The OGL: Why is this really happening, and what to do now...

[Faolyn]

⁸

I keep seeing references to Loot Boxes and so forth. This really doesn't jibe with the One D&D playtest or its stated goal of producing new core rulebooks. Colville's prediction here is pretty grim, but if this is the plan then I'm not seeing it.

The loot boxes would likely come in the form of assets for the VTT.

I mentioned this in another thread, in Wild Beyond The Witchlight, they reference another book, Domains of Delight, for info on how to actually make one of these domains. The money for that went to charity, which was nice and all, and it wasn't a necessary tie-in. But it means its entirely possible that they will eventually produce books that effectively have required tie-ins or are otherwise incomplete unless you buy the extra material from DDB. Like, imagine if they sold Spelljammer the way it currently is, but you had to pay for the ship combat rules through DDB?

 

[ThorinTeague]

They appear to be exiting the industry entirely, according to this Matt Colville. And I might be inclined to agree with him.

If they were exiting the industry they shouldn't care about OGL? (which would be fine with me--I was always fine, before this bad faith/bad actor stuff, with dndone being a video game. I might have even tried it if the price was reasonable, but also continue TTRPG's as a separate thing).

It makes sense that their business plan is that the future of D&D is 100% digital, and it's fine with me. It also makes sense that they're exiting the industry entirely. Which brings us to their apparent obsession with forcing a new OGL on to the community--if there were no ulterior motives there would be no reason to do this. They could just do their thing and the community at their large could do their thing and both could coexist without much problem, many people probably taking my attitude in this scenario that it's a fun timewaster/curiosity but not a TTRPG. Just a video game. (And that's fine!)

But the attack on the OGL and the community at large in that context looks like base megalomania to me. Competitors who COMBINED make less in a year than WoTC makes in a week are not competitors at all. The only reason to threaten them with either falling in line or being squashed would be that WoTC execs are not confident with their ability to make a great new product and genuinely compete, making it so good that people want to buy those little micro-add-ons. The plan, instead, is to force the community into the choice because they have no others. (Of course, yes, playing at home with your friends in the traditional analogue style is still en vogue--but we're operating under the premise that this is not their realm anymore and they have no interest in or concern with that scene. Which again makes sense to me and I'm fine with it! But why OGL2?.... you get the idea.)

 

[ThorinTeague]

⁸

I keep seeing references to Loot Boxes and so forth. This really doesn't jibe with the One D&D playtest or its stated goal of producing new core rulebooks. Colville's prediction here is pretty grim, but if this is the plan then I'm not seeing it.

That rumor is coming from people who appear to be in the know and claim to know Chris Whateverhisnameis' M.O. and past behavior. Assuming that applies to upcoming WoTC/D&D plans.

 

[ThorinTeague]

I'm absolutely willing to contribute money to the poor, unfortunate company that faces their wrath and is willing to take it to court. It won't be me though. I'm nobody, and I'm in a bad jurisdiction for them.

Actually, I'd wager that a lot of people would be willing to contribute to such an effort. Paizo has already declared their stance here. And I'd furthermore wager that we could recruit powerful allies in that cause, if it made some ripples. The whole IT world depends on permissive licenses like this being irrevocable, even if they're not explicitly drafted to say that they are.

Don't be shocked if you see some 3pp's (maybe a lot) band together and kickstart/humble bundle some kind of fundraiser for a unified legal defense fund and agree to go about their legal actions corporately by consensus. Soon.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

If they were exiting the industry they shouldn't care about OGL? (which would be fine with me--I was always fine, before this bad faith/bad actor stuff, with dndone being a video game. I might have even tried it if the price was reasonable, but also continue TTRPG's as a separate thing).

The OGL allows competitors to make VTTs that are essentially D&D played on a computer. WotC have no faith in their ability to compete with these offerings while making the kind of profits that they imagine would be possible otherwise.

 

[Amrûnril]

The OGL allows competitors to make VTTs that are essentially D&D played on a computer. WotC have no faith in their ability to compete with these offerings while making the kind of profits that they imagine would be possible otherwise.

"Imagine" being the key word here. WotC's reasoning seems to rely on a number of significant assumptions:

• There is a profitable market for the advanced VTT products WotC is working on.
• A competitor's VTT can compete for this market even without the D&D brand and the non-SRD parts of the D&D ruleset.
• A competitor's VTT cannot compete for this market without the SRD parts of the D&D ruleset.
• WotC will be able to defend its retraction of the OGL through litigation or the threat thereof.

If all of these assumptions are correct, Wizards is clearing the way for its VTT as a massive cost to its public image (and ethics, if any of the decision makers care about that). But if even one of these assumptions turns out to be wrong, then WotC is inflicting these costs on itself and getting nothing in return.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

"Imagine" being the key word here. WotC's reasoning seems to rely on a number of significant assumptions:

• There is a profitable market for the advanced VTT products WotC is working on.
• A competitor's VTT can compete for this market even without the D&D brand and the non-SRD parts of the D&D ruleset.
• A competitor's VTT cannot compete for this market without the SRD parts of the D&D ruleset.
• WotC will be able to defend its retraction of the OGL through litigation or the threat thereof.

If all of these assumptions are correct, Wizards is clearing the way for its VTT as a massive cost to its public image (and ethics, if any of the decision makers care about that). But if even one of these assumptions turns out to be wrong, then WotC is inflicting these costs on itself and getting nothing in return.

Yes.

 

[mamba]

The OGL allows competitors to make VTTs that are essentially D&D played on a computer. WotC have no faith in their ability to compete with these offerings while making the kind of profits that they imagine would be possible otherwise.

not really, you miss a lot of subclasses etc., which is what makes this all the more stupid

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

not really, you miss a lot of subclasses etc., which is what makes this all the more stupid

I don't think WotC have any faith that they can make more enjoyable subclasses than anyone else either. I don't know what subclasses are in this context, but I'm sure that whatever they are, the community at large would be better able to design them than the team at WotC anyway. And I think they know this.

 

[mamba]

I don't know what subclasses are in this context

the 5e subclasses, Path of the Berserker for Barbarian, etc.. Chances are you miss some actual classes too, haven’t really checked the OGC

 

[eyeheartawk]

"Imagine" being the key word here. WotC's reasoning seems to rely on a number of significant assumptions:

• There is a profitable market for the advanced VTT products WotC is working on.
• A competitor's VTT can compete for this market even without the D&D brand and the non-SRD parts of the D&D ruleset.
• A competitor's VTT cannot compete for this market without the SRD parts of the D&D ruleset.
• WotC will be able to defend its retraction of the OGL through litigation or the threat thereof.

If all of these assumptions are correct, Wizards is clearing the way for its VTT as a massive cost to its public image (and ethics, if any of the decision makers care about that). But if even one of these assumptions turns out to be wrong, then WotC is inflicting these costs on itself and getting nothing in return.

Yeah, they really are that short-sighted.

I mean, anybody here could tell you that Roll20 couldn't possibly compete with the tens of millions they've pumped into whatever this VTT is going to be. You will out-perform and out-feature every other VTT immediately with those sorts of resources.

But to them? Naw, let's make sure. Plus, I'm sure they didn't think it would be this big a deal. Mainly, because all the people making this decision know nothing about this market and want it to turn it into a whole other, different market altogether.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

the 5e subclasses, Path of the Berserker for Barbarian, etc.. Chances are you miss some actual classes too, haven’t really checked the OGC

Under the OGL 1.0a, those VTTs can pull subclasses from literally every other OGL-licensed 3pp supplement in existence. They can also make their own.

 

[Kai Lord]

Here's something I've been wondering. WOTC has several times claimed that that horrendous OGL 1.1 that was leaked was just a "draft." So what would that mean for those creators who received a copy of 1.1 prior to the leak and actually signed it? WOTC will just say "oh you signed away all rights to owning anything you create going forward, thanks but we were just kidding, it was a draft, you can keep your IP..." Somehow I can't imagine them doing that, lol.

Or are they only claiming that the leaked 1.1 that was sent to select creators was a draft simply because literally no one signed? If that's the case it'd be pretty freaking hilarious.

 

[mamba]

Under the OGL 1.0a, those VTTs can pull subclasses from literally every other OGL-licensed 3pp supplement in existence. They can also make their own.

yes, but the premise was they can play D&D on a VTT because of the OGC, not ‘they can play something similar’.

The “something similar” will not really change thanks to the CC content

 

[mamba]

Here's something I've been wondering. WOTC has several times claimed that that horrendous OGL 1.1 that was leaked was just a "draft." So what would that mean for those creators who received a copy of 1.1 prior to the leak and actually signed it?

it means WotC is lying, there is nothing else it can mean

 

[ValamirCleaver]

WotC have no faith in their ability to compete with these offerings while making the kind of profits that they imagine would be possible otherwise.

But if even one of these assumptions turns out to be wrong, then WotC is inflicting these costs on itself and getting nothing in return.

he community at large would be better able to design them than the team at WotC anyway. And I think they know this.

Yeah, they really are that short-sighted. But to them? Naw, let's make sure. Plus, I'm sure they didn't think it would be this big a deal. Mainly, because all the people making this decision know nothing about this market and want it to turn it into a whole other, different market altogether.

What makes one say that? Haven't D&D branded digital tool offerings since 2000 been wildly successful & universally lauded? Why would anyone have any doubt, especially those within Wizbro, that this in house initiative not be a continuance of the historically pre-eminent digital offerings under the D&D brand name?...

 

[Staffan]

What makes one say that? Haven't D&D branded digital tool offerings since 2000 been wildly successful & universally lauded? Why would anyone have any doubt, especially those within Wizbro, that this in house initiative not be a continuance of the historically pre-eminent digital offerings under the D&D brand name?...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Indeed. If the OGL 1.0(a) isn't watertight in the way it was intended to be, that would at the very least harm the professional reputation of Brian E. Lewis, the lawyer who drafted it. He currently works at Azora Law and is involved in the ORC.

I imagine that Bob Tarantino too, an IP lawyer who wrote a dissertation on the virtues of the OGL, would also consider it a professional setback if his assessments turned out to be all wrong.

laws and interpretations changing over 20 years and new presidents being set over 20... wait 23 years does not change or harm his reputation. If that was true every time something got overturned or broken it would hurt the original lawyer

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No one seems to have an answer for this. When it's brought up, folks seem to change the subject.

has anyone at wotc been approached with this? or there law team? Or do you mean us on here that are as in the dark as anyone?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My more general point is this: You can still play D&D if you don't give WizBro a single penny.

yes and in doing so if that is where YOU want to draw your line that is great... but playing, talking about, and basicly 'living the brand lifestyle' does still help hasbro just so you know.
The only alternative is to find a new game (pref one with no OGL roots) and run it, talk about it, and promote it OVER D&D. I doubt enough people will do either to matter, but I 100% support everyone finding where they stand with informed ideas.