What's Past is Prologue: Understanding the OGL Licensing Controversy in Light of the 3e/4e Transition

[Snarf Zagyg]

Of course, now I recognize that the RPG industry is bigger than just D&D and Pathfinder, and that the OGL is an incredible resource for third party publishers that the whole industry benefits from, perhaps D&D most of all. It only hurt 4e because 4e didn’t use it. The GSL was actually the thing hurting 4e. But now, I fear all the folks who started playing with 5e may end up thinking the way I used to about the OGL. It may look to them like it did to me, this weird relic of the past with a loophole that enables competition from bitter old players who can’t get with the times, and that they might celebrate the idea of it being revoked.

That's an interesting and welcome perspective, thank you. Sometimes, it is hard to remember that other people don't think the same way we do.

I am constantly reminded of this because (for example) I am someone who greatly values my on-line privacy, and remember the long-ago fights such as the clipper chip all the way to today. And yet, when I talk to some people of a different generation (not all, but some in particular that I think about) they ... don't ... care ... at all. It's hard to tell whether it's fatalism (everything is already being tracked) or just rational self-interest ("free" is good), but it's not a major concern for them, or at least not the same level as it is for me.

I wonder if this is might be similar- after all, this community has a longer memory and divergent interests. For the average 12-24 yr. old D&D player, will they care? Or will they (like you, previously) just think this is a bunch of old timers screaming at clouds?

Dunno. Maybe someone can tell us if it's trending on TikTok?

 

[Clint_L]

The OP is a truly excellent read. Thoughtful, balanced, informative. Well done!

I concur that corporations normally act rationally, from within their context - this doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes or act immorally, just that they have a plan that, at least initially, made sense to them. And since this whole situation around the OGL 1.1 didn't make much sense to me, I had trouble believing it. I think my problem is partially that I was thinking gamers matter to D&D a lot more than Hasbro thinks they matter to D&D.

It's counterintuitive to think that gamers might not be that important to the success of a game, but consider Marvel (I guarantee you that Hasbro is considering Marvel). The publication of actual comic books is small potatoes - tiny potatoes - in the Marvel portfolio, so much so that the entertainment division was split off from the publishing division ages ago. They still make comics, and some of their plot lines on TV and films use aspects of those plot lines and themes, but in terms of income, actual physical comic books barely exist from Disney/Marvel's point of view. Marvel has moved way, way past needing comic book readers to be successful.

That's what Hasbro wants from the D&D brand - an entertainment behemoth, not a book seller. So from their perspective, it might be worth alienating the gaming community to lock down an IP that they are hoping to turn into something much bigger than a game. I think this will prove to be a mistake (or at least their clumsy handling of the situation), but time will tell.

 

[Lanefan]

I. Remembering the 3e/4e Transition
It also means you could mess around with anybody just as long as they aren't also a member. It's like a license to steal. It's a license to do anything.

The first thing to remember is that 4e did not arise in a vacuum; it was the product of a company. And that company ... was Hasbro. Let's remember the timeline of TSR/WoTC/Hasbro and the OGL.
1997- WoTC announces the acquisition of TSR.
1998- WoTC begins work on 3e, OGL
September 1999- Hasbro acquires WoTC
2000- WoTC released 3e and the OGL
January 2001- Peter Adkinson resigns from WoTC
August 2001- WoTC is consolidated into Hasbro (previously operating autonomously)

Keep in mind Hasbro didn't buy WotC because of D&D; that's unrelated. They bought WotC to get their mitts on the dual-track M:tG and Pokemon gravy trains. D&D was no more than "there too".

Then 3e was a moderate success, followed by another moderate success in 3.5e, and so they thought something like "Maybe we can get another gravy train on the tracks here". And maybe they could have; we'll never know, as no matter how good a system it was 4e was doomed from the start by incompetent marketing and some sheer bad luck.

They did get their gravy train a few years later with 5e...and now for some inexplicable reason they seem intent on running it off the end of the track where the bridge is out.

A not-very-brief history of 4e's issues and why it wasn't a market success:

A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.

B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).

And it didn't stop there. At GenCon 2009, I was in the room when the WotC crew came into a 4e seminar and started their presentation with (only slightly paraphrased) "All the previous editions suck - this is the one you want to play". Hardly a brilliant approach: the custodians of the game telling people the version(s) they've played for years (or decades!) sucks.

If memory serves, the rest of that seminar kinda went over like a lead balloon.

 

[dave2008]

See, for me, this is partly what an edition change should be for a successful version of the game. Incremental improvements here and there to collect the things you've learned to do better. A major shift is just a good way to risk losing customers on an unproven hope to gain more. It may be fodder for a separate game, optional module, whatever. Gambling on a major shift without something really forcing you to do so or being at such a low trough you've got little to risk strikes me as irresponsible.
This, to me, would be especially true for an edition timed for an arbitrary release date - a 50th anniversary - rather than hard data about sales in decline. I would have been perfectly willing to shell out money for a 50th anniversary D&D, very similar to 5e. For one thing, the art would be new, organization of the materials would (hopefully) be improved, and my current books are 10 years old and showing their wear.

...until they effed over their supporting ecology of 3rd party publishers, resources, and the thousands of people that will affect.

This is pretty much my take as well.

 

[Branduil]

One thing that's occurred to me, as a possible key difference from 4e: While it's true 4e was highly divisive, that division was double-edged sword. Many people legitimately liked 4e as a game, it was a game that was confident and consistent in its own philosophy. It's also quite difficult to design a clone of 4e, as it has a huge number of individual, interacting mechanics.

5e is different. It was designed to be the game for everyone. But now it can no longer be that. It does have its own virtues, but those things-- bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage-- are very high-level and much easier to adapt to different systems than 4e's powers and roles. 5e becomes a much less appealing game if it's not THE game, and it has to compete with games which are willing to push the envelope.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One of the ironies of the current situation to me is that, in my opinion, if Hasbro/WoTc shut their mouths, built the VTT and released One D&D with no OGL shenanigans, in about 5 years time they would have captured the market and then they could have rolled back the OGL and monetised.

 

[Argyle King]

I expect as the years ago by WotC will center their game design philosophy around microtransactions and subscriptions fundamentally altering the way the game is played.

Digital Miniatures would be easy to monetize in a Fortnite-like manner.

•A company could sell various cosmetic options. (This might cynical, but I could even see some of the options being marketed around "support" for marginalized communities.)

•A selection of animations for spellcasting and various actions could be sold in the vein of the dances in Fortnite.

 

[kunadam]

That's what Hasbro wants from the D&D brand - an entertainment behemoth, not a book seller. So from their perspective, it might be worth alienating the gaming community to lock down an IP that they are hoping to turn into something much bigger than a game. I think this will prove to be a mistake (or at least their clumsy handling of the situation), but time will tell.

The OGL was for the most part about selling books. One could not make a D&D movie, nor a Forgotten Realms musical or a new novel for Spelljammer. They still have their IPs, they could have still done all the computer games they wanted (Pathfinder already has 2 videogames, does 5e have any? Baldur's Gate 3 maybe)
So I do not see how they could not do all the monetization they want in these areas.

 

[Scribe]

One of the ironies of the current situation to me is that, in my opinion, if Hasbro/WoTc shut their mouths, built the VTT and released One D&D with no OGL shenanigans, in about 5 years time they would have captured the market and then they could have rolled back the OGL and monetised.

And thrown away 5 years of maximized profits?! Perish the thought!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Digital Miniatures would be easy to monetize in a Fortnite-like manner.

•A company could sell various cosmetic options. (This might cynical, but I could even see some of the options being marketed around "support" for marginalized communities.)

•A selection of animations for spellcasting and various actions could be sold in the vein of the dances in Fortnite.

Tip of the iceberg yeah, on monetizing the minis.

This is partly why it's so dumb for WotC to be pissing off the 3PPs and just about everyone because it's going to make it a lot less politically acceptable for people engage with WotC on the monetization. If WotC hadn't done this, I could easily see things like Critical Role voice packs which would allow your character to say some things from some radial menu or whatever, in the voice of your favourite CR character. But when they're embarrassing themselves this hard, it's like, increasingly literally every hour to associate with them. Maybe over the years that'll decline, if they handle backing out of this very gracefully, but they've really shot themselves in the foot totally unnecessarily.