Search results

They COULD. . .but being less of a jerk wasn't a factor in the decision making. This was absolute raw profit-driven, the idea that they think they'll make more money this way, at least in the short term (because corporate America hates long-term thinking).

For the 6th Edition they're calling "OneD&D" yes, I could expect new rules. After 4e, we were lucky they made 5e an OGL-released game (more or less). To come along after 23 years and suddenly want royalties for using their IP in support of the games they've already released under the OGL (3e...

The thing is, that attitude really, REALLY misjudges the gaming community. I'm sure this is an outgrowth of that shareholder's conference call last year that was reported on, where a Hasbro exec said "D&D is under-monetized", and they're trying to find ways to extract more money from it. . ...

That's the real tragedy here. The Hasbro exec that has doubtless mandated this is doing it for some short-term gain that he hopes will help his career. Inside 2 or 3 years he'll be on to a new position and D&D will be a distant memory. . . .the industry he trashed on the way there however...

Not from what I've seen. I've been shouted down way too many times on too many D&D-related subs for simply saying that WotC is on poor legal grounds to cancel the OGL. . .I've had enough self-proclaimed lawyers scream at me that I'm unfollowing everything D&D related on Reddit after this.

None of those are remotely as heated as what I've seen from some corners of the Internet on the OGL 1.1 story. Also, no, most commenters aren't on the same side on this one. . .away from ENWorld at least. I've seen plenty of people on Facebook and Reddit who are vehemently, intensely on WotC's...

On a related note, I'd like to say that this entire "OGL 1.1" crisis has been the most divisive, bitter, hateful, angry, thing I've ever seen in D&D fandom in my life. Worse than the 3e/4e edition wars. Much worse. I'm not talking about on ENWorld, which is well moderated, but away from here...

Exactly. No matter how well worded the OGL was, they'd make or claim something to say it wasn't, and rely on intimidation and legal threats. At this point I firmly believe they, strictly speaking, legally can't rescind the OGL 1.0a and that the "de authorization" in OGL 1.1 is invalid. . . ...

Except they can revoke OGL 1.1 at will, explicitly. A license that can be revoked at will is meaningless, it's as worthless as their "Fan Content Policy". The OGL isn't supposed to be able to be revoked, that was a substantial part of its appeal, that the nuts & bolts of D&D were out there "in...

We've had people ask that question, to which the consensus has always been: They can't. The idea of rescinding it has always been a fringe theory. The legal theory under which they're rescinding it is dubious to say the least. I seriously think this was a WotC exec telling legal to come up...

They've had OGL 1.0a for 22 years. . .nobody thought they could ever revoke it. . . .so just because something has been around a long time or nobody thought it would happen has just been proven irrelevant by WotC's recent actions.

A "fan content policy" is just that, a policy. It can change at any time. WotC can just arbitrarily say they don't allow fans to produce anything for D&D, at any time, at their discretion. It's as revocable as OGL 1.1, so it's meaningless and worthless.

I'm not even talking about commercial publishers. Right now, today, if I wanted to make my own RPG that's derived from D&D 3.x, 5e, d20 Modern, and other OGL d20 variants, and just put it out there and post it online and share it, I can, as long as I follow the very generous terms of the OGL...

The entire RPG industry is not just two websites.

Yeah, the SCO/Linux lawsuits have been on my mind the whole time. They were completely baseless and without legal merit, entirely rooted in spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) around Linux as a strategy to discredit Linux as an OS. . . .and this scheme from WotC seems to be much the...

The fact they kept that FAQ up for over 20 years, and if they've taken it down it's only come down within the last few days, also goes a long way to saying that this interpretation that they can "de authorize" the OGL 1.0a is a very new one and that they spent 22 years saying that if they ever...

He's the person who thought up the OGL, spearheaded it's development, and approved it for release when he was the Vice President for Dungeons and Dragons at WotC in 2000. He's very qualified to speak about what the intent of WotC was with regards to the OGL 1.0a and what WotC thought could and...

Which doesn't matter. It's possible for it to be irrevocable because of how other terms in the license are construed, without using that word itself.

Section 9 is what makes it essentially perpetual. There's more to this than a Ctrl+F and typing in "irrevocable" Section 9 says: WotC is now trying to claim they can say 1.0a is no longer an "authorized version" of the license. . .despite the FAQ they had up for 20+ years saying that if they...

Yeah, when I heard the current WotC execs were mostly Microsoft alums, I wondered if that was why the rhetoric around 6e/OneD&D sounded a LOT like the talk around Windows 10. Now it's sounding more like Microsoft's long-term war on Open Source Software. MS is notorious for hating open source...