We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[mamba]

It would not be monopolistic in the least. There would still be many TTRPG just not that close to the D20 base.

a monopoly does not need to be the only one around, they only need to be sufficiently dominant

 

[darjr]

I didn't see this posted? Griffon's Saddle Bag posted as well, not a lot of details though.

Instagram

www.instagram.com

 

[Remathilis]

IDK, they did similar with 4e. I've seen too many weird corporate stunts to write it off. And if they do set the whole 3rd party sphere on fire and burn it down, it could trigger an FTC investigation into monopolistic practices (not likely, but possible).

And WotC learned their lesson with a failed edition and a number of 3pp clones competing with them. They also figured out that working with these companies earned them a lot of good will and money. It was 10 years ago that Kobold Press was the creator of Tyranny of Dragons and Green Ronin did SCAG. Goodman put out three classic modules redone for WotC. Mercer wrote two books for them. They aren't going to throw them all under the bus.

Unless they want to be making a "final" evergreen edition of D&D again in 4 years...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I asked for a legally-controlling source. From your own Wikipedia link:

Black's is published by a private company, not any particular state government or the federal government. It finds its definitions by examining case law and publishing what they find. They are a secondary source, not a primary source.

Given all of that, what state's laws govern the OGL? What state law (or federal law) would Black's be looking at to extract the definition of "sublicensee" as it is used in the OGL?

As a general rule, if you don’t know what Black’s is immediately, and are looking for Wikipedia help, perhaps you shouldn’t be engaging in snarky responses to posters about legal issues?

 

[Minigiant]

IDK, they did similar with 4e. I've seen too many weird corporate stunts to write it off. And if they do set the whole 3rd party sphere on fire and burn it down, it could trigger an FTC investigation into monopolistic practices (not likely, but possible).

That's why they likely won't do it. Because it bombed before.

If WOTC is doing a GSL 2.0 with no reversion back to 5e, they probably got the okay from several big 3PP to go exclusive with 1DND or cut special deals with them to not have to fight it in court.

 

[Scribe]

And WotC learned their lesson with a failed edition and a number of 3pp clones competing with them.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I didn't see this posted? Griffon's Saddle Bag posted as well, not a lot of details though.

Instagram

www.instagram.com

They specifically note more information was coming out so they didn’t have the full picture of the OGL 1.1 at that time.

 

[overgeeked]

IDK, they did similar with 4e. I've seen too many weird corporate stunts to write it off. And if they do set the whole 3rd party sphere on fire and burn it down, it could trigger an FTC investigation into monopolistic practices (not likely, but possible).

Well see just how non-copyrightable game rules are real quick. I bet more than a few people are already working on it.

 

[FrogReaver]

As a general rule, if you don’t know what Black’s is immediately, and are looking for Wikipedia help, perhaps you shouldn’t be engaging in snarky responses to posters about legal issues?

Nailed it!

 

[overgeeked]

It would not be monopolistic in the least. There would still be many TTRPG just not that close to the D20 base.

WotC controls 95% of the RPG market. Another 4% is OGL and older editions of D&D. All other games fit within that last 1%.