Don't get me wrong, everyone. I think it's a bad idea to get rid of OGL1. I'm just trying to understand why everyone (other than 3PP publishers) is seemingly flipping out about it.
Perhaps it is best if we overreact now, if it makes a difference to the plan going forward.
There are more RPG players than those that play D&D and many play these offshoots. Many of those who DO play D&D also play these offshoots.
The conditions arent the same. 5E isn't being replaced by something controversial. If WotC's surveys are to be believed, the majority of engaged players like the changes. I have no doubt someone (or many someones) are going to try and create "the next Pathfinder" but it's not going to stick because for the vast majority of D&D players, there is no reason to leave. The percentage of ones upset about the OGL debacle is probably in the single digits. In our echo chambers like this one, it feels bigger, but remember there are MILLIONS of D&D players.
Don't worry, the same changes for the OGL 1.1 are supported by the same massive support as the changes for the game!
They can silence their employees, they CANNOT silence their bosses [those in charge of Hasbro]. They cannot silence the stockholders (who, as some of them find out may not be so happy with the type of PR emerging), and they cannot silence those who are not under their employment (as this board so aptly demonstrates in this and other threads)
Or the board demands Cynthia "D&D is under monetized" Williams step down
If there HAS to be a scapegoat, that could be a likely candidate. I wouldn't say they will go that far though.
.
Release date currently is 3/31/23 so over 2 months.
I agree the longer they stay quite the worse it gets.
I would think that the sooner they address it with SOMETHING probably the better. I didn't know people on movie sites were getting negative on it because of this. If so, something probable be done before the movie studios get upset.
That's generally my philosophy. Though I think that there's some fear from 3PP that they won't be allowed to sell their product once the hammer comes down. I think that's unlikely, but I understand why it might seem like a good time to cash out.
In theory if they can enforce (I doubt it, but if they could) a 20 year backpay scam where those who used OGL 1.0 had to also pay upon those receipts from 20 years back, you would also be on track to be in debt if you, as a store, ever sold those items as well.
Good thoughts for you to dwell on!
Of course, I don't expect that to EVER be enforceable as contracts and contract law in most nations wouldn't try to enforce something retroactively that was understood very differently, BUT if they could (as it sounds like they want to in what I've been reading here), I'd probably not be sleeping too comfortably if I were a gamestore owner either.
Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.
I think that's one case they would lose under the idea that you can copyright text, but you cannot copyright mechanics. They'll even get the programmers, software and hardware designers, and most of the computer industry on their side for this one if they advertise what they are fighting WotC over because this would affect far more than just the company WotC is going after.
I think Hasbro would allow something, but I don't think they would allow them to go quite that far....unless they want to fight it out with Sony (who has utilized something to this effect in the past using very similar ability score values equations to the D&D ones already with some of their companies), Square (Same with ability scores), and a few other major companies out there.
At least on this one particular item.
This is not the actual license.
I think a lot of people are confused by this.
We're seeing a sort of commentary help document WOTC sent along with links to the actual license text.
This, from a legal perspective, is a bad idea for WOTC. No idea what lawyer approved doing this but they're taking massive risk by doing that.
Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.
True. The PR is bad from what I'm seeing.
I imagine the actual license was thought (at least by some, who knows, there may be some who are rather malicious out there) to only enforce upon the new SRD and the 1.1 OGL. In effect if they sign on with the 1.1 OGL it rules out the 1.0 OGL for them, but they will be able to use the new SRD for all the new items coming out.
At least I IMAGINE that's what it was thought to have said (no idea what it actually says now or what they sent out to everyone, so it may actually say what the FAQ is saying it says...which probably needs a rewording or something along those lines before the PR goes ballistically bad).
