Monte Cook makes a statement about the OGL and MCG license

[Leejna]

I am fairly new to DnD, when en the OGL 1.0 was made I was about 8, I do not make my living from DnD, though I have definitely enjoyed the system and resulting games greatly the past few years, and I have even begun DMing to become a better storyteller and to bring fun to other people's experiences. I also do not know who Monte Cook is (though I probably should), however I do read a lot into how people word things, and this does come off as slightly gaslighting, along the lines of "I can't believe you would question our intentions when I was there for the first OGL", no one is questioning the intent of the individuals who are writing this draft, what we are questioning is the intent of the gigantic greedy corporation behind the new OGL that is most certainly going to be exploiting it for their own gain/greed. If I created content for DnD I would definitely be considering either changing up the system I was presenting, if creating it at all, I can understand it is a business, however there is a fine line between "Hey we would like some credit" and "Hey if your stuff is good enough then legally it belongs to us and thanks for doing all our legwork for us, now go away while we reap the rewards of your hard work until the end of time". It's not right.

It can also be stated that the original OGL is the main reason the DnD market boomed as big as it did the past 2+ decades. And without it they would never be in the position to make this big of a change to try for money. So to take their hands off for 20+ years, let it explode and flourish as a community, then to turn around and say "Hey this belongs to us" is ridiculous, it's ingenious in a sense, but by no means is it right. In fact the quote "DnD is under monetized" speaks a lot to their intent and mindset. In fact they really should be fine with the old OGL because that allowed people creative freedom, to make their own supplements, three of which I backed just last year, people who based their work on the 5E system, and by that sense, DnD and WoTC. Hence boosting sales.

Long take away, I can understand the decision, however that does not mean I have to accept nor approve of it, in fact I think it's much too far, and even though I don't make a living or income on it, I am definitely considering switching to a different system, such as PF2E, to avoid supporting those decisions/mindsets.

 

[Nikosandros]

I am fairly new to DnD, when en the OGL 1.0 was made I was about 8, I do not make my living from DnD, though I have definitely enjoyed the system and resulting games greatly the past few years, and I have even begun DMing to become a better storyteller and to bring fun to other people's experiences. I also do not know who Monte Cook is (though I probably should), however I do read a lot into how people word things, and this does come off as slightly gaslighting, along the lines of "I can't believe you would question our intentions when I was there for the first OGL", no one is questioning the intent of the individuals who are writing this draft, what we are questioning is the intent of the gigantic greedy corporation behind the new OGL that is most certainly going to be exploiting it for their own gain/greed. If I created content for DnD I would definitely be considering either changing up the system I was presenting, if creating it at all, I can understand it is a business, however there is a fine line between "Hey we would like some credit" and "Hey if your stuff is good enough then legally it belongs to us and thanks for doing all our legwork for us, now go away while we reap the rewards of your hard work until the end of time". It's not right.

It can also be stated that the original OGL is the main reason the DnD market boomed as big as it did the past 2+ decades. And without it they would never be in the position to make this big of a change to try for money. So to take their hands off for 20+ years, let it explode and flourish as a community, then to turn around and say "Hey this belongs to us" is ridiculous, it's ingenious in a sense, but by no means is it right. In fact the quote "DnD is under monetized" speaks a lot to their intent and mindset. In fact they really should be fine with the old OGL because that allowed people creative freedom, to make their own supplements, three of which I backed just last year, people who based their work on the 5E system, and by that sense, DnD and WoTC. Hence boosting sales.

Long take away, I can understand the decision, however that does not mean I have to accept nor approve of it, in fact I think it's much too far, and even though I don't make a living or income on it, I am definitely considering switching to a different system, such as PF2E, to avoid supporting those decisions/mindsets.

I apologize if this is not the case, but there might be a misunderstanding here. Monte Cook is one of the designers of D&D 3rd edition and he hasn't worked for Wizards of the Coast in a long time. He's saying that the OGL was not meant to be revoked. He's also saying that his company has released their game under an open license and if people are getting nervous about open licenses in general, he's willing to revise their license to make it even safer for third parties.

 

[Reynard]

It can also be stated that the original OGL is the main reason the DnD market boomed as big as it did the past 2+ decades.

We should be careful about overly broad statements, because the D&D market and fortunes have fluctuated pretty significantly over those 2+ decades. The OGL (and STL) certainly helped launch 3E to success, but there was a lot of 3PP dissatisfaction with 3.5. Then when 4E came with the GSL, the OGL was a tool against D&D. 5E has benefited from a robust 3rd parry network (among other things) but it is important to note that 5E did NOT launch with an SRD, even while WotC turned to 3rd parties to produce early support.

All this to say: it isn't simple.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I also do not know who Monte Cook is (though I probably should), however I do read a lot into how people word things, and this does come off as slightly gaslighting, along the lines of "I can't believe you would question our intentions when I was there for the first OGL", no one is questioning the intent of the individuals who are writing this draft, what we are questioning is the intent of the gigantic greedy corporation behind the new OGL that is most certainly going to be exploiting it for their own gain/greed.

1) Monte Cook is probably the most prominent of the 3E designers, then and now, and he's gone on to have a successful third party company -- two, actually -- currently producing the Cypher system and 5E content.

2) The intent of the original folks matters for legal reasons. If Hasbro could walk in and say "well, we don't know what the long-dead drafters of the document intended," getting a ruling that the OGL was never meant to be irrevocable will be much easier. If, instead, as is happening, all those not-dead-after-all folks are saying "hey, we did our best to make it irrevocable; any failings in the language are due to our inability to craft it better," it's much more likely the existing OGL will stand.

3) Also, if Monte was going to gaslight people, he'd just use modify memory. The man loves his wizard spells.

 

[Leejna]

I apologize if this is not the case, but there might be a misunderstanding here. Monte Cook is one of the designers of D&D 3rd edition and he hasn't worked for Wizards of the Coast in a long time. He's saying that the OGL was not meant to be revoked. He's also saying that his company has released their game under an open license and if people are getting nervous about open licenses in general, he's willing to revise their license to make it even safer for third parties.

1) Monte Cook is probably the most prominent of the 3E designers, then and now, and he's gone on to have a successful third party company -- two, actually -- currently producing the Cypher system and 5E content.

2) The intent of the original folks matters for legal reasons. If Hasbro could walk in and say "well, we don't know what the long-dead drafters of the document intended," getting a ruling that the OGL was never meant to be irrevocable will be much easier. If, instead, as is happening, all those not-dead-after-all folks are saying "hey, we did our best to make it irrevocable; any failings in the language are due to our inability to craft it better," it's much more likely the existing OGL will stand.

3) Also, if Monte was going to gaslight people, he'd just use modify memory. The man loves his wizard spells.

Thank you both for clarifying, I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this regard, as well as for any confusion my post may have caused. I retract my previous "Gaslighting" statement then, it came from the assumption that he still worked there (and previous personal experiences).