WotC Rumor: OGL will not be supported starting with One D&D

[JEB]

As @JEB mentions, you have people who automatically assume WotC is lying. And then there’s the folks who will automatically presume bad faith and the worst no matter what WotC says.

So there is absolutely no upside to WotC engaging.

By that standard, Wizards shouldn't engage on any controversy that comes up, ever. There will always be folks who've decided that Wizards is anti-OGL, soulless capitalists, racists, or any number of other bad things, and can never be swayed from that view. But the majority of folks will listen, and appreciate that their concerns were addressed.

Once again, we can get a whole blog post about canon - prompted by no specific controversy that I can recall, BTW - but not a Tweet or two saying all is well on the OGL front?

 

[dave2008]

By that standard, Wizards shouldn't engage on any controversy that comes up, ever. There will always be folks who've decided that Wizards is anti-OGL, soulless capitalists, racists, or any number of other bad things, and can never be swayed from that view. But the majority of folks will listen, and appreciate that their concerns were addressed.

Once again, we can get a whole blog post about canon - prompted by no specific controversy that I can recall, BTW - but not a Tweet or two saying all is well on the OGL front?

I sure as hell hope the don't tweet it. If they want to react, please find a different channel for it

 

[Oofta]

By that standard, Wizards shouldn't engage on any controversy that comes up, ever. There will always be folks who've decided that Wizards is anti-OGL, soulless capitalists, racists, or any number of other bad things, and can never be swayed from that view. But the majority of folks will listen, and appreciate that their concerns were addressed.

Once again, we can get a whole blog post about canon - prompted by no specific controversy that I can recall, BTW - but not a Tweet or two saying all is well on the OGL front?

There's a big difference between content that should have never been approved in something they publish and giving an unfounded illogical rumor a publicity boost.

This is a tempest in a teapot, it will blow over soon no matter what WOTC does.

 

[grimslade]

The problem is that if WotC responds to the rumor, it sometimes reinforces the rumor rather than squash it. Maybe they are seeking a way to protect/give a leg up their nascent Virtual Table Top against existing competitors. I don't know. I doubt any corporate tweet or statement will be coming. The rumor is specious at best for all the reasons that Morrus outlined in his article. Open Source has detractors in the WotC/Hasbro team, I am sure, but Dancey and company did their due diligence. The OGL will stay.

 

[Azzy]

The only reason there'd be internal discussions is if they do plan to change their stance on the OGL and third-party support from the way it's been for most of 5E's run. Or are at least seriously considering the possibility.

Since it's not the design team's call (that falls to the legal team which works at the speed of slow), it's doubtful that any customer-facing personnel would be permitted to even talk about it until legal gives their green light.

 

[vecna00]

And the "WotC is lying to you, they don't care about you!" videos have started showing up on YouTube.

 

[Hussar]

It’s predictable.
If they say nothing, they’re hiding something.

If they say something they are automatically lying.

If they say that there is no substance to the rumours, the same crowd will claim victory because the only reason that WotC is changing their tune is because they were found out.

There is just zero win here.

Coming out about something that wasn’t a controversy in the first place means there aren’t anyone who can claim victory for “exposing “ WotC.

There is nothing to clarify. They never made any statement which even hints that there might be any substance to the rumour. Claims for “clarification “ should be directed at the folks making the claims. Why should WotC need to clarify anything?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s predictable.
If they say nothing, they’re hiding something.

If they say something they are automatically lying.

If they say that there is no substance to the rumours, the same crowd will claim victory because the only reason that WotC is changing their tune is because they were found out.

There is just zero win here.

Coming out about something that wasn’t a controversy in the first place means there aren’t anyone who can claim victory for “exposing “ WotC.

There is nothing to clarify. They never made any statement which even hints that there might be any substance to the rumour. Claims for “clarification “ should be directed at the folks making the claims. Why should WotC need to clarify anything?

That's what I was clarifying: the post I responded to that seemed to suggest that they wouldn't respond because they didn't want to lock down a response. That's who I wanted clarification from. I don't expect WotC to respond at all.

 

[Hussar]

That's what I was clarifying: the post I responded to that seemed to suggest that they wouldn't respond because they didn't want to lock down a response. That's who I wanted clarification from. I don't expect WotC to respond at all.

Ahh, sorry, my bad.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Since it's not the design team's call (that falls to the legal team which works at the speed of slow), it's doubtful that any customer-facing personnel would be permitted to even talk about it until legal gives their green light.

It's not the legal team's call either, it's ultimately the business people who will decide if having a 1D&D SRD fits in with the business strategy for the "new" edition. Those guys aren't going to want to limit their options by publicly committing to anything 2 years before the product is published, unless it's absolutely necessary.