Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Ruin Explorer]

what do you base that on, I also see this as the intended outcome.

The entire way the OGL 1.1 is structured, together with the focus on royalties, the nature of the writing about the IP ownership and so on.

Further the incentives offered in the term sheet which was sent to people alongside the OGL 1.1.

they fell back because of customer feedback

Absolutely.

But they had choices about what to fall back on and how far to fall back.

And they chose to abandon the royalties and the IP ownership stuff, which weren't the focus of the most ire. In fact a lot of people seemed to (hilariously) think the royalties were appropriate (because 25% of revenue when the usual profit margin is more like 10% is totally fine lol).

Also, they have be even more stupid than we've been discussing, under your theory, because as pointed out by Legal Eagle and others, driving 3PPs away from the OGL will not drive them away from making 5E compatible products. It'll just ensure they're making them outside the OGL. So I guess I think WotC are idiots, and you think idiot is far too generous?

On top of that, it's basically a conspiracy theory/4D chess, and history shows 95% of things people thought were "4D chess" were actually just someone screwing up or getting lucky.

 

[glass]

convenient…

Pretty inconvenient actually. But I am hardly responsible for WotC having shut down their forums (and/or DDi).

Anyway, like I said the primary evidence is long gone, but there is secondary evidence available. This thread on RPGnet from 2013 should be persuasive for anyone more interested in facts than edition warring. EDIT: Or this thread here from 2011.

then what is your explanation for why product lines were scrapped and the whole edition buried in the backyard just a few years in?

It wasn't. Notwithstanding a few edition-warrior comments from Mearls, they kept DDi up for five years into the 5e era. And even without counting that, 4e was the longest lasting WotC edition until 5e overtook it.

 

[Greg Benage]

I might be trying to rationalize something that we’ll eventually learn was non-rational, but I believe Wizards’ motivations were more oriented toward the future than the present. We don’t know what the future holds, but if Wizards thinks D&D can be a $1B business, that could attract players much larger than Paizo. Or Hasbro. I was saying this before the leaks came out.

The harm, however, was that existing 3PPs with employees and livelihoods at stake would get pushed out of the D&D ecosystem. That’s bad for them and it’s bad for us. And so in my view the harm is being realized whether or not this was Wizards’ real or primary goal.

 

[mamba]

The entire way the OGL 1.1 is structured, together with the focus on royalties, the nature of the writing about the IP ownership and so on.

well, they couldn’t very well say ‘we de-authorize 1.0a and are done with the OGL’. To me the terms were clearly meant to scare everyone away, and if you are big enough, get an individual deal with WotC. No one could have accepted those terms - and no one did.

Absolutely.

But they had choices about what to fall back on and how far to fall back.

yes, and they fell back on the things that do not matter to them but they hoped would appease the crowds.

The goal is to kill 1.0a and reserve the rights to change 2.0, nothing else is important, because then you can kick everyone out whenever you want.

Also, they have be even more stupid than we've been discussing, under your theory, because as pointed out by Legal Eagle and others, driving 3PPs away from the OGL will not drive them away from making 5E compatible products. It'll just ensure they're making them outside the OGL. So I guess I think WotC are idiots, and you think idiot is far too generous?

no, they are not more stupid. They know the best defense everyone has is 1.0a, they focus on taking that away.

If you cannot defend yourself while we have 1.0a, you certainly cannot defend yourself when we no longer have it.
Nothing stops WotC from suing you if you do not use the OGL and apparently even while having 1.0a basically everyone runs into hiding at the mere threat of getting sued over using it. They are not coming out again without any OGL either then.

 

[leonardozg]

Third parties are realizing they are playing with someone else's toy.
Isn't it similar to what happened with the Book of Erotic Fantasy for 3e? At that time it was told Wizards revoked it's d20 license because of the sexual content.

 

[Umbran]

As soon as people stop pushing the lie that 4e did not sell, I will stop correcting them....

Mod Note:
Who sold how much, and when, is not material to the current OGL discussions. We've asked folks, so far kindly, to not enter into that debate in OGL threads right now. Since some folks take it onto themselves as a matter of pride, it adds acrimony to these threads that we really don't need added on top of the other issues.

So, please stop having this argument in OGL threads. Start another thread for it, if you must, but leave it out of this.

 

[Umbran]

We can go in circles on this all day long, or we move on and focus on something more productive…

Mod Note:
You going in circles on it all day long means that you are as stubborn as they.

Someone has to be the first to stop. If you want it dropped, lead by example, and drop it yourself.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nothing stops WotC from suing you if you do not use the OGL and apparently even while having 1.0a basically everyone runs into hiding at the mere threat of getting sued over using it. They are not coming out again without any OGL either then.

LOL no.

Paizo have already stated in writing that they'll see WotC in court if WotC tries to get rid of the OGL 1.0a, and that would end up in IP court, and as I've discussed at length, WotC has far more to lose in IP court than anyone else.

WotC's goal here was to cause people to kneel, Persia-style, and acknowledge their "natural and just" lord (lol).

If WotC actually have to fight, WotC is going to suffer. WotC is going to lose copyrights and trademarks. I think it's very unlikely they'll actually take this to court, because they know that, and if they go to court, their shares are going to drop.

Third parties are realizing they are playing with someone else's toy.

No.

This is a completely shallow and ignorant read on the situation.

Explain how, for example, FATE, which uses the OGL, is "playing with someone else's toy". I'll wait.

 

[Staffan]

Third parties are realizing they are playing with someone else's toy.
Isn't it similar to what happened with the Book of Erotic Fantasy for 3e? At that time it was told Wizards revoked it's d20 license because of the sexual content.

The d20 STL was changed in response to the announcement of the BOEF, yes, though I think it was changed before its release instead of after. But the d20 STL was always more "wobbly" and specifically had clauses that allowed Wizards to alter it with various waiting periods and stuff like that.

 

[robconley]

That’s kinda the fear in the back of my head. Everyone seems to think that the ogl community is holding four aces. But what if they’re wrong?

I am a fan of alternate history and even came up with some stories of my own. Alternative History and it related sibling Future History starts with a single point of departure (PoD), a single what-if. The best alternative history stories or those who are able to weave a story or history out of a single PoD.

Before we proceed I want to stress while I put some thought into the numbers, they are a wild-ass guess. My point is to outline a process, you and other can use to arrive at a possible answer of a question like yours. A lot of folks are afraid that what we see folks will not be enough. This is one way of figuring out what you think the situation is at. Thus point to what needs to happen to change it.

I have my guess, but it is overshadowed by the realization that we are in an unprecedented situation. Thanks to the internet and 23 years worth of experience working publishing and sharing for D&D by so many people, I don't have anything but a wild-ass guess to go by. Like so many, I am feeling my way through using whatever I have at my disposal. Sometimes I have success but mostly it is a lot of "wait and see". I am guided by the fact I feel that open-content gaming is the way to go for the hobby and industry. That we benefit more by sharing than by sticking to walled gardens. That this has to be accomplished voluntarily not by coercion hence my preference for licenses that require credit but does not require share-alike.

The Hypothetical
So for our future history let's take as our PoD, that Wizards drops things like the financial requirement but keeps the draconian IP requirements. Those licensing requirements are also a spearpoint for a much harder line on anything D&D related. They start issuing strategic Cease and Desists and DMCA notices to create a climate of fear around anything remotely D&D related in terms of mechanics even if it is something simple as a stat block. In our hypothetical, the line Wizards draws is other systems like Mythras, Savage Worlds, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, etc are not touched.

Within weeks we have a publishing environment where risks with publishing for D&D has skyrocketed to the point that all but the most ornery or have nothing to lose fight on. Within the year, in our hypothetical, Wizards sues these folks, putting the smallest out of business, and offering a modified deal to the larger ones, or just a buy-out offer that is good enough to make one go "Why I am putting up this fight?"

In this situation, by the end of the first year, it has been demonstrated you can't publish without undue risk for D&D unless you submit to one of their draconian IP programs (OGL 2.0, DM's Guild, etc.)

Next you need to characterize the hobby community. The first split is between those who deal with something D&D related or not. The folks who don't deal with D&D will drop the OGL 1.0a and a bunch of new licenses will appear. Other than that their release schedule would continue. The hobbyists who play those systems will still have the same availability of material as they enjoyed before in the OGL era. There is a small group of folks involved in non-D&D system that would be irritated by the loss of access to the OGL 1.0a. (Cepheus, Legends, etc.)

For those who play or publish anything D&D related what are their options? Here where things get fuzzy as we are in uncharted territory. We do know however some of the factors that could impact the course of future events.

• We have a large body of folks who are experienced at publishing or sharing material for D&D related systems,
• These individuals had success in doing the above at several different budget levels. Ranging from a hobby publisher who only releases once or twice a year, like myself, to a traditional publisher with print runs and distribution like Paizo.
• We have group of hobbyists who like what these publishers publish.
• However, this group of hobbyists is very fragmented and in that respect mirrors what happens in the non-D&D world.
• We have a group of hobbyists who are engaged in social media, ranging to those who just occasionally chat to those, like Critical Role managed to make a career out of engaging the hobby through social media.
• We have a large group of publishers whose works are trapped the DM's Guild program.
• We have a group of hobbyists who engage in Organized Play, and Organized Gaming like conventions.
• We have the vast majority of the hobbyist who just are here to play or referee.
• We also another group of hobbyists who like to read role-playing material.

In this hypothetical, any group that doesn't impact Wizard's bottom line would be not be holding any cards (to use the phrasing of your post). This hypothetical is about Wizards successfully creating a legal climate of fear and managing in a few cases making it stick (C&D, settlements, etc.). A precedent setting lawsuit is not in the card deck in this hypothetical.

So what then? What are the hobby's options. Then it will hinge on enough people who are Wizard's customers saying no. What would that look like? The broad categories of responses will be

• Will continue to play tabletop roleplaying using other systems
• Will cease being involved in tabletop roleplaying
• Will continue as Wizard's customers or participate in Wizard's IP program.

Another is that the groups that I listed in the first bullet list can be divided into two broad categories

• Those who deal directly with Wizard's related content. Buying Wizard's products, participating in the DM's Guild, using the various Wizards SRDs 'as is'
• Those who deal with material related to D&D like the DCC RPG, the OSR, and so on. But otherwise are not customer of Wizards or supports Wizard's products directly.

Now to the "How to make a prediction" party.

You take the Responses and take guess to the percentages that apply to each group.

For example, is it reasonable to assume that for those who deal directly with Wizards the following hold true after that first year?

• 70% will continue as Wizard's customers or participate in Wizard's IP program.
• 10% will cease being involved.
• 20% will jump to or create other systems

Is it reasonable to assume that for those who deal with just D&D-related system do the following after that first year?

• 10% will become Wizard's customers or participate in Wizard's IP program.
• 20% will cease being involved.
• 70% will jump to or create other systems.

Last you have to decide the proportion of D&D hobbyists are those who most directly deal with Wizards and those who mostly deal with D&D related content. I feel the percentage of those who deal directly with Wizards is rather high around 70% to 80% of all D&D hobbyists.

So if we are talking 1,000,000 active D&D hobbyists (using a round number here) applying my guess to the percentage above then we are talking

580,000 people remaining or becoming WoTC customers
120,000 people quitting tabletop all together.
300,000 people moving onto other systems

Finally, I can't stress this fits the very definition of a wild-ass guess.

 

[ThorinTeague]

My guess would be that WoTC's actions have already cost them more than $85 million in future revenue, by tainting their brand and alienating their customers. Especially because they don't seem to realise that this will have long term impact.

I have seen it suggested elsewhere that WoTC are actively trying to alienate their current customer base (along with eliminating the 3PPs) Games Workshop style, to get rid of them, bring in a new fresh customer base, and create a true walled garden akin to WH40K, completely separate from the RPG community - "the D&D hobby" instead of "the RPG hobby". The D&D VTT would then be akin to GW's game stores as a controlled place to play (I mistyped that as 'pay'). If that worked it would negate the financial impact of the current damage. I don't think it will work though.

Edit: I've been pointed to this thread on brand damage

I feel that it's too early to tell what the current numbers mean. Quarters are what matter. Gotta wait a few months... sorry internet...

 

[Hussar]

Well, then you should try to convince WotC to not go there and cancel your DDB subscription, if you have one, to make your voice heard.

Instead I see you here defending WotC all the way and saying we should wait, and ascribe the best possible interpretation to everything they do, far past a reasonable point.

Also, no one thinks the 3pp are in a position of strength here, some however do believe that this will do more damage to WotC than WotC realizes. Not the same thing.

And this is why I’m so reluctant to voice an opinion.

Anything other than 100%, full agreement with you is “defending WotC all the way”.

No it isn’t. It’s just that no I haven’t locked my opinion into one and only one interpretation to the absolute exclusion of any other thoughts.

I’ve seen multiple posters talking about how this will destroy WotC. They are going to lose millions of dollars. They are going to fail. So on and so forth.

I mean good grief @estar above is guessing that 40% of DnD players will jump ship over this. 40% of players didn’t even go to Pathfinder during the 4e days. I think it’s probably closer to about 10% might jump ship.

And if that’s true, then why wouldn’t WotC push ogl 2.0 forward? The losses are pretty minor and they gain complete control over DnD going forward.

 

[mamba]

LOL no.

Paizo have already stated in writing that they'll see WotC in court if WotC tries to get rid of the OGL 1.0a, and that would end up in IP court, and as I've discussed at length, WotC has far more to lose in IP court than anyone else.

notice the ‘basically everyone’

WotC can scare almost everyone away, and they already have. All those that ran will not come back without using the OGL either, so this all rests on Paizo now.

If the court decides 1.0a is irrevocable then people will use it again.

If the court decides it can be revoked and draws some line about what falls outside of copyright, then maybe some people will try to stick to that part and return to publishing for D&D.
Depending on just how little is being carved out (because neither side is interested in clarifying everything at these kinds of expenses), that might be pretty limiting if you want to create a product for D&D rather than your own RPG however.

If WotC actually have to fight, WotC is going to suffer. WotC is going to lose copyrights and trademarks. I think it's very unlikely they'll actually take this to court, because they know that, and if they go to court, their shares are going to drop.

my point is they do not have to fight. If no one fights them over 1.0a then there is no chance anyone fights them over copyright.

So yes, in one swoop they take out the 3pp market for D&D, unless Paizo wins

 

[mamba]

And this is why I’m so reluctant to voice an opinion.

Anything other than 100%, full agreement with you is “defending WotC all the way”.

no, there are definitely nuances, but you are not exactly falling into any of them, in fact you are the one attributing the best intentions to them of anyone in this discussion, by far.

Even after having been so spectacularly wrong about what 1.1 would contain (because you were attributing the best intentions). You said I was expecting the worst, but what we got is so much worse than I predicted. Yet here you are again, as if nothing has happened…

I’ve seen multiple posters talking about how this will destroy WotC. They are going to lose millions of dollars. They are going to fail. So on and so forth.

they might lose millions, they are not going to fail. Also, this is a different discussion

I mean good grief @estar above is guessing that 40% of DnD players will jump ship over this. 40% of players didn’t even go to Pathfinder during the 4e days. I think it’s probably closer to about 10% might jump ship.

I think your number is more likely, still not the point I was making

And if that’s true, then why wouldn’t WotC push ogl 2.0 forward? The losses are pretty minor and they gain complete control over DnD going forward.

And this is what I take issue with. You are basically saying might makes right. Forget about laws, morals, ethics, damage done to others, no, focus on the bottom line.
If you are in favor of third parties, like you claim, then this cannot be your stance on the subject.

I am not sure how much damage this will do to WotC. Not enough to kill D&D for sure. I do not think it does not cause any damage though and more importantly I see no reason for them to do it at all / an actual benefit.

Heck, even if I saw them making more money that way, this still would not make it right. They are violating a contract they signed because they think they can benefit from that and the ones they shove under the bus are too weak to fight back. I have no idea why you are ok with that while at the same time claiming you are for 3PPs

I can see someone saying ‘yeah, sucks for the 3pps, but I do not use them, so do not care’, and while I do not like the stance, it at least is internally consistent.

 

[leonardozg]

Explain how, for example, FATE, which uses the OGL, is "playing with someone else's toy". I'll wait.

Fate is from Evil Hat productions and OGL is from WotC. Had Evil Hat used its own license it would be playing with their own toy.

This is a completely shallow and ignorant read on the situation.

Didn't mean to write an article about the situation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

n top of that, it's basically a conspiracy theory/4D chess, and history shows 95% of things people thought were "4D chess" were actually just someone screwing up or getting lucky.

Never underestimate luck. The best ______ in the world most likely isn't known to you, because no matter how much work how much skill and how smart you are 1 bad break could change (or end) your life.
That's not to say that skill and hard work and smarts don't help... luck gives you the chance to use those things to become great. A lucky person MAY fail forward for a bit but sooner or later the lack of skill, hard work and smarts will show (I have never seen someone stay lucky forever).

However if all else is even and you have one person more skilled and the other more lucky... bet on luck.

Now to bring this around to D&D, it's one of the reasons I think the d20 works so well for things... "I have a +11 and you have a -1 you can never do better then me" followed by the +11 rolling a 3 for a 14, and the -1 rolling a 17 for a 16...
You can't COUNT on luck though.

 

[robconley]

And this is why I’m so reluctant to voice an opinion.

I realize my response seems critical but in your reply you cited a 10% figure of folks jumping ship. You are not the only thinking that there will be a low number of D&D hobbyist that will do anything as a result of this situation. My reply is to point out that the situation is novel and why the usual assumption may be wildly off base. Although my numbers themselves remain a wild-ass guess.

I mean good grief @estar above is guessing that 40% of DnD players will jump ship over this. 40% of players didn’t even go to Pathfinder during the 4e days. I think it’s probably closer to about 10% might jump ship.

The situation with 4e isn't analogous and played out over years.

In the tweet @S'mon referenced the author goes on to say

Just on Youtube there were 500+ videos covering the topic this week. Fan creators and influencers generated over 10M views across hundreds of videos that generated millions of hours of view time and 110K+ comments spreading to every other platform.

Then it occurred to me to google "brand damage valuation" and apparently it is a thing with a field of study. So while my wild-ass guess, which I mentioned, may be off base. There are people who have the skills to do this on a more rigorous basis.

Finally, The part of D&D hobby that focuses on related systems by the end of the first year, the hypothetical scenario I stated has made all those systems dead like anything else that is out of print and unsupported. What has been the past behavior of players toward dead and unsupported systems? Of course, many of those in the D&D hobby are focused on playing D&D related system rather than D&D itself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It definitely wasn't.

You can see that from how they've fallen back from the initial position. If that really was their goal, one thing they would have stuck to was the royalties.

I think this is unfair in that this is a description of your own perceptions rather than any realities of the board.

Whilst I've always said D&D's success was more about structural market features than the quality of the RPG (which isn't to insult D&D in any way, note, I would say it's a good-quality RPG), it's actually the case that he same people who were saying D&D's success was due to quality primarily, with structural market features playing a lesser or even no role, are now saying "The OGL doesn't matter that much, this is a dumb move but it won't kill D&D".

So you're conflating a bunch of different people here. I'm going to call two people out in fact, hopefully they're cool with that - @Oofta and @Parmandur have both maintained, as far as I know, that 5E's success was primarily or entirely a reflection of the quality of 5E, certainly more than structural market factors, and both of them, and correct me if I'm wrong guys, maintain most people are not going to stop playing D&D as a result of the OGL stuff.

I don't think there was ever a majority opinion re: 5E's quality being more important than structural factors, I think it's more like most people didn't care, and 5E is was clearly a "good" quality RPG in terms of rules, and a very high quality one in terms of physical/artistic qualities of the materials (relative to the rest of the industry - albeit there has been some amazing catching up on that side in the last 2-3 years).

I'm pretty sure WotC doesn't really care if people  play D&D, only that they  buy D&D. Money is the only concern here, and all their actions stem from it.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is no need to use analogies when we can talk about the thing at hand. People will still be willing to use WotC's Open Gaming Content after this. There are no other open licenses applied to that content, and "relying upon copyright law" to try and mimic that content results not only in a reduction of that value (like "what does Hits To Kill translate into?" etc.), it also comes with clear legal risks that are greater than using the OGL.

Any other open license and other new open license will not have as valuable content attached to it. That value will always create interest.

The OGL is very far from dead because the OGL as a license has minuscule value in and of itself: the value derives from the Open Game Content that has been attached to it.

joe b.

I am sincerely not getting what you want to say.

Rather than guess ("is he saying 3PPs will still use the OGL?") I'm simply asking you to clarify. What are you saying 3PPs will do when you say "People will still be willing to use WotC's Open Gaming Content after this"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

what do you base that on, I also see this as the intended outcome. Maybe not for all of them to leave, although this is perfectly acceptable, but if 95% of the smaller ones disappeared, WotC would not shed a tear.

I have no other explanation for the 1.1 terms


they fell back because of customer feedback

IMO they fell back because they weren't the important change: killing the OGL 1.0a. That's their line in the sand.