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

[mamba]

You think that I’m arguing that this is right? Seriously?

yes, you always were the 'wait and see, WotC is our friend, it will all turn out better than the announcement made it sound' guy to me

Maybe I misunderstood, but that is how I perceived it

I’m not arguing about the morality of this at all.

agreed, which made me think you do not care, because you only focused on the bottom line

I’m simply pointing out that in the great rush that we might be running off a cliff. Like I said I’m SCARED about this idea. I most certainly do not want it to be true.

What cliff? Not buying WotC products any more is no cliff. Not playing 5e any more (which is fewer than the not buying new material group) is no cliff. We simply switch lanes, no cliff in sight. If there is a cliff, that is a cliff for WotC, but I see it more as a speedbump now and then a steady decline over years.

They are about to throw away the one thing that ensured they would stay on top of the hill. Now they are just one TTRPG among many. The largest one, granted, but nothing special any more.
If the community manages to join together around a new core of maybe 2 or three other games, those will eat away at D&D and grow while WotC squandered its goodwill and now struggles to attract new players (CR, and all the other channels no longer draw people towards D&D in that scenario, they switched over).

They will stay at the top for years, but they ensured that there will be challengers where today they were safe that there would be none.

I’m saying that if WotC is purely focusing on the bottom line, and their bottom line isn’t being affected as much as people are assuming, then all the back and forth about “doing the right thing” doesn’t matter.

on this we agree, I still prefer to do the right thing rather than caving to corporate greed

 

[Hussar]

They are about to throw away the one thing that ensured they would stay on top of the hill. Now they are just one TTRPG among many. The largest one, granted, but nothing special any more.
If the community manages to join together around a new core of maybe 2 or three other games, those will eat away at D&D and grow while WotC squandered its goodwill and now struggles to attract new players (CR, and all the other channels no longer draw people towards D&D in that scenario, they switched over).

They will stay at the top for years, but they ensured that there will be challengers where today they were safe that there would be none.

See, that right there is the assumption I'm talking about. You are assuming that the OGL ensured they would stay on the top of the hill and that with the OGL gone, they will "eat away at D&D while WotC... struggles to attract new players".

That's my worry. What if you're wrong? What you are saying here seems to be the prevailing assumption. That WotC without the OGL will no longer be safe from challengers. But, your presumption here is that A. This is true and B. WotC perceives this as true.

My fear as that A might not be true and B very much isn't true. Which is why instead of thinking that we will have a future where we have a bunch of roughly equal sized RPG producers, I worry that we will have WotC and then everyone else climbing into a tiny OSR sized niche that is largely irrelevant to the hobby.

IOW, you are assuming that a large percentage of gamers will "switch over". Or, rather, a large enough percentage that it will make a difference. I'm not at all convinced that this will be true.

Again, I'm absolutely not arguing that this is right. Not at all. I wasn't arguing wait and see before because I agreed with WotC. I was arguing that way because I really didn't want to believe that WOtC was going to be this colossally stupid. Jaw droppingly stupid. And, frankly, I do think that the best state for the hobby would be half a dozen roughly equally sized producers all banging out games. Fantastic. But, my fear is that this best case scenario won't pan out and what we will actually have is WotC producing D&D, D&D remaining as the 800 pound gorilla, and then everyone else chasing the table scraps left over.

 

[mamba]

See, that right there is the assumption I'm talking about. You are assuming that the OGL ensured they would stay on the top of the hill and that with the OGL gone, they will "eat away at D&D while WotC... struggles to attract new players".

Yes, the premise being that the community rallies around something other than D&D. WotC clearly has shown that they are not interested in it.

The alternative is the 3PP community simply disappears, there is no way it stays with D&D.

That's my worry. What if you're wrong? What you are saying here seems to be the prevailing assumption. That WotC without the OGL will no longer be safe from challengers. But, your presumption here is that A. This is true and B. WotC perceives this as true.

My assumption is WotC perceives this as false, because they would not try to get rid of the OGL otherwise

My fear as that A might not be true and B very much isn't true. Which is why instead of thinking that we will have a future where we have a bunch of roughly equal sized RPG producers, I worry that we will have WotC and then everyone else climbing into a tiny OSR sized niche that is largely irrelevant to the hobby.

What is your fear here, that sounds like what we have today

IOW, you are assuming that a large percentage of gamers will "switch over". Or, rather, a large enough percentage that it will make a difference. I'm not at all convinced that this will be true.

only one way to find out, and imo it probably is too late to not have to find out already

Again, I'm absolutely not arguing that this is right. Not at all. I wasn't arguing wait and see before because I agreed with WotC. I was arguing that way because I really didn't want to believe that WOtC was going to be this colossally stupid. Jaw droppingly stupid.

well, what can I say, either they are, or they think they can pull it off, they clearly do not perceive the 3PPs as having any value

And, frankly, I do think that the best state for the hobby would be half a dozen roughly equally sized producers all banging out games. Fantastic. But, my fear is that this best case scenario won't pan out and what we will actually have is WotC producing D&D, D&D remaining as the 800 pound gorilla, and then everyone else chasing the table scraps left over.

so basically today's market

 

[gban007]

so basically today's market

I could be wrong, but I think Hussar is saying would be worse than today's market, as in today's market 3PP can at least have multi million dollar kickstarters playing in the 5e space, and players can get a wide variety of content.

Whereas a potential future is no 3PP for 5e / One D&D, so existing 3PP get a lot less money doing content for other systems if they can survive at all, and 5e players / One D&D players have a lot less content available than today.

 

[mamba]

I could be wrong, but I think Hussar is saying would be worse than today's market, as in today's market 3PP can at least have multi million dollar kickstarters playing in the 5e space, and players can get a wide variety of content.

maybe, but in the grand scheme of things, those are still tablescraps too

 

[Thomas Shey]

I could be wrong, but I think Hussar is saying would be worse than today's market, as in today's market 3PP can at least have multi million dollar kickstarters playing in the 5e space, and players can get a wide variety of content.

Whereas a potential future is no 3PP for 5e / One D&D, so existing 3PP get a lot less money doing content for other systems if they can survive at all, and 5e players / One D&D players have a lot less content available than today.

That would be my guess. Though it might not be quite that tidy; there were some slightly larger viable games in the pre-3e days that were probably choked down by the D20 boom, and that might happen again. But if anyone thinks they were really competitive with D&D, they're dreaming; it was still D&D and everyone else, its just that everyone else was a somewhat larger and more vigorous group overall. That seems like the most likely case to me if Hasbro effectively murders the OGL

(But the number of 3P support companies is almost certain to drop off precipitously; I can't imagine that many people will want into it under the rules WOTC seems to want to get in place, and operating outside of it is just as risky (maybe moreso) than in the old TSR days, and there weren't that many companies seriously in there during those days, especially the 2e era).

 

[Thomas Shey]

maybe, but in the grand scheme of things, those are still tablescraps too

Most of the hobby has always been tablescraps.

 

[mamba]

Most of the hobby has always been tablescraps.

that is not refuting my point

 

[Thomas Shey]

that is not refuting my point

No, but it basically says people's idea of the status quo is distorted. At best you can say something like Pathfinder wouldn't exist without the OGL allowing access to D&D3e, but most of the other biggest companies in the biz are not dependent on D20 derivation for their success. As I argued upthread, I'd in fact argue that the D20 boom damaged other parts of the hobby by pulling some of the oxygen out of the room.

 

[Iosue]

Someone on another thread (sorry can’t remember where or who) highlighted a public statement by C Williams who referred to as D&D players as fans. Their post made the observation that this term fundamentally misunderstood their customer base. This is because fans are unthinking purchasers of anything produced by, in this case, WoTC.

So, I agree that WoTC is not ignorant or malevolent, they may have simply progressed with changing the OGL and 1D&D on the basis of bad market analysis of who their customers were, what they wanted and how to draw them more toward dependence on WoTC.

I'm not even sure the market analysis was bad, per se, but I do think that WotC did not anticipate the emotional valance the OGL had (or has). I think they assumed (perhaps even rightly), that for the vast majority of their customers, the OGL was a non-factor, that the minority who made vanity products with the OGL would be happy with things remaining in 1.1 largely as they are under 1.0, since they royalties clauses wouldn't apply to them, and that for the big 3PPs, they could incentivize them to make individual non-OGL license agreements with WotC that would not be as onerous as the 25% royalty in 1.1, but still allow them a piece of the largest sellers.

It was something that occurred to me watching Sly Flourish's video on the topic. He pointed out that even under the terms of 1.1, revenue from royalties would have been peanuts (on the order of $4-5 million) compared to their bottom line. He pointed out that their next closest competitor was about 10% their size. So this wasn't about trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie, or driving out competitors, which has been borne out by the fact that they've walked back royalties, walked back invalidating 1.0 for existing products, and walked back the sub-license on OGC, the three biggest complaints (save for one).

One might think that with these problematic provisions gone, the fervor would die down. But yet it hasn't. And the reason is, people see it as a trust issue. People who don't even use the OGL to make product, who would not be personally affected by changes in it, are saying they no longer trust WotC, and don't want to play its D&D anymore, unless WotC clearly makes 1.0 irrevocable. That's amazing. WotC are essentially saying, "It's not personal, it's just business." And its customer base (or at least a significantly large and vocal part of it) is saying, "For us, business is personal."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In the face of all of those cancelled and deleted accounts? They might have just caved a bit.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One might think that with these problematic provisions gone, the fervor would die down. But yet it hasn't. And the reason is, people see it as a trust issue. People who don't even use the OGL to make product, who would not be personally affected by changes in it, are saying they no longer trust WotC, and don't want to play its D&D anymore, unless WotC clearly makes 1.0 irrevocable. That's amazing. WotC are essentially saying, "It's not personal, it's just business." And its customer base (or at least a significantly large and vocal part of it) is saying, "For us, business is personal."

Well, perhaps more to the point, a lot of them are now saying "You say you're not going to try to revoke old uses of the OGL this week; what about next?" It doesn't matter if its personal or not for at least some people, it matters that they no longer trust WOTC (and Hasbro) not to conduct an abusive legal maneuver if they think its convenient.

To some extent, contract law is always about trust, because as noted by a couple people, it has no intrinsic force. All it does is provide you a (potential) hammer if other people in the agreement misbehave, but using that hammer is not an effort and cost free process, and no one really wants to do it (unless they're abusing process themselves and getting that hammer was the whole point).

As such, damaging trust of potential people who might want to make deals with you has a price.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If this goes to court, and it's a really big if, it would take several years to finish. First it would take a long time to even make it to court. A year or two most likely. Then WotC would delay, and it's pretty easy to delay. Then regardless of who wins, it will be appealed and that will take a while. The appeals court might remand the case back down to the state level and instruct the judge to consider something or other and then make another ruling, or they could remand it back down for a whole new trial. The new decisions would probably be appealed, and so on.

By the time the case is truly decided, the number of 3PP still around or willing to come back might be somewhere close to none. They'd likely have moved on to ORC or something else completely.

Or if they really want to scare folks away and keep them away, don't go after Paizo and the other big 3PP. Just pick off little fish who can't afford to fight you and the other little fish will scatter.

 

[Iosue]

Well, perhaps more to the point, a lot of them are now saying "You say you're not going to try to revoke old uses of the OGL this week; what about next?" It doesn't matter if its personal or not for at least some people, it matters that they no longer trust WOTC (and Hasbro) not to conduct an abusive legal maneuver if they think its convenient.

To some extent, contract law is always about trust, because as noted by a couple people, it has no intrinsic force. All it does is provide you a (potential) hammer if other people in the agreement misbehave, but using that hammer is not an effort and cost free process, and no one really wants to do it (unless they're abusing process themselves and getting that hammer was the whole point).

As such, damaging trust of potential people who might want to make deals with you has a price.

Sure, but my point is, that's a perfectly reasonable stance to expect a 3PP to take. It's unusual for that to be the stance the end-user takes. Or at least, a significantly large and vocal subset of it.

 

[Maxperson]

You are missing the point @pemerton and I were making. You said switching to ORC is fine because the license protects the 3PPs. Well guess what, so did the OGL, yet here we are.

Dollars to donuts ORC will say irrevocable in it somewhere. If the OGL 1.0a had said it irrevocable, you'd see a hell of a lot more confidence by 3PP providers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd tend to think the reverse. I don't think most people understand that so many products out there exist only because of the safe harbor that the OGL was providing, and this is not only for WotC OGC (which is the obvious one) but for many other open systems that use the OGL as well.

More importantly, IMO, is the paradigmn shift that has occurred among ttrpgs because of the OGL in which the very idea of 'lets share and make cool stuff by setting some easy-to-understand ground rules!" has taken full root. Prior to the OGL, the idea was absent in the industry, IMO - all "sharing" was combative instead of cooperative.

I think it's the most important single thing to have happened to ttrpgs since their creation, and I think it more likely that people underestimate it than over.

joe b.

I'm not sure whether the effect is what people think though, or what you imply. Back in the '80s, for example, games built on each other in a TECHNICAL sense, but each game kind of needed to be distinct in terms of IP. So, sans some sort of deal, you wouldn't likely produce a lot of material for someone else's game system, or base your new game system on some existing one. I mean, there WERE a fair number of such deals, or at least games changed hands fairly often, but there were a LOT of one-off kind of unique systems.

Today you get a lot of BitD spin-offs, PbtAs, or d20/5e spin offs, etc. Which is better?

 

[mamba]

No, but it basically says people's idea of the status quo is distorted. At best you can say something like Pathfinder wouldn't exist without the OGL allowing access to D&D3e, but most of the other biggest companies in the biz are not dependent on D20 derivation for their success. As I argued upthread, I'd in fact argue that the D20 boom damaged other parts of the hobby by pulling some of the oxygen out of the room.

oh, I agree that it helped D&D and took from others, but now and then, the non-TSR/WotC market was relatively small most of the time.

The difference is that now the overall market is larger, and do is WotC’s share of it, unfortunately

 

[mamba]

By the time the case is truly decided, the number of 3PP still around or willing to come back might be somewhere close to none. They'd likely have moved on to ORC or something else completely

agreed, imo the 3pp market for D&D is dead unless WotC releases a 1.0b with the word irrevocable pretty soon

A new one might spring up again once this is settled, assuming the license is deemed irrevocable

 

[mamba]

Dollars to donuts ORC will say irrevocable in it somewhere. If the OGL 1.0a had said it irrevocable, you'd see a hell of a lot more confidence by 3PP providers.

confidence yes, but how many that run now would fight then? Not many more can financially afford it I guess, and while it is unfortunate that it comes down to money, that still holds true tomorrow, so I am not sure how much safer they are then

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but my point is, that's a perfectly reasonable stance to expect a 3PP to take. It's unusual for that to be the stance the end-user takes. Or at least, a significantly large and vocal subset of it.

Online fans tend to be a bit more plugged into the whole ecosphere than the random player.