Monday, January 16, 2023

Where Things Stand

Over the last few days, there have been a number of developments in the saga of Wizards of the Coast's plans to "de-authorize" version 1.0a of the Open Game License and replace it with a more draconian (i.e. effectively non-open) version 1.1. Perhaps the most significant of these is the announcement by Paizo, publisher of Pathfinder, that it intends to create "a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC)." At its announcement, Paizo was joined by numerous other RPG companies, including Chaosium. Later, Goodman Games, publisher of Dungeon Crawl Classics, indicated that it too would be adopting ORC

For its part, Wizards of the Coast issued "an update on the Open Game License" that was clearly intended to dampen the outrage through feigned conciliation. While WotC appears to have walked back some of the provisions of v.1.1, their update is notably silent on the matter of whether they still intend to proceed with their attempt to "de-authorize" v.1.0a. I suspect that's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation on their part, in the hope people will somehow forget this crucial part of their plan. I say "crucial," because so many of the OSR's publications made use of the OGL and the d20 SRD. Without it, creators, both large and small, will need to make appropriate adjustments.

At the same time, one of the things that I hope has become clearer to more people is that there is no need to use any kind of open license to create new old school games, let alone products for use with an existing one, provided copyrights and trademarks are respected. The OGL was never necessary, though it was certainly useful, given what was included in the d20 System Reference Document. Certainly, the uncertainty regarding the status of v.1.0a makes things potentially difficult for the creators behind retro-clones like Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and Old School Essentials, but they are not insurmountable. Both Basic Fantasy and Swords & Wizardry have already announced plans to proceed without the OGL in the future and there is no reason why other creators cannot do the same.

The OSR is much too small a portion of the hobby for Wizards of the Coast to care about us. I don't for a minute believe that their proposed changes to the OGL had us in their sights. Why should they? I've now sat out two editions of Dungeons & Dragons in a row. I'm not one of their customers and likely never will be, so my feelings and preferences are none of their concern. Nevertheless, a part of the hobby that matters to me may suffer significant collateral damage due to their shenanigans and that's a shame. I almost wish I had been a customer of WotC so that I could somehow register my disapproval of their intended actions.

Until something of significance happens on this front, this is my last post on the matter for a while.

21 comments:

  1. You ask why should they care? I firmly believe part of this is removing all the icky wrongthink from the OSR, whether or not they will admit it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely another woke conspiracy spotted. Billion dollar companies stifling the freethink of weird backwaters of the internet through obscurist legal moves. Fascinating worldview.

      Delete
    2. Re: "icky wrongthink":
      Hi. I'm interested in this notion. The average OSR-er had no subscription to cancel, as James pointed out.

      So what "wrongthink" exists in the OSR that WotC gives a damn about about, given our tiny numbers in a $2.6B category? I don't think WotC thinks about us for one second. Nor we them, usually.

      The new OGL wasn't about woke-ism. WotC are clearly just short-sighted corporate greed heads.

      Delete
    3. Let me be clear that I totally agree with Jesse Smith's take below that the primary objective is to avoid another Pathfinder, but if it's crazy to observe that modern corporations are enforcing certain views, in many cases even over their own profits, then go ahead and fit me for my straitjacket.

      Delete
    4. It might be crazy to observe that. Examples: Disney enforces certain views because, theoretically, diversity widens their audience and increases their profits. Likewise, Fox News enforces certain views because it's profitable to do so. Publicly held corporations (like Hasbro) exist to make money. If they put a political agenda over profits, their shareholders revolt (e.g. Tesla).

      Leaks from inside WotC confirm this was all about the financials: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2023/01/cancelled-dd-subscriptions-secret-deals-inside-wotcs-ogl-update.html

      But let's assume for a minute that Hasbro doesn't exist to make money, and the royalty scheme of the new OGL wasn't motivated by greed. What "wrongthink" is Hasbro looking to obliterate from the OSR? And role does the new royalty scheme play in that plan?

      Delete
  2. Sadly, Kevin, I'd have to agree, for why else do that slimy hit-piece about the OSR on PBS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tinfoil hat on. I'm still convinced the hit on Professor Barker as a notsi was a shot at the OSR. How better to discredit the movement?

      Delete
    2. That was a slimy hit piece! But who was aiming to discredit the OSR via a hit on Barker 10 months ago? WotC?

      Delete
    3. Actually about 10 months ago, WOTC did more or less announce OneD&D.

      Delete
    4. The revelations about Barker came from the Tekumel Foundation, absolutely the last people to have a vested interest in "discrediting" him or his gaming-related creations. This is indeed tinfoil-hat-level paranoia.

      Delete
    5. jdh417: When people observe Lovecraft was racist, or that Tolkien's and Howard's use of "swarthy" bad guys is troubling, were those remarks also made in order to discredit the OSR?

      Delete
    6. The Tekumel Foundation IS the last place I'd expect to go after Barker. I'm still waiting for a corroborating source on the story about him. Nothing I've ever read about him or in interviews with him suggest this background. Awfully convenient that he's not here to defend himself.

      Rings of Power did indirectly go at Tolkien with its casting. If Amazon had done a Conan series, as they almost did before Rings, they would have likely tried to "fix" what was "wrong" with the setting. I've heard recent Call of Cthulhu adventures are more about fighting racism than elder gods.

      Delete
    7. The Cthulhu setting I was thinking of was Fate of Cthulhu. Read this for yourself.

      https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/01/rpg-fate-of-cthulhu-calls-out-lovecrafts-racism.html

      Delete
    8. Here's the story about Conan and Amazon Prime.

      https://www.screengeek.net/2022/09/29/conan-the-barbarian-series-abandoned-toxic-masculinity/

      Delete
    9. Yes but do you believe it was done specifically to discredit the OSR, like you do with Barker?

      Delete
    10. James is probably uncomfortable with this getting so far off topic, so this will be my last comment here.

      It's more of a discrediting of everything that has come before as part of a broad strategy.

      This is the PBS article mentioned above:
      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/how-a-new-generation-of-gamers-is-pushing-for-inclusivity-beyond-the-table

      "OSR gamers are often seen as the old guard of tabletop gaming and tend to idealize the past, which “defaults to a white, masculine worldview,”

      From another NPR transcript:
      https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1120523900
      "Traditional fantasy - like, especially Tolkien-based fantasy - is very white, is very cisgender, very heterosexual in nature. "

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Barker story doesn't come back up when OneD&D is released to discredit all non-WOTC D&D. Paizo might escape criticism, since they, like D&D, have eliminated the term "race" from their game.

      Delete
    11. Again yes, the NPR hit piece is slimy. But how does it connect to WotC?

      "Paizo might escape criticism..."

      But if this is all a grand WotC conspiracy, then that doesn't make any sense. Paizo is the biggest threat/ competitor WotC has. They would be the primary target of the diabolical conspiracy.

      Whereas EPT is a tiny fraction of the OSR, which in turn is a fraction of the gaming community. Why waste any time on them?

      Sorry. As with most paranoid conspiracies, it just doesn't add up.

      Delete
  3. An excellent article with excellent points, as usual. I like 5th Edition (but not as much as my Rules Cyclopedia), and I love all the 3rd party supplements that have blasted out of the ether in the last several years - 3rd party creators can choose to focus on things that WOTC never would, since they must be all things to all people, and won't touch niche subjects since it may not sell as well. 5e definitely reminds me of a "greatest hits" edition, even though I like it. They've definitely lost me with this move. It's just unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Streaming and VTT are now the enemies of WotC. The new OGL is made to destroy these enemies. My Two Cents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you're right that the OSR is too small a market to be a target, though it will be collateral damage. Possibly some companies like Goodman Games are at higher risk, since they also publish for 5e.

    The real target is clearly to shut down ongoing support for 5e after they transition to an online-only (or online-primarily) 6e. They don't want another Pathfinder situation that kept the 3.5e flame burning after WotC moved to 4e. This is a real shame IMO because 5e is a decent ruleset that has modern mechanics but can still be played in a reasonably "old school" style. I'm looking forward to seeing what Kobold Press is going to do with their "Project Black Flag", which sounds like an attempt to grind the serial numbers off 5e.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And just like that it's about over...

    https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons?

    I think some of the alternative licensing is still going to move forward and is probably a good idea, but the war is just about won, just some mop up and securing things to make sure the next war can't happen.

    ReplyDelete