The new OGL 1.2, What is Victory?

[Greggy C]

just because you never cared doesn’t mean you should extrapolate to the rest of us. Had we listened to the likes of you from the start, we’d still have 1.1

Not even close to the truth. I cared about most of the changes, but I don't really care enough to follow the revocation changes.
The old license caused a stagnation in D&D. Hundreds of people just regurgitating 5th edition or basic D&D over and over.
Really killed off innovation.

Even now its countless people just copying D&D, changing a few words, then saying "I got another D&D".

 

[Greggy C]

Just because the average player lacks principles doesn’t mean @estar should give up on his.

I dont think the average player wants to see the continuing lack of innovation with just same content repackaged over and over.

 

[Zardnaar]

I dont think the average player wants to see the continuing lack of innovation with just same content repackaged over and over.

Hey works for Disney and MCU!!!

 

[Greggy C]

Hey works for Disney and MCU!!!

completely true, I'm getting sick of that too, but somehow they always drag me in, because they do try new things.
all the copies of 5e and basic DnD though, only with a different product name, I'm just depressed.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

that is your prerogative. I am kind of waiting to get the best 1.2 we can, only for WotC to fail at revoking 1.0a At that point the best part of 1.2 would be whatever ends up in CC, if they succeed I might still have an acceptable (to me) 1.2


yeah, I used this symmetrical… so is the answer ‘no’ then or a ‘we have no idea’? Does anyone actually know for sure?

They could release their entire back-catalog (trademarks included) under a CC license, and it still wouldn't really compensate for the damage it would do if they could somehow "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a going forward. WotC's contribution to the Open Gaming Content out there is frankly minuscule. See the section 15 copyright notices here, for example: Legal Information – d20PFSRD

Regarding the old FAQ, those were the assurances made. Where I live, that's a key part of how a court would actually disambiguate any wonky wording in the agreement itself. It's a statement of intent right there, and me accepting the terms of the OGL was conditioned on that. It's practically part of the contract.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I dont think the average player wants to see the continuing lack of innovation with just same content repackaged over and over.

There have been plenty of innovations in the TTRPG scene since the introduction of the OGL, they just haven't captured a large market share. And while it's true that most of the truly innovative stuff has been more experimental than the traditional rivals from the 90s, I don't really think that's related to the licensing situation.

With no OGL for the past 23 years, I guess we'd just have less RPG publications overall. D&D would still have been the dominant name, and the barriers to entry would have been even worse without the safe harbor from lawsuits provided by the OGL.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

I dont think the average player wants to see the continuing lack of innovation with just same content repackaged over and over.

And clearly restrictive licenses enacted in bad faith are the way to encourage free ideas and creativity.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

There have been plenty of innovations in the TTRPG scene since the introduction of the OGL, they just haven't captured a large market share. And while it's true that most of the truly innovative stuff has been more experimental than the traditional rivals from the 90s, I don't really think that's related to the licensing situation.

With no OGL for the past 23 years, I guess we'd just have less RPG publications overall. D&D would still have been the dominant name, and the barriers to entry would have been even worse without the safe harbor from lawsuits provided by the OGL.

In my personal experience, in the past 35ish years the barrier to new, innovative gaming experiences has never been finding new innovative products, but rather, finding players who want to engage with a game that isn’t the same old thing. Particularly when it came to a different rules set using different mechanisms.

The OGL allowed designers to present their take on a gaming experience, but with enough commonality to the existing dominant rule set to make it approachable to a larger audience.

Far better yo have nanyang choices snd use my discretion in purchasing than only the mono choice mod WOTC.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

In my personal experience, in the past 35ish years the barrier to new, innovative gaming experiences has never been finding new innovative products, but rather, finding players who want to engage with a game that isn’t the same old thing. Particularly when it came to a different rules set using different mechanisms.

Do you think this problem was exacerbated by the relative ubiquity of OGL 3PP when that became a thing?

 

[robconley]

The OGL allowed designers to present their take on a gaming experience, but with enough commonality to the existing dominant rule set to make it approachable to a larger audience.

There is also the fact that prior to the OGL novice designers had to come up with their own system if they had a sellable idea for a setting or adventure. As a novice, it is unlikely they would have the connections or capital to pursue a license from a publisher with a system (like TSR and Wizards) just so they can focus on writing adventures.

With the OGL, designers and authors can focus on a specific part of the RPG market, making it easier for folks to carve out their own niche. Or bootstrap themselves into becoming a full-blown publisher. The way to give the marginalized a voice is to drop the barriers to entry.