D&D 5E I still want D&D and Beyond, but...

[bedir than]

it is a construct of an independent third party

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.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

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]

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.

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]

If something like that becomes major news it will tarnish the entire D&D brand. The non-gaming public is not going to understand the difference between WOTC D&D and 3rd party D&D and the press likely is not going to articulate it (or worse deceptively use the D&D brand to make it a bigger story).

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]

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 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.

Yeap, my brother who knows very little about D&D asked me about it since he heard a story about it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

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]

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'

Paizo said in their ORC announcement that they are willing to go to court against WotC over the OGL's irrevocable status.

 

[bedir than]

Paizo said in their ORC announcement that they are willing to go to court against WotC over the OGL's irrevocable status.

Unless this line from WotC is a lie, they won't need to

Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

People keep saying that Wizards wants to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, but their statement says the exact opposite.

 

[Rabulias]

People keep saying that Wizards wants to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, but their statement says the exact opposite.

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]

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.

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.