Tumgik
#Dave Arneson
rpgsandbox · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
When is Dungeons & Dragons’ birthday? We don’t really know. RPG Historian par excellence Jon Peterson has investigated the issue a few times and come up with the answer that the game was almost certainly printed in January 1974 (though there’s disagreement even on that) and that it almost certainly wasn’t available to most people until February. The copyright registration was made on January 30, 1974 while a few years after the fact, in 1977, TSR claimed that the trademark “Dungeons & Dragons” was used in commerce starting on January 15 of that year. Peterson eventually settled on the last Sunday of January as an appropriate birthday for Dungeons & Dragons, because of Gygax inviting people over to his house to try out D&D on Sundays. This year, the year of the 50th anniversary, that’s January 28th. So happy birthday to Dungeons & Dragons. [continues]
71 notes · View notes
oldschoolfrp · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Ahoy, mateys
Don't Give up the Ship by Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, and Mike Carr, TSR, 2nd ed 1975; Don Lowry cover art; based on rules originally developed in Arneson's Minneapolis-St Paul area gaming group (1e was published by Guidon Games, 1972)
Action Under Sail 1756-1815 by Steve Birnie, Tabletop Games, 3rd ed 1984; Roger Heaton cover art; developed in the Halifax Wargames Society (1e was dated 1977)
Age of Sail, Mod Games, Sheffield, 1984; no individual author credits; includes 4 short rulesets: Ancient, Renaissance (also titled "Galleass"), Napoleonic, and Ironclads
Tradition of Victory, consisting of the Heart of Oak naval wargaming rules and the Promotions and Prizes RPG of rising in the ranks of the Royal Navy, Walter Williams, Erisian Games, 1978
83 notes · View notes
vintagerpg · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
This week is about some D&D odds and ends. The first is a big one: Supplement II: Blackmoor. It’s the third D&D product (after the box set and Gygax’s Greyhawk) and an extremely important one. Though Arneson’s name is on it (and his world of Blackmoor was the original D&D campaign setting), there is some debate over who wrote the bulk of this book, but whoever typed the words, the constituent ideas feel very different from what we’d consider the core of D&D, and thus are likely firmly from Arneson’s Twin Cities group.
There’s a hit location system that is never again revisited. The monk and the assassin are introduced here as are a host of water-based monsters, including the classic sahuagin, morkoth and Ixitxachitl.
The main attraction, though, is the very first D&D adventure, The Temple of the Frog. Detailed over 20 pages, it is the first serious look players got at what a D&D adventure could be. It doesn’t really line up with our modern conception of the game — there is a mass combat component, for instance, and a good dose of science fiction (the proportion of science fantasy here reminds me more of Arduin than Barrier Peaks). In a truly bizarre oversight (again, reminding me of Arduin), there are no attributes provided for the frog people who live at the center of the temple.
Most interesting of all, though, is how clearly you can see the path not taken when reading through this book. There’s a whole parallel universe of RPGs in this book.
143 notes · View notes
another-rpg-sideblog · 11 months
Photo
Tumblr media
Map of Blackmoor, campaign setting of Dave Arneson, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons.
31 notes · View notes
the-infamous-eel · 8 months
Text
In light of it being Gygax's birthday, I would like to point out that it's 66 days until Dave Arneson's birthday. If you like dungeons and character classes and role-playing in D&D, thinking about celebrating Dave's birthday instead.
4 notes · View notes
cephalopod-celabrator · 10 months
Text
D&D really was made by two middle aged cishet men and the queers said "thanks, we'll take it from here"
2 notes · View notes
ultimacodex · 1 year
Text
Through the Moongate 17 - Return Home
Through the Moongate 17 - Return Home #Ultima #Ultima5 #ThroughTheMoongate #OriginSystems
View on Zencastr Subscribe on Zencastr | Subscribe on iTunes | Subscribe on Google Play | Subscribe on Spotify | Subscribe on TuneIn | Subscribe on Stitcher Podcast Topic(s) Andrea Contato’sThrough the Moongate, per its Kickstarter page, “illuminates the path of the Ultima games’ history and the creative people behind this landmark series. It also covers some of Origin’s other games,…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
blogapart3bis · 2 years
Text
« Game Wizards », de Jon Peterson
Aujourd'hui sur Blog à part – « Game Wizards », de Jon Peterson Décidément, on aura beaucoup parlé jeu de rôle sur le blog, cette semaine. Aujourd’hui, c’est Game Wizards, le dernier ouvrage de Jon Peterson. #DnD #jeuderôle #jdr #histire
Décidément, on aura beaucoup parlé jeu de rôle sur le blog, cette semaine. Ça nous changera. Ahem. Bref, le sujet, aujourd’hui, c’est Game Wizards, le dernier ouvrage de Jon Peterson, l’historien américain du JDR. L’ouvrage nous parle encore une fois des débuts de D&D, mais sous l’angle de la relation conflictuelle entre ses deux co-créateurs, Gary Gygax et Dave Arneson. Et quand je dis…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
1 note · View note
jakattax · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
HAPPY GYGAX DAY NERDS!
2 notes · View notes
prokopetz · 4 months
Note
Can you go over what is going on with Paladins and Clerics in DND, not from a mechanical or in universe perspective, but from what different sources/genres/tropes they are drawing on? They always seemed to have too much overlap in the basic concept to me to make sense as separate things in the dnd classes/stock character line up.
Clerics originated way back in the pre-OD&D days, when the game that would become Dungeons & Dragons was still a fantasy roleplaying add-on intended to be paired with your favourite historical wargame. One of the players in Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign had an army whose commander/player character was a vampire named Sir Fang, who proved to be sufficiently overpowered that a mechanical "hard counter" was desired.
This ended up taking the form of a vampire-hunting priest character heavily inspired by Peter Cushing's turn as Abraham Van Helsing in the 1958 Christopher Lee adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula; that vampire-hunting priest in turn developed into what would become one of original flavour D&D's three core classes (the other two being the fighter and the wizard – the thief/rogue came later).
The paladin, meanwhile, was originally a direct, 1:1 lift of Holger Carlsen, the protagonist of Poul Anderson's 1961 fantasy novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, and was introduced as a subclass of the fighter – rather than a class of its own – in the 1975 Greyhawk supplement. Over the game's editions it's wandered from being a fighter subclass, to being a high-level "advanced class" to which qualifying characters can switch at 10th level, back to being a fighter subclass, and finally to a core class, where it's generally remained.
So, in short, the cleric was originally a purpose-built hard counter to vampire PCs loosely patterned after Peter Cushing's Abraham Van Helsing, while the paladin was originally for people who just really wanted to be one specific Poul Anderson character.
(I'm sorry if that's not a terribly satisfying answer, but you need to understand that practically everything in old-school D&D is a 1960s or 1970s pop culture reference – it just doesn't read that way to modern audiences because nobody gets the memes anymore.)
2K notes · View notes
vintagegeekculture · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
The “Remo Williams, the Destroyer” series, started in the 1970s as a mixture of spy and Kung Fu, featuring a superspy who becomes the student of a quirky, weird Kung Fu master obsessed with Barbara Streisand, continues to this day in e-book form. They are, surprisingly, still in publication. 
Dave Arneson, a friend of Gary Gygax, created the D&D monk class in one of his widely admired addendum to the game based on his love of the Destroyer books and his desire to play something like that at the table. 
207 notes · View notes
vixensdungeon · 5 months
Text
Back in the long-long-ago of 2001 or 2002, baby DM Vivian got a text message from one of her players asking how the elves in Lord of the Rings could be thousands of years old when their maximum age in D&D was 750. I explained to him that Tolkien probably didn't follow the 3rd Edition D&D rules when he was writing.
But he did, of course, use the rules of Rondor ar Rámalócer, an ancient roleplaying game he translated from Quenya! Dave and Gary would later unearth his notes and use them as the basis for their own game, Dungeons & Dragons.
Little known fact, Bilbo Baggins was actually Tolkien's own player character in a campaign ran by a different Loremaster (what his group called the Referee). He'd go on to write a book about his character's adventures, and even ran a campaign of his own centered around a piece of random magical loot his character had acquired, in the process making his friend's unnamed campaign setting a part of his own setting, Middle-Earth, much as Gygax would later incorporate Arneson's Blackmoor into the map of the Great Kingdom, along with the Necromancer (whom he renamed Sauron), who had been part of a solo adventure ran for Gandalf's player whose schedule rarely matched up with the rest of the group.
30 notes · View notes
oldschoolfrp · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
A massive, muscular umber hulk can smash through walls. (David Sutherland, from Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement II: Blackmoor by Dave Arneson, TSR, 1975-79) A slightly altered version of this same illustration appeared in the 1977 AD&D Monster Manual
135 notes · View notes
vintagerpg · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
This is Heroic Worlds (1991), by Lawrence Schick (of White Plume Mountain fame).
There are a bunch of books from the ‘80s and ‘90s that attempt to catalog and review RPGs and they kind of boggle my mind (the same is true for the similar genre of print paperback tip guides for videogame). Even having lived in the pre-internet era, I don’t understand the rationale for these books from a publishing perspective. Which is not to say I don’t adore Heroic Worlds. I do! It just seems…improbable.
The book essentially amounts to an index of every RPG product produced from 1974 to 1990. It feels a tiny bit like an Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide (another publication I’ve always been baffled by), except without the prices (though there is a small section on collecting — the advice still rings true today, primarily: be patient!). The listings are interrupted periodically with short essays by a rogues gallery of RPG designers: Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Greg Stafford, Steve Jackson, Jennell Jaquays, Michael Stackpole, Ken St. Andre, Tom Moldvay, Ken Rolston, Sandy Petersen, Erick Wujcik, B. Dennis Sustare, N. Robin Crossby and Greg Gordon. That is a pretty all-star cast of characters talking about tabletop game design!
The main attraction for me, though, is Schick’s commentary. Nearly all of the listings are accompanied by very brief appraisals; they give Robert Christgau’s album reviews a run for their terseness. Schick has a dry wit that creeps into the capsule reviews that soon becomes addictive. And there is just something wonderful about having a period of time captured so exhaustively in a single volume. I don’t think EVERYTHING ever published through 1990 is in the index, but Schick sure makes the book feel like it does. I refer to it constantly for my Instagram posts, it was a constant companion when writing my own book and honestly, it deserves a lot of blame for the size and scope of my collection. Damn you, Schick!
(Repost from April 30, 2020; revised)
58 notes · View notes
rpgsandbox · 17 days
Text
Tumblr media
Playing at the World, 2E
Volume 1: The Invention of Dungeons & Dragons
By Jon Peterson
384 pp., 6 x 9 in, 28 b&w illus
Paperback
ISBN 9780262548779
Published: July 30, 2024
Publisher: The MIT Press
The first volume of two in a new, updated edition of the 2012 book Playing at the World, which charts the vast and complex history of role-playing games.
This new edition of Playing at the World is the first of two volumes that update the 720-page original tome of the same name from 2012. This first volume is The Invention of Dungeons & Dragons, which explores the publication of that iconic game. (The second volume is The Three Pillars of Role-Playing Games, a deeper dive into the history of the setting, system, and character of D & D.) In this first volume, Jon Peterson distills the story of how the wargaming clubs and fanzines circulating around the upper Midwest in the 1970s culminated in Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson's seminal role-playing game, D & D. It augments the research of the original editions with new insights into the crucial period in 1972–3 when D & D began to take shape.
Drawing from primary sources ranging from eighteenth-century strategists to modern hobbyists, Playing at the World explores the origins of wargames and roleplaying through the history of conflict simulations and the eccentric characters who drove the creation of a signature cultural innovation in the late twentieth century. Filled with unparalleled archival research (from obscure fanzines to letters, drafts, and other ephemera), this new edition of Playing at the World is the ultimate geek's guide to the original RPG. As such, it is an indispensable resource for academics and game fans exploring the origins of the hobby.
16 notes · View notes
theabstruseone · 1 year
Text
Wizards of the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons, and the Open Gaming License (OGL)
So this story has broken out of the tabletop roleplaying community and gotten into the mainstream and, due to outlets covering the story who aren't well-versed in the RPG industry, there's a LOT of misinformation going around. So I'm going to try to clear up what's going on. Short version: The new OGL is a shitshow, but people are treating speculation and rumor as fact and a lot of people are focusing on the wrong problems.
Oh, and if anyone wants to know why they should listen to me about this: I've been covering the tabletop roleplaying game industry for almost a decade and it's been my primary job for over six years. I've also done extensive research on the history of tabletop roleplaying and made several videos about small aspects of it.
First a bit of history.
Side note: Pretty much every sentence in this part is an entire whole-ass Story on its own, so I'm glossing over a lot of stuff to stay focused on the Open Gaming License.
In 1974, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson wrote a new game based on the Chainmail miniature wargame called Dungeons & Dragons. This is widely considered the start of the tabletop roleplaying game genre. The game was published by a company called TSR Inc., which was taken over by the heir to the Buck Rogers publishing fortune, Lorraine Williams. By the 1990s, TSR dug itself into a deep financial hole. It was on the verge of bankruptcy before being purchased by Wizards of the Coast, the makers of Magic: The Gathering.
Wizards of the Coast launched a new Third Edition of Dungeons & Dragons in 2000 and, as part of the launch, released the Open Gaming License (OGL). This license allowed third-party publishers to create their own products based off of D&D 3rd Edition with some restrictions (they couldn't use specific intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast like the Forgotten Realms setting or some monsters created specifically for Dungeons & Dragons rather than based on myth or folklore). This launched a boom of third-party publishers creating their own products under the "D20 System" label.
The primary reason for creating the Open Gaming License was that we almost lost Dungeons & Dragons altogether. If TSR had fallen into bankruptcy, the assets of the company would be divvied up by creditors and likely auctioned off. Meaning the rights could be scattered to the wind or picked up by a company with no intention of developing a new game or keeping old material in print. Or worse, the rights could have been chopped up so that it became a confusing quagmire to figure out who owns what precisely. This actually has happened in many cases in tabletop roleplaying over the decades with several games currently (and likely permanently) out of print because nobody knows who owns the rights to them.
With the OGL, it was ensured that, at least in some capacity, Dungeons & Dragons would survive.
When Wizards of the Coast decided to update the game to the 4th Edition, they decided not to release 4th Edition rules under the OGL, but offered publishers an alternate but more restrictive license called the Game System License (GSL). This license was so unpopular it's difficult to even find a copy of the license online anymore.
As part of this move to 4th Edition, Wizards of the Coast canceled their contract with a company called Paizo to create the official D&D magazines Dragon and Dungeon. Paizo, who were also publishing campaign collections called Adventure Paths under the OGL, decided they wanted to keep making material for D&D 3rd Edition. So they created their own version of D&D called Pathfinder. Pathfinder became very popular in the gaming community as an alternative to D&D 4e. For modern fans, the home campaign that eventually became Critical Role started out as a Pathfinder campaign.
Due to a combination of factors, Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was not as successful as Wizards of the Coast's new owner, Hasbro, hoped it would be. It was not a "failure" in terms of a tabletop roleplaying game as it sold very well for a TTRPG and maintained its spot as the highest-selling RPG in the industry through mass-market channels throughout its lifetime (even if Pathfinder did spend a year out-selling it in hobby channels like comic book and game stores). But Hasbro is a multibillion-dollar corporation and they expected D&D to perform as well as their other large brands and it underperformed to that expectation.
So when Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition was in development in 2014 under the name "D&D Next", expectations from Hasbro were lowered and far more realistic. They were more hands-off and less focused on aggressive monetization of the brand. This meant that D&D 5e was released under the OGL. A new boom of third-party content resulted. Several companies ran Kickstarter campaigns for D&D 5e-compatible material, some raising hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars.
Then, thanks to huge gains in the audience from live streaming, YouTube, and podcasting, Dungeons & Dragons became a major hit again under 5e. The game experienced a revitalization and managed to meet the high expectations that Hasbro had for 4e.
The New Open Gaming License
In 2022, Wizards of the Coast announced they were "refreshing" D&D 5e with a new product codenamed "OneD&D". This would not be a new edition, just an update to the previous edition. All 5e material would still be compatible with the new "OneD&D".
In December of 2022, rumors started floating around that Wizards of the Coast was going to "abolish" the Open Gaming License. These rumors were based on pure speculation and "insider information" which turned out to be only partially accurate. Just before Christmas, Wizards of the Coast made a blog post on D&D Beyond (their online portal for D&D) explaining that OneD&D would still use the Open Gaming License, but an updated version of the license.
This new version of the license would function less like the GNU Public License for open-source software on which the OGL was based on, but more like the license that Epic uses for its Unreal Engine for video games. Companies could still use the OGL, but would have to register their sales if they make more than $50,000. If a company makes more than $750,000 a year in gross sales, it will have to pay a royalty to Wizards of the Coast.
In January, "leaks" of this new OGL appeared online via YouTube channels reading select pieces of it. Speculation and rumors ran rampant once again that Wizards of the Coast is "revoking" the OGL.
After almost a week of this, the actual Open Gaming License v1.1 document was also leaked. This was sent to some third-party publishers to get feedback and make them aware of the changes in advance of a public announcement under NDA. The document was split into two sections, the actual License itself which was written as a legal document and a commentary section that is not-legally-binding explanations of the intent of the legalese in that section.
Much of the speculation was based on early leaks, which focused on the not-legally-binding commentary section rather than the actual legal terms of the license. The one that caused the most concern was a statement "de-authorizing" all prior versions of the Open Gaming License.
This story broke out of the tabletop roleplaying news outlets and online community, who began to cover the story as well including outlets like Gizmodo, iO9, Polygon, and Forbes. In many cases, these outlets do not normally cover TTRPGs and Wizards of the Coast had yet to comment, so they ran the story with the version full of speculation and rumor framed by people who had a long history of criticizing Wizards of the Coast (for reasons justified and less so) because it was the only story they had.
Legal experts began to weigh in as well, with a decided split between those who believe that Wizards of the Coast COULD revoke the OGL and those who believe that Wizards of the Coast could only do so for those who agree to the new OGL v1.1 but NOT for people who did not agree to this license.
In the fallout of these events, several tabletop roleplaying companies began making announcements to stop producing third-party material for Dungeons & Dragons. Some announced a new focus on their own original systems, and others stated they planned to develop a version of D&D that they could legally publish without using the OGL.
And, as of January 11, 2023, this is where we're at. Wizards of the Coast only released a "We're working on a statement, please be patient" style statement only posted as a tweet, but no other comment since December.
So...CAN They Revoke the OGL? AKA I, Someone Who Is Not a Lawyer, Explains Legal Issues
When the rumors started in December, I spoke with a couple of lawyers I know, one of whom works in the TTRPG industry as a side-gig and one who works often with open software licenses. Other legal experts have weighed in as well. And the answer to that question is "...maybe?"
The entire case for revoking the OGL is based on a single clause in the original Open Gaming License that allows for the updating of the license. This cause states that, if the license is updated, creators may use any "authorized version" of the license.
However, the license itself does not state who authorizes the license or a process for making a different version of the license no longer authorized. Also, the OGL v1.0a (the older version) only has a process for revoking the license if one party violates the license. There are no other conditions for revoking the license listed in the OGL v1.0a. Also, case law exists for companies attempting to revoke rights under the GPL and other open-source software licenses where they were not legally allowed to.
However (again), the OGL states that the license is "perpetual", meaning it does not have an expiration date. It does NOT state that it is "irrevocable". Meaning that some legal experts believe that it CAN be revoked.
However (again again), when dealing with lawsuits over licenses and contracts, there are two things to keep in mind. In general (and varying on jurisdiction), ambiguity in a contract is generally interpreted as the fault of the side who drafted the contract and so, if the terms of a contract are unclear, the courts will generally side in favor of the one who did NOT write the contract. Yes, I said "generally" a lot because it all comes down to details and we won't know for sure how this will play out unless it goes to court.
Secondly, courts will examine things like industry standards when determining the validity of an interpretation of a contract, and the established industry standard within the TTRPG industry is that the OGL could not be revoked, a standard established by Wizards of the Coast themselves in 2006 when they stated so clearly in a FAQ about the license (formerly on their website, now only available via the Wayback machine...and this isn't because they're trying to hide it, but because they revamped their entire website several years ago and a whole lot of posts and documents from the 2000s were removed).
Finally, the Open Gaming License is used by companies beyond Wizards of the Coast. I don't even mean like Paizo (Pathfinder/Starfinder), Pelgrane Press (13th Age), and EN Publishing (Level Up) who made D&D derivative games, but systems like Basic Roleplay from Chaosium that powers Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest, FATE which powers the licensed Dresden Files RPG, D6 System used by West End Games before that company collapsed for Ghostbusters and Star Wars, and several others. The systems released by these companies have NOTHING to do with Wizards of the Coast or Dungeons & Dragons, so "revoking" the OGL would directly affect them despite not interacting with Wizards of the Coast's IP in any way.
So CAN Wizards of the Coast revoke the Open Gaming License? Maybe, but probably not. But the bigger question is...do they actually WANT to do it? I mean, yeah, they probably WANT to, but what I mean is do I think it is their actual plan to revoke the OGL?
What I Think Wizards of the Coast is Actually Doing AKA It's Bad in a Different Way
Wizards of the Coast purchased D&D Beyond, a website that acted as a character builder and digital storefront for official Dungeons & Dragons material, last year for several million dollars. They also announced their own virtual tabletop (VTT) is in the works, a system that allows people to play RPGs remotely by simulating the tabletop experience on a computer or tablet. They also have a licensing deal with OneBookShelf (the company that owns the VTT Roll20 and the digital storefront DriveThruRPG) for Dungeonmasters Guild, a site that allows community content creators to make their own D&D products under a license more permissive than the OGL in content (you can set your adventures in Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft and use characters like Drizzt and Raistlin) but that requires payment of royalties to Wizards of the Coast.
I believe that Wizards of the Coast wants to encourage third-parties to sign the OGL v1.1 in order to gain access to their walled garden digital storefronts. Because D&D Beyond and the VTT are first-party products and Wizards of the Coast has a far larger marketing budget, they can easily create an environment where the vast majority of the tabletop gaming customer base uses their marketplaces. Meaning if you want access to millions of customers, you HAVE to go through Wizards of the Coast and agree to their royalty terms.
After a few years, this would give Wizards of the Coast the same dominance in the online tabletop gaming space as they have in the mass market space through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Target, and other mainstream retail stores. And when the eventual Sixth Edition is released that is no longer compatible with 5e, they can release that document under the OGL v1.1 and cut off anyone from creating products without agreeing to the terms.
However, I don't think they want to eliminate the OGL v1.0a for ALL creations. It would be an iffy legal case and, as you've likely seen, would be a public relations nightmare. It would also be a bad move for Wizards of the Coast as the company (like all TTRPG companies) relies heavily on freelancers. Freelancers who typically get experience by writing and publishing on OGL material. I'd be utterly shocked if there was anyone working at Wizards of the Coast right now in a game design capacity who did NOT, if not getting their start in OGL material, at least published something under the OGL for D&D 3rd Ed, 3.5, Pathfinder, or 5e.
Not only would revoking the OGL v1.0a entirely be a costly endeavor, it would be a fruitless one. You may have seen in the various discussions the phrase, "You can't copyright game rules". This is true - game mechanics are covered in intellectual property law by patents, not copyright. You cannot copyright a set of game rules, you can only copyright the expression of those rules.
Side note: This is also the reason why every online recipe starts with an overly-long blog post about the recipe's role in the author's life - they can't copyright the actual recipe because it's just a list of ingredients and a description of the steps. They CAN copyright the story surrounding the recipe though, so if some bot steals their blog post and reposts it, they'll know because the story that IS protected under copyright was likely stolen as well.
While it isn't necessarily an easy process because it requires interpreting what is and is not a "creative expression" of describing the rules, it IS possible to recreate pretty much any game's core system in a way that is perfectly legal under copyright law. Kit Walsh wrote about this for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (though I disagree with some of her other conclusions here, that part is a pretty accurate explanation).
Side note: The EFF formed thanks to tabletop roleplaying games. The US Secret Service raided Steve Jackson Games, the publishers of GURPS who eventually went on to create the card game Munchkin. A group of lawyers represented SJG in their lawsuit against the government, and those lawyers decided to form the EFF as an organization to continue defending digital rights. I did a video about it a few years ago.
The OGL's primary value is that it addresses this hole in intellectual property law. While it's possible to publish compatible material for a game system without a license or even recreate the entire game system, it's not exactly easy. There are many ways that creators can accidentally violate copyright without realizing it.
For example, many Old School Rennaissance systems attempt to re-create the rules from older editions of Dungeons & Dragons which were NOT released under the OGL by using the material that IS in the OGL. However, they are limited in using some terms because they are too descriptive rather than functional, therefore falling under a creative expression. Like in previous editions, each level of a character class had its own title. Like Thieves in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition went from 1st level Rogue to 2nd level Footpad to 3rd level Cutpurse and so on. Those cannot be reproduced, but most other aspects of level advancement can.
The OGL solved the problem by giving clear guidance on what could and could not be used. Meaning Wizards of the Coast didn't have to worry about a dozen different versions of the 5th Edition of the D20 System popping up under different names -- completely bypassing their core rulebooks -- because it was unnecessary.
So I don't think Wizards of the Coast plans to announce a complete unilateral revoking of the OGL v1.0a nor never intended to do so. I think the plan was to introduce the royalty-based license first, using access to their walled garden as the benefit, then eventually switch entirely to the new license for Sixth Edition a few years down the line.
So What IS So Bad About the License?
The Unreal Engine license from Epic is a godsend for independent developers. The number of patents, copyrights, sublicenses, and so on involved in a video game engine make it necessary to obtain a license. A license with no up-front cost that only charges royalties after a certain level of gross sales is AMAZING for small developers because they can start working on a game and take risks because of lowered start-up costs of obtaining a license. It also means that, if the game isn't a big hit, the company isn't still on the hook for royalty payments off the paltry sum they make in sales.
None of that is the case in tabletop roleplaying games.
All this license does is allow Wizards of the Coast to start skimming profits off of other companies. If a creator's product makes more than $750,000 in gross sales, they have to start paying royalties on amounts over that. So say my Kickstarter takes off and funds for $800,000, I only owe royalties on $50,000 not the full $800,000.
However, part of the license makes clear that ALL FUNDS RAISED through a Kickstarter have the license applied. The thing is that most of the TTRPG Kickstarters that make over $750,000 do so through selling things other than the game product itself. Miniatures, sculptures, t-shirts, art books, personalized videos, creators running the game for backers, stuff like that which are products that ARE NOT licensed under the OGL. They don't include any material from the game so are not OGL material. BUT under this license, Wizards of the Coast gets to skim money off of those unrelated products.
On top of that, the license includes a sweetheart deal for Kickstarter. If you use Kickstarter to crowdfund your game, you only have to pay 20% royalties rather than the normal 25%. This comes on the heels of multiple competitors to Kickstarter gaining traction, such as BackerKit and GameFound. This is anti-competitive behavior.
Finally, if you don't pay royalties on time, you have to pay interest. Okay, sure...but the rate is 1.5% PER MONTH. That is a 19.56% per year interest rate which would be shitty for a credit card, let alone just for late fees on a royalty payment. If you screw up and underpay by 10% or more (easy to do when there's two royalty rates for different outlets between Kickstarter and all other sales), you're responsible for paying the costs of Wizards of the Coast auditing the account to determine the amount. How much these costs will be is not stated.
The OGL v1.1 also changes how material is used. While the OGL always had a share-a-like aspect to it so that, if you created an awesome class or feat or whatever, Wizards of the Coast could use it as well in their products...so could anyone else. For example, if I made a really cool Pirate class in my OGL book, you could use that Pirate class in your own book. Under the OGL v1.1, this is no longer the case. The flow of content is one-way ONLY to Wizards of the Coast. THEY can use any material created under the OGL, but no one else can.
This specific clause also causes problems for companies making licensed work. For example, Cubicle 7 released an OGL 5th Edition version of their Doctor Who roleplaying game, while Free League Publishing came out with a 5e Lord of the Rings RPG. Because of this clause in the license, those products would be impossible to make because Cubicle 7 doesn't own Doctor Who. The BBC does. Free League doesn't own Lord of the Rings, the Tolkien Estate does (technically, Embracer Group bought them, but that's a whole other mess). Cubicle 7 and Free League does not have the right to give Wizards of the Coast access to that intellectual property, but the OGL v1.1 REQUIRES that they do so.
OGL games using licensed properties have been a staple of the OGL since it came out. In the 3rd Ed era, there were D20 System RPGs for Babylon 5, Farscape, Warcraft, Stargate SG-1, Conan the Barbarian, and a lot more. It was a good way for smaller companies to grab licenses that weren't used and make a big splash as well as to allow customers access to games set in their favorite fictional settings without hoping Wizards of the Coast would show interest (as they did, making D20 versions of Wheel of Time, Star Wars, and a few other licensed properties during this era).
Further, there's a clause that allows Wizards of the Coast the right to revoke the OGL at their discretion. This is framed as allowing them to revoke the OGL from anyone publishing offensive material that's racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. but that is NOT spelled out in the legally-binding section of the document. Meaning that if someone at Wizards of the Coast doesn't like something a creator has posted on social media, they can pull the license. This clause also eliminates all rights to challenge this: You cannot sue and there is no arbitration. Wizards of the Coast decides what material is and is not offensive.
And even if it WAS enforced as stated, there have been recent controversies with "ethics clauses" like this being enforced against women, BIPOC, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, and other marginalized groups describing the bigotry, prejudice, and oppression they suffer under claims it violates the terms of the license. I'm not saying Wizards of the Coast WOULD do that, but at the same time, they don't have the best track record in these matters...
Then there's a new Indemnity clause. This means that if a creator publishes something under the OGL that gets them sued, Wizards of the Coast can decide the creator isn't defending the lawsuit well enough, take it over, and then bill the creator for all legal fees. It would be a rare situation (someone would have to work hard to get a claim that would involve the OGL itself in court), but the fact that Wizards reserves the right to take over a lawsuit and stick the creator with the bill isn't a good thing.
Then there's the "Other Products" section that expressly forbids the use of the OGL in the creation of any product other than a tabletop roleplaying game product. The comments section (the "not legally binding" bit) clarifies a list of products this covers including "videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."
Of all of these, the only ones in which the OGL would even remotely apply would be virtual tabletops, apps, and computer games. And even that would be very specific cases where they recreate game rules from D&D. A novel doesn't include game rules. A video doesn't include game rules. A song doesn't include game rules. NONE of this stuff requires using the OGL in the first place so I have no idea why any of this is included (or rather, excluded) unless there are some further legal shenanigans planned for the future that affects Twitch, YouTube, and TikTok.
So yeah, this license is a garbage fire that's not good for creators and not good for the long-term health of Dungeons & Dragons as a game. Even if I don't believe that Wizards of the Coast plans to eliminate the OGL v1.0a and destroy a large portion of the tabletop roleplaying industry in the process, I do think their plan is detrimental to the hobby and reflects long-term plans for further anti-competitive behavior.
What Happens Now?
As of right now (early afternoon in North America on January 11, 2023), we're still waiting on an official statement from Wizards of the Coast. Until they make some official move, everyone in the industry is in a bit of a holding pattern or making plans for the worst.
For the vast majority of Dungeons & Dragons players, none of this means anything. There are millions of people who just play their regular game, use material from the core books, and that's it. They don't follow the industry, they likely don't even know that dedicated tabletop game stores exist let alone ever been to their local store because they bought their books from Amazon or Barnes & Noble and their dice from Target or Dollar General. They've never been on DriveThruRPG, aren't aware Pathfinder exists, and have put exactly as much consideration into following Wizards of the Coast accounts on social media as they have in following Starbucks.
However, the online tabletop RPG community has made a LOT of noise about this. Like I said earlier, more mainstream outlets have picked up this story. Hashtags related to it have been trending off and on all week on Twitter. People like @wilwheaton and Gail Simone are talking about the controversy. Some of these players, who make up the vast majority of the customer base for Dungeons & Dragons, might get curious. They won't understand what the OGL is or why it matters, but they'll come away with the impression that Wizards of the Coast did something that hurt small publishers and people don't like it.
Whatever happens, keep your friendly game designers in mind. Even the ones working for Wizards of the Coast. Many publishers have serious questions about their ability to continue as a business, and many creators are facing stress and burnout seeking off-ramps out of tabletop RPGs. Some other independent creators and their fans are taking the opportunity to be assholes by gloating over the situation, something which helps nobody. Designers who work for Wizards are being harassed even though this is very obviously a corporate-level decision that the people writing the game have absolutely no control over.
In short, the future is uncertain and it costs nothing to be kind to the people suffering right now.
Edit for a Post-Script: I've seen a post floating around Tumblr about this situation that tries to play off this situation as Good Ackshually because the OGL always involved signing away rights to gain access to something you already had. I want to reiterate a point I made above: "You can't copyright game mechanics" is far more complicated than a simple statement. Even the post itself explains all the legal pitfalls with that assumption by pointing out issues of mingling and other ways rules can be protected under copyright law. What the OGL did was allow independent creators with no budget - which is every single tabletop roleplaying game company outside of WotC, Paizo, and maybe a handful of others owned by large companies like Edge Studios (Azmodee/Embracer Group), White Wolf (Paradox Interactive), and a few others and even THOSE are tiny subsidiaries in a larger corporate umbrella. Pretty much every other roleplaying game company on the planet is under 10 total employees (often just one or two) and a bunch of freelancers.
This industry does not have the capital to hire a lawyer every time they want to release a new product to ensure the IP doesn't violate the law. The OGL allows those companies a clear framework to publish compatible material with the game system used by at LEAST 80% of the customer base of the industry without fear of legal threats. This is the difference between theory and practice. In theory, publishing without a license is better but in practice, it's a money sink and legal minefield. And telling publishers and professionals who have been working under the license for two decades now they should be thankful the entire industry is under threat of being upended is condescending at best.
Edit Part 2: I knew I'd forget some things that are terrible about the OGL v1.1
First, there are now two licenses, a Commercial and a Non-Commercial one. I still haven't figured out the purpose since it's the same license only the Commercial one has all the bits about royalties. It seems redundant because if someone's not making money, they wouldn't meet the threshold for reporting gross sales anyway since they don't make money.
Anyway, to the actual issue I forgot: Information gathering!
You have to register every single product you release under the OGL v1.1 with Wizards of the Coast. You must describe the product, state where you will offer it for sale, what price you will charge, provide contact information, and "filling out a form" (they don't state what other information will be on this form). There are no restrictions whatsoever placed on how Wizards of the Coast can use this information. Even the most benign version of how this information can be used is anti-competitive as it would give Wizards of the Coast free market research - if all products have to be registered but only products that make $50,000 in gross sales must have their sales reported, then Wizards of the Coast knows what products are selling and which ones are not.
The RPG industry has horrible market research information. There are only a handful of places to track what people are actually buying or playing. Few companies release sales information. All you can do is check Kickstarter yourself for what products are crowdfunding well, use ICv2's reporting which is limited to physical sales only at participating hobby game stores in North America (leaving out any store that doesn't participate, mass market outlets like Amazon, direct sales through a publisher's website, digital or print-on-demand sales from DriveThruRPG, etc.), and quarterly user reports from virtal tabletops Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. That's ALL we have to judge where the market is. Having access to that kind of information would give Wizards of the Coast an even larger edge in the RPG market, which they already dominate.
And that's the benign reading. For example, there are no restrictions in the OGL v1.1 against selling that information to third parties. Granted, the European Union would have some things to say about that. Also, remember that the OGL v1.1 flows one-way. Wizards of the Coast can republish anything they like with no compensation or even credit provided to the previous author. If they see a particular product is selling well, they can just republish it themselves.
Edit 3: Wizards of the Coast FINALLY released a statement and...fuck me, I did NOT expect them to give up on the royalties. I figured that was the primary motivation for the license update. They're also changing the terms to make clear that Wizards of the Coast does not have the ability to publish material from third-parties (that part of the license was meant to protect them in case of convergent design, where somebody's third-party published adventure or sourcebook coincidentally has the same elements as a new sourcebook or one of the new big-budget TV/film/video game projects and just overreached according to the statement).
They still don't address the actual "open" part of the open license that would allow third-party publishers to share their material with other third-party publishers. There have also stated that content already released under the OGL v1.0a will not be affected by the change to a new OGL license (rumors are they're changing it from "OGL v1.1" to "OGL v2.0" but that's not in the statement), but have NOT stated whether they believe they have the right to unilaterally prevent anyone from continuing to use the OGL v1.0a if they do not agree to the new OGL. Both of these are major concerns with the new license.
However, we DO have a good update: Paizo is spearheading a new open license called the Open RPG Creative License or the ORC License. You can read about it in the link, but the primary points are that Paizo will NOT own this license nor will anyone else who makes money publishing RPGs - it will be managed by a non-profit to ensure that no company in the future can exact unilateral changes that affect the entire industry. The license will be perpetual and irrevocable. So far, major TTRPG companies participating include Paizo (Pathfinder, Starfinder), Chaosium (Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest), Kobold Press (prolific 5e OGL publisher), Green Ronin (Dragon Age, The Expanse, Modern AGE), Atlas Games (Ars Magica, Over the Edge), Legendary Games (third-party OGL publisher of 5e, Pathfinder, Starfinder, and Savage Worlds), Pinnacle Entertainment Group (Savage Worlds, Deadlands), Rogue Genius Games (Owen K.C. Stephens' company), and I don't know how many others since the announcement was made.
We won't know for sure how this will shake out for the industry until the terms of the new OGL and the terms of the ORC License are made public, but either way, a trust has been broken as a multibillion dollar corporation came after small publishers trying to scrape together enough to make any money at all off their games, and the industry won't forget that easily.
EDIT FINALE
It's now January 29, 2023, and there's been a huge update that should close out this entire saga.
A couple weeks ago, Wizards of the Coast released a draft of the OGL v1.2 along with a survey for public feedback. The new version dropped the royalties entirely along with any claims of ownership to content created under the license and the registration requirements. It did keep the "morality clause" that was vaguely worded and overly broad allowing them to revoke the license from any company producing a product they considered "harmful", "obscene", or "illegal" without defining those terms. Meaning they could revoke the license from a company if LGBTQ+ content is deemed as "obscene" (which has happened before with licensed D&D content), or "illegal" if it includes queer content in some countries or "Critical Race Theory" in some American states, or "harmful" as "this is harmful to our profits because it's selling too well". The new version of the OGL also maintained that the OGL v1.0a would be "de-authorized".
The other attempt to placate critics was releasing 58 pages of the SRD 5.1 (the document that outlines what parts of the rules for Dungeons & Dragons were considered Open Gaming Content under the OGL v1.0a) would be released under a Creative Commons license. The pages included rules for combat, ability checks, monster abilities, and a few other aspects of the game but would NOT include races/species, classes, backgrounds, spells, magic items, or monster stat blocks. Basically, these 58 pages were functionally useless on their own as they referenced rules that were not included in the CC-licensed content. It would be impossible to create adventures (no monsters or treasure) or sourcebooks (no classes, races/species, or spells) under this license, which makes up the vast majority of third-party OGL content for 5e. I should also note the SRD 5.1 is over 400 pages long, meaning they released just over 10% of the already-stripped-down rules.
The survey went out about a week ago and, on Thursday, D&D Beyond announced on Twitter the results were pretty obvious the OGL v1.2 wasn't helping matters. And on Friday, January 27, the company announced that the survey would be closed early (it was originally scheduled to run until February 7) because between 85% to over 90% of people participating responded negatively to the questions posed in the survey. In response, Wizards of the Coast stated:
The Open Gaming License v1.0a would be left in place completely untouched as it has been since 2000.
The SRD 5.1 would be released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
This is not a "we will do it at some point in the future pinkie swear" thing. As of that posting, the SRD 5.1 is now available under the Creative Commons license.
So the situation is resolved. Not only did Wizards of the Coast back down from their plans, they released more of the game to the public than was originally released.
This won't stop Wizards of the Coast from trying something similar in the future, but they'll have to do it with an entirely new and incompatible edition of the game. Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition is now freed as the rules are permanently and irrevocably part of the Creative Commons with no legal method for Wizards of the Coast to take it back.
113 notes · View notes