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

[mamba]

Further: I think most of us look at the OGL situation and think that obviously it has been great for everyone, including Hasbro/WotC. Because it has definitely been great for us. That's because it has grown the economic pie, and so everyone's slice of that pie has gotten larger. But Hasbro might be looking at that pie and saying, "you know, we could do better with a smaller pie that we own more of.

yeah, that is what they are thinking, we will find out whether they were right. Given that D&D had its best year ever, there was not really a reason to change things up, it's not like they were struggling and had to try to turn things around

 

[mamba]

The OGL 1.0a was in 2000, and the Creative Commons license became a thing in 2001. It predates it. The OGL 1.0a was the industry's Creative Common/open-source license. This is why it is not D&D-specific. The SRD was D&D specific and was included under it, but the OGL itself is system agnostic.

not sure what this has to do with anything. We are discussing having an new go-to RPG under a truly open license

 

[mamba]

If a game - like PF2, or Delta Green - can be published in substantially the same form but without needing to enjoy the protection of a licence from WotC, I don't think that is a good example of the OGL operating to support WotC's interests in promoting D&D. That RPG was already in competition with D&D!

there is a lot of material under the OGL that actually is for 5e instead of an alternative RPG

 

[Clint_L]

I don't see how Critical Role the stream has anything to do with the OGL. They play 5e D&D, they don't play the SRD or even an OGL game.

I'm thinking of the Critical Role shop, of The Legend of Vox Machina, of their new Tal'Dorei sourcebook (which has the OGL printed on the last page; I just checked). But more generally, I meant that the bean counters are probably looking at all the money being made in conjunction with D&D and trying to figure out how they can keep a tighter lid on things so more of it comes to them.

 

[pemerton]

Sadly, it reminds me of the calls to boycott Disney/EA/Google/Amazon and others I'm probably forgetting. They're so big and ubiquitous that avoiding them is akin to quitting a given market.

I haven't purchase anything published by WotC in about 10 years - I ordered my last 4e D&D book from the Book Depository in 2012, and in 2013 had a brief subscription to D&D insider to download all the 4e Dungeon and Dragon content.

I don't recall having purchased anything published under the OGL in the intervening period. My RPG purchases have been from "competitors" of WotC.

I wouldn't know for sure if I've bought anything produced by Hasbro - they're a pretty ubiquitous toy producer - but I don't think it would be much. I don't think they publish many of the more "speciality" boardgames that I've purchased in that time.

 

[pemerton]

there is a lot of material under the OGL that actually is for 5e instead of an alternative RPG

Sure. But I don't think those publishers are going to quite so easily move towards publishing without a licence from WotC. And if they can do so, then they will still not be competitors!

 

[Starfox]

In Europe and other parts of the world, yes. In the United States, a big nope.

Refugees welcome! You can host your websites and VTT platforms here - in the worst case, customers will need WPN to access as you likely can't direct sales towards the USA.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think, from Hasbro's point of view, the issue is that no one is paying for the D&D OS.

They are in a situation where they had a tough year, and they are looking at how to turn things around. They go through their list of properties to see what they can focus on, and they've got this thing that has incredible brand recognition. But it's not making them very much money, especially compared to Magic, which is far more of a niche product but which has historically been a very strong earner that they strongly control.

So their financial people are looking at all the money that is being made in conjunction with D&D. They look at Kickstarters, they look at media (especially on the web, but you can bet they look hard at Stranger Things and Legend of Vox Machina). They look at Paizo. They look at tie in after tie in and work out that they are actually earning very little of the money that D&D contributes to. And then they inevitably start reassessing what the OGL has done for them.

And what the OGL has done for them is a lot less tangible. It has definitely been good for some small 3PP and companies like Paizo. It's been great for Matt Mercer. It has been fantastic for fans. But how, exactly, do you measure what it has brought to Hasbro/WotC? Nobody really knows how much it contributed to the success of 5e. So it's not like the Microsoft OS because Microsoft still got paid for every OS sold, whereas Hasbro doesn't currently receive a dime for a lot of products made under the OGL. What is happening now is that Hasbro is trying to make the OGL (or at least the updated OGL) like the Microsoft OS.

The thing is (and I don't have a definitive source) but all the other D&D SRD reliant games combined amount to pennies on the dollar compared to D&D. Asking all these other creators to pay Royalties isn't doing really anything for WOTC's bottom line.

 

[mhd]

"Hey, guys, I got this bangin' software straight from my Dutch source…"

 

[mamba]

Sure. But I don't think those publishers are going to quite so easily move towards publishing without a licence from WotC. And if they can do so, then they will still not be competitors!

I am expecting many of them to go away entirely, making the D&D ecosystem poorer for it