WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox talks about D&D on NPRs Here & Now. Topics include Layoffs and OGL.

[Hussar]

I mean, when you promise your customers something in perpetuity, you do kinda owe it to them not to take that thing away later. The creation of the OGL was certainly remarkable, but it worked out to WotC’s benefit. And the fact that it was remarkable to initially create doesn’t make the attempt to later retract it unharmful to the brand.

Ducking back in, then going back to lurking.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. My example was poor. Granted there were three other examples in the post, but, you, ma’am, are absolutely, technically, 100% correct about Magic cards.

And, with that, hitting that old unsubscribe button again and putting hte thread on ignore.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. You are absolutely correct. My example was poor. Granted there were three other examples in the post, but, you, sir,

*Ma’am. My pronouns are in my title.

 

[TheSword]

No, it really doesn't, simply because WotC isn't actually issuing a legal challenge; they're just threatening to do so, daring anyone to publish under the CC's 5.1 SRD, and then when they do, then WotC takes them to court.

Literally, that's how it works. WotC makes the announcement, and suddenly everyone else is scared to publish, even though they know WotC's legal reasoning is bunk. Because publishing is daring them to sue you, and at that point you're gambling whether or not they will, and you can't afford for them to do so. Unless you think Apple or Microsoft will step in and pay your bills (or will suddenly start publishing 5E material themselves), they can't get involved besides issuing amicus briefs, which aren't going to pay your legal fees.

I judge people for what they do, not for what they might do, one day in the future maybe. I’m pretty sure no legal threats were issued. An alternative licence agreement was sent out. It was leaked. Community went wild. Alternative licence was withdrawn and a much better option put out within 10-15 working days.

I’m really not sure what the cost/benefit is for WotC acceding to your list of things they probably don’t want to do. You’ll clearly only give them grudging support. It’s not like you’ll switch from a 1 to a 10. You don’t have a strong negotiating position. The D&D Beyond accounts are shut down, those that care have switched systems (maybe), new licenses have been adopted and the big 3pp have come up with their own (which I do think was a huge mistake for them). What is left?

 

[TheSword]

There's a number of massive differences, and what the "open" and "ip" looks like.

Yes and they are there in varying forms for varying degrees of IP. It’s pretty incredible.

 

[Alzrius]

Sure but you don't find WOTC very convincing in what they say, so much so that you derailed an entire thread concerning what they're saying, so why would we trust what you're claiming would satisfy you?

Let's be clear, the thread is not derailed: the OGL has been part of the topic from the get-go. It's just that the usual suspects have come in bemoaning how awful it is that some people are still upset at WotC over it. Because won't somebody please think of the poor corporations?

And yes, I don't find WotC very convincing in what they say, because they don't seem to follow through on what they say. Is that review of old SRDs for inclusion in the CC still taking up their time? Is releasing an OGL v1.0b with the word "irrevocable" really a bridge too far? I say no, but apparently your mileage varies.

Even in your list of things you claim would satisfy you, you kept adding an "and another thing" to your list. Why wouldn't you just keep doing that if they did the initial things you asked?

No, I didn't. Go back and reread what I actually wrote. All I want is for them to make an OGL that's just like the current one, except irrevocable and not under their ownership anymore. That's it. The other two items (because a grand total of three is so unreasonable, amirite?) are things that I'd like them to do also, but aren't necessary.

 

[Alzrius]

they would, because either that technicality exists and then anyone could do the same for whatever they put under CC, or it does not and the CC remains in force for everyone

No, I don't think they would, mostly because they can't under the scenario I outlined. Again, WotC just has issue a BS declaration that they're "revoking" the 5.1 SRD under the CC for some made-up reason. The ball is now in the court of the publishers using the CC's 5.1 SRD, who are too scared to publish because they can't afford the court case to prove that WotC is full of it. What are Apple or Microsoft supposed to do then? Publish a 5E module just so they can dare WotC to sue them?

All WotC can do is not release a new SRD under CC, they have zero chance to even threaten to revoke the current one

That's what we all said about the OGL fifteen months ago. Look how that turned out.

 

[Alzrius]

Eh, the CC is a lot harder to do that with than the OGL was. With the OGL, WotC had a case to make that replacing it with a 2.0 version was legal. It probably wasn’t a sound case, but it was enough that the threat of a protracted legal battle over the matter was real. With the CC, they would have no case at all, and a lot more investment from outside the tabletop gaming industry in insuring WotC couldn’t (successfully) pull such a stunt.

I think there's an important shade of difference here. Specifically that WotC's made-up reason for trying to revoke the OGL only seemed more legitimate because they owned it. Would a similar thread seem less plausible if they did that for the CC's copy of the 5.1 SRD? Maybe, but I doubt that would be much comfort to the smaller publishers whose livelihood would hang in the balance.

Ultimately, a legally-dubious threat of legal action from a large company is enough to scare a lot of smaller companies into silence, and that's true regardless of the specifics in question.

 

[Alzrius]

I judge people for what they do, not for what they might do, one day in the future maybe.

I do too, hence my position on why WotC's putting the 5.1 SRD under the CC isn't as safe as people seem to think it is.

I’m pretty sure no legal threats were issued.

That strikes me as overly pedantic. When WotC says they're canceling the license, it comes with the understood implication that "you can't publish under this anymore; if you do, we'll protect our IP in court."

An alternative licence agreement was sent out. It was leaked. Community went wild.

Rightly so, given how horrible the alternative license was.

Alternative licence was withdrawn and a much better option put out within 10-15 working days.

Which was still pretty bad, hence why the community didn't let up the pressure.

I’m really not sure what the cost/benefit is for WotC acceding to your list of things they probably don’t want to do. You’ll clearly only give them grudging support.

Which is the amount of support they seem to want to give to the community they helped build. Because I feel fairly confident that what I outlined before would have little cost to WotC, and a lot of indirect benefit. The Skaff Effect, and all that.

It’s not like you’ll switch from a 1 to a 10. You don’t have a strong negotiating position.

The community apparently didn't have a strong negotiating position when WotC tried to cancel the OGL either, and look how that turned out. It's almost like giving up before you start is a bad idea.

The D&D Beyond accounts are shut down, those that care have switched systems (maybe), new licenses have been adopted and the big 3pp have come up with their own (which I do think was a huge mistake for them). What is left?

For WotC to further show their support to the community that they helped build, and which has in turn helped them, by making a substantive show of their commitment to open gaming. Like I said, a better OGL would be the thing to do, but apparently some people here can't stomach the idea that WotC should be asked to do anything else.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think expecting WotC to threaten to "pull" the 5.1 SRD from CC is a reasonable fear or even worth talking about. It is extremely unlikely.

Far more likely is that they don't do a 2024 update and continue to completely ignore the 3.5 SRD issue.

In the end, though, it doesn't actually matter if 2024 gets an SRD. If they aren't doing anything innovative with it, it is all derivative of the 2014 SRD and publishers can create compatible products regardless. I wish they wouldn't, but they can and will.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't think expecting WotC to threaten to "pull" the 5.1 SRD from CC is a reasonable fear or even worth talking about. It is extremely unlikely.

I don't disagree; I just remember that we all said the same thing about the OGL.

The more salient point is that the idea that the 5.1 SRD is in any way safer under the Creative Commons is largely paper thin, and seems to be based more on a belief (that Apple and Microsoft will somehow step in and stare WotC down, apparently) than on any sort of solid legal foundation.

EDIT: For more on the potential legal shortcomings with regard to the supposed sense of safety that CC offers, I'll direct people to this post, made by an actual lawyer right here on EN World (with a good follow-up over here).