It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Amrûnril]

While I no longer feel the need to abstain from WotC products, I find the argument that doing so would harm 3rd party creators profoundly unconvincing.

Reduced sales of 5e might indirectly harm 3rd party creators through complex network effects. But increased sales of non-WotC products would definitely benefit their creators, and numbers of sales that would be trivial to WotC could be quite meaningful to smaller producers. So if even a fraction of lost WotC sales translate into increased sales of other fantasy ttrpg products, I find it hard to believe that the net effect on 3rd party creators would be negative.

 

[Scribe]

My argument is if you retaliate against 5E due to what happened with the OGL you will hurt 3p creators. That is undeniable I think.

I mean it is an interesting question, that may be better broken out in a new thread to avoid the inflammatory (and amusing) statement that initiated this thread.

Essentially:

"Is the TTRPG space best served with a single monolithic edition bringing in the most people, who can then be exposed to other games and 3PP?"

 

[Maxperson]

in it he says that the difference between a draft and the final version is that it is a draft until both sides agree to it, then that draft becomes the final version. Skip to about minute 18. So that becomes a pretty disingenuous distinction to me. It actually means everything WotC sends out is the intended final version, which kinda makes this even worse… at a minimum it does not help your case of pointing out that it was ‘only a draft’

I mean, he's technically correct and everyone knows that technically is the best kind of correct. With a contract nothing is final until both sides agree. One of the vendors they sent the contract to could have modified the contract and sent it back. At that point WotC would accept it, reject it, or modify it and send it back. Things would continue that way until both sides agree or both sides walk away.

When I got married the venue that we had our reception at had us sign a contract. I read it through and one paragraph was written poorly. The way it was worded, if anyone started a fire we were financially responsible. It made no distinction between members of my party, the staff and strangers who might wander through. I crossed out that paragraph and rewrote it so that it specified that we were responsible for our guests only. The venue's legal counsel accepted the modification and what I signed became the new final draft.

Of course none of that excuses the fact that the contract that WotC sent out was the version that they wanted to happen. It was what they hoped the final draft would look like.

 

[Aldarc]

If anyone retaliates against 5e, WotC won't care because they are moving on to One D&D after a year.

However, there is a distinction between retaliating against WotC and retaliating against 5e. If anyone is "retaliating" against anything, the former is what is being advocated rather than the latter. But choosing not to buy WotC's products is not "retaliation." It's consumerism. Do I want to buy products from this company? Yes or no. If yes, then people often buy the product. If no, then people won't buy the product. It doesn't really matter the reason why people don't buy the product. The quality could be poor. It may not be the sort of product that the customer wants. The customer may have a beef with the company itself. Doesn't matter. Moreover, not buying a product from WotC isn't hurting 3p creators.

It's all sorts of insulting and emotionally manipulative to claim that me not buying WotC's Spelljammer book prior to this whole fiasco hurts 3pp or the hobby as a whole. No. If I choose not to buy products from WotC or 3p creators who make content for that product after the OGL fiasco, it's the exact same now. I'm not hurting them by not buying a product. I cannot and will not buy everything out there for either WotC or 3p creators. I am not hurting anyone when I choose not to buy those products.

 

[Russ1728]

Pathfinder forever

Agreed. PF2E is fantastic. Why would we not support them going forward? The only thing WOTC has is the actual right to use the name Dungeons & Dragons, which really doesn’t matter to me.

 

[EthanSental]

It's all sorts of insulting and emotionally manipulative to claim that me not buying WotC's Spelljammer book prior to this whole fiasco hurts 3pp or the hobby as a whole. No. If I choose not to buy products from WotC or 3p creators who make content for that product after the OGL fiasco, it's the exact same now. I'm not hurting them by not buying a product. I cannot and will not buy everything out there for either WotC or 3p creators. I am not hurting anyone when I choose not to buy those products.

Not speaking for others on what they meant but I was thinking it was due to the line of reason that Ryan Dancey used for the OGL..if Dnd is doing well it, it lifts all ships, then maybe the thought was If it’s not, it could lower the other ships too. Just my guess on what the line of reasoning was. Not sure if either can really be proved without true sales data from the companies in the industry.

 

[cranberry]

Forgiving is fine, but it's a good idea to look over your shoulder occasionally to prevent being stabbed in the back.

 

[Thourne]

Forgiving is fine, but it's a good idea to look over your shoulder occasionally to prevent being stabbed in the back.

 

[Aldarc]

Not speaking for others on what they meant but I was thinking it was due to the line of reason that Ryan Dancey used for the OGL..if Dnd is doing well it, it lifts all ships, then maybe the thought was If it’s not, it could lower the other ships too. Just my guess on what the line of reasoning was. Not sure if either can really be proved without true sales data from the companies in the industry.

When Ryan Dancey said that a rising tide lifts all ships, it was primarily oriented towards those contributing to DnD's ecosystem. But even then, the whole idea behind "a rising tide lifts all ships" has been criticized pretty heavily, especially since it's "trickle down economics" by another name.

 

[ECMO3]

I do deny that!

First, I deny that declining to buy a product is retaliation.

Simply declining to buy a product is not retaliation .... but declining to buy a product in retaliation is absolutely retaliation

Second, I deny that declining to buy a product is harmful. That is not taking anything away from anyone.

It is harmful if you would have otherwise bought it
.