Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[S'mon]

And it's this that has me wondering about the timing. If lawfare is the intended process for the "revoke it" idea, what is the reason as to why WotC is no longer discussing it? It was intended for release on January 4, and if they had already committed to that view, there isn't a reason I can see for the delay in discussion.

PR reasons maybe? But if lawfare was already the intended, the PR ramifications would have already been prepared beforehand. Incompetence is always an option (Glass Onions), but it really seems to me beyond incompetent to have not run a "how's this going to affect our PR" before releasing such an industry-changing announcement.

joe b.

Yes, I agree. I still think most likely there is right now a lot of internal turmoil at WoTC-Hasbro as they decide how to move forward. Most likely there are scorched-earth policy advocates and there are relative doves who want to salvage the situation. I'm guessing Macris's lawyer friend most likely was only in contact with the scorched-earth nuke-em-all side.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yes, I agree. I still think most likely there is right now a lot of internal turmoil at WoTC-Hasbro as they decide how to move forward. Most likely there are scorched-earth policy advocates and there are relative doves who want to salvage the situation. I'm guessing Macris's lawyer friend most likely was only in contact with the scorched-earth nuke-em-all side.

What I'm wondering is if it may hint that the lawfare option actually wasn't on the table when the NoOgl was conceived and planned for release on the 4th. If it had been discussed and agree upon as the course of action beforehand, there shouldn't be any internal dissension right now as that dissention would have already happened and been put aside because they'd decided to approve the release for the 4th.

It makes me entirely question if the lawfare scenario is actually a real one within WotC or just a person's private take on how large corporations view eliminating competition as highly desirable, or more highly desirable, than creating competitive product. There is always the chance of personal bias. I dunno. Just some thoughts.

joe b.

 

[Xyxox]

Can I ask how 3pp increase core D&D sales? I get that they are good for consumers because it gives us alternatives and choices…. But are you suggesting that people come to D&D through 3pp and not the other way around? Or is it that 3pp sustain people playing 5e and then prolong future buying from WOC.

I haven’t bought anything from WOC for 2 1/2 years and test spend £20-£30 a month on average on 5e and D&D. All from 3rd parties, roll20 marketplace, Paizo, a couple of Patreons etc. With the exception of Roll20 which has its own license agreement with WoTC, all my purchases would be totally unaffected by the change to the licence.

Simple. Thirdguy Press releases The Wonderworld of Amazement. Tom, who is a DM, buys The Wonderworld of Amazement to run for his group. Dick And Harry each bring Sally and Mary to the game to try and get them involved since some of the aspects of The Wonderworld of Amazement will probably be enjoyed by Sally and Mary. Low and behold, they both have a good time and to prepare for the next session, they each run out and buy The Players Handbook.

OGL 1.0a is how WotC/Hasbro has been increasing sales to players for years.

 

[Xyxox]

I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a crowd-funding for the legal costs for Paizo, of which almost the entire OGL community would gladly support. It would be a huge boon for Paizo as they are, IMO, being effectively forced to go to court if the "revoked" aspect is not relented upon. But again, i'm not a lawyer.

joe b.

If lawfare is really what WotC/Hasbro are up to, I would make a recurring monthly donation of $100 for litigation. That's what I've been spending on WotC IP lately.

 

[S'mon]

What I'm wondering is if it may hint that the lawfare option actually wasn't on the table when the NoOgl was conceived and planned for release on the 4th. If it had been discussed and agree upon as the course of action beforehand, there shouldn't be any internal dissension right now as that dissention would have already happened and been put aside because they'd decided to approve the release for the 4th.

Maybe so, yes. It seems naive, but much stranger things have happened. I remember in the mid 1990s when TSR seemed completely divorced from reality. Some kind of bunker mentality had taken hold. Conceivably something like that has happened following Hasbro's recent problems. Looking at their 21st December press release OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D words like The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property sounds to me rather like it's coming from people who are psychologically not in a very good place. Macris' friend said they were "out for blood". They may not be thinking very rationally. There's stuff in that announcement that plainly was not true. It reminds me of Karl Rove's "We're an empire now. We create our own reality".

 

[jgbrowning]

If lawfare is really what WotC/Hasbro are up to, I would make a recurring monthly donation of $100 for litigation. That's what I've been spending on WotC IP lately.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the amount of money that passionate gamers will donate to prevent the games they like to play from no longer being able to be supported by the companies that (in many cases) wouldn't be able to continue to exist without the revenue streams from those games. I wouldn't be surprised to see a million (or more) $s in donations, and Paizo to gladly take up the banner of "we are the open gaming company!" in the process.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Maybe so, yes. It seems naive, but much stranger things have happened. I remember in the mid 1990s when TSR seemed completely divorced from reality. Some kind of bunker mentality had taken hold. Conceivably something like that has happened following Hasbro's recent problems. Looking at their 21st December press release OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D words like The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property sounds to me rather like it's coming from people who are psychologically not in a very good place. Macris' friend said they were "out for blood". They may not be thinking very rationally. There's stuff in that announcement that plainly was not true. It reminds me of "We create our own reality".

Yeah, that's the truth. I can absolutely see the nuclear option being considered now, but I do think that means that it hadn't been decided upon before the NoOgl was released (or in this case, leaked right before release). And for me, that does change how I weigh things.

joe "it's very tiring to even have to be considering these destructive, and self-destructive behaviors" b.

 

[pemerton]

If this is accurate, it implies WoTC-Hasbro really are set on the nuclear option, and that they would rather destroy the 3PP ecosystem created by the OGL than see it continue to use 'their IP'. I think this would destroy the RPG industry as we know it and set things back to something more like the 1990s. The reputational damage to WoTC would be even greater than what TSR suffered. I think the actual economic effect on WoTC would be almost as devastating as that suffered by their victims.

Even if they do destroy the 3PP world, they'll be left sitting atop a heap of ruins and in a much worse position than they were before.

I'm not as sure about the commercial implications for WotC. I'm not denying that there are some sales made by them that are driven/supported by 3PP materials, but I have doubts about how big this is as a proportion of the overall recent growth of D&D.

If Hasbro wants to "win back their IP rights" is this really directed at Paizo's present position? Or any other 3PP? Or at controlling further growth that they envisage flowing from the anticipated success of the movie? To me, it makes more sense as a future-oriented concern than vindictively trying to destroy the present ecosystem.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not as sure about the commercial implications for WotC. I'm not denying that there are some sales made by them that are driven/supported by 3PP materials, but I have doubts about how big this is as a proportion of the overall recent growth of D&D.

If Hasbro wants to "win back their IP rights" is this really directed at Paizo's present position? Or any other 3PP? Or at controlling further growth that they envisage flowing from the anticipated success of the movie? To me, it makes more sense as a future-oriented concern than vindictively trying to destroy the present ecosystem.

I think D&D's success is to a large extent goodwill-dependent, unlike the success of Microsoft Windows. I do think D&D's recent success benefitted directly from 3PP support, but more than that they benefitted from community goodwill from 2014 onwards.

No one is obliged to play D&D or buy D&D product, the way we may feel obliged to use Microsoft Windows (or Apple). I feel they are salting their own fields in a way they don't seem to understand. It's like how many companies care about comments on Twitter and media sites from 'thought leaders'; the atmosphere created by a relatively small group flows downstream to the general mass of consumers.

 

[Xyxox]

I'm not as sure about the commercial implications for WotC. I'm not denying that there are some sales made by them that are driven/supported by 3PP materials, but I have doubts about how big this is as a proportion of the overall recent growth of D&D.

If Hasbro wants to "win back their IP rights" is this really directed at Paizo's present position? Or any other 3PP? Or at controlling further growth that they envisage flowing from the anticipated success of the movie? To me, it makes more sense as a future-oriented concern than vindictively trying to destroy the present ecosystem.

If lawfare is really their intention, then they are definitely trying to vindictively destroy the present ecosystem.