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

[mamba]

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).

I agree that the OGL would have survived in court, if there had been a trial, as to the rest…

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[Oofta]

But why...? As long as I've been paying attention (early Aughts), WotC have pulled this sort of stuff literally all the time: and based on everythingI have read, TSR before that was even worse. I don't expect them to stop, either, though slowing down would be nice.

TSR basically threatened to sue everyone under the sun to protect what they saw as their intellectual property. The problem is that no one really knows whether or not the core mechanics of D&D can be legally protected outside of specific names like Leomund or Mordenkainen. But roll a D20, modify it by a number, class builds, attributes? It would quite likely depend on the judge and would waste a lot of money on lawyers. So my understanding is that the OGL was largely "Let's not sue each other" agreement. Because nobody wants to spend that much on lawyers when nobody really knows what the outcome would be.

 

[Oofta]

I'll have to disagree with you there. I don't recall them doing anything on the level of trying to revoke the OGL. If nothing else, I honestly never expected them to do something so punitive to so many people, particularly when it had so little gain for them; and to the extent that that's "trust," then most other people seemed to trust them that much as well, considering how people reacted.

They threatened lawsuits on a regular basis Advanced Designers & Dragons #47: TSR Connections: Licenses & Lawsuits - RPGnet They couldn't revoke an OGL because there wasn't one. Short version of the article: originally they were pretty open but as they became successful they were pretty terrible to every other gaming company.

WOTC doesn't hold a candle to TSR.

 

[robertsconley]

saying you will revoke the OGL is a legal threat in itself

Technically, Wizards said they would quit offering the OGL. But your point still stands: It was a legal threat.

 

[Reynard]

It still strikes me as weird, all this time later, that WotC though the rules of 5E were the valuable IP they wanted to protect. It seems obvious on its face that the brand name is the most valuable aspect, followed by the actual worlds and characters inside the brand. If the rules alone were so valuable, someone would have eclipsed D&D already using the OGL, and that has never happened (no, not even Pathfinder; that is largely a myth).

 

[Reynard]

They threatened lawsuits on a regular basis Advanced Designers & Dragons #47: TSR Connections: Licenses & Lawsuits - RPGnet They couldn't revoke an OGL because there wasn't one. Short version of the article: originally they were pretty open but as they became successful they were pretty terrible to every other gaming company.

WOTC doesn't hold a candle to TSR.

They weren't called T$R for nothing...

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to WOTC putting 3.x under CC, I suspect they just don't care all that much about older editions. Unlike 5E, there are no big fish that are making millions on the older rules. I also see no reason to think they'd change the OGL for older versions because of the blowback they already received. It was a stupid move with no benefit, I doubt they'll make the same mistake a second time.

As far as otherwise going beyond what they've already done, why would they? The vast, vast majority of people that play the game have never heard of the OGL issue. Releasing a few PDFs here and there (or whatever) is not going to change any minds anyway. There are people that, like Lucy with Charlie Brown's football that will never give their support now no matter what they do.

The publishers are the ones that really matter and it seems like they are starting to offer more marketing options than ever before by allowing the biggest players the option to put their product on DDB. They seem to be backing up their claims that they are the stewards of the hobby, even if it is a slow process.

If WOTC puts out a product I think I will enjoy I will consider a purchase. But trust? Nah. I reserve trust for people I know and care about, who have proven themselves trustworthy. I'm not going to trust a company who's primary goal is to make a profit, which means I don't trust any of them. They simply don't care about my individual desires and needs, they can't.

 

[mamba]

When it comes to WOTC putting 3.x under CC, I suspect they just don't care all that much about older editions.

they don’t, but at the same time this takes little effort and buys some goodwill

 

[Scott Christian]

Heh, sometimes soft questions, are intentionally open-ended questions, with the hopes the interviewee ends up walking oneself into saying something stupid or revealing. Sounds like, Cox answered fine.

Not to knock NPR, because I am a long-time listener. But sometimes softball questions are also because the journalist didn't do their due diligence when it comes to research. Asking difficult questions often means asking explicit questions, and for journalists, these are often the questions they already know the answers to. Then, when the respondent supplies the answer with something off-kilter, the journalist knows where to apply their attention - again, because they have done the research.
All that said, I don't really think the journalist, Mastromarino (who strangely sounds like a wizard), asked softball questions. He had a timer, and he tried to delve into multiple categories. His WotC questions were fine for the time he had.