and not pay them for it and " the company “can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice.”

I've been playing D&amp;D since the 80s. Unfortunately, as WotC's current CEO is not a ttrpg gamer and didn't bother researching why TSR was financially destroyed, she's making WotC repeat TSR's mistake with D&amp;D. Kinda sad how multiple fan-powered franchises have been destroyed in the last ~7 years by greedy/incompetent non-fan IP owners; alienate the fans and such IP becomes worthless, and WotC have clearly badly alienated most of the D&amp;D fan base. I for one will never homebrew another D&amp;D game again while Hasbro owns the IP, and won't be joining any new D&amp;D games as a player either and that includes Adventurers' League. While I'm not a lawyer, from what I gather PF2e should be legally fine and it could have been (will now be?) serious competition to D&amp;D; I think 5e is a slightly better system, but only slightly. Project Black Flag also looks promising. I suspect WotC's management will soon learn just how quickly you can lose market share when you ignore the needs of the people who are that market. I wouldn't be surprised to see WotC try to claim the OGL 1.1 leaked was fake - someone merely trying to destroy WotC's reputation, and it's certainly true their reputation is now in tatters. I guess only time will tell how they respond to the massive backlash.

the idea of onednd, is to push dnd beyond as the only real source of dnd. they will push you to be in there. .they wont sell you whole books but "modules". so not only a subscription but microtransactions with chapters sold individually. it is not in the interest of them to let roll20 be a partner. personally i will stay with roll20 becouse i until now like they way they work. but i fear the damage will be too high. even if we all transition out of dnd. also depends a lot if they are able to retroactively take over the old ogl or not. all in all they have made clear they do not care.

I will only leave Roll20 if I no longer have access to the WOTC publications I have purchased in good faith. Well, maybe. For sure, I will look for another RPG to play on Roll20. But I will not support WoTC's microtransaction-based VTT. My guess is Roll20 will have a special license with WOTC but if OGL 1.0a is revoked then the SRD will have to disappear from the Compendium. And, probably the Charactermancer for 5E.

Just a little mad said: From reading the OGL 1.1 the only 3rd party content that should have any trouble is if the creator is making over $750,000 revenue and then the only part that will be owed is what's over. So if the creator earns $750,100 then they only pay revenue on that $100. That's not how that works... at all. If they make over $750,000 in revenue , not profits , then they owe 25% of the revenue . Also they own your IP by default, can choose to use it to make their own products without notifying you and pull the rug out from under you with 30 days notice. I can't imagine why all the 3rd party publishers and content creators are upset. (shocked pikachu)

GamerMike said: Terry W. said: I'm sticking with Roll20 for D&amp;D because DMs Guild integration is coming. No OGL needed. I'll keep buying 3rd party products on Roll20 (like stuff from Kobold Press) because giving them the money to pay lawyers does a whole lot more for them than getting on a high horse and boycotting Roll20, an innocent bystander. And I'll keep playing D&amp;D, because&nbsp; I'm an old man who's been through so many of these tempests in a teacup. Does anybody remember the original Unearthed Arcana book? Kender? 4e, before its image got rehabilitated? Or any of the many video game lawsuits? So much anger. Everything blows over and we move on to new faux outrages. If you really want to do something useful, give some money to a food bank. Donate some D&amp;D books to a library. Pet your pets. Stop putting off your prostate exam. I agree with Terry W.&nbsp; Scheduling the prostate exam is important.&nbsp; I also agree with JHans about jumping off the D&amp;D ship completely, as it will only hurt Roll20 and those small business creators even more than OGL 1.1 already will. But what is also important to remember is that the OGL covers production, not distribution.&nbsp; Roll20 could be considered more of a distribution platform rather than a development platform.&nbsp; So, WOTC can still distribute their official content on Roll20 Marketplace.&nbsp; People can buy it and use it in their games, if they want.&nbsp;&nbsp; At this point, the OGL 1.1 covers "tabletop roleplaying games and game supplements", not necessarily maps, tokens, images, and other content.&nbsp; So, most developers in the Roll20 marketplace will still be "business as normal".&nbsp; For those (of us) making playable content (i.e., campaigns, one-shots, magic items, sub-classes, etc.) and trying to sell them, we are, of course forced to work under OGL 1.1. That being said, Roll20 is NOT creating game supplements, but providing a means of distribution... which is NOT covered under OGL 1.1.&nbsp; Therefore, I believe with the exception of certain character sheets (which would have to be reportable to WOTC under OGL 1.1 since they are added as a subscription), Roll20 can continue to function as it has. I understand the frustration with content creators regarding OGL 1.1, but whereas it is still in "draft", it is quite possible that it will change yet again.&nbsp; If you want to boycott WOTC and all their official content, then I support you in that.&nbsp; The good news is that even if you boycott WOTC or continue to purchase WOTC content, I believe platforms like Roll20 can and will continue to operate. My 2cp.&nbsp; Tell the trolls to chill for a bit and let's see how this plays out.&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, it's played out. WotC has sent out the OGL 1.1 to several people now, with limited changes, so it's official (even if they've still failed to make any kind of official statement). Those 3rd party folks you mentioned? They're already jumping off the ship. So are you going to stay on board? And now Paizo has announced they'll be funding the creation of a truly open gaming license, managed by a nonprofit like Linux is. And anyone who actually knows this industry knows that oldschool gamers can hold a mean grudge, and the young folks tend to be anti-corporate greed, organized types. We're already seeing this happen in real time. Ironically, if this was the only thing that was wrong in the world? I'd be happy. Doesn't mean that action isn't warranted to defend your community and your hobby though. I remember the Kinder. And the fiasco that was 4e (not necessarily the game itself, just how WotC handled themselves so poorly... luckily they'd never repeat that mistake). This isn't an edition wars thing. This isn't internet hyberpole or the most recent fad outrage. It's also not the end of the world, but it's a big deal. My 2 cp Trolls have regeneration, and cold damage doesn't work on the majority of them. Next time, use fire or acid. Oh, you meant internet trolls. Oh, that's uncool - you can't just paint everyone who is passionate or upset about this as "troll". People care about their TTRPGs. Even dusty old liches like this one.

Doug E. said: I will only leave Roll20 if I no longer have access to the WOTC publications I have purchased in good faith. Well, maybe. For sure, I will look for another RPG to play on Roll20. But I will not support WoTC's microtransaction-based VTT. My guess is Roll20 will have a special license with WOTC but if OGL 1.0a is revoked then the SRD will have to disappear from the Compendium. And, probably the Charactermancer for 5E. I would be very surprised if WotC/Hasbro would remove your access to individual items in Roll20. R20 is most likely to try to walk a balance between WotC and their new, egregious "OGL" and what appears to be a non-insubstantial shift in the market (how much is unclear). The only way I can imagine anyone would lose access to those products is if WotC revoked their agreements with R20, or R20 folded. But think about all the magic item lootcrates and class skins you'd be giving up from the WotC's VTT!? (in seriousness, I've heard very good things about it, which is a real shame in light of recent events).

Artofregicide said: Just a little mad said: From reading the OGL 1.1 the only 3rd party content that should have any trouble is if the creator is making over $750,000 revenue and then the only part that will be owed is what's over. So if the creator earns $750,100 then they only pay revenue on that $100. That's not how that works... at all. If they make over $750,000 in revenue , not profits , then they owe 25% of the revenue . Also they own your IP by default, can choose to use it to make their own products without notifying you and pull the rug out from under you with 30 days notice. I can't imagine why all the 3rd party publishers and content creators are upset. (shocked pikachu) Let's see here...The OGL 1.1 specifically states that they will only take the royalties off of revenue above the $750k. Revenue is the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods and services related to the primary operations of the business . As in -- if the creator earns $750,100 then they only pay the royalties of that revenue on that $100. And frankly? If you're pulling $750,000 in revenue using somebody else's product as a base for your own, you should be paying royalties. Note: Their handling of things like Kickstarter is a different beast completely. The IP is an interesting issue because it tells me how few people use other platforms such as YouTube or Inkarnate without reading their agreements. YouTube states that they own the right to use the content you create how they want without compensation. Inkarnate states that they reserve the right to use your maps made within their program without compensation. This is, sadly, an industry norm across multiple types of companies and the focus should be changing that across the board, not getting upset that WotC is doing the same thing as everybody else. I personally don't find the OGL offensive. I think they should have set out two separate entities: An OGL focusing on the non-commercial and a separate licensing agreement for commercial situations because lumping the two of them together definitely created an issue. Personally, I will continue to play D&amp;D and I will continue to support Roll20 as a separate company. I will continue to watch Critical Role despite their close relationship with WotC. But I also won't begrudge other people for making their own open systems, leaving to try playing other systems, or being upset. I will begrudge people for engaging in a lynch mob mentality over unofficial leaks however.

Official WotC response to the backlash

Artofregicide said: Well, it's played out. WotC has sent out the OGL 1.1 to several people now, with limited changes, so it's official (even if they've still failed to make any kind of official statement). You jumped the gun. It hasn't played out. 1.1 is not official. They made an official statement. The game continues. And it will until they finally publish an official OGL document. Then publishers will have to decide if it's worth the risk to keep playing in the D&amp;D sandbox or move on. Personally, I think hitching your wagon to D&amp;D is too perilous, but it's not my decision to make. I'm feeling good about the whole thing though. This comes with benefits: Many new games, with new designs. Always good. A reduction of D&amp;D's mindshare and clout in the industry. Also good. An increased demand for Roll20 to support many new games, which will surely require better character sheet building and improved compendium support. #3 is important. Easier character sheets and a custom compendium won't be merely nice to have any more. They're going to be requirements.