bedir than
Hero
The parties constructing ORC aren't independent. It's a law firm that works almost exclusively with RPG companies that compete and/or complement Wizards.
D&D 5E I still want D&D and Beyond, but...
- Thread starter dave2008
- Start date
I meant independent in the sense that, that law firm has no commerical stake in property released under this licence. Nor will the putative future foundation that is supposed to administer it.
In the sense, suppose Paizo releases a version of Pathfinder under ORC and at some future date, some future version of Paizo tees off their customers that a clone of pathfinder is released also under ORC. That future version of Paizo cannot threaten to rescind or revoke the existing licence by replacing it with a more restrictive one because they have no authority over the licence.
dave2008
Legend
Which doesn't really make any difference if the license is like the OGL, but clearly notes it is irrevocable or similar. It does give another layer of insurance I guess, but a clear legal document doesn't need it.
Whizbang Dustyboots
100% that gnome
The mainstream press -- which is full of nerds -- has been reporting on it. I heard it on a Marketplace podcast yesterday, and NPR is interviewing people about it, presumably for All Things Considered on Monday.
Radio in particular is full of giant geeks and they have been reporting on it accurately and when they don't understand something (like if they're Star Trek geeks rather than ttrpg geeks, as happened on the Marketplace podcast), they know how to find the correct info.
Unless the British royal family somehow gets involved with the OGL mess, I don't think the tabloid media will give two hoots about any of this.
payn
Legend
Yeap, my brother who knows very little about D&D asked me about it since he heard a story about it.
Well Yeah, but as far as i can see the central problem with the OGL is the total unwillingness for anyone relying on to stand on the contract and tell Hasbro, I have a licence from you under contract come at me bro'
Rabulias
the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Paizo said in their ORC announcement that they are willing to go to court against WotC over the OGL's irrevocable status.
bedir than
Hero
Unless this line from WotC is a lie, they won't need to
People keep saying that Wizards wants to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, but their statement says the exact opposite.
Rabulias
the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Logically though, WotC will need to try to cut off OGL 1.0a to maximize the monetization and control of OneD&D content.
If OneD&D is "100% compatible with 5e" as WotC has stated, and the OGL 1.0a remains in effect, then 3PPs can easily create content for OneD&D under OGL 1.0a and not under whatever new arrangement WotC would like to have. A 3PP company could even create a "5.5e Player Manual" (essentially re-creating OneD&D's rules) under the OGL 1.0a and give it away or sell it. WotC does not want this to happen. Their only options are to defend their "right" to de-authorize the OGL 1.0a, or to make OneD&D radically different from anything in 5e (breaking their compatibility promise). I guess there is a third option that WotC has a change of heart and embraces the true spirit of the OGL, updating to a truly irrevocable, bulletproof OGL 1.0b and/or joining Paizo's ORC initiative, but I am not holding my breath for this.
bedir than
Hero
Or there's a fourth option where they realize that their millions, and still growing, player-base don't use 3pp stuff at a rate that is significant monetarily. They can continue growing without de-auth and still have a compatible 5.5e. They could even have a closed license that is more inclusive of their IP and accesses DnD Beyond, without de-auth, thereby making money off of 3pp using a seal of approval. That doesn't scale as simply as their bad idea for de-auth with royalty, but it would be an increase in revenue for them.
All of the past six weeks' actions by Wizards was completely unnecessary. The next two years should have been as big a boom as 2020-21 in the game space and bigger in the lifestyle, video game and media project space.
The 4th path remains available. It's a solution that means a growing D&D, growing WotC and growing 3pp.
According to the leaked FAQ for the 2.0 draft, they're still trying to make it impossible to use it past a certain point which isn't keeping consistent with their own FAQ that said creators could continue to use whichever license they like. WotC's statement doesn't exactly contradict the 2.0 FAQ leak either, it says "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" which doesn't mean people can continue to use OGL1.0a without threat of legal action going forward. How legit is that leaked info? I don't know, but considering WotC flat out lied in their statement about 1.1 just being a draft when it was attached to contracts for 3rd parties to sign I'm inclined to remain cautious of their position until the release something official.
bedir than
Hero
The 2.0 leak was from prior to their statement walking back 90-95% of what they attempted to do. It also hasn't reached the credibility that journalists are covering it.
Believe what you would like to believe, all I'm saying is WotC lied at least once for sure in their statement and the stance on OGL 1.0a isn't worded in a way that clearly says what they've been saying for years in their own FAQ is where they'll land. As I said, I'm not sure how legit the leak was but WotC hasn't exactly inspired confidence in it being completely false either.
Micah Sweet
Legend
That statement speaks to existing product. It says nothing about future product. If they intend to keep the 1.0a, They would have said so. It's what the people they were addressing actually want, after all.
bedir than
Hero
They are unable to remove it from usage if it exists at all.
They could have a new SRD release that isn't attached to it, but that isn't the same as de-auth.
Legally, whether they can or can't remove it has been debated both ways. It sounds like at least someone in WotC believes they could while Paizo doesn't seem to believe they could so it would come down to whoever makes the strongest argument in court I guess. Hopefully we don't get there and WotC lives up to their statement and does a better job on their next try.
wingsandsword
Legend
There's no real difference between the two.
WotC is a division of Hasbro. Both are managed by executives with no RPG industry experience. It's just different levels on a corporate org chart.
dave2008
Legend
So I have been told several times. What I am referring to is the game designers at WotC vs the administrators at WotC/Hasbro who make decisions like the OGL change.
I don't know if they have RPG industry experience, but I was recently (as in today on another thread) told the top brass at both is mostly "gamers."
Micah Sweet
Legend
Clearly WotC doesn't agree with you, or they'd have just said they're not messing with the OGL 1.0a.
bedir than
Hero
The language they used doesn't indicate that 1.0a is changing. They, in fact, said the opposite.
