D&D 5E I still want D&D and Beyond, but...

[UngainlyTitan]

I am finding myself in a really odd situation: the more this goes on, the more I start to see Hasbro/WotC's point in doing it!

I completely see why they are doing it, I even believe that they really are not concerned about the third party market as it currently exists they want to nail down the IP in the VTT and computer/net application space and in the broader performance space. The mistake was in my opinion, gunning for the current open content. If they closed the licence and issued OneD&D on a 5.2 SRD there would be some smoke, heat and a little fire but I think it would have died down.
The sad bit is that the OGL proved to be quixotic at the first real test. No one defended their rights under it but everyone ran for the exits.

 

[Weiley31]

What I mean is, what's out there now won't go away. Even if you accept the terms of 1.1 it explicitly states this.

While true, it will now be a huge pain to get what's out there that is affected by the OGL change if it goes through. Especially when stuff starts getting, in a big bad way, stuff getting delisted.

Lasers & Liches: Game Master's Beats - Lasers & Liches | DriveThruRPG.com

Lasers & Liches: Game Master's Beats - Welcome to the Retroverse! An exciting new 5E universe from Lasers & Liches that resides in a place of half faded me

www.drivethrurpg.com

Case in point: the author of the Retroverse/Laser and Liches has state that he'll be damned if he lets WoTC get their hands on his creation, so it's probably a good idea to get it now before things happen.

 

[dave2008]

The mistake was in my opinion, gunning for the current open content. If they closed the licence and issued OneD&D on a 5.2 SRD there would be some smoke, heat and a little fire but I think it would have died down.

I think the same as well. In fact, I would still accept this (I think) if the added irrevocable to the OGL 1.0(b)

 

[RareBreed]

This may sound a little odd, but I hope you can understand this analogy.

When we break up with a significant other (whether due to betrayal, irreconcilable differences, or whatever), sometimes, we feel like there will never be anyone like that again, and there will forever be a hole in our heart...

Until we find someone new. It's true, no one will be exactly like our old love, but it doesn't mean we can't find someone else to make us realize, "hey, I actually can be happy and fulfilled without X".

My advice is, take a break from gaming. But keep your ears to the ground. Maybe someone will invite you to play a different RPG one day. Give it a try once you've had some time off.

 

[ECMO3]

Scam? Nah, the books are better money makers. One-time cost for materials and manpower to put it together.

Electronic file? Gotta pay for the domain, hardware (which ain’t cheap), website/software (which is often licensed by year) <Edit: and electricity> and IT staff on an ongoing basis. The longer you house it, the more money you lose.

There is no comparison here. Electronic files have domain, servers, electronic storage costs etc and a lot of those things are sunk and either do not scale on a per sale basis or they scale very slowly (a single server can provide a download hub for hundreds or thousands).

Paper versions have a printing press, paper, ink shipping costs, storage costs most of which do scale on a per copy basis.

Storing a pdf on a server for thousands to download is A LOT cheaper than storing thousands of books in a warehouse for thousands to buy ..... heck the electricity is even cheaper.

 

[ECMO3]

I completely see why they are doing it, I even believe that they really are not concerned about the third party market as it currently exists they want to nail down the IP in the VTT and computer/net application space and in the broader performance space. The mistake was in my opinion, gunning for the current open content. If they closed the licence and issued OneD&D on a 5.2 SRD there would be some smoke, heat and a little fire but I think it would have died down.
The sad bit is that the OGL proved to be quixotic at the first real test. No one defended their rights under it but everyone ran for the exits.

I actually think their biggest concern is the branding. I think they are most concerned about 3rd party content tarnishing the D&D brand. Some rogue company produces something racist or otherwise bad for their image and they get labeled for it.

Think about the biggotted game and comments from nu TSR or whatever they are called. While WOTC is engaged in disputes over use of the TSR logo and other IP, when you get down to it the game itself is A-OK under OGL 1.0.

If something like that becomes major news it will tarnish the entire D&D brand. The non-gaming public is not going to understand the difference between WOTC D&D and 3rd party D&D and the press likely is not going to articulate it (or worse deceptively use the D&D brand to make it a bigger story).

 

[Steel_Wind]

The sad bit is that the OGL proved to be quixotic at the first real test. No one defended their rights under it but everyone ran for the exits.

The first real test was Paizo using the SRD 3.5 to compete directly with WotC in 2008. WotC did not waiver on the 1.0a OGL in terms of passed released content, and didn't purport to de-authorize it. They were pissed, of course.

Even still, they came back with 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0a in 2014.

I would not say this was the first test. It's been around a long while and has been very successful for WotC and the hobby as a whole.

 

[Rabulias]

If something like that becomes major news it will tarnish the entire D&D brand. The non-gaming public is not going to understand the difference between WOTC D&D and 3rd party D&D and the press likely is not going to articulate it (or worse deceptively use the D&D brand to make it a bigger story).

If such a controversy happened, the "5 digits" of D&D Beyond users would not cancel their accounts. The D&D social media universe might be blowing up about it, but would not be blaming WotC. Those inside the hobby, the paying customers, would understand the situation and where to direct their outrage. If the story rose to mainstream media and they reached out to WotC or players for comment, they could explain the nature of the OGL and how WotC has nothing to do with the offensive content of the hypothetical product.

It might be a temporary negative hit to WotC in the general public's mind but it would not be as big a problem as this past week has been. The overwhelming portion of their customers would not be swayed by any unjustified negative press in such a case.

 

[Rabulias]

Even still, they came back with 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0a in 2014.

While I agree with the assessment in your post, the 5e SRD did not come out until 2016.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The first real test was Paizo using the SRD 3.5 to compete directly with WotC in 2008. WotC did not waiver on the 1.0a OGL in terms of passed released content, and didn't purport to de-authorize it. They were pissed, of course.

Even still, they came back with 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0a in 2014.

I would not say this was the first test. It's been around a long while and has been very successful for WotC and the hobby as a whole.

It is only tested when challenged, the OGL has been challenged and has no defenders. ORC is not a replacement for the OGL. It is a somewhat sounder OGL because it is a construct of an independent third party but will most likely benefit Paizo. Which will be beautifully ironic if WoTCs repeated mishandling of their IP results in Paizo reaching never foreseen heights.
No OGL material that is built on WoTC material will ever see the light of day under ORC. Only material that does not infringe on WoTCs copywrite will be published under ORC or totally original material.
The advantage of ORC to the originators, will be the same as originally received by WoTC. their product will be boosted by fan content that makes the original game more useful to customer, adventures, rules extension and so on.
WoTC will now have to do all their donkey work on their own.