How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Greg Benage]

Did you also once think Pathfinder 1 was a "heartbreaker"?

No.

 

[CapnZapp]

The Opening Arguments podcast will devote their episode to the OGL story this Friday.

OA’s Twitter indicates they are absolutely not on the side of open gaming.

Seriously: they think WotC is perfectly within their rights to change the license. They think WotC always intended to be able to change the license however they wanted. They think OGL 1.1 is no big deal—they even imply it’s better because it’s “kind of insane” that WotC doesn’t already get a cut of Pathfinder. And at worst, OA claims, “if you’re a niche commercial creator, you will probably have to talk to WotC.” This is all a “moral panic” based on (among other things) “bad contract-reading.” The Gizmodo article is “virtually fact-free” and filled with deliberately misleading “fearmongering”; fans should turn their pitchforks on the article’s author.

If this is correct, they completely and utterly missing the point.

Nobody (nobody that counts anyway) disputes WotC's legal right to change or terminate the license.

It's all about what changes they chose to make, and how this has evaporated 3PP trust in WotC.

The 3PP market is why D&D is so dominant on the market. It's all the 3PP's work, not the WotC products that is the reason why nearly everything revolves around D&D.

It doesn't matter whether the change is legal or whether WotC is "owed" royalties from Pathfinder.

All that matters is that WotC has destroyed the community trust in them, and now everybody will compete directly against D&D One.

 

[CapnZapp]

No.

Yet Pathfinder came into existence because WotC chose a similar path to what they're choosing now.

And you still choose to dismiss upcoming games as heartbreakers? You must be just as smart as the bigwigs over at WotC!

 

[CapnZapp]

They are waiting to see if the storm will die down.

You mean the biggest poodlestorm ever in the entire history of ttrpgs?

That WotC decided to unleash on themselves without anyone forcing them to?

Yeah, it will die down soon...

Mod Edit: language

 

[CapnZapp]

What else should they do?

Backpaddeling and telling us they are sorry is needed.

Too late for that, the trust is already gone.

All they can do is take serious and major steps to put the D&D SRD under neutral stewardship, and lock it forever to a reputable open license.

But they won't do that - they haven't even realized how bad this is yet.

 

[CapnZapp]

Exactly. I dont do grudge, it cost too much energy.

If they came out with an apology saying:
''sorry, we did not realize the reach of our actions, what benefits our brand cant be the only the only justification when you are an industry leader. We've burned bridges with our esteemed community which is the foundation of the game and we want to apologize for it. D&D is your game and we are the caretaker of of it; in the past week, we've failed our duty. Trying to mend our relationship will take time and we'll try our utmost to do so. Know that the OGL will stay intact; we'll contact our leading partners creating under the OGL to see what we can do for them. yadayada''

I'd be ok. And the next time they try to pull the same crap? Well we'll sharpen the pitchforks once more until they apologize once again.

They can't mend the damage just by saying they won't change the OGL 1.0(a)

The trust is already gone.

They need to actively relinquish control to build back trust. (And I'm not holding my breath...)

 

[CapnZapp]

Regardless of what WotC eventually says, I have to imagine the morale on the D&D team is at a historic low. This is likely a dream job for many of them, getting to work on designing a D&D edition, and it's been utterly ruined by the clowns upstairs.

yep

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nobody (nobody that counts anyway) disputes WotC's legal right to change or terminate the license.

Tell that to the last solid week of everyone arguing about whether or not WotC has the legal right to change or terminate 1.0a because it's the kind of thing that needs to be decided by a court.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yet Pathfinder came into existence because WotC chose a similar path to what they're choosing now.

In my opinion, shared with Ryan Dancey, Pathfinder succeeded because it was more "D&D" than 4e was (to enough people to split the market, at least). As soon as that was no longer the case (5e), D&D claimed the lion's share of those customers back. Ryan called 4e the "fantasy heartbreaker."

From what we've seen of OneD&D, it will be just as "D&D" as 5e is. Even worse, this time around, all these would-be Paizos are going to have to very carefully and intentionally design games that are conspicuously not D&D. Based on the evidence and circumstances, I would not expect that bit of history to repeat itself.

And you still choose to dismiss upcoming games as heartbreakers? You must be just as smart as the bigwigs over at WotC!

I think you have to be consistent. If the 3PPs were going to be worse off because revocation of the OGL forced them out of the D&D ecosystem, then they're also going to be worse off because this incident has scared them away from the D&D ecosystem.

Now, as I've said in another thread, the existence of Kickstarter likely means these won't be "heartbreakers" for the publishers. There will be successful Kickstarter campaigns. They may be "heartbreakers" for people who buy them and try to find people to play with.

Incidentally, if you do intend to mount a successful rebellion, I don't think a presumption that Hasbro and Wizards executives are idiots is likely to improve your odds of success.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nobody (nobody that counts anyway) disputes WotC's legal right to change or terminate the license.

Pretty much everyone disputes (not necessarily repudiates, but disputes) WotC's right to terminate 1.0a, and the only change that is possible is by creating a new version of the OGL, which, according to the OGL 1.0a, doesn't do anything to the OGL 1.0a.