So how do we respond?

[Ruin Explorer]

Someone on Reddit recently pointed out that a lot of this is mirroring the events in '93/'94, when TSR tried to claim everything concerning D&D online was theirs, and pointed to the old rec.games.frp.dnd from the UseNet days. The flame wars were legendary. To my amusement, I noted that one of the contributors to that thread was Ray Winninger.

"Compatible with the world's most litigious roleplaying game"

edit: Was the following written 30 years ago, or 3 days ago?
"Terms like Armor Class, Round, Turn etc. are completly save. As far as I know <owners of DnD IP> has got some kind of legal claim on the term "saving throw", but I do not remember the particulars. Remember, game systems are not copyrightable. They might be patentable (Parker has a patent on Monopoly, as far as I know), but no RPG has been patented yet. Given the state of the hobby, with any number of commercial and free systems sharing any number of mechanics it would be very hard to defend the patent against "prior art" claims."

This is fascinating. Particularly as an insight into the kind of thinking that lead to the OGL. Indeed, it seems like if the OGL hadn't happened with WotC (just 6 years later), these sort of issues may well have caused another company to create something similar, which would likely have given them quite a boost (nowhere near as big as the OGL gave 3E of course).

 

[MoonSong]

the people effected I feel sorry for. BUt mind you those people are the ones that are in the field writing and being paid.

And how is that a counterpoint? Just getting paid for it doesn't turn a good or neutral act into an immoral one. Pathfinder is way more than merely a copy of third edition, just like levelup isn't just repacked 5e. 3pps both totally amateur and 'professional' ones are all on the same boat here. (Yes, I've been paid on the past, but I'm not raking the dough. It isn't even recurrent enough to count as a side gig. I've spent way more in the hobby than I've collected as payment for working on the ogl, and when I've been lucky enough to get paid, it was a godsend that helped me go through hard times)

 

[mhd]

This is fascinating. Particularly as an insight into the kind of thinking that lead to the OGL. Indeed, it seems like if the OGL hadn't happened with WotC (just 6 years later), these sort of issues may well have caused another company to create something similar, which would likely have given them quite a boost (nowhere near as big as the OGL gave 3E of course).

I'd say it's a mixture between the ever-existing RPG infights (Judges Guild, Role Aids, Palladium), the software world showing an alternative way and some small games already going baby steps in that direction (Fudge, Fuzion).

A big player coming out with this was basically the second best thing that could've happened (the best being a proper free license). I'd guess that without WotC doing that, we'd have some kind of semi-popular free thing as a sub-scene taking the place of the OSR, and D&D xE still being king of the hill.

 

[MGibster]

Lots of people contributed to the OGC-included your truly- in good faith under the promise that it was a perpetual thing. Now WotC wants to renege on that promise and privatize all of the OGC for its own use while negating us access to the content we created unless we agree to draconian terms that still prevent us from giving ongoing support to games already existing. This affects a lot of people, including Paizo and the publishers running this very site.

I get that it affects a lot of people. But from my point of view, creating the OLG was a business decision that made sense for WotC at the time, and now they don't think it's in their best interst so they're changing it, which, as I said, appears to be within their rights. Likewise, for those companies that hitched their wagon to WotC, it was a business decision that made sense, but if they put all their eggs in one basket, that was probably a bad decision.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A big player coming out with this was basically the second best thing that could've happened (the best being a proper free license). I'd guess that without WotC doing that, we'd have some kind of semi-popular free thing as a sub-scene taking the place of the OSR, and D&D xE still being king of the hill.

That seems likely, but I suspect D&D would have been "king of the hill" by a far smaller degree without the d20 revolution. I've never seen anything like it happen to FLGSes (except when TCGs came in). Basically half the other RPGs got booted or had reduced display space in favour of d20 products, all of which are essentially a sign saying "BUY 3E!!!". 3E only got a bit more space than AD&D by itself.

And without 3PP adventure support, I can confidently say my main group would have given up on 3E in about 2003. I think king of the hill is the wrong analogy - it's more like the largest market share, but instead of being 75%+ of the market (as it was in 3E days), it'd be more like 30-40% back then. And I think this would have lead to some very different decisions re: 4E too (not ones anyone would like, I suspect).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

now they don't think it's in their best interst so they're changing it, which, as I said, appears to be within their rights

I mean, definitely not.

Absolutely not.

Because the entire reason those people put their eggs in that basket was because WotC insisted the OGL was safe harbour. Not only that, but WotC even had a previous episode of going against the OGL, and publicly said they regretted it, and came back to the OGL!

So it's truly ludicrous to portray this as people just "putting all their eggs in one basket". You don't get to lie about how something works, encourage people to come part of it, then flip the script and try to screw them, then blame THEM for getting screwed. That's outrageous lol. You know who does that? Multi-Level Marketers, Pyramid Schemes, and so on? You're saying that approach is cool?

Even the way they're doing is fundamentally dishonest. They're literally trying to use an actual honest-to-god legal loophole (rarely seen!) to try and "deauthorize" the OGL when the OGL was written in such a way that was absolutely not intended.

 

[mhd]

That seems likely, but I suspect D&D would have been "king of the hill" by a far smaller degree without the d20 revolution.

I'd say the hill itself would've been smaller. And you're right, while the current situation seems a bit removed from the d20 peak and thus one could imagine a situation where this would've happened without that boost, a critical mass of either the whole industry or D&D-ish gaming might've been necessary to make mainstream and streaming notice and thus really ignite things.

On a personal note, without 3E being open I probably wouldn't have stuck around with D&D back then. Heck, the lack of the same quantity and quality as back then is what keeps me from going more in with 5E – WotC's own products being rather mediocre for my taste.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, just to add to that without a ton of confusing edits, what would have been within their rights would be WotC to say "Okay guys, we don't think the OGL is working out well for us, you can all keep playing with it, but for 1D&D, you're going to need to sign up to GSL2, which doesn't have the poison pill of GSL1, but does have X requirements and Y carrots as to why you might want to do it". It doesn't even really matter how extreme X requirements were so long as they're not poison pills or the like because it's fundamentally offering you an honest choice.

That would be "within their rights".

Loopholing a particular term in in attempt to do the exact opposite of what a licence was intended to do? That is being a greedy, amoral, untrustworthy crook.

 

[mamba]

I get that it affects a lot of people. But from my point of view, creating the OLG was a business decision that made sense for WotC at the time, and now they don't think it's in their best interst so they're changing it, which, as I said, appears to be within their rights. Likewise, for those companies that hitched their wagon to WotC, it was a business decision that made sense, but if they put all their eggs in one basket, that was probably a bad decision.

a little too flippant from my perspective because up until a week or so ago WotC assured everyone that they license would never go away.

As to whether WotC can, that is untested, 'appears to be within their rights' is not the term I would use. Chances are it is not actually in their rights, unless you consider 'might makes right' a form of right.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, definitely not.

Absolutely not.

There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights. We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site. One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.

So it's truly ludicrous to portray this as people just "putting all their eggs in one basket". You don't get to lie about how something works, encourage people to come part of it, then flip the script and try to screw them, then blame THEM for getting screwed. That's outrageous lol. You know who does that? Multi-Level Marketers, Pyramid Schemes, and so on? You're saying that approach is cool?

I don't find it ludicrous at all. Does the license say it cannot be revoked or changed? Because WotC seems to be of the opinion that they're free to change it.