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

[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.

 

[leozg]

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.