We All Won – The OGL Three Years Later

[Cergorach]

So she came, watched the game for an hour, then left. She didn't want to play because it wasn't "name brand" D&D and she wanted to learn how to play so she could also join other groups that were playing "name brand" D&D.

Never in my 30+ years of playing has that happened.

While that might be what she said and/or how you interpreted, it might just be that she wants to learn D&D as the most played game, in the same way people want to learn Windows (vs. Linux or MacOS). Or she didn't like how Daggerheart played and hopes that the popular D&D she heard so much about would better fit her needs (as she never played it, she might be wrong).

I'm generally up to play just about anything, but if given the choice between D&D and Daggerheart, I would also choose D&D. And that's me in my experimental phase, wanting to try a BUNCH of different RPGs, just not Daggerheart.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So Darrington Press announced they were working on Daggerheart in April 2023, which was after the OGL debacle (January 2023). Daggerheart has been one of the best experiences I've had running a tabletop RPG in the past twenty years. I'm not sure if Daggerheart was created directly in response to the OGL issue (though the timing lines up). But - in any case - I'm happy playing what I'm playing and don't need to care what WotC is doing with D&D. To be honest, I haven't thought about D&D in a couple years now.

What did hit strangely... Last night, a friend from our neighborhood texted my wife to ask if she could make a character and join our "D&D" game. We've been trying to encourage her to join our neighborhood campaign for a couple years, and this is the first time she expressed interest. My wife explained that we were playing "Daggerheart" but she would probably like it - especially since she had never tried D&D before to know rules, expectations, etc.

So she came, watched the game for an hour, then left. She didn't want to play because it wasn't "name brand" D&D and she wanted to learn how to play so she could also join other groups that were playing "name brand" D&D.

Never in my 30+ years of playing has that happened.

More evidence that WotC has simply too much power and influence in the industry and the community. This one's a little weird to me in that your wife told them you weren't playing D&D, which is specifically the game this person wanted to learn. Why did they come anyway?

 

[Micah Sweet]

While that might be what she said and/or how you interpreted, it might just be that she wants to learn D&D as the most played game, in the same way people want to learn Windows (vs. Linux or MacOS). Or she didn't like how Daggerheart played and hopes that the popular D&D she heard so much about would better fit her needs (as she never played it, she might be wrong).

I'm generally up to play just about anything, but if given the choice between D&D and Daggerheart, I would also choose D&D. And that's me in my experimental phase, wanting to try a BUNCH of different RPGs, just not Daggerheart.

As a rule of thumb, I generally assume people are being honest in their desires.

 

[bedir than]

So she came, watched the game for an hour, then left. She didn't want to play because it wasn't "name brand" D&D and she wanted to learn how to play so she could also join other groups that were playing "name brand" D&D.

Yeah, if she's looking to join other D&D groups learning Daggerheart isn't a great first step.
Your approach and her approach were both correct.
There was clear communication about it being not-D&D and she still showed up. It wasn't right for her because she wanted to participate in the broader experience of D&D.

If someone says they want to play soccer and you invite them to futsal you're giving them a similar experience. That they're not happy with it isn't their fault.

 

[bsss]

This is another argument I've seen for a while and I don't think there's a right answer. Some like the copyleft nature, some don't. I think the copyleft nature boosts the top producers more than it helps those below unless the top producers produce everything under it. Paizo seems to but when Kobold Press was using ORC, for example, they were holding stuff outside of ORC so they could maintain control but not offering that to those below. KP eventually released Black Flag under CC BY and now put no such restrictions on downstream producers which I am really really glad to see.

I can see how some don't like that CC BY doesn't restrict downstream producers from releasing their own material and I've seen how that manifests with other publishers but I still much prefer CC BY and now it doesn't matter because it's been released and can't be taken back.

I agree, there's not a right answer in permissive vs. copyleft licensing, only a personal answer, but I think the distinction I would make for copyleft is that it is less about protecting one's personal interests in profit or control and more about protecting the health of the commons. That's where I think the hobby lost something.

And, just a quibble of a correction, any copyright holder could somewhat "take back" the decision by relicensing their latest and further works as only CC BY-SA. Existing content before the change would still be available under CC BY, but future revisions would become copyleft again (to whatever degree the future changes matter). A derivative of a CC BY license could make their changes CC BY-SA as well, though I'm out of my league to say whether or not they'd have to be very specific about which parts were which (however, since CC BY only requires attribution, my reading is they could put the whole thing under CC BY-SA and satisfy the CC BY terms). Point is, the horses haven't completely left the barn.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, there's not a right answer in permissive vs. copyleft licensing, only a personal answer, but I think the distinction I would make for copyleft is that it is less about protecting one's personal interests in profit or control and more about protecting the health of the commons. That's where I think the hobby lost something.

And, just a quibble of a correction, any copyright holder could somewhat "take back" the decision by relicensing their latest and further works as only CC BY-SA. Existing content before the change would still be available under CC BY, but future revisions would become copyleft again (to whatever degree the future changes matter). A derivative of a CC BY license could make their changes CC BY-SA as well, though I'm out of my league to say whether or not they'd have to be very specific about which parts were which (however, since CC BY only requires attribution, my reading is they could put the whole thing under CC BY-SA and satisfy the CC BY terms). Point is, the horses haven't completely left the barn.

What does "copy left" mean? People just started using that term here without explanation.

 

[bedir than]

I agree, there's not a right answer in permissive vs. copyleft licensing, only a personal answer, but I think the distinction I would make for copyleft is that it is less about protecting one's personal interests in profit or control and more about protecting the health of the commons. That's where I think the hobby lost something.

Except the adherence to the OGL's virality were essentially voluntary without enforcement, while many quite large companies ignored it altogether.
Nothing was lost except the language. The practice was already gone.

 

[Marc Radle]

I think Kobold Press said they already had ideas for Tales of the Valiant before the OGL crisis but accelerated it once that happened.

100% correct

 

[Corinnguard]

What does "copy left" mean? People just started using that term here without explanation.

It's a legal technique that allows anyone to freely use, modify, or distribute copyrighted works under certain circumstances. The OGL is an example of a Copy Left.

 

[TwoSix]

What does "copy left" mean? People just started using that term here without explanation.

Copyleft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org