Monty of Dungeon Dudes infuriated at publishers writing own licenses instead of CC – WOTC most permissive

[Burnside]

I wouldn't say I'm "infuriated" by Daggerheart's license, but I'm absolutely not gonna publish anything under it.

I'm much happier using SRDs available in CC and other more permissive licenses, and will stick with the D&D SRDs, ENPublishing, Shadowdark, Green Ronin's AGE system, and others unless and until Darrington moves to a looser license.

It is a bit galling because Critical Role in general, and Daggerheart in particular, exist because other companies were a lot more liberal with their systems than Darrington Press is being with this license.

 

[aramis erak]

I think the collective D&D community still does not quite grasp how much of a win the OGL issue ended up being. Everyone has crazy open access to a game system with 10+ years and millions of dollars of effort poured into it. It's such an unmitigated win for creators.

Only if said creators actually like the system elements.
For many, biggest games in the SRD space (D&D 3.x, D&D 5.x, Pathfinder) are mediocre. (or worse.) Played because they can't find players for a game they prefer.

And let's not forget the d20 bubble, and its bursting, hurting mostly FLGSs, but also bring a lot of incompetence to the fore.

If one isn't a D&D/PF fan, the majority of its effects have been quite negative.

 

[Burnside]

RPG companies are under no obligation to release anything they design to allow anyone else to freely use it.

Open licenses of any kind should not be considered a baseline expectation. And every publisher/author should be allowed to set the terms and conditions around other people utilizing their words and ideas.

I agree with this, and that's why I would say I'm not "infuriated" because that would imply that I feel I "deserve" or "am entitled to" a better license. I don't and am not; Darrington Press can do what they feel is best.

As a creator, I don't like and won't use their license, though. And I think that their license is the wrong move for them as a business, and they'd be better off with a more liberal one. I guess we'll see.

 

[darjr]

I think the collective D&D community still does not quite grasp how much of a win the OGL issue ended up being. Everyone has crazy open access to a game system with 10+ years and millions of dollars of effort poured into it. It's such an unmitigated win for creators.

I’m sometimes still stunned that it’s true.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

As a creator, I don't like and won't use their license, though. And I think that their license is the wrong move for them as a business, and they'd be better off with a more liberal one. I guess we'll see.

There's a balance to be had between opening up your system to attract 3pp and protecting your IP. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution - that's the appeal of going with a bespoke license instead of defaulting to a singular popular one. A restrictive license will push 3pp creators away - that's a cost that each company/publisher has to consider, and may be worth paying for that creative control.