SmiteWorks OGL 1.2 Discussion

[rhagelstrom]

WotC potentially could lose a lot more than just "you can't" in a legal fight over OGL 1.0a. If their strategy was just bully small pubs and push it though then they completely misunderstood their brand and customer base. Keep up the fight but be respectful. The line in the sand is 1.0a is not revokable. I'm hoping WotC legal talks some sense into management but regardless the damage to WotC reputation will be lasting.

[Khoros]

Oh boy, just signed up with FGU a few days ago and then WOTC drops this bomb on the community. If this was an rpg session, I'd change my dice right about now.

Never thought I'd have to do this in a post about tabletop gaming, but first things first: the disclaimer. I am a lawyer, but not an American one and I don't currently practice either, so nothing I post after this constitutes legal advice in any way, shape or form.

The first thing that jumps out at me in this whole controversy is the false flag WOTC is flying here: they keep talking about the "open gaming license" as if it was about them graciously giving every third party permission to use their stuff. Giving their rights away without any quid pro quo for the good of the community.

This is obviously not the case. They're asking that you sign the new ogl, and the only reason they want you to do that is to further their interests, not yours. They actually want you to sign your rights away so their legal position is better afterwards than what they would have under ogl 1.0a. Or even without any licensing agreement at all, just according to standard copyright and trademark law.

IMO you need to keep that in mind.This whole thing's a standard commercial contract negotiation, not WOTC trying to "do right" by the rpg community.

That being established you have to ask yourself two things: 1. what is WOTC's interest in all of this? 2. Do they have the actual power to force Fantasy Grounds to sign the new licence agreement?

Concerning the first question I think Stephen Glicker from Roll for Combat has it right: WOTC has sunk millions of dollars into d&d beyond and they desperately need to justify that investment to their shareholders. They'll do anything to build the site up as best they can.
The main cash cow, the best way to generate ROI in that respect is, you guessed it, their new vtt system. So that means they see d&d's future as being in the digital space, maybe even in video gaming. But not in the actual pen and paper ttrpgs.
This also means their main competition are roll20, Foundry and, yes, Fantasy Grounds.

Now what I say next is the worst case scenario. Not entirely sure whether it's actually as bad as that, but you're talking contract negotiation here, so you need to plan for the worst and hope for the best. So I'm just going to come out and say it:

IMO WOTC's ultimate goal here is to push the other vtt's out of business. Period.

Hence this whole song-and-dance about distinguishing vtts from video games. Hence the need to have a whole separate vtt agreement. Hence this smokescreen about wanting to prevent NFTs, hateful content and whatnot.

Now again, I can't be sure their intentions are actually as bad as that, but this is a contract negotiation, so you need to keep that worst case scenario in the back of your mind. Any new ogl you sign, regardless of how WOTC tries to disguise it with colourful language, will be to your detriment.

The second question (do WOTC have the power to enforce this) is for FG and Smite Works to answer.
I guess it would largely depend on how big the actual numbers of paying 5e players on here actually are vs. players who use other non-ogl systems. And on how willing the 5e players are to switch systems if push comes to shove.

If FG can afford to lose the 5e players without jeopardizing their whole business model, then WOTC have little power to force them and FG should seriously consider not signing the new ogl at all in IMO.
Unfortunately though, I suspect the 5e player base is too important for FG to be able to risk losing them completely, but I can't be sure of that and FG will have an understandable interest to not disclose those numbers. So I guess we'll never know. Which is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned ignorance is bliss in that respect ;-).

To sum it up: ultimately, as I said, this whole question of "do we or don't we sign it?" is for FG and Smite Works management to decide, and boy, oh boy, do I not envy them that decision.

[Voctor]

If FG can afford to lose the 5e players without jeopardizing their whole business model, then WOTC have little power to force them and FG should seriously consider not signing the new ogl at all in IMO.
Unfortunately though, I suspect the 5e player base is too important for FG to be able to risk losing them completely, but I can't be sure of that and FG will have an understandable interest to not disclose those numbers. So I guess we'll never know. Which is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned ignorance is bliss in that respect ;-).

To sum it up: ultimately, as I said, this whole question of "do we or don't we sign it?" is for FG and Smite Works management to decide, and boy, oh boy, do I not envy them that decision.

FG pays for a license with WoTC. That's how they're able to sell modules with full rules and images for things like Beholders which have never been in any version of the OGL. If they really wanted to push FG out of the VTT space for D&D, that would happen in their contract renewal negations rather than changes to the OGL. I guess there is the chance that they're changing the OGL now so that when that time comes around FG doesn't have it as a fallback option, but that doesn't seem extremely likely.

On the other hand, I think I heard Foundry is pure OGL and doesn't have a paid contract so WoTC could be going after them. Or they're just trying to block others from entering the space so they're competing against fewer options.

[Khoros]

"FG pays for a license with WoTC. "

Ah, ok, didn't know that. Thanks for the info. Indeed, that delays the question until the contract is up for renewal. And given FG pays for non-OGL content, that might actually not turn out so bad for FG. Unless, of course, the Glicker school of thought is correct and WOTC wants to direct all vtt 5e players to d&d beyond exclusively. Then, worst case, that might lead to a contract termination. But again, playing devil's advocate here, not at all sure about this.
In the end I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As far as Foundry's concerned: you're right, that will be a major headache for them, especially if they can't afford to lose the 5e players..

[dendarii]

6.f No Hateful Content or Conduct gave me pause.

"We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you
covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."

This is definitely worrisome, too much power.

Not to mention that in the text above the clause, they make it clear that they don't intend to limit their objections to just "hateful" or illegal content:

"You'll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or hurtful content is published using the covered D&D stuff"

There's published D&D stuff that has content that I find offensive or objectionable, even WOTC stuff (incest in Rime of the Frostmaiden for Pete's sake?). I just don't buy or play that content, or if I'm DMing, I modify it; I don't advocate for the product to be unpublished.

Allowing WOTC to revoke your license, not because of libel or illegal content, but because somebody claims it's "hurtful" and WOTC agrees?

Ridiculous.

[Nyarly Dude]

On the other hand, I think I heard Foundry is pure OGL and doesn't have a paid contract so WoTC could be going after them. Or they're just trying to block others from entering the space so they're competing against fewer options.

Only Smiteworks and Roll 20 have such contracts for D&D 5E VTTs as far as I can tell. Any other implementations are much more constrained in what they can provide, hence things like utilities to scrape DDB data to import into them.

Traditional videogames are going to be a much bigger target, though. There's rather more money in it. WOTC wouldn't want anybody to build a video game that builds off the SRD content, fills in the gaps with homebrew, and attempts to skate bywithout paying WOTC by calling itself a VTT prepackaged with lots of bonus homebrew content with tools for even solo players to run a GM-less game to enjoy by themselves. Like, Tactical Adventures and Solasta -- WOTC got to ensure that they got royalties for that, even though Solasta used only SRD content + its own homebrew.

[Voctor]

Only Smiteworks and Roll 20 have such contracts for D&D 5E VTTs as far as I can tell. Any other implementations are much more constrained in what they can provide, hence things like utilities to scrape DDB data to import into them.

Traditional videogames are going to be a much bigger target, though. There's rather more money in it. WOTC wouldn't want anybody to build a video game that builds off the SRD content, fills in the gaps with homebrew, and attempts to skate bywithout paying WOTC by calling itself a VTT prepackaged with lots of bonus homebrew content with tools for even solo players to run a GM-less game to enjoy by themselves. Like, Tactical Adventures and Solasta -- WOTC got to ensure that they got royalties for that, even though Solasta used only SRD content + its own homebrew.

The thing is, most video games don't seem to need the OGL. If I make a game where characters level from 1 to 20, have 6 attributes, use Vancian magic for spellcasters, gain abilities at the same rate, use the same probabilities, etc. all of that is just game mechanics which don't have legal protection as far as current precedent would seem to indicate. As long as I don't use a patented mechanic (very rare, but the Nemesis system from Shadows of Mordor is an example), use their IP (Beholders, etc.), or use copyrighted expression (exact copy paste of text WoTC wrote) there's probably not much they can do about it. Of course having the OGL made the rules more clear so a group could make that game without fearing that they may need to defend themselves in court.

[MaxAstro]

The thing is, most video games don't seem to need the OGL. If I make a game where characters level from 1 to 20, have 6 attributes, use Vancian magic for spellcasters, gain abilities at the same rate, use the same probabilities, etc. all of that is just game mechanics which don't have legal protection as far as current precedent would seem to indicate. As long as I don't use a patented mechanic (very rare, but the Nemesis system from Shadows of Mordor is an example), use their IP (Beholders, etc.), or use copyrighted expression (exact copy paste of text WoTC wrote) there's probably not much they can do about it. Of course having the OGL made the rules more clear so a group could make that game without fearing that they may need to defend themselves in court.

It is absolutely true what you say.

It is also true that WotC has way more money to spend on lawyers than you do.

Anyone who thinks "being in the legal right" is sufficient protection where Wizards is involved is invited to investigate the sad story of Hex: Shards of Fate.

[Valatar]

Foundry has deals with a good many publishers, but never WotC. I suspect that since Foundry's much younger than FG, WotC already had designs on their own VTT and no interest in signing on with a competing system by the time Foundry got popular. I would anticipate that FG's deal with WotC will not be renewed as soon as Beyond is up and running; WotC clearly intends on not having competitors. Thankfully the people already running on FG don't stand to be affected, but it could damage FG going forward from that point if there is no decent OGL way for them to continue supporting future D&D editions.

[anstett]

Seems like a good point on the solo adventures.

Thinking about differentiating VTT and CRPGs some more - one key difference is all creature tokens on the maps are moved by humans: PCs by the players, NPCs/Monsters by the DM.

This is not true.

KloOge (the VTT I used for 18+ years before FG) had macros for the DM to set up random movement for NPCs etc. Randomization was built in also. That was 2005 at the latest.

With the current AI abilities it will take a year or two (maybe less) before you can use machine learning to fully automate many of the DM functions including NPC movement, placement, etc.

The view of what VTTs can do now versus where they will be in future needs to revolve around the concept of Agency of User in my opinion.

Can the DM or the Player choose to make meaningful decisions about actions and reactions to and about characters. Video games (currently with the limited AI) have more situations where a player does not have Agency.

In a VTT if the DM and or Player still has Agency to make choices, and override the structure of the program to suit their own desires.