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

[Yaarel]

By the way, if the CC community wants to put together a new kind of CC license that protects exclusive Product Identity, similar to the way the OGL 1.0a does, that would be great too.

Heh, to be fair, Danceys original worry that the too-many different kinds of CC licenses would become confusing to its users, is probably fair enough.

 

[mamba]

I am saying, Hasbro-WotC must also migrate the SRDs over to ORC.

Hasbro-WotC are no longer trusted stewards of the D&D tradition. But if the SRDs are in the hands a more legally robust ORC license, that should be fine.

you still have to move all the material that is founded on 1.0a over or it cannot be used under ORC

 

[Yaarel]

you still have to move all the material that is founded on 1.0a over or it cannot be used under ORC

The OGL 1.0a cannot go away. It is "perpetual". All material that is currently under the terms of the OGL 1.0a remains so.

But. If the SRDs move to the ORC, then it would be legally moot to try go after anyone under the OGL 1.0a ever again − because the same resource is available via ORC anyway.

Meanwhile, everyone today would normally use the ORC for most products, including the SRD products.

Only specific games that derive from specific orphaned products would still mention the OGL 1.0a in addition to the ORC. But because everyone can access the SRDs via ORC anyway, the products can mention the OGL 1.0a with less worry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree. If WotC cares about the people buying their products, they'll either leave the 1.0a alone (perhaps a 1.0b that is even more explicitly revocable as some have suggested), or they'll move their SRDs over to ORC. If they care.

 

[Russ1728]

I think we should coin a new hashtag to represent that we're planning to boycott WotC products for at least the rest of this calendar year. Most people, in my experience, do better with maintaining something if they have a clear "just get to this date" goal in mind. Which isn't to say we'll cave if we make it this far, but that having a particular goal in mind makes it easier to remain committed; if we still haven't achieved victory by then, we can always push the deadline back further.

#NoDNDin2023

I love this idea! Many excellent RPGs have been published in the last few years. Give Blades in the Dark, Pathfinder 2E, Burning Wheel, Alien (I highly recommend the Destroyer of Worlds scenario!), Vampire 5E, or Cyberpunk Red a try!

 

[Russ1728]

I love this idea! Many excellent RPGs have been published in the last few years. Give Blades in the Dark, Pathfinder 2E, Burning Wheel, Alien (I highly recommend the Destroyer of Worlds scenario!), Vampire 5E, or Cyberpunk Red a try!

I forgot to mention the Cypher System (and its variants) and the Legend of the Five Rings and Star Wars RPGs (by FFG). Even two of the above list would be plenty to keep most groups occupied for a year or more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why can't Wizard live with the status quo? Well, they could, easily, in peace with their community under the OGL 1.0a. The same effect that lifted all boats before would continue to lift theirs. They are moving into new media, and could have counted on their rabid fans to continue to grow their brand and the hobby hand in hand.

It’s so funny to me that had they gone the other direction, they could have used the commons and their perceived place in it to get basically everyone on their platform, using their servers to provide digital tools to their own players in little siloed spaces on the platform, with marketplaces for fans to sell to eachother if the publisher wants, all of it making wizards a nickel for every dollar, and the terms of that platform could have been more like the DMsGuild terms than like the OGL, so they could remove offensive content from the platform.

Now, it’s more likely that another company will do that, everyone that publishes under the ORC and OGL1.0a and CC and whatever else will join up, and wizards loses the big tent by trying to make it a walled garden.

 

[Scribe]

It’s so funny to me that had they gone the other direction, they could have used the commons and their perceived place in it to get basically everyone on their platform, using their servers to provide digital tools to their own players in little siloed spaces on the platform, with marketplaces for fans to sell to eachother if the publisher wants, all of it making wizards a nickel for every dollar, and the terms of that platform could have been more like the DMsGuild terms than like the OGL, so they could remove offensive content from the platform.

Now, it’s more likely that another company will do that, everyone that publishes under the ORC and OGL1.0a and CC and whatever else will join up, and wizards loses the big tent by trying to make it a walled garden.

This is a great point. Its like Steam. Where do you buy games? I havent bought a game anywhere but Steam in probably over 15 years. I guess Overwatch.

Wizards could have centered itself as not just the D&D spot, but the '5e/5.5e/6e Marketplace'.

Big yikes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is a nice story. Half of this might be true. The rest is speculation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a great point. Its like Steam. Where do you buy games? I havent bought a game anywhere but Steam in probably over 15 years. I guess Overwatch.

Wizards could have centered itself as not just the D&D spot, but the '5e/5.5e/6e Marketplace'.

Big yikes.

Even bigger, they could have been the marketplace for non-D&D derived games as well. Any game with an online presence would benefit from inclusion in a platform with the reach of the OGL sphere.