It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd argue that if you have expectations for WotC to release their OneD&D SRD as open content and they "are crazy" if they don't then that's taking it personally.

Who are you quoting there?

It's not me.

I'm curious about the motivation behind this because I truly believe they have every right to do what they want.

The motivation behind what? You've already quoted me saying something I didn't say so I'm wondering if you're confusing me with someone else at this point.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

I mean, the fat lady sang when the rules were put into CC. The rest is outro from the orchestra while the audience files out.

Really? When were the 3.0, Revised (3.5) & Modern SRDs put into the CC? How does any of this secure the continued use of 22½ years of OGC, that many games that are in no way D&D related use, from any potential Wizbro capriciousness?

 

[Imaro]

Who are you quoting there?

It's not me.

The motivation behind what? You've already quoted me saying something I didn't say so I'm wondering if you're confusing me with someone else at this point.

I think you're taking offence and I am not trying to offend. I was trying to explain why I asked the initial question, I thought you were implying that if WotC made it closed they were continuing crazy behavior (and I was curious as to why someone would feel that way)... but you clarified that you were just curious about their actions and what it said about their plans for D&D. I am honestly not trying to start anything so I will bow out of this line of the conversation.

 

[Parmandur]

Really? When were the 3.0, Revised (3.5) & Modern SRDs put into the CC? How does any of this secure the continued use of 22½ years of OGC, that many games that are in no way D&D related use, from any potential Wizbro capriciousness?

I don't use that, and it not under threat now because of the CC maneuver anyways

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm not taking it personally, I'd argue that if you have expectations for WotC to release their OneD&D SRD as open content and they "are crazy" if they don't then that's taking it personally. I'm curious about the motivation behind this because I truly believe they have every right to do what they want. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a IMO was wrong because of the expectations and dependencies WotC had set up for it but if they choose to make a future product closed off... well for me at least it doesn't really have anything to do with what just happened. But you've made it clear that you weren't expressing that expectation only curiosity, which is why I asked initially if I was misinterpreting what you were getting at.

It would be a poor choice on their part because doing so encourages 3P developers to stop supporting the current game and supplying WotC with the benefits of the network effects, and would lose a chunk of the community good will they just got back.

The audience has been rather clear that they want D&D to be supported by 3P without a bunch of strings attached. If WotC disagrees, the impact may not be huge, but it will be non-zero.

 

[Stormonu]

You don't thank the thief for breaking into your house to rob you blind, even if he reconsiders and takes nothing.

I've long stated that 5E was the last edition of D&D that I was going to involve myself with, and I see myself drifting away from the content they've been producing lately. This kerfluffle has just doubled-down on that. I've always also been an RPG collector, and this has only increased my interest at looking at other systems.

 

[Velderan]

I was speaking to a comparison with other industries. Sorry if I didn't express that clearly

Then yes, I'd say most people hold other industry leaders to a similar standard. The exact concept about open material doesn't really apply directly, but let's go with the broader "this has been an established business practice for years" concept since IMO that's what the bulk of the pushback to WotC was about.

Let's use Microsoft as an example. If they patched Windows 10 and 11 next month with a patch that removed all admin rights on your computer and only allowed you to install things on your PC through their app store, people would flip out despite the fact that people have largely accepted that model from Apple with their iOS devices. Why? Apple made their walled garden the standard from day 1 (and arguably a selling point because of some assumed baseline of security and quality), while Microsoft has years of established standard of allowing you to install whatever you like on your PC.

Edit: Look at the pushback Microsoft received when they announced the Xbox One and said your console had to remain connected to the internet and once you bought a game you couldn't trade it to a friend when you were done with it. Sony's guide to sharing used games with your friends was a pretty good marketing move.

 

[Retreater]

For me, the answer to the debate about "why do we expect an open license from WotC and not other publishers" is that they created the OGL themselves, with the intent to keep it open forever (according to Ryan Dancey and others there at the time).
The more restrictive GSL in the 4e era was totally acceptable (even though I'd have loved a more open system).
If they want to block off 6e, go for it, but don't pull licenses that have stood for decades.
You know another system with a "walled garden"? Palladium. There's not too many complaints about that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You know another system with a "walled garden"? Palladium. There's not too many complaints about that.

I mean, ouch, what a comparison.

People don't complain about being unable to make stuff for Palladium because the system is a trashfire.

 

[Imaro]

It would be a poor choice on their part because doing so encourages 3P developers to stop supporting the current game and supplying WotC with the benefits of the network effects, and would lose a chunk of the community good will they just got back.

The audience has been rather clear that they want D&D to be supported by 3P without a bunch of strings attached. If WotC disagrees, the impact may not be huge, but it will be non-zero.

See in order for it to be judged by anyone to be a poor choice on their part you would have to know their goals for D&D... and we just don't. Also the audience was clear they don't want 3pp for D&D to be unfairly penalized... assuming that the same reaction would take place for an open license that was neither promised nor already in place is assuming alot.

 

[Imaro]

Then yes, I'd say most people hold other industry leaders to a similar standard. The exact concept about open material doesn't really apply directly, but let's go with the broader "this has been an established business practice for years" concept since IMO that's what the bulk of the pushback to WotC was about.

Let's use Microsoft as an example. If they patched Windows 10 and 11 next month with a patch that removed all admin rights on your computer and only allowed you to install things on your PC through their app store, people would flip out despite the fact that people have largely accepted that model from Apple with their iOS devices. Why? Apple made their walled garden the standard from day 1 (and arguably a selling point because of some assumed baseline of security and quality), while Microsoft has years of established standard of allowing you to install whatever you like on your PC.

Edit: Look at the pushback Microsoft received when they announced the Xbox One and said your console had to remain connected to the internet and once you bought a game you couldn't trade it to a friend when you were done with it. Sony's guide to sharing used games with your friends was a pretty good marketing move.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing something already in place and being taken away... not the expectation that a business will use the same model it used for an older product on a new one.

 

[Incenjucar]

See in order for it to be judged by anyone to be a poor choice on their part you would have to know their goals for D&D... and we just don't. Also the audience was clear they don't want 3pp for D&D to be unfairly penalized... assuming that the same reaction would take place for an open license that was neither promised nor already in place is assuming alot.

I am pretty sure we can guess that "make money" is one of their goals.

 

[Imaro]

I am pretty sure we can guess that "make money" is one of their goals.

That's so broad as to be useless.

 

[Retreater]

I mean, ouch, what a comparison.

People don't complain about being unable to make stuff for Palladium because the system is a trashfire.

Most complaints about the reasons Palladium is a trashfire is that it hasn't really grown or changed since the early 90s. It's kept under tight control, which limits its development and adaptability.
Kevin Siembieda seems to have the attitude that Palladium is a "perfect system." Where else have we heard that recently? (The OneD&D Playtest videos from Jeremy Crawford.)
And what are some things that hurt 4E? Well, I think the more restrictive license caused it to stagnate because there was less development.
Just my opinion: the systems that are the most tightly guarded are ones that no one is really interested in developing anyway.

 

[Velderan]

Apples and oranges. You're comparing something already in place and being taken away... not the expectation that a business will use the same model it used for an older product on a new one.

Uh, no?

OGL 1.0a was in place with SRDs for current and previous editions, like Microsoft allowing you to install whatever. WotC attempted to revoke the business model people were using for their old products.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We can agree we didn't at all what they wanted to do, but we should remember despite their sins they are necessary for the industry. Even if it is for selfish reasons they are helping to promote the hobby. Lots of roleplayers started with D&D because it was the most popular and known game, and later they dare to test other games.

 

[Imaro]

Uh, no?

OGL 1.0a was in place with SRDs for current and previous editions, like Microsoft allowing you to install whatever. WotC attempted to revoke the business model people were using for their old products.

Yeah, that wasn't what I was referring too... I was referring to the expectation that WotC continue to make it's future SRD's open...

 

[Velderan]

Yeah, that wasn't what I was referring too... I was referring to the expectation that WotC continue to make it's future SRD's open...

Fair point, scrolling back up the chat I see where I mixed up what you were saying with something else someone else said. Mea culpa!

I agree WotC shouldn't be held to any obligation to release SRDs for future game systems and have mentioned in other posts if they change 1D&D enough that a GSL 2.0 scenario is a valid option for them to pursue I personally wouldn't have held that against them and would have just assessed whether 1D&D looked like a good system on it's own merits. I certainly would have given it a bit more scrutiny since there wouldn't likely be as much 3pp to fill in the gaps.

Edit: that being said, I'm not sure how they could pull that off since they've insisted it will be fully compatible with existing 5e material, but who knows!

 

[Incenjucar]

Keeping the new system closed would not be worth an angry reaction, but it would make the new edition less interesting than the existing edition and reduce the amount of support it gets, which will reduce the amount of money it makes. How significant that will be is hard to say, but I don't see a way for them to make more money that way.

 

[Umbran]

You don't thank the thief for breaking into your house to rob you blind, even if he reconsiders and takes nothing.

All these analogies to crime when no actual crime happened.

The person walking down the street considered breaking into the house, but when the neighborhood watch came around the corner, thought better of it and left.