It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Imaro]

In Dragon Annual #6, released in 2001 (around December, I believe), Ryan Dancey wrote an article titled "What the Heck is a d20 System?" In it, he talks about the genesis of the both the eponymous game engine itself, and the OGL and d20 STL. As part of the article, he says:



Later on, he says:



Now, to be fair, he also admits:



So while there was certainly an expectation that these network externalities would ultimately benefit WotC (i.e. the Skaff Effect that Dancey mentions elsewhere, albeit not in that article), there was very much an understanding that entirely new RPGs could be created from what WotC had made available under the OGL.

For what it's worth, the bio at the end of the article mentions Dancey no longer being with WotC, so it seems like he wrote that after leaving the company.

I'd love to know the actual pitch he used to get the higher ups to sign off... I have serious doubts it referenced the possibility of brand new games, publishing of their current game by outside parties as well as the ability to publish replicas of their own previous editions.

 

[glass]

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.

Yeah, how badly have you screwed up if you allow Sony of all people to paint themselves as consumer champions by comparison?

This whole situation really does have a lot of the same energy, right down to the stupid "one" name. We know that a lot of the higher ups at Wizbro now were previously at Microsoft, but do we know if any of them were involved with that launch specifically?

The more restrictive GSL in the 4e era was totally acceptable (even though I'd have loved a more open system).

I think this is one of those situations where context matters a lot. The GSL was disappointing, but hardly a deal breaker. If, a year before the GSL they had tried to destroy the OGL and only back down at the eleventh hour due to a huge public outcry, it would have put a whole different complexion on it.

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.

The point of the analogy is not that what they did was actually a crime. The point of the analogy is that stopping just because they got caught does not absolve them of what they intended to do.

At what point do we take "yes" for an answer?

At the point they convince us that the "yes" is truthful.

Hey no need to forgive anyone for how they choose to spend money

The entire thesis of this thread is that there is such need.

Yes they did, they released 5.1 into CC and they said OGL 1.0a will never be revoked (although to be fair they said that in the past too).

[citation needed] I have not seen anything from them (recently) that it will "never" be revoked, only that they are "not" revoking it (or deauthorising, whatever). With an implicit "for now".

 

[mamba]

I'm not seeing at particularly vile. Cap'n Kobold's first paragraph is pretty much right on the money.

no, for one much of it isn’t theirs to begin with, for another when they came up with the OGL the fact that others could / would build businesses around it very much was part of the plan and anticipated

I might quibble about the characterization of them trying to reel back some of the rights on their territory - it struck me more like a hostile eviction of the squatters (I'd bet Hasbro considers them leeches) in favor of more constrained and tenuous tenants.

they are not squatters, they are people you share a house with (not yours, just a house…). that you invited in and told them they are welcome to live in it forever

One of the reasons of the OGL was to not have to fight over the ownership, had that happened, much of D&D would have ended up not being protected, so everyone just getting along was the safer option for WotC. This is why I am saying this is not WotC’s house

 

[mamba]

Wait so you think WotC expected people to create competing games, clones of their older games and derivative games when the OGL was drafted. Is there anything to support this, because I was always under the impression that they expected publishers to support their game with adventures and more niche products.

they expected both from my understanding. Check with Ryan Dancey

Did they... technology, advancements, etc. have moved beyond what was commonly covered when the OGL was introduced (2 decades ago)??

no, because the OGL does not limit its coverage, and that too was intentional

I also am not sure your assumption they knew the ways in which the OGL would be utilized outside of support (and still can be) is accurate. Also it being "non-revocable" is something no one is certain of and, when/if the time comes would have to be decided in a court of law.

no one is certain of it being irrevocable because it has not been tried in court yet. Everyone is certain that this was the original intent however.

 

[mamba]

Good faith gesture? I think those are some rose-colored glasses. From the corporate perspective, I'd bet that, at best, it was certain degree of enlightened self-interest because they fully believed that it would drive the sale of core rulebooks more than spawn competitors that used the system really innovatively in ways that didn't require core D&D rulebooks like Mutants and Masterminds.

and if you look at the respective sales, I’d say they nailed that one…

The fact is, Ryan Dancey pitched it with two different motivations to different stakeholders in D&D. It would entice content creators to make D&D-based stuff and grow the D&D brand and WotC's market - the corporate owner pitch. And it would free the 3e rules and anything else derivable from the SRD from IP limbo if anything like TSR's fate befell D&D's owner. Whichever pitch you prefer and latch onto depends on which side you belong to. But the fact is he set expectations at both ends.

and they were all met

I guarantee, nobody expected a Paizo to rise and threaten WotC dominance in the D&D sphere in traditional game shops. Nobody expected a Paizo to be able to drive a million unit selling D&D sphere computer game. Particularly not when D&D, as a property, wasn't in IP limbo due to the financial collapse of its owner. Not even Ryan Dancey. Paizo didn't even expect it until they were forced into that position in order to survive.

not so sure about that one, Ryan Dancey seems to disagree with you on it, he made no predictions as to the circumstances, but that such an event could happen, sure

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wait so you think WotC expected people to create competing games, clones of their older games and derivative games when the OGL was drafted. Is there anything to support this, because I was always under the impression that they expected publishers to support their game with adventures and more niche products.

Yes. Read the old FAQ, and statements from Dancey, who commissioned the damn thing as head of wotc.

Eh the truth probably lies somewhere in-between.

It really doesn’t. This is just knee-jerk both-sidesism with no basis in the facts.

Did they... technology, advancements, etc. have moved beyond what was commonly covered when the OGL was introduced (2 decades ago)?? I also am not sure your assumption they knew the ways in which the OGL would be utilized outside of support (and still can be) is accurate.

Per Ryan Dancey, they knew exactly that it could be used to make digital tools, video games, video media, etc. They also knew that it was a general license that any publisher could use without any reference to the SRD and thus no relationship to D&D.

Pretending otherwise is gross historical revision.

Also it being "non-revocable" is something no one is certain of and, when/if the time comes would have to be decided in a court of law.

Everyone, including wotc, viewed it as irrevocable. Wotc reiterated this and promoted the license as such for 20 years, and practically the entire industry gathered around the OGL based on that belief.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good faith gesture? I think those are some rose-colored glasses.

LOL About a corporation!? Never. Every publicly traded company is a leech on the body public.

From the corporate perspective, I'd bet that, at best, it was certain degree of enlightened self-interest because they fully believed that it would drive the sale of core rulebooks more than spawn competitors that used the system really innovatively in ways that didn't require core D&D rulebooks like Mutants and Masterminds.

Irrelevant. It was put out as a good faith gesture, with full knowledge that they had no control whatsoever over how it was used, and never would.

The fact is, Ryan Dancey pitched it with two different motivations to different stakeholders in D&D. It would entice content creators to make D&D-based stuff and grow the D&D brand and WotC's market - the corporate owner pitch. And it would free the 3e rules and anything else derivable from the SRD from IP limbo if anything like TSR's fate befell D&D's owner. Whichever pitch you prefer and latch onto depends on which side you belong to. But the fact is he set expectations at both ends.

Okay. Neither pitch interferes with anything I’ve said.

I guarantee, nobody expected a Paizo to rise and threaten WotC dominance in the D&D sphere in traditional game shops. Nobody expected a Paizo to be able to drive a million unit selling D&D sphere computer game. Particularly not when D&D, as a property, wasn't in IP limbo due to the financial collapse of its owner. Not even Ryan Dancey. Paizo didn't even expect it until they were forced into that position in order to survive.

I guarantee that you are incorrect. Everyone knew that competitor games was possible long before pathfinder.

FATE uses the OGL and has no relationship to D&D. It is, insofar as any RPG can be, a competitor. The only difference is the scale of success. If wotc executives weren’t prepared for a competitor game using the OGL to actually be successful at a scale they might care about someday, then they were deluded idiots.

 

[Scribe]

 

[Clint_L]

At the point they convince us that the "yes" is truthful.

I don't follow. Words don't mater, actions matter. They already put the SRD onto the CC. It's done. Words are irrelevant.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't follow. Words don't mater, actions matter. They already put the SRD onto the CC. It's done. Words are irrelevant.

And that CC won't mean much of anything if they decide to make One not compatible with it, because we all know that they expect people to drop 5e in favor of the new edition, because that's what most people have done when a new edition (or half-edition) comes out. They've only produced two playtests and there have been plenty of people saying it's not truly compatible, and (before this) people saying that they'd end their 5e games and begin again with One. WotC still has plenty of times to change the game even more.

Sure, this is still an if, but it's an if I won't be at all surprised to see.