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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

glass

(he, him)
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.
 
Last edited:

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

Legend
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.
 

leozg

DM
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

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.
 


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

Legend
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.
 

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.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top