It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Faolyn]

But if you play other games, that's reasonable and means you are open to something else.

I have seen some people say in threads (on other forums, I don't recall any saying that here) that they only wish to play D&D in one incarnation or another. I also saw some Youtube videos that suggested new games to play after the OGL debacle, and people thanked the creator, because they didn't even know other games existed.

That's the kind of thing that really makes me scratch my head.

It's what happens when you learn about D&D from someone else but then never go to look up RPGs in general, aren't active on gaming forums, and either don't buy any books yourself or don't buy them from gaming stores.

I have a friend who only got into gaming with 5e. The rest of us recently compiling lists of all of our non-D&D games, and they were just slack-jawed in amazement because we had so many, they had never heard of most of them, and knew almost nothing about the games they had heard of. Fortunately, they're more than willing to try other systems and we just had a nice introductory session of SWADE last Friday.

(Personally, I'm glad to be getting back into non-D&D games--I enjoy(ed) playing it, but I like a variety in my settings and systems.)

 

[Parmandur]

I have been wondering about this too. They just said they wouldn't touch it, which I take that to mean as they won't alter it...at all.

Which means, it's still revocable. I am not sure how putting it under the CC-BY affects that though.

Because the full SRD is in CC, there is no incentive to try and control the OGL material. Particularly if they double down and put the older SRDs in CC, or even make new SRDs for older Editions, them it guarantees the security of the OGL as being of no business interest to Hasbro.

 

[Enrahim2]

I know you have asserted this in multiple threads, and I understand your reasoning, but the fact that they have yet to legally ensured the OGL remains irrevocable forever suggests it isn't as clear cut as that. Not revising OGL 1.0 in this way strongly suggests they are holding an option in reserve to try to nuke it again.

They did the following with hardly any time to prepare: They did everything they could do really fast to ensure 1.0a is now safe to use.

Making a 1.0b might actually be quite a bit more work than just adding an "irrevokable" into the mix. A lot have happened in the last 20 years that make the 1.0a language seriously outdated. It can justify its current state by refering to the time it was written. That argument would likely not hold up so well if they released a new version now.

They might also still be contemplating an update to OGL1.0a that do not override it. It would in that case make more sense to put their legal resources into making sure they get it right for oneD&D rather than looking at updates for a to them obsolete license.

 

[Reynard]

Legally, the problem is that if they revise it, nothing released under 1.0a would be covered by 1.0b.

That seems to contradict Section 9, doesn't it?

 

[Parmandur]

That seems to contradict Section 9, doesn't it?

Not from what I've seen the lawyers saying in the discourse here. Any new OGL introduces significant potential issues for older material.

 

[Reynard]

Not from what I've seen the lawyers saying in the discourse here. Any new OGL introduces significant potential issues for older material.

Did 1.0a create issues for 1.0 material?

 

[Parmandur]

Did 1.0a create issues for 1.0 material?

The main issue here, that wasn't super relevant at that time, is the number of defunct or even deceased publishers from the early OGL period: people who have passed on and left their IP in Lombo cannot republish under a new license, which was fine 20 years ago for ywar and a half old products being updated in DriveThru RPG with a new license page. Now there would be a ton of orphaned work.

 

[Reynard]

The main issue here, that wasn't super relevant at that time, is the number of defunct or even deceased publishers from the early OGL period: people who have passed on and left their IP in Lombo cannot republish under a new license, which was fine 20 years ago for ywar and a half old products being updated in DriveThru RPG with a new license page. Now there would be a ton of orphaned work.

Interesting. Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Company A published a book with the monster Watzit under OGL 1.0a, but the owner of the company has since died and the company dissolved. WotC revises the OGL to be irrevocable and all around awesome, calling it OGL 1.0b. I write an adventure "Revenge of the Watzit" -- but I can't unless I use OGL 1.0a (and am thus not protected from revocation), since the Watzit was not and can not be released under OGL 1.0b. Is that the gist?

 

[Enrahim2]

Not from what I've seen the lawyers saying in the discourse here. Any new OGL introduces significant potential issues for older material.

I have read extensively what the lawyers discussed here. The argument I saw for section 9 not applying to the 1.2 draft was that there are legalese as to what can constitute a new "version" in legal terms, and 1.2 was obviously so completely different that it wouldn't satisfy those criterions. It was hence not any blanket statement saying that section 9 do not work as most would think.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting. Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Company A published a book with the monster Watzit under OGL 1.0a, but the owner of the company has since died and the company dissolved. WotC revises the OGL to be irrevocable and all around awesome, calling it OGL 1.0b. I write an adventure "Revenge of the Watzit" -- but I can't unless I use OGL 1.0a (and am thus not protected from revocation), since the Watzit was not and can not be released under OGL 1.0b. Is that the gist?

Something like that is my understanding, but I may be misapprehendeding the legal discussion.

 

[doctorhook]

So I mentioned upthread that I’m not super inclined to “get back onboard” with WotC—in fact, OP’s suggestion still makes me cringe. But I’m willing to consider spending dollars on Hasbro products again… if they make something interesting to me.

Which sorta puts me back in the same spot I was a month ago: Very unlikely to give Hasbro any money because I don’t find their products interesting anymore. Now that the OGL debacle is over, I can move on to playing other companies’ better versions of 5E (EN Publishing, for one), and I can continue to be annoyed by the bland, low quality products the WotC D&D team is producing. I can also continue to boycott WotC’s terrible direction for MTG.

So, this Creative Commons thing is great, it means I can support 5E again if I want to… but after all this mess, I’m still back with the same pile of reasons to avoid WotC that I had in December. Meh.

 

[Parmandur]

So I mentioned upthread that I’m not super inclined to “get back onboard” with WotC—in fact, OP’s suggestion still makes me cringe. But I’m willing to consider spending dollars on Hasbro products again… if they make something interesting to me.

Which sorta puts me back in the same spot I was a month ago: Very unlikely to give Hasbro any money because I don’t find their products interesting anymore. Now that the OGL debacle is over, I can move on to playing other companies’ better versions of 5E (EN Publishing, for one), and I can continue to be annoyed by the bland, low quality products the WotC D&D team is producing. I can also continue to boycott WotC’s terrible direction for MTG.

So, this Creative Commons thing is great, it means I can support 5E again if I want to… but after all this mess, I’m still back with the same pile of reasons to avoid WotC that I had in December. Meh.

I feel ya: Intend to enjoy WotC products, with some exceptions, but it's all case by case and transactional. I don't have to be "on board" like it's a relationship.

 

[Starfox]

I have a very positive impression of where 1D&D is going. I am happy I can now continue to follow and play 5E and potentially 1D&D in the future.

 

[doctorhook]

I have a very positive impression of where 1D&D is going. I am happy I can now continue to follow and play 5E and potentially 1D&D in the future.

Id love it if One D&D truly is “the game”, better and more fun than any other… but until I see it it’s hard to judge.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Id love it if One D&D truly is “the game”, better and more fun than any other… but until I see it it’s hard to judge.

The answer there really has to be: it will be for some people, but not for others, just as with every edition before and every edition to come after.

 

[ThorinTeague]

not sure how that's a positive for WotC? Can you elaborate? If I were in WotC's shoes, I would want a unified player market, not a divisive one. Those three bullet points I

Right and I wasn't ignoring everything else you said--with which I agree--but I was only responding to the first bit. If you compare the MTG market to the D&D market... MTG is competetive, D&D is cooperative, and I believe that's an important distinction to help understand what the flip just happened. It's about divide and conquer. A divided player market is exactly what WoTC wants; a united player market is exactly why WoTC didn't get what they wanted. They can go full ham on MTG and players get upset, some leave, but it's all as individuals. When they point the gun at D&D, we locked arms and said no--african american, caucasian, asian, male, female and everything in between, conservative, liberal, christian, jewish, muslim, atheist--all locked arms and said "you will not cross this line." I think that the fact that we've all been conditioned by our game (and lifestyle brand for many) to cooperate and work together, not to compete with one another, definitely has something to do with that.

I too hope the TTRPG community stays this course and we enter a renaissance period. How much of a division this will eventually cause is anybody's guess. I don't have a crystal ball of course and I don't really think WoTC intended this either, if you're into the whole conspiracy theory thing. But I think they could benefit from it, if they make some extraordinarily shrewd, cunning, intelligent business decisions in the coming years and take every advantage they possibly can. And if that means exploiting a divided community to stay alive... I mean they already tried to exploit a united community. Yes I do see some D&D players feeling at least nonplussed that a huge swath of the fanbased just walked, if not hurt/angry, many other feels. How much they represent the mainstream cannot yet be known.

It's just interesting to watch and ponder. It's really something to think that this is probably going into the history books--and I mean outside just the RPG world. In the advertising world (that's where I work so I can claim a bit more than armchair expert on this one) the poster child of bad PR is the New Coke campaign of 1985. Coke lost ball park $85 million dollars, adjusted for inflation to 2023. I believe it was $5-$6m in 1985. New Coke is the cautionary tale of the advertising world--it is the euphamism for royally farkling up your marketing campaign. This is taught in college textbooks/classes to budding designers and business people alike. Whatever happens, you don't ever want to be the "New New Coke!"

We won't have meaningful numbers for a while, but I've got to wonder if WoTC's insane blunder could usurp New Coke as the new cautionary tale of the advertising world.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Id love it if One D&D truly is “the game”, better and more fun than any other… but until I see it it’s hard to judge.

I feel that this is exactly the situation we don't want, because that's what led to all this hubbub to begin with. And I don't just direct that sentiment at D&D--I personally don't think there should be any one single King of the Hill in the RPG world.

 

[ThorinTeague]

By the way, please do not miscontrue my severence with D&D as a judgement on anyone else. Yes I am both passionate and vocal. That is more of a matter of principle than any particular need to control any results. When it comes to me, everyone can rest assured that I will not gatekeep or judge against D&D for anyone who continues to play and love the game, go see the movie, or truthfully even be fans of WoTC.

As a suggestion--waiting a week or two to see the movie, if you can bring yourself to do it, is pretty near as good as a boycott. If moviegoers can even bring themselves to wait until after opening weekend, it would be a big win. But you do you and I'm not going to judge.

 

[ThorinTeague]

I have a very positive impression of where 1D&D is going. I am happy I can now continue to follow and play 5E and potentially 1D&D in the future.

Before all this bananas tailspin stuff, my basic thought was "wait and see." Sounds like a video game to me--and that's fine! I like D&D video games! If the price is right, maybe I'll check it out! I mean, it's not TTRPG stuff, but I've never really expected my video games to replace that and I don't think any reasonable person ever has either. It's just a good old fashioned vaguely entertaining timesuck.

Of course now WoTC will never see another thin dime from my pocket, so all that is just a bunch of smokey smoke.

 

[jerryrice4949]

By the way, please do not miscontrue my severence with D&D as a judgement on anyone else. Yes I am both passionate and vocal. That is more of a matter of principle than any particular need to control any results. When it comes to me, everyone can rest assured that I will not gatekeep or judge against D&D for anyone who continues to play and love the game, go see the movie, or truthfully even be fans of WoTC.

As a suggestion--waiting a week or two to see the movie, if you can bring yourself to do it, is pretty near as good as a boycott. If moviegoers can even bring themselves to wait until after opening weekend, it would be a big win. But you do you and I'm not going to judge.

As a suggestion don’t wait a week or two. If you want to see another D&D movie or tv show in your lifetime this needs to be a huge success. Best way to do that is build buzz early with big box office numbers.