OGL So was it a poison pill?

Greggy C

Adventurer
Professor (formerly known as) Dungeon Master, in his video, called the OGL a poison pill.
Specifically, he said it was a license designed for everyone never to accept.
Designed so that people like the (formerly known as) Dungeon Dudes would stop creating content.
If everyone stops creating content, then all the content comes from DnDBeyond's walled garden.

That was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Retreater

Legend
That was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
It would kill many 3PP companies, certainly.
So I agree with the "poison pill" analogy. And I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that it was designed to kill the OGL, to reset the fanbase (getting rid of fans who care about "non-WotC" content). I think that it was purposefully made to free WotC from the "dead weight" of fans like me - who merely buy the books and run the games in person, who don't engage with it on DND Beyond, who wouldn't subscribe to their VTT services.
The $30/month per player will outspend me anyway - because I purchased maybe 2 hardcovers from WotC per year.
I doubt anyone on this board WotC is interested in retaining.
They hate us.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
That was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
If the royalties demand was so high that it made companies actively unprofitable, then yeah, it was "so bad that you died from it". Same with the provision about WotC being able to unilaterally revoke your license with 30 days' notice.

What reactions have we seen from 3PPs? Every publisher who's actually stated what they intend to do in response to these terms has said that they make doing business under the proposed OGL impossible, so they will not.

PDM's take seems plausible to me.
 
Last edited:


eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
What's with the "formerly known as" ?

To engage with the point, yeah probably. While I don't necessarily know that that was the main intent at best, it was probably a shrug and "well, worst case that leaves us to provide and sell more content, oh well" territory. You can really explain it all away with simple ignorance of how the thing they make actually operates. Which, if you are imported Microsoft MBA bros, yeah, certainly possible.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Professor (formerly known as) Dungeon Master, in his video, called the OGL a poison pill.
Specifically, he said it was a license designed for everyone never to accept.
Designed so that people like the (formerly known as) Dungeon Dudes would stop creating content.
If everyone stops creating content, then all the content comes from DnDBeyond's walled garden.

That was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
The OGL 1.0 was no poison pill.

The OGL 1.1 certainly is.

Just clarifying because for no reason you decided to omit the version number from your question/title.
 

I don't think so - I just think WotC believed they had all the leverage and could dictate whatever terms they wanted. I imagine they were shocked when none of the big players signed on.

Moreover, signing on to the version 1.1 means you give up the right to produce material under 1.0. I think WotC would have LOVED if the bigger companies who could conceivably mount a legal challenge to "de-authorization" of 1.0 had quietly signed their rights away.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
It would kill many 3PP companies, certainly.
So I agree with the "poison pill" analogy. And I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that it was designed to kill the OGL, to reset the fanbase (getting rid of fans who care about "non-WotC" content). I think that it was purposefully made to free WotC from the "dead weight" of fans like me - who merely buy the books and run the games in person, who don't engage with it on DND Beyond, who wouldn't subscribe to their VTT services.
The $30/month per player will outspend me anyway - because I purchased maybe 2 hardcovers from WotC per year.
I doubt anyone on this board WotC is interested in retaining.
They hate us.
Well a lot of us subscribe to DDB and play on VTTs, so, I wouldn't count on it. But if I'm an ideal customer for them, they made a miscalculation with this OGL fiasco. I keep hoping they will make adding custom content to DDB even easier and develop it as a marketplace for TTRPG. Seems like it would have been a good way for them to profit off of third-party content instead of taking a scorched-earth approach. It just makes it look like DDB will be less valuable to me and pours a bucket of ice water on any hopes for making DDB what I was hoping it could evolve into.

I don't know that I will stop playing D&D 5e / One D&D (and therefore not continue my paid subscription), but I'm certainly feeling glad to be using Foundry VTT and I've certainly been looking at a lot of other systems that I might use for my next campaign if they continue making it difficult for me to use their system and tools to run settings and adventures I like (only one of which has been a WotC published adventure since 5e started).
 

Greggy C

Adventurer
Almost certainly yes.

If WotC cannot unilaterally revoke OGL 1.0 because it's a contract with consideration, the only way to actually compel anyone to stop using it is to get them to agree to a new contract with language that forbids it.
Well then it is not a poison pill. The "poison pill" analogy the Professor Game Master was using, was that OGL 1.1 was soooooo bad, nobody would take it.

If the royalties demand was so high that it made companies actively unprofitable
But they weren't, only a few people make over 750k, and they can easily afford to raise their price to take royalties into consideration.
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
Well then it is not a poison pill. The "poison pill" analogy the Professor Game Master was using, was that OGL 1.1 was soooooo bad, nobody would take it.


But they weren't, only a few people make over 750k, and they can easily afford to raise their price to take royalties into consideration.
It's alot less affordable taking into account that they want the royalties on revenue and not on profit.
 



macd21

Adventurer
Why would anyone take royalties on profits, most small companies profits are zero...
I believe it was royalties only on the revenue over 750k, so not that much at all.
You take royalties on profits because if you don’t, you’re likely to destroy the viability of the company.

25% of revenue over 750k would render most of the larger 3PPs unviable. It could wipe out their profit margins, or even result in them losing money.
 

Retreater

Legend
Seems a needlessly complicated way of doing it.
I don't know. They can still claim they have an OGL, get good press for taking out objectionable content and NFTs, scrub the non-DND Beyonders out of the fandom, and they get all their largest competitors out of the market. That's a win-win-win-win.
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough to come up with a better way of achieving these goals.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I don't know. They can still claim they have an OGL, get good press for taking out objectionable content and NFTs, scrub the non-DND Beyonders out of the fandom, and they get all their largest competitors out of the market. That's a win-win-win-win.
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough to come up with a better way of achieving these goals.
Just getting rid of the OGL accomplishes all those except ‘claim they have an OGL’.
 





Retreater

Legend
Like I said, needlessly complicated way to do it.

I mean, if what you’re saying is that you believe that was the plan, not sure what to tell you. I don’t think so.
Yes, the simplest answer is usually the right one.
So they either didn't care about the impact or didn't think it would be taken this way - meaning they didn't care to talk to the community.
Either way, they don't care.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top