Why We Should Work With WotC

[Umbran]

A better analogy ...

It seems to me that "a better analogy" really is like quoting definitions at each other, it is a point at which we should recognize that we aren't being constructive. So, I'm not going to engage in that any more.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Why Should We Compromise?

Before we can compromise we need to a) understand what WotC's goals are in stirring the pot as they are the ones who rocked the boat; b) remember that the current regime at WotC has a history of not playing nicely once contracts are signed (see; Gale Force 9, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, et al).

From the original leaks and looking at 1.2, we can see two goals:
1. Prevent a repeat of 4e. From WotC's POV the lesson from 4e was that people did not migrate to the GSL, organically ending the age of the OGL, and worse, the OGL other companies to create new versions of D&D that competed with WotC (see: Castle & Crusades, Pathfinder, and the collective OSR—the latter was small potatoes, but with OSE and some OSR adjacent publications' success the OSR might not be as far below the radar as it once was). They want control back to stop future competition and hobbling the current competition.

Where does this end? We do not know. Since Castle & Crusades, Pathfinder, and much of the collective OSR use OGL 1.0a and the 3/3.5 SRD, removing this license and access to the 3/3.5 SRD can be catastrophic. Paizo said Pf2 does not need OGL 1.0a, though there is still clearly content pulling from the 3/3.5 SRD, so that claim is questionable.

No more OGL 1.0a or 3/3.5 SRD, could expose Castle & Crusades, Pathfinder, and others to claims of copyright infringement possibly killing the current competition.

2. Speaking of competition, VTTs are clearly another target that WotC would like to remove, and will settle for hobbling.

So overall, WotC looks to be out to restrict or eliminate competition and corral customers into One D&D.

Paizo Will Fight

Will Paizo pick a fight? If they feel they have to proactively fight for OGL 1.0a, maybe, though with ORC that seems less likely.

The bigger question is, once WotC takes out OGL 1.0a, will WotC drop a C&D on Paizo for a perceived infringement? This is more likely if WotC is really looking to lockdown competition.

WotC Wants to kill 3PP
But do they?
This is the argument seen for why WotC is killing the OGL1. They’re out to eliminate their competition.
Except Paizo and the like doesn’t compete with D&D. Pathfinder competes with other 3rd Party D&D publishers, vying for the #2 spot on ICv2 charts. WotC probably didn’t even consider 3rd Party Publishers in their plans, viewing them as insignificant. It'd be like a Starbucks store worrying about sales lost to a little girl's lemonade stand.

WotC does not want to kill 3PP of content? No, want more control over them and they want a cut of the bigger publishers' profits. The royalty fees are gone, but I'm not sure they have given up on trying to get a cut of the big earners. Would not be surprised to see a new revenue scheme based on large 3PPs come up later (e.g., development fees to incorporate 3PP adventures, rules, class, items, etc. into the D&DB VTT platform).

WotC does not want a repeat of 4e, so yes, they want to hobble, restrict, or kill competing RPGs that have the potential to take market share and dollars.

What Does a Compromise Look Like?

No idea, since WotC is not compromising, they are revising and finding new ways to accomplish their original goals (e.g., skim large 3PP profits move from royalties to some other scheme; move restrictions of VTTs from the OGL1.1 to a policy; etc.). We need to hold the line until they stop the shell game and actually compromise.

That said before we can decide "What Does a Compromise Look Like?" We need to decide what are our goals too. We want to protect 3PPs and competing RPG publishers large and small. We want to be able to play on VTTs without WotC dictating what they can do so we can have a choice in service providers and choice in what kinds of experience we want.

In all cases, WotC is ignoring the existence of other non-SRD derived RPGs that use the OGL 1.0a and the chaos revoking/deauthorizing the license will cause those RPGs, and these publishers and their players deserve not have their apple cart upset as collateral damage. WotC also ignores that VTTs are used to play these RPGs as well. There are features used in any RPG on some VTT, like lighting, will dynamic lighting need to be disabled for D&D on those VTTs since that can be considered an enhancement over playing in person?

 

[MarkB]

A better analogy would be that Sal's has a very successful pizza recipe and has for a long time allowed any other pizza maker free access to that recipe as long as they credit Sal's for inventing it. Other pizza places use that recipe, rightfully credit Sal's for it, and as a result Sal's itself does a booming trade.

Suddenly one day Sal's revokes that permission. But they still have the booming trade due to the free advertising they were getting all those years, meanwhile the other pizza places are left hanging - sure they can make other types of pizza, but in no small part due to that open-use policy on the recipe, Sal's pizza is what everyone wants.

Outcome: everyone loses. Because it's now the only place in town to get Sal's pizza, Sal's gets swamped by the demand and can't cope: a loss for both Sal's and a whole lot of customers. Meanwhile the other pizza places are left selling less-popular pizzas, so they lose too.

Until Sal's buys up all those failing competing restaurants at bargain-basement prices and launches the Sal's restaurant chain nationwide.

 

[Haplo781]

Until Sal's buys up all those failing competing restaurants at bargain-basement prices and launches the Sal's restaurant chain nationwide.

Except Sal can't get anyone to staff those restaurants because nobody wants to work for them anymore.

 

[Minigiant]

Except Sal can't get anyone to staff those restaurants because nobody wants to work for them anymore.

Sal can't get chefs to work for them. Random not-chefs who can follow directions.....

 

[mamba]

Before we can compromise we need to a) understand what WotC's goals are

No, all I need is to know what I am ok with and what I am not. I am not trying to please WotC here, and they are perfectly capable of drawing their line where they feel it needs to be

 

[Dungeonosophy]

"Why we should work with WOTC"

Waldreg: "I welcome Sauron!"

 

[Steel_Wind]

Sal's Pizza, down on the corner, has a storefront, kitchen, seating, and all that.

Normal business relationships are... normal, not parasitic. In condemning that, you don't just condemn big businesses - you condemn Sal's Pizza as well, along with the vast majority of other small businesses.

Did Sal's pizza become insolvent in or around 1997? TSR did. And it hurt distributors, retailers, sent several miniature makers into insolvency and bankruptcy; the whole hobby started to swirl the toilet. You know this Umbran. You've been here since the beginning, right?

Bottom Line: The AD&D brand FAILED.

WotC didn't create the OGL 1.0a as a favor; they didn't grant us a privilege. That's nonsense.

WotC believed (wrongly, as it turned out) that writing adventures were fundamentally unprofitable. And so they dreamed up the OGL 1.0a principally as a way of persuading 3PP to write the adventures while WotC concentrated on publishing rules. The 3pp would fill a niche, WotC would make $$$.

That's how this happened. Don't rewrite history.

Now, with the funk of a failed brand 25+ years in the rear-view mirror -- and the 4e GSL debacle conveniently forgotten -- they are back at it when the brand is near the peak of a wave with a plan to earn WoW money.

And they see the OGL 1.0a as a barrier to earning that money. I don't think it is, but some executive(s) at WotC thinks so. So here they are, trying to wipe out a business model they operated under successfully for 23 years.

Now, it has to change. Note that they don't actually say why. We have had to infer their motives in looking at their purchase of DDB, their rejection of the OGL 1.0a, their taking down their own statements which demonstrate that their most recent communications about the use of the OGL 1.0a for VTTs and computer games are KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS...

And you are going to play Devil's Advocate for them? I do that all that time if somebody is paying me. I'm a hired gun (like you), but not otherwise.

I can't believe that anybody has bought you on this topic. So there must be something else going on I don't understand.

I am genuinely curious: why the WotC love? Why this attempt at currying favor and trying to walk to the middle? Never mind the arguments and all the rest of it -- I'm asking YOU a simple question:

Why?

 

[Clint_L]

I liked it better when we were talking about pizza.

 

[FormerLurker]

WotC believed (wrongly, as it turned out) that writing adventures were fundamentally unprofitable. And so they dreamed up the OGL 1.0a principally as a way of persuading 3PP to write the adventures while WotC concentrated on publishing rules. The 3pp would fill a niche, WotC would make $$$.

That's how this happened. Don't rewrite history.

That's actually a myth.
That's how Ryan Dancey sold the OGL to executives, when really he wanted to ensure the game and the future of the hobby wasn't forever tied to one company.

Now, with the funk of a failed brand 25+ years in the rear-view mirror -- and the 4e GSL debacle conveniently forgotten -- they are back at it when the brand is near the peak of a wave with a plan to earn WoW money.

I don't think I've hear someone talk about trying "to earn WoW money" in a decade...

WoW subscriber peaked in 2010 with a brief spike in 2014-15 and as been in decline ever since. The number of WoW subscribers in 2022 is probably really close to the number of DDB subscribers, let alone D&D players...

And they see the OGL 1.0a as a barrier to earning that money. I don't think it is, but some executive(s) at WotC thinks so. So here they are, trying to wipe out a business model they operated under successfully for 23 years.

I think it's actually they saw the 1.0a as a potential PR disaster.
With the racism controversy of nu-TSR and Star Frontiers someone at WotC panicked that people could make a D&D compatible product that was deeply offensive, which might catch the public's eye. And angry online mobs and hysterical parents wouldn't see it was unofficial and wouldn't care it wasn't made by WotC.
They're working hard to be a respectable family brand sold in Targets and with a PG-13 movie and multiple books aimed at young readers (1 2 3 4). They don't want some bad actor 3PP ruining it...

Now, it has to change. Note that they don't actually say why. We have had to infer their motives in looking at their purchase of DDB, their rejection of the OGL 1.0a, their taking down their own statements which demonstrate that their most recent communications about the use of the OGL 1.0a for VTTs and computer games are KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS...

WotC has also had recent history with unofficial NTS.

I am genuinely curious: why the WotC love? Why this attempt at currying favor and trying to walk to the middle? Never mind the arguments and all the rest of it -- I'm asking YOU a simple question:

Why?

For me it's less love and more resigned acceptance.
I'd prefer if they had just kept the 1.0a and created a new license instead. I don't want the 1.0a to go away, but it seems like that's a non-negotiable demand from WotC.
I also kinda don't want flagrantly racist or sexist or homophobic content in the D&D community.

The better D&D does the better 3rd Party Publishers do. 5e 3PP have been the #2 and #3 best selling RPG products a few times now, outselling Pathfinder. Those companies are doing very, very well. And if we want them to continue to do well, the new OGL needs to be good. We need to provide excellent feedback and find the pinch points and problem areas. We need to forgive WotC for messing up, so long as they learn their lesson and establish safeguards in the new OGL so they don't do so again.
If we're not willing to work with WotC, then this time we're the ones harming open gaming...