We Still Need ORC

[Enrahim2]

I'm not sure where you are getting that. It seems counterintuitive given their stated goals of controlling what is D&D in public perception, as well as controlling the VTT space. Putting the 5E SRD up on CC basically destroyed their ability to control anything about 5E.

They control the canon. There are lots of DMs that at least didnt allow 3rd party products. There will be slight variations in the new updates that make tooling based on 5.1 seem slightly off, and this will help guiding preople into the only platform providing the full official sanctioned oneD&D experience.

This was the approach I was assuming they were going for long before the OGL1.1 leak. It hence came as a shock to me, as it appeared so utterly unneccessary for what I believed was a winning gameplan.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But my guess is you aren't actually interested in being convinced of anything.

Oh, i can be convinced of things.

 

[Reynard]

I'm getting it from their announcement of OneD&D where they state that they are sticking with 5e.

That was a universe ago.

And they gave up control of the 5e chassis, but they did not give up control of Dungeons and Dragons. That's what I've been arguing for awhile - 5e shouldn't be what matters to them, it's just the OS. D&D is the brand and they have not only retained control of it, they have now solidified its position at the epicentre of 5e (which they are soon not going to call 5e anymore, they will just call "D&D," again per their OneD&D announcement). And in DnDBeyond they have the means to make sure that everyone wants to play ball with them, because they have a vast, secure marketplace.

They can use DDB to incentivize 3PP, to monetize players, and to make sure their brand remains clean of all those nasty NFTs and such. The "Dancey" faction won the battle.

Maybe you're right. It doesn't seem to jive with their goals to me, but what do I know? Ultimately, they could have monetized D&D and commanded the digital aspects of the hobby without ever mentioning the letters O, G or L. But they could have also retreated without giving the 5E SRD to CC. I don't understand the motivation there.

 

[tetrasodium]

So in short: CC is more open than OGL ever was or ORC should be?
Always found it stupid to be able to only take and not give a single line of your own. So I don't need ORC.

Until I am proven wrong, I think, that ORC was a PR stunt mostly, maybe a threat to WotC. Timing and so on was about dealing the heaviest blow to WotC as possible. Not that I say, WotC did not deserve it at the time.

Hard to say. What we know of the plan is to have ORC in the hands of a third party like apache/linux/etc foundation or even the one that maintains creative commons itself. Comparing to Creative commons where you have various CC licenses it's entirely possible that ORC could wind up being a similar thing but with specific bits & bobs relevant to ttrpg creators. Under such a system you could hypothetically have F/ex ORC1/ORC2/etc where one of them hypothetically allows adventures in a particular system to use literally anything (ie strahd is the darklord vampire "ruler" of Barovia being tortured by The Dark Powers)provided the adventure is no more than N pages or whatever while another might be more restrictive but allow any system and a third might allow novels with some conditions.

 

[Parmandur]

They control the canon. There are lots of DMs that at least didnt allow 3rd party products. There will be slight variations in the new updates that make tooling based on 5.1 seem slightly off, and this will help guiding preople into the only platform providing the full official sanctioned oneD&D experience.

This was the approach I was assuming they were going for long before the OGL1.1 leak. It hence came as a shock to me, as it appeared so utterly unneccessary for what I believed was a winning gameplan.

And I'm sure there were people inside WotC who were equally frustrated, since it seems they pushed to get back on track and won.

 

[Parmandur]

That was a universe ago.


Maybe you're right. It doesn't seem to jive with their goals to me, but what do I know? Ultimately, they could have monetized D&D and commanded the digital aspects of the hobby without ever mentioning the letters O, G or L. But they could have also retreated without giving the 5E SRD to CC. I don't understand the motivation there.

The motivation makes more sense if you consider WotC as a multipolar collective of people with different goals. While I am loathe to yake shady rumors at face value, it really seems this change of tack was somebody's hobby horse that has now been shot in the head behind the barn after it broke a leg. The ideas that motivated this action aren't just being abandoned, they killed them dead.

 

[mellored]

We don't know for sure, but it will likely be much more like the OGL than CC. This should mean it is easier for companies to share their Open Content while preserving their rights over their specific IP -- which (and I'm no expert so I could be wrong) it doesn't appear that CC makes that distinction easily. Companies could release SRD information under CC, but that's an extra layer of work especially for smaller companies.

CC can't be revoked.

Does that mean ORC can be? Or had royalty payments or something?

 

[Morrus]

Does that mean ORC can be? Or had royalty payments or something?

Nobody knows. It doesn't exist yet.

 

[Reynard]

The motivation makes more sense if you consider WotC as a multipolar collective of people with different goals. While I am loathe to yake shady rumors at face value, it really seems this change of tack was somebody's hobby horse that has now been shot in the head behind the barn after it broke a leg. The ideas that motivated this action aren't just being abandoned, they killed them dead.

Right -- I am forgetting that WotC isn't an entity, it's made up of people. Whoever wrote those initial goals aren't necessarily the ones holding the reins now.

 

[Parmandur]

Right -- I am forgetting that WotC isn't an entity, it's made up of people. Whoever wrote those initial goals aren't necessarily the ones holding the reins now.

I doubt whoever advanced those goals has job security at the moment: this is the stuff heads roll for, particularly if people higher up weren't really involved and were made to look bad (say, Cynthia Williams: the rumors had it she takes a light reign with the specifics and leaves it to the brand experts, she may not have taken kindly to a VP getting fans to call for her ouster on Twitter).