D&D (2024) Lifetime boycott of D&D-branded products?

[Charlaquin]

I think there are people out there who recognize that WotC has a valid reason in trying to be a bit more restrictive about their IP - particular as they add more big media projects like the TV show. If you were the owner of D&D, would you be keen on some deep-pocketed goon like Jeff Bezos dropping half a billion on making a D&D-based show for Prime that had most of the trappings of D&D from magic missiles to owlbears because he cited the OGL 1.0a?

Y… yes? Why would I have a problem with that?

When the OGL was released, I think it's fair to say that nobody could see that possibility coming - but now...?

I dunno, I think it was written with the intent of being irrevocable because they did foresee a future where different leadership would want to lock the IP down.

I think there could be a community-friendly way to replace OGL 1.0a with something that would be widely acceptable, protected the ability of most 3pp to continue to continue to operate as they always have, and still serve as a way to require certain kinds of projects to have a more traditional license with Hasbro/WotC.

I kinda doubt it. So much of the industry was founded on the premise of the OGL being irrevocable. There’s no way to take that away that wouldn’t cause such an uproar.

Hasbro obviously took a different route in their efforts by unilaterally going nuclear, and that's a terrible wasted opportunity for them.

They certainly handled it about as poorly as they could have.

 

[JAMUMU]

I'll skip back and read the thread after this post, but this should anser the question. I've been a fan of D&D since I was 8 years old. Forty years of "lifestyle brand loyalty". Four decades as a (A)D&D DM and player. And Hasbro took a flamethrower to that loyalty over the space of one week, and all that's left is bitter ashes. I would sooner sail into the heart of the sun in a very, very black spaceship than let a Hasbro-tainted, WotC-branded product pass in front of me or my players again.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is kinda weird, since that’s the part that started this whole poop storm. Remember when the rumors that the OGL was going away started, and we all laughed them off because we were so sure it was irrevocable? When nobody was worried because even if WotC released a terrible new license, 3PP could just keep using the old one? Yeah, that switch flipped because the leaked 1.1 draft made clear that they were trying to revoke 1.0 after all. Now WotC says they’re going to edit 1.1 to make it less egregious but they’re still revoking 1.0 and suddenly a bunch of people are fine with it? Did we all get so caught up in the outrage we forgot what we were actually mad about in the first place?

Who's "we," Kimosabe...? "Open Gaming" is something I can take or leave, and as long as WotC backs off due to public pressure and continues making a decent product, I ain't mad.

 

[Parmandur]

I am guilty of this.

Since 4e and 5e, I have only played official D&D. I am monogamous by nature.

Heh, even playing 1e and 3e because my friends are playing it is more like watching porn with a spouse.

My interest in other systems like Cortext Prime and Year Zero Engine is flirting only. I havent played these.

But now, Hasbro-WotC is no longer worth my trust. Its over.

Hasbro-WotC, its not me, its you.

WotC is a tot vendor, not a spouse. D&D is a game product, not a marriage or blood pact.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

I’ll end up playing whatever ends up being the preferred game for my tables.

 

[Charlaquin]

Who's "we," Kimosabe...?

Most of the community who’s been upset about this whole situation.

"Open Gaming" is something I can take or leave, and as long as WotC backs off due to public pressure and continues making a decent product, I ain't mad.

you’re welcome to your opinion, I guess.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I'll skip back and read the thread after this post, but this should anser the question. I've been a fan of D&D since I was 8 years old. Forty years of "lifestyle brand loyalty". Four decades as a (A)D&D DM and player. And Hasbro took a flamethrower to that loyalty over the space of one week, and all that's left is bitter ashes. I would sooner sail into the heart of the sun in a very, very black spaceship than let a Hasbro-tainted, WotC-branded product pass in front of me or my players again.

Exactly. You said it so well.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm arguing that threatening to boycott a company forever isn't effective because they have no incentive to change. You're never going to be a customer again, so why bother to change? Withholding your dollars and making it clear you're willing to buy from them when the bad behavior changes is, or can be, an effective boycott.

Here's why. Your argument has some slight merit, but in actual life, outright quitting does make some sort of impression on the human beings who manage the business. (Not that I expect Hasbro to have read my missive when I quit D&D Beyond, but you and Umbran seem to think that there's some great significance as to what exactly we should say).

But picture: shopping a grocery store, or local bank, or auto mechanic...and they really dicker you over. They intentionally or 'institutionally' betray your trust. And you tell them: "Here's what happened. My trust is betrayed. I intend to never shop here again."

Well, if they are human beings with any sort of ethic, they will consider their actions. And turn their will so that they will not act in the same way in the future, and not do the same thing to other customers. Even tho that particular customer left for good.

I mean, isn't that reasonable?

I'm not saying it's not a fine idea to type out the parameters which would 'make it right', but I personally don't forsee the existing corporate culture of Hasbro taking that to heart either.

 

[Greg Benage]

I kinda doubt it. So much of the industry was founded on the premise of the OGL being irrevocable. There’s no way to take that away that wouldn’t cause such an uproar.

I think if they said the following:

1. No change for anything already published under 1.0a.
2. OGL 2 is basically 1.0a with a no bigotry clause and a no blockchain clause.
3. OGL 2 is irrevocable.

That would get a lot of support. I don’t think they’re going to do it, but I think it would be broadly supported if they did.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think if they said the following:

1. No change for anything already published under 1.0a.
2. OGL 2 is basically 1.0a with a no bigotry clause and a no blockchain clause.
3. OGL 2 is irrevocable.

That would get a lot of support. I don’t think they’re going to do it, but I think it would be broadly supported if they did.

I’d be very skeptical of how this “no bigotry clause” could be written in a way that was both legally meaningful and not vulnerable to overreach. The leaked 1.1 draft achieved it by saying WotC can tell you to change or take down anything you publish under it for any reason, and that’d be a non-starter for me.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want bigoted stuff in D&D. I just don’t see a way to enforce that via licensing that wouldn’t give WotC more authority over what 3rd parties can and can’t publish than I would be comfortable with.