Why is no one talking about the WoTC attempts to revoke the OGL

The news is rampant everywhere. There is a HUGE risk of all of us losing all of our purchased official WoTC books. Why is no one talking about this here?

Smurd said: The news is rampant everywhere. There is a HUGE risk of all of us losing all of our purchased official WoTC books. Why is no one talking about this here? I don't see how there is a threat of losing official content.  Roll20 isn't a 3rd party creator of content, but a marketplace.  Roll20 has licensing agreements with publishers that sell content through the marketplace, including with WotC.  Official content sold by WotC through Roll20 has nothing to do with the OGL.

There are two threads on it already, and this died down a bit after WotC reversed course. 

They are trying to make OneDND the only official VTT allowed to use official content. This has been something they have been attempting since they started OneDND.

Smurd said: They are trying to make OneDND the only official VTT allowed to use official content. This has been something they have been attempting since they started OneDND. Your information may be a bit out of date. They walked it back.  Even with that stated, they already said other VTTs have licensing agreements and that will continue going forward. 

They walked it back, yes. But not completely! There is a YT Video that talks specifically about the latest statement from WotC on the DnDBeyond Page. I will link the Video here in case you are interested to watch:&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWaq6pQQW4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWaq6pQQW4</a> And they only responded because of the massive backlash of the community and the mass cancelation of DnDBeyond Accounts... I am really glad that Paizo, Chaosium etc. decided to bring up their own License, the ORG (Open RPG Gaming) License. But other than that, if you have bought DnD 5E books here on Roll20, they are yours to keep! So no need to worry about that! Gauss said: Smurd said: They are trying to make OneDND the only official VTT allowed to use official content. This has been something they have been attempting since they started OneDND. Your information may be a bit out of date. They walked it back.&nbsp; Even with that stated, they already said other VTTs have licensing agreements and that will continue going forward.&nbsp;

You seem to severely misunderstand the OGL thing.

TheMarkus1204 said: They walked it back, yes. But not completely! There is a YT Video that talks specifically about the latest statement from WotC on the DnDBeyond Page. I will link the Video here in case you are interested to watch:&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWaq6pQQW4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWaq6pQQW4</a> And they only responded because of the massive backlash of the community and the mass cancelation of DnDBeyond Accounts... I am really glad that Paizo, Chaosium etc. decided to bring up their own License, the ORG (Open RPG Gaming) License. But other than that, if you have bought DnD 5E books here on Roll20, they are yours to keep! So no need to worry about that! I was not making a broad statement, I was specifically referencing the post I was responding to.&nbsp; The OP seemed to have out of date information.&nbsp; I am aware this isn't over, and that they did not walk it back completely, but for now the battle (not the "war") is over until the replacement OGL is leaked or released and we see what they have done with the replacement.&nbsp;

Roll20 may be affected, as Wizards' future plans include the installation of its own VTT to play DnD. But it is understandable that they do not want to talk about it, making use of the ostrich strategy.&nbsp;

Roll20 has nothing to respond to as of yet. Nothing official has been announced by WotC. Any announcement would be premature and subject to revision. Roll20 is not tied to WotC by the OGL, in any case. An OGL provision regarding VTTs would have no effect on Roll20.

I am well aware of the current state of the OGL, they "walked back" nothing at this point. They have only announced that things are not going to be what they wanted originally. They did so in a way that has promised nothing, just speculation. Until they announce that they will NOT try to change the OGL I would not believe that they have given up anything. They will continue to do everything they can to monetize as much as they can by blocking out any "competitors". This could include making an "official" VTT which could mean that all others are not allowed to run D&amp;D games due to this. There is a lot of information about the TOS for roll20 and that if something like this happens, Roll20 is not obligated to refund any of our purchases. That means that if that happens, I could easily lose every penny I have spent on roll20 for D&amp;D content.

Smurd said: I am well aware of the current state of the OGL, they "walked back" nothing at this point. They have only announced that things are not going to be what they wanted originally. They did so in a way that has promised nothing, just speculation. Until they announce that they will NOT try to change the OGL I would not believe that they have given up anything. They will continue to do everything they can to monetize as much as they can by blocking out any "competitors". This could include making an "official" VTT which could mean that all others are not allowed to run D&amp;D games due to this. There is a lot of information about the TOS for roll20 and that if something like this happens, Roll20 is not obligated to refund any of our purchases. That means that if that happens, I could easily lose every penny I have spent on roll20 for D&amp;D content. Funny you mention speculation, considering that nothing had been released yet. OGL 1.1 was not released, it was leaked. Ergo, the intent was leaked, and the walk back is on par with that. IE: still just an announcement of intent.&nbsp; It is all speculation at this point, including the concept that all other VTTs would not be allowed to run D&amp;D games. I have yet to see that in anything that isn't speculation.&nbsp; In any case, the OGL has nothing to do with Roll20, Roll20 does not rely upon the OGL. Any changes to the OGL would probably not directly impact Roll20 although it may change how third parties operate on Roll20 (my opinion...I am not Roll20 staff).&nbsp; And since the WotC VTT is probably a 2-3 years off, it'll be awhile at least before Roll20 has to deal with that problem, if it becomes one.&nbsp;

Gauss said: Smurd said: I am well aware of the current state of the OGL, they "walked back" nothing at this point. They have only announced that things are not going to be what they wanted originally. They did so in a way that has promised nothing, just speculation. Until they announce that they will NOT try to change the OGL I would not believe that they have given up anything. They will continue to do everything they can to monetize as much as they can by blocking out any "competitors". This could include making an "official" VTT which could mean that all others are not allowed to run D&amp;D games due to this. There is a lot of information about the TOS for roll20 and that if something like this happens, Roll20 is not obligated to refund any of our purchases. That means that if that happens, I could easily lose every penny I have spent on roll20 for D&amp;D content. Funny you mention speculation, considering that nothing had been released yet. OGL 1.1 was not released, it was leaked. Ergo, the intent was leaked, and the walk back is on par with that. IE: still just an announcement of intent.&nbsp; It is all speculation at this point, including the concept that all other VTTs would not be allowed to run D&amp;D games. I have yet to see that in anything that isn't speculation.&nbsp; In any case, the OGL has nothing to do with Roll20, Roll20 does not rely upon the OGL. Any changes to the OGL would probably not directly impact Roll20 although it may change how third parties operate on Roll20 (my opinion...I am not Roll20 staff).&nbsp; And since the WotC VTT is probably a 2-3 years off, it'll be awhile at least before Roll20 has to deal with that problem, if it becomes one.&nbsp; I definitely agree that the internet is full of wild speculation and theories... I kind of doubt that a new, totally convenient "leak" from WotC about how "totally evil" they are is dropping every day. However, a few corrections: OGL 1.1 was not publicly released, but it was quietly sent to a number of content creators and publishers to strong arm them into making "sweetheart" deals with WotC. This is likely where the leak originated. If you read the timeline suggested on the OGL 1.1, they fully intended to roll it out by now, but were stopped by the community backlash. While it was pretty clear that OGL 1.1 likely would have interfered with other VTT's ability to run WotC products (such as D&amp;D5e), R20 was on their shortlist of partners. R20 was probably going to be forced to sign a bad deal, but they'd definitely sign whatever custom deal WotC had and keep running WotC content almost certainly. Other VTT's wouldn't be so lucky. OGL does have something to do with Roll20, and it may still have an effect on Roll20. WotC has announced the intention of leaving VTT alone (or at least, handling it via separate agreements) but that wasn't clear (and if anything, fairly clearly not the intent) of OGL 1.1. What WotC actually does now is unknown, besides bunkering down and hoping this just blows over. Whenever they push their updated version of OGL 1.1,&nbsp; it might effect VTT, it might not. My suspicion is they'll probably not stir up the hornet's nest again any time soon and do a better job of document control. Roll20's primary license with WotC is not OGL 1.0a, but that doesn't mean a change to OGL doesn't affect them (because it might). If WotC is honest about keeping VTT's out of their new license (and they could well be), then it may still matter if WotC still revokes 1.0a and content that uses that is still on R20 (such as PF1e). They might have to purge this content to continue business. It's clearly speculation at this point, because WotC themselves probably don't have a plan beyond "hide and hope everyone forgets, then try to do the same thing again" best we can tell. I'm not sure how far of the WotC VTT is, but I fully suspect that they'll continue to support R20 as a funnel to their walled garden of sorts. But as you said, a) that's speculation and b) we have time until that happens, most likely. I wouldn't want to be in the R20 folk's shoes right now, stuck between a rock and a hard place. So I guess, it's complicated? The immediate crisis is over, but the longterm problem hasn't been resolved.

Smurd said: &nbsp;That means that if that happens, I could easily lose every penny I have spent on roll20 for D&amp;D content. No! This is NOT the case! You KEEP everything you paid for! The OGL change only affects NEW Products... why should they take all the books you paid for?

Very good recap, Artofregicide. I'd only add that Fantasy Grounds likely has similar agreements to those of Roll20. Existing SRD-derived content is probably pretty safe (and in my opinion, probably always was, despite wording to the contratry—it would be a critload of policing and lawsuits). As to how a new OGL will affect future SRD-derived content, only time will tell. Personally, I am still hoping that this will all resolve peacefully into an acceptable compromise, that WotC can swallow its pride, and fans can swallow their outrage for the greater good. I would really, really hate to see the creation of a dozen new OGL-type documents by different creators solely to flee WotC. The whole idea of an OGL is to create a community. To paraphrase Ryan Dancey, if you are the only person in the world with a telephone, it's useless. The more people who have telephones, the more valuable each telephone is. But building a dozen separate networks only reduces the value of each. I would prefer a few big, (hopefully) safe networks, over a fractured landscape of tiny ones. The industry has grown because of inclusion, and I feel it will only diminish if allowed to divide.

I have to disagree with that. That they want to change the OGL clearly shows those in charge of WotC have no interest in a community or "greater good" that isn't solely serving the interest of filling their pockets. They opened a box that unfortunately can't be closed by showing they don't value the idea behind the ogl, because even if they take it back completely the intent is still there. It's no longer an agreement in perpetuity, it's an agreement until they change their minds. There's every reason to be outraged by that, and not expressing it just gives them onus to try and get away with it again. In the end, Wizards needs the community, not the other way around. If their actions are driving the community to rally somewhere without them at the center, that's on them alone.

By all means, express skepticism. I just don't advocate the stonewalling and seemingly endless outrage that's going on (by some). The opinion I hear from many can be best expressed as, "Don't listen. Burn D&amp;D to the ground". Hasbro is a corporation. They are negotiating. This requires communication and compromise. Not "you lied, I can never trust you, I refuse to ever listen or negotiate." Negotiate, and hold them accountable to what they officially say. If at the end of such negotiation, an agreement cannot be reached*, users can always opt out of D&amp;D.&nbsp; I want a working OGL, not X years of litigation.&nbsp; Not talking means not solving. *I hold no illusions. Millions of people are affected, thousands are vocal and involved. There will never, ever, ever be a consensus that satisfies everyone. But perfect is the enemy of the good.

Hasbro is a corporation, yes. You can hold people accountable to a degree, holding a corporation to account is a different beast entirely. Negotiations and agreements can happen, but how valued and how solid those agreements are can change much more easily. You can see that just looking at the core of the discussion. We know Ryan Dancey's intent, but that intent is meaningless because now the ogl is governed by entirely different people with entirely different intent. And as far as official statements go, their statements still show the inherit cause of alarm: they made an agreement they said wouldn't end and wouldn't change, and are trying to force a change to a new agreement, ending access to the original.

And that's their starting point. They have backtracked part of that, discussion may eliminate the change it altogether. My only real point is that we want to get there, and those fans who refuse to engage are not helping.

Well to be frank, there's not much to engage with yet. We have two statements, and while the second is worded better at least, it still isn't much beyond words until a new draft and the survey comes out. And while it may come to the point that they eliminate changes altogether, it doesn't change the fact that they think they *can* change it, and have a desire to. What's to stop them from trying again when they don't like what they agreed to anymore in the 2.0 or 1.0b or 1.1? They removed the trust in the ogl, and they can't simply just rewrite it back in with back-steps and platitudes. They might not be able to get it back at all. And ultimately I wouldn't consider Hasbro's responses so very conductive to engagement either. There is a lot to say in how they went about this, and I think skepticism is healthy in this situation. There's been a lot of discussion about how much of a draft, as they call it, the leaked ogl is, and they've really not done much of anything to provide reassurances. And personally, I do consider a stonewall engagement. As much as I do agree compromise and discussion are generally helpful, there are points where lines have to be drawn. If someone thinks this is their line and they either refuse to budge, provide push back against wotc's statements, or leave for greener pastures entirely, they should be able to.

DnDBeyond has released the proposed draft.

Indeed they have. As far the draft for 1.2 goes, I do find a few things concerning. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1: While it's good they want to maintain an inclusive environment, giving themselves sole right over the definition of hateful and giving no room for argument leaves an easy avenue to abuse the power of instant termination without recourse. Even ignoring the fact they have enough trouble keeping it out of their own content. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2: The clause to waive any trial and the ability to complete sever the license seem like attempts to future-proof any problems if they want to de-authorize 1.2 in the future. But maybe that's common practice for these things, I'm not an expert in the matter, it just seems concerning considering how perpetual they believe 1.0 is. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3: The VTT policy has some uncomfortably broad interpretations. Making animations for magic missile is not allowed? So like, what you cast something like Web and need to define the area? As written it could be said that violates policy. I honestly don't think that's the intent, as cynically as I'm looking at this, but something that definitely needs clarified. &nbsp;In a vacuum this I think is fine, but well, if this is want they wanted then what was the old draft supposed to be? Personal belief is that the decision makers probably guess pushing harder isn't ending well for them and this is the olive branch. And for what it's worth it's not a bad one. But well, we know forever isn't forever now. It also doesn't take away that intent of the first draft, and it's really legally questionable that can even make 1.0 users adapt to 1.2.

You don't waive your right to a trial, only a jury trial which limits you to small claims court. But the VTT portion does need adjusting and I can see why they have the inclusive clause, but it needs definitions. The only thing to do from this point really is to fill out the survey with your thoughts and concerns when it opens tomorrow.

Waiving a right to litigate is only a legal speedbump. My take on the animation provision is that&nbsp;My guess is that when they arrive at an agreement about VTT animations it will along the lines of "you can't add magic missile with an attached, built-in specific effect." You can animate blasts and fireballs and such, they just can't be intrinsic to the specific D&amp;D content. They would be like a generic thing that you can apply to in-game content. This would be similar to how something like Roll20 works. Where you have FX, but you can't add a fireball from the Compendium and have it with a pre-built attached effect. I don't think "no animations in any way, shape or form" is enforceable. I think "don't intrinsically tie our licensed product to animation" is. The printed book does not contain a fireball animation. The same content repurposed to a VTT shouldn't have anything in it that is not already there. The ability to do that on your own, or for the user to make the association should be fine, since it would be unenforceable to stop. Just don't as the VTT publish an "altered" fireball. That's my take on what is meant and what needs to be made clear.

Thank you for the trial clarification, that does make it sound better.

So I cant animate magic missile now, what about a generic light coming from my hand?&nbsp; How can they think they can prevent that?&nbsp; Are they going to force Roll20 to disallow all animation files on dnd games (but other systems its ok?) So a wizards fire ball is out, but what about a fireplace? Wizards shield no good, but a generic ghostly light around the token?? What about homebrew stuff that I animate? What about lights and walls/doors.&nbsp; I cant do that around a table, but is that considered against the "rules". Fog of war?&nbsp; well I guess that is ok because on the table I can use a bit of paper to block the map. Obviously I can do what I want with my own computer and players, but streamers will just either use generic terms or no longer show DnD and only show pf2 etc, so that is what the public will see and be driven to those games spending money there.&nbsp; WotC forget how much free advertising they were getting from streamers and the community saying "play this game" On another note: the pretense that this is all for preventing hate speech.... well does a dragon who dislikes all dwarves because one killed its father hate speech??&nbsp; Does the kingdom who rallys against a distructive giant worm considered discriminatory behavior to the worm.... who gets to decide now... This is dangerous language in the "new" OGL.

I don't play D&amp;D- is of no concern to me.

You may want to check your facts. Many non-D&amp;D game systems are also caught up in this, due to having been published under the OGL v1.0a. From this wiki page &nbsp;you can see the list of game systems as follows: &nbsp; &nbsp; 13th Age by Fire Opal Media, published under license by Pelgrane Press (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Blades in the Dark by One Seven Design, in association with Evil Hat Productions (CC-BY 3.0) &nbsp; &nbsp; Castles &amp; Crusades by Troll Lord Games (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Dominion Rules (Dominion Rules License) &nbsp; &nbsp; Dungeon World by Sage LaTorra and Adam Koebel (CC-BY 3.0 and OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Eclipse Phase by Posthuman Studios (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) &nbsp; &nbsp; Fate by Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment (OGL and CC-BY 3.0) &nbsp; &nbsp; Fudge System Reference Document by Grey Ghost Games (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Gumshoe System by Pelgrane Press (CC-BY-3.0/OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Labyrinth Lord by Goblinoid Games (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Legend by Mongoose Publishing (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; OpenD6, based on the D6 System originally published by West End Games (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; OSRIC by Stuart Marshall and Mathew Finch (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game by Paizo (OGL) &nbsp; &nbsp; Traveller (role-playing game) by Mongoose Publishing (OGL) Also worth noting: the list above is only game systems and does not refer to game supplements. Most companies did a d20 conversion of their system at one point or another, and that includes Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu (I have both the d20 and non-d20 versions).

Just a point of clarification: WotC is (currently) contending that they can deauthorize the OGL as regards their own SRD . However, the OGL exists on its own. Anybody can use it for their own game system and WotC cannot do anything about it. It was originally created as a tool for anyone to use, a simple and reliable way to build product for any game system that cared to employ it. For example, Fudge has nothing to do with WotC or their SRD, or even the d20 system. If they use the OGL for their own SRD, then that is their own business.

This is apparently still up in the air from what I've read Keith, and certainly in no way does what you've stated appear to be "established fact". Until the dust settles we have no way to know how this is going to go. A quote from this wiki page suggests it's more involved than you might realise. I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but that's my understanding at least at this point: "if the original license is in fact no longer viable, every single licensed publisher will be affected by the new agreement, because every commercial creator will be asked to report their products, new and old, to Wizards of the Coast. [...] The main takeaway from the leaked OGL 1.1 draft document is that WotC is keeping power close at hand. [...] There are a lot of implications in this extended policy, and the ramifications of this updated OGL could have a chilling effect on new licensed products". [29] Eric Law, for Game Rant , commented that this leak was causing "panic" among third-party publishers. [43] Law stated that "the most concerning section of the legal document adds that Wizards of the Coast has full rights to any content created by the OGL. This would allow Dungeons and Dragons to take any homebrew content and publish it in official Dungeons and Dragons material without permission or compensation to the original creator". [43] ICv2 commented that the leaked OGL has several controversial parts including prohibiting "commercial publication for virtual tabletop platforms" and that while it "grants ownership of the OGL works to their creator" it also "gives WotC the perpetual, irrevocable right to use their works in any way it sees fit without payment". [44]

At least Roll20 joined Paizo's ORC new OGL, thank god for small miracles for us Path and Star "finders:!! However this mess turns out for the D&amp;Ders here, I feel for you all and hope it works out and gets back to normal, but I'm kinda doubting it sadly :( Tom :)

Manny L. said: This is apparently still up in the air from what I've read Keith, and certainly in no way does what you've stated appear to be "established fact". Until the dust settles we have no way to know how this is going to go. A quote from this wiki page suggests it's more involved than you might realise. I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but that's my understanding at least at this point: No, I believe that I am right here. The OGL in relation to WotC/Hasbro is what is in contention. Not the existence of the OGL. It is just careless wording from reporters and YouTubers that makes it sound otherwise. For example, here is the Fudge OGL . (and SRD ). The only place that WotC is mentioned is in the copyright notice of the agreement itself. All agreements about product identity and derivative works refer to Fudge. WotC wrote a contract that can be used by anybody. I can write an RPG and release it under OGL1.0, 1.0a, 1.keith, etc. It's just a document of words that can be used as a legal agreement. WotC (the writer) uses it for D&amp;D. The OGL is just a boilerplate agreement that (like the various CC agreements), a First Party Publisher may use with confidence (to license their own game)*, because it has been reviewed by a lawyer and is presumed to be well-written enough to be used. *This is the contention: that WotC used the agreement and is trying to deauthorize it with respect to their own usage . The only danger here that affects other First Party Publishers, is that they might have legal precendent for doing what WotC is now trying to do. Most do not have a valuable enough IP to bother trying. No one is going to make the Fudge movie.

As stated by others, Pathfinder is based from the OGL 1.0a. That means at the very least there will be massive legal actions taken, as already stated by Paizo. Not sure what that means in regards to usage of those products during those legal proceedings. &nbsp; In regards to my original statement about losing our content. If you combine the two following statements, if WoTC decided that they wanted to make their VTT the ONLY official VTT and no one is allowed to use their intellectual property they could. Every product I have purchased through roll20 has environmental art, token art… all of this official content, the IP belongs to WoTC. Keep in mind that the OGL as it stands has nothing to do with any of this. Today, if WoTC decides to revoke its IP usage they can, and they can force roll20 to revoke that content. <a href="https://help.roll20.net/hc/en-us/articles/360037770793-Terms-of-Service-and-Privacy-Policy#TermsofServiceandPrivacyPolicy-WhoownstheIPofmycampaignsanduploadedcontent" rel="nofollow">https://help.roll20.net/hc/en-us/articles/360037770793-Terms-of-Service-and-Privacy-Policy#TermsofServiceandPrivacyPolicy-WhoownstheIPofmycampaignsanduploadedcontent</a>? Who owns the IP of the images and sounds that I include in my campaigns via the Art Library, Marketplace, and Jukebox tools? The tokens, map tiles, sounds, and other art assets that you include in your campaigns via the Art Library, Marketplace, and Jukebox tools are the intellectual property of the providers of the assets. For more information on the assets included in Roll20, and their providers, see the&nbsp; Acknowledgements&nbsp; page and/or the individual asset page on the Marketplace. We have licensed these assets to allow you to use them to create non-commercial works in a personal setting. If you wish to re-distribute any campaigns you create on Roll20 that include assets from any of these providers outside of this intended purpose or outside of the Roll20 service, you must contact the provider(s) to license them directly. Orr Group is not responsible for your use of the assets in any way that violates the rights of the providers. In addition, assets included from the Roll20 Marketplace are subject to the additional terms in the Marketplace End User License Agreement (EULA).

I have read and listened to most if not all of the OGL information put out there. I think I understand what the current situation is overall but I wasn't quite sure about some of the VTT information. Here is my question and my understanding. It looks like the latest information will allow us to continue to make content for D&amp;D but animations and the specific official art work for the tokens are not allowed?&nbsp; I don't mess with a lot of animations but the token part, if true, would possibly make it more difficult to put out content. I suppose you could just have someone make new art or just use tokens with letters instead of pictures. Can anyone offer any opinions on the topic? Thanks.

WotC has said that theVTT policy was poorly worded when describing the difference between it and a video game. They have said that the next iteration will be better and more clearly worded. I am personally not worried about the sorts of animations that are currently available on Roll20, and do not think that was what they had in mind. Also, I very strongly doubt that anyone anywhere will have purchased digital content removed from their reach. There may (or may not) be legal wiggle room for interpreting the current license and its revocability, but that is a whole different order of transaction, and would open Hasbro up to huge destructive lawsuits. My prediction: Assuming D&amp;D survives the current downturn in user acceptance and trust, six months from now, things will be largely as they have been. Different in small details, but largely the same. If you would like to see some of their specific responses to feedback so far received, you can follow their Twitter feed, or lok on the DnDBeyond site at their OGL FAQ .