A proposal for a multi-tiered license structure

[Charlaquin]

As a player. No reason. But dors not matter a lot.

As a 3pp, you need to decide: use the new OGL and profit from using D&D or doing other things that might be way less profitable.

In a different thread a 3pp said, that one of their books was sold 20 times as often with 5e as the same book with alternate rules.
I also do a guess and say LevelUp sold more often than WOIN.

So the question is: are the new conditions good enough to use or not.
I understood Morrus, that he wants OGL 1.0 or nothing, and I think he might be in a good position. Big publishers also should be able to do their own thing.

I don't think every small publisher will be in an equally good position.

All the more reason for us to band together against this in support of the smaller publishers.

 

[TheSword]

No, as long as main stream media keep reporting on it as wizards merely trying to update a licensing agreement, there is no chance.

If media had been reporting on wizards breaking promisses, former microsoft execs going after an open source community, and their disttastefull use of minority issues as a smoke screen for trying to establish a monopoly.. Then I think even people never having heard of D&D before might take up arms.

It’s not a monopoly. It’s not even close to a monopoly. MacDonalds being the only people able to serve a Big Mac isn’t a monopoly.

 

[TheSword]

By the time others are using the new system, the license issue will be resolved, one way or another. And I don't know that "the wider public" cares or will be meaningfully influenced anyway. You aren't going to get a significant number of people who don't play D&D to, say, boycott the movie over license issues.

By wider public I actually meant wider community. I should have been clearer. The other 9.95m people who play D&D without 3pp. I don’t believe they’re going to be swayed by claims that wizards are liars and deal breakers and how they have gone about the license change. It’s going to take merit on the license itself.

 

[Enrahim2]

It’s not a monopoly. It’s not even close to a monopoly. MacDonalds being the only people able to serve a Big Mac isn’t a monopoly.

No, but MacDonalds being the only profitable fastfood resturant would have been a monopoly?
Wizards establishing an exclusive platform for D&D play would not in itself constitute a monopoly - and noone has claimed so. What might cause this to be a move toward monopoly is if this makes the other existing commercial VTTs no longer economically viable - hence making them disappear.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All the more reason for us to band together against this in support of the smaller publishers.

I am not against fighting for the best outcome. However boycotting WotC forever seems like hurting small publishers too. A successful OneDnD edition will help them a lot more.

So we should fight for a good OGL 1.2.
Small publishers already accept even worse conditions in DM's guild.
So in the best case scenario, they get access to the official tools and original settings.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. I believe that revoking the OGL is illegal and unethical, and I won’t be buying D&D products any more if they do it. I know I’m far from alone in this.

Whether it is ethical depends on what they offer in its place.

If they offer something good, such that current users have little qualms about moving, its legality becomes moot - contracts are agreements, so long as the involved parties in the contract agree, there's no legal issue.

 

[Dreamscape]

Whether it is ethical depends on what they offer in its place.

If they offer something good, such that current users have little qualms about moving, its legality becomes moot - contracts are agreements, so long as the involved parties in the contract agree, there's no legal issue.

Given everything that has come out of WotC over recent weeks, that possibility seems somewhat... alternate reality?

 

[Umbran]

What might cause this to be a move toward monopoly is if this makes the other existing commercial VTTs no longer economically viable - hence making them disappear.

I don't expect that would hold up, either in court or as a news story. It is hard to claim WotC is trying to monopolize the VTT market before WotC actually has a VTT in the market. And the current license terms under discussion would cut off features that aren't even generally used in the market at this time.

 

[Umbran]

Given everything that has come out of WotC over recent weeks, that possibility seems somewhat... alternate reality?

I did note I was speaking optimistically.

Overall, though, this is to me more about being open minded enough to at least read what they offer before rejecting it.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t believe they’re going to be swayed by claims that wizards are liars and deal breakers and how they have gone about the license change. It’s going to take merit on the license itself.

Hot take: that's probably as it should be.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding - what the final license looks like is what matters in the long run.