Taking a Step Back

[Bravesteel25]

I do not believe that what Wizards of the Coast is trying to do is right, much less ethical, and I also believe that they have irrevocably (see what I did there) damaged not only 3PPs, but also the goodwill they have built with the Dungeons & Dragons community. I am surprised, I am upset, and I am saddened that WotC decided to take this course of action, if only from a theoretical draft standpoint as they appear to be claiming.

I have declared that they have lost my trust. I have declared that they will not see another penny from me while the D&D brand remains under WotC's control.

However, I would be lying if I said that was true. The D&D brand means a lot to me, much more than I could express through words alone, and to say that I will be abandoning that brand would be untruthful. So much of my life has been filled with the exploits of the Heroes of the Lance, Drizzt Do'Urden, Elminster of Shadow Dale, and the countless adventures that my friends and I have undertaken for over two decades. There have been times of joy and times of hardship, and through it all there has been Dungeons & Dragons and the community of gamers who collectively get together around the table to roll dice and tell epic stories of heroes and magic.

Yes, I play other games like Pathfinder (1E/2E), Traveller, and Call of Cuthulu, but D&D will always be synonymous with fantasy Role Playing Games, and I'm not willing to through a torch onto the bonfire of rage and see the D&D brand go up in smoke. Not yet.

WotC can still make this right, if they truly go forward with their OGL promises as they have announced them, but they also need to declare that they will not change terms with only a 30-day notice, and they must find a way to protect what has already been produced. I understand wanting to establish a controlled marketplace under the auspices of D&D Beyond, and I even understand taking a cut of the profits from 3PPs that decide to play in your playground, but there must be a middle way. I'm not sure what that is, I am neither a lawyer nor a publisher, but completely destroying your publishing community does not appear to be the way forward.

I am still halting my D&D-related purchases until I see what WotC actually does as actions speak louder than words. I hope, I beg as a longtime D&D fan, that the license presented is fair to the publishers, the community, and to WotC.

 

[Morrus]

WotC can still make this right, if they truly go forward with their OGL promises as they have announced them,

They're still trying to revoke the OGL, so no dice for me.

 

[Pedantic]

There is no apology that is acceptable for claiming the power to revoke the OGL. They can and should do whatever they want with a new edition of the game, produced under any license terms they want, but there is no compromise on that point.

 

[Retreater]

I refer to any fantasy RPG as "playing D&D" whether it's D&D, OSE, Pathfinder, whatever.
I could just as easily say the "only true" version of D&D was the nostalgic version I started with, or the first version made by WotC, or whatever.
WotC may "own" the brand name of D&D, but the concept of their iteration has no more validity than any other expression.
The "true" D&D is whatever I run.

 

[Greg Benage]

Everyone's going to draw their own line in the sand. I think mine's pretty reasonable:

• Leave all products already published under 1.0a alone
• Make OGL 2 explicitly irrevocable
• Add the morals and blockchain clauses if you have to

I think that's pretty generous--a lot of people, publishers and fans alike--will find it intolerable. And I still don't think Wizards will retreat even that far. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Scribe]

They're still trying to revoke the OGL, so no dice for me.

I hope people keep their eyes on the ball here.

This is the goal.

 

[J.Quondam]

As long as Hasbro/WotC's threat remains to neuter existing OGL1.0 content and thereby kill off future OGL1.0 content, I'm done with the company.

As for "D&D" itself, it's not an "under-monetized lifestyle brand" to me. It's a game, and a favorite hobby. For me, "D&D" is like "kleenex": it is a generic term I use for a genre of level/class based fantasy RPGs. I love D&D, and will keep playing it... on my own terms, whether that means using my existing 5e material, or PF1e, or AiME, or Old School Essentials, or my Rules Cyclopedia, or a Micro20 hack, or whatever. That experience is D&D; not the movie or DDB or the "Ampersand" logo.

As far as I'm concerned, Hasbro/WotC has got nothing to do with D&D. If and only if they completely and verifiably drop their threat to OGL'ed content and the people who create it, will I consider coming back.


"But," some say, "other companies are so much worse! Why not them?"

Easy. Because I can cut Hasbro/WotC out of my life entirely and also manage to send a message to them along with this loud chorus of gamers and creators. It's a relatively low-hanging fruit, so why not grasp at it? The odds of this sort of action to influence Hasbro are quite a bit greater than, say, influencing Big Oil or whatever, and I can join it with pretty much zero negative impact on my life. In this battle, I have all the leverage, because the company doesn't provide anything I truly need; it's literally just a game, and it's a game that I do entirely on my own terms. So I won't make excuses not to hike this particular WotC hill just because I can't climb a mountain like Google or Exxon.

 

[JAMUMU]

Hasbro and WotC do not care about D&D. It is simply a brand they're using to leverage greater short-term returns, returns that will look good on a balance sheet; and as that balance sheet doesn't look so hot these days, they will apply all the leverage they can, including until the lever snaps. If it takes destroying the brand to enhance shareholder value and return on stock, heck, even sunsetting the game a few years down the line, then that's what they'll do.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Dark times ahead for those of us who love the game and will carry the torch without the brand owners doing the same.

Just keep in mind that D&D ≠ D&D™.

 

[Enrahim2]

I understand wanting to establish a controlled marketplace under the auspices of D&D Beyond, and I even understand taking a cut of the profits from 3PPs that decide to play in your playground, but there must be a middle way.

There was a middle way. They could have gone the 4ed route of again abandoning the OGL. Maybe make a new GSL, maybe rely on DmGuild licensing only. With the curent market position and without the other factors dooming D&D4ed I think this might had a fair chance to work. Creators would have flocked to it, even some accepting the risk of the royalties. Wizards could have suggested their OGL-1.1 terms (possibly without the grant full use clause), and people would have happily taken it. Wizards would still be a company with a track record of fair business dealings, and hence a potential reliable partner. Getting access to the updated "true oneD&D" would be enough carrot, as the current huge pool of causal gamers would likely have followed without thinking.

Instead they went the path of trying to intimidate big publishers with terms they couldn't possibly accept. They invent their own legal understanding of a previous contract, that is directly contradicting their previous public statement. They absolutely and totally showed that they in no way is a trustworthy business partner, and are willing to offer contracts in bad faith.

There is no middle ground anymore. Wizards has lost all credibility as someone you can do business with, besides maybe trough tight contracts negotiated between two sides with strong lawyers - and at least a sense of trust and assumption of good faith is needed to find any "middle ground". The best wizards can hope for now is to ease pain and anger, so that those they have burned, and who's investments has been ruined won't carry the grudge enough to actively remind people about what wizards has done. What wizards can buy now is a time reduction before people can start to "forgive" and forget. Making a new license, fully divorced from OGL, and using the power invested in them to release an OGL1.0a compatible OGL1.0b with updated open source required language would be a good start.

If they somehow also manage to find a way to unambiguously remove their control over all OGLs, that might actually be enough to actually restore a sliver of trust. Unfortunately given the wording of OGL1.0a, I don't think that is possible.