Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Maybe D&D Should Branch?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 6015562" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>When WotC made changes to the d20 System Trademark License, the so-called morals clause, it gave them a mechanism to revoke anyone's use of the d20 System Trademark License (though not the OGL) based on WotC's unilateral decision. They only did this once to my knowledge. But they also were no longer updating the SRD/OGC frequently, and soon not at all, which is what I believe was the turning point when most began viewing the OGL less so a way to support D&D and more as the underpinnings of a business model that one might use on their own. If WotC had not turned from the OGL but rather had continued to fan the flames of what the OGL could mean in conjunction with supporting D&D, I suspect things would be quite different these days. But that ship has sailed.</p><p></p><p>Using the OGL with 5E would likely require a new System Trademark License, to distinguish it from the old d20 STL, and they could protect themselves (their new IP) quite readily by only releasing 5E SRD Open Game Content under a revised OGL 2.0. OGC released under a new license couldn't be used with the OGL 1.0 and thus any new rules placed in the OGL 2.0 would need to be followed to use that new OGC. Older OGC released under the OGL 1.0 would still be usable with an OGL 2.0, if the OGL 2.0 is modeled on the OGL 1.0, which would be a big olive branch that recognizes the mistakes of the GSL debacle.</p><p></p><p>They have hopefully learned from those mistakes which placed poison pills within the license itself and allowed WotC to basically dictate when a business reliant on a new license had to end their work with the license. That was a non-starter for quite a few companies and the market split would likely continue if they tried to introduce that sort of licensing language again. The OGL 1.0 let third party publishers be autonomous and didn't treat everyone like WotC had a major voting share in the way they conducted business. There are reasons folks flocked to it and why it was so successful for WotC as a rallying cry in the industry.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, the other problem they have is that by not everyone would trust WotC not to simply change their minds again. WotC now has a history of making unpredictable business decisions, not having 3PP interests at heart, and the routine turnover within WotC appears to be built directly into their business model. These are all major hurdles for them to address going forward if they have any interest reintegrating with the RPG publishing community as they once were and recapturing the major market share they had during the 3.XE/OGL Era. Most people seem to believe that WotC would like to recapture the market share but wish to maintain a more isolationist business model. I'm not sure the two are symbiotic goals in the current industry environment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 6015562, member: 10479"] When WotC made changes to the d20 System Trademark License, the so-called morals clause, it gave them a mechanism to revoke anyone's use of the d20 System Trademark License (though not the OGL) based on WotC's unilateral decision. They only did this once to my knowledge. But they also were no longer updating the SRD/OGC frequently, and soon not at all, which is what I believe was the turning point when most began viewing the OGL less so a way to support D&D and more as the underpinnings of a business model that one might use on their own. If WotC had not turned from the OGL but rather had continued to fan the flames of what the OGL could mean in conjunction with supporting D&D, I suspect things would be quite different these days. But that ship has sailed. Using the OGL with 5E would likely require a new System Trademark License, to distinguish it from the old d20 STL, and they could protect themselves (their new IP) quite readily by only releasing 5E SRD Open Game Content under a revised OGL 2.0. OGC released under a new license couldn't be used with the OGL 1.0 and thus any new rules placed in the OGL 2.0 would need to be followed to use that new OGC. Older OGC released under the OGL 1.0 would still be usable with an OGL 2.0, if the OGL 2.0 is modeled on the OGL 1.0, which would be a big olive branch that recognizes the mistakes of the GSL debacle. They have hopefully learned from those mistakes which placed poison pills within the license itself and allowed WotC to basically dictate when a business reliant on a new license had to end their work with the license. That was a non-starter for quite a few companies and the market split would likely continue if they tried to introduce that sort of licensing language again. The OGL 1.0 let third party publishers be autonomous and didn't treat everyone like WotC had a major voting share in the way they conducted business. There are reasons folks flocked to it and why it was so successful for WotC as a rallying cry in the industry. Unfortunately, the other problem they have is that by not everyone would trust WotC not to simply change their minds again. WotC now has a history of making unpredictable business decisions, not having 3PP interests at heart, and the routine turnover within WotC appears to be built directly into their business model. These are all major hurdles for them to address going forward if they have any interest reintegrating with the RPG publishing community as they once were and recapturing the major market share they had during the 3.XE/OGL Era. Most people seem to believe that WotC would like to recapture the market share but wish to maintain a more isolationist business model. I'm not sure the two are symbiotic goals in the current industry environment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Maybe D&D Should Branch?
Top