Umbran asked what actions would it take for WOTC to 'make it right' for me. Here ya go!...

[delericho]

1. Promptly release OGL 1.0b which includes only two changes: 1) the word "irrevocable", and 2) also say something like: "WOTC perpetually and irrevocably affirms that the previous version of this license, OGL 1.0a, is likewise irrevocable." (Note: I understand that You (WOTC) do not wish to release 6E under OGL1.0a or OGL1.0b. I'm actually okay with that. See further down this post.)
2. Promptly re-issue the 3.0 SRD, 3.5 SRD, d20 Modern SRD, and 5.0 SRD with OGL 1.0b documentation.

For me, this is basically all that is absolutely required. (If they did back down to this extent, the PR of it all would also require an apology, but I personally could live without one.) I do think that even this is too much for them.

1. As soon as the ORC License is on-line, release those SRDs under ORC as well.
2. Announce that the following SRDs will be released soon: an OD&D SRD, a Holmes BASIC SRD, 1E SRD (including 1.5E UA), B/X SRD (Moldvay/Cook BASIC edition), BECMI SRD (Mentzer BASIC edition), Rules Cyclopedia/Wrath of the Immortals SRD (Allston BASIC edition), 2E SRD (including the 2.5E "Players/DMs Option" system, as errata'ed in DRAGON mag), and 4E SRD. Extract the rules content for each of those editions, and release these under both OGL 1.0b and ORC documentation.

These, I'm afraid, are a fantasy. If your OGL 1.0b does come about, I rather expect ORC to fall by the wayside anyway. But even if not, WotC won't want to join.

But adding SRDs for other editions would be a very significant amount of work for no gain - and, indeed, for a loss since the biggest competitor to One D&D will be "older D&D". I would love to see SRDs for these, and especially 4e, but I really can't see it ever happening. Better, instead, to assume the retroclones are the foundations for any ongoing support.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

For me, this is basically all that is absolutely required. (If they did back down to this extent, the PR of it all would also require an apology, but I personally could live without one.) I do think that even this is too much for them.



These, I'm afraid, are a fantasy.

Fantasy? …or pony wishing?

If your OGL 1.0b does come about, I rather expect ORC to fall by the wayside anyway.

We shall see. My goal here is to say what I—myself personally—really want. Not to ‘sagely’ predict the actions of WOTC or the ORC team.

But even if not, WotC won't want to join.

hey, this list is not about what WOTC ‘wants’ to do. We see that what WOTC/Ha$bro ‘wants’ is a future (now) where millions of sheepy chumps are milked by dazedly doling out the coin needed to sustain their 6- or 7-figure salaries for the next 20 years, while destroying all the lovely 3PPs.
F*** the Harkonnens!

But adding SRDs for other editions would be a very significant amount of work for no gain

like i said in the list: there would be three gains from making SRDs for the older editions and also allowing them for DMs Guild:

1) It is an ‘extra-healing’ gesture of goodwill, within a suite of actions that are offered not just to return to a neutral pre-fiasco status quo, but to move forward with the community in newfound trust and warmth. I personally am not gonna be like: "oh, they backed down from revoking OGL 1.0. Ah okay, we're all good. Num num here's my coiny coin."

2) The Legacy Edition creator content on DMs Guild would provide revenue for WOTC. Tho hypothetically wouldn’t need an open SRD for that, it would be synergistic. Would also fuel sales of classic pdfs.

3) Playing older editions does fuel the general interest in D&D culture, which fuels interest in D&D novels, media, etc.

- and, indeed, for a loss since the biggest competitor to One D&D will be "older D&D".

A ‘loss’? Or a continual opportunity? WOTC would be able to see what Legacy features are actually more popular and playable than the latest ‘advancements’. And thus adjust 6E (and 7E) in that direction.

I would love to see SRDs for these,

there ya go! thats what i like to hear!

and especially 4e,

yeah really

but I really can't see it ever happening.

Im not the only one calling for Legacy SRDs as an action of healing. Its important to say what we really want, without self-censoring based on pre-conceived notions. All 8 points I made are humanly doable. If WOTC execs can make the ‘bold’ ‘impossible’ action of revoking the OGL, they can take bold ‘impossible’ actions of amends and healing.

Better, instead, to assume the retroclones are the foundations for any ongoing support.

If WOTC had opened DMs Guild creation to the Legacy Editions years ago, they could have pocketed a large chunk of that instead went to retroclones such as OSE/Necrotic Gnome.

 

[glass]

-good stuff-

I am basically in complete agreement with the OP (including the bit about Orcs of Thar, which I had not thought of but is a damn good idea). I do have a couple of comments/quibbles:

• While WotC should absolutely release a statement to the effect that 1.0 and 1.0a are irrevocable and they were wrong to suggest otherwise as part of their apology, I would prefer they keep "1.0b" of any unnecessary verbiage about other vesions. Just include the word "irrevocable" in many prominant places, clearly define what an "authorised" version of the licence and specify that said authorisation is also irrevocable, and
• I would suggest releasing Birthright under the OGL and/or ORC rather than making it PD. Partly because it is putting the remedy where the actual harm was, and partly because AIUI there is some debate about whether it is even possible to unilaterally place things in the Public Domain (which would give WotC wiggle room to renege later).
• What does '"Corpor-UwU-tist"' mean?

SRD for older editions is not needed. Retroclones are better, use those games.

A 4e SRD would be very welcome. After all this time there is one 4e retroclone and it is still in beta, and its s.15 is massive. I agree that the SRDs for the other older editions are unnecessary as long as the extant ones are safe.

Whew. That's a lot.

It really isn't. Items 1-4 are just putting out the fire they started - necessary but not sufficient. 5 doesn't really cost Wizards anything (and might make them money) so is not much to ask for. They should be doing something akin to 6 anyway; their recent bad faith just brings it more into focus.

7 and 8 are the only real penance, and to be clear their needs to be some. Putting out the fire is not enough, they need to clean up the mess left afterwards.

Which doesn't mean they will do it. I hope they will do this or something equally impactful, but it is more likely they will try to stay the course for a while at least. We will just have to see.

 

[delericho]

We shall see. My goal here is to say what I—myself personally—really want.

Your OP gave the distinct impression that these were a set of things you required to resume making purchases. In which case, as soon as you hit the first that they wouldn't/couldn't provide, the rest of the list can be ignored - if you need all and they can only offer all but one then there's no deal.

But if I've misunderstood, and it's a list of wants, some of which are negotiable, I apologise.

Im not the only one calling for Legacy SRDs as an action of healing. Its important to say what we really want, without self-censoring based on pre-conceived notions. All 8 points I made are humanly doable. If WOTC execs can make the ‘bold’ ‘impossible’ action of revoking the OGL, they can take bold ‘impossible’ actions of amends and healing.

Fair enough. If we're talking 'wants', I'll add two more (neither of which I think is remotely likely):

• Add the mechanical bits of SWSE (the condition track, and the system behind the Force powers) to the OGL - these are potentially useful to 3pp (and the Force system could well form the basis for an alternate psionics system). Obviously, they'd need scrubbed of Lucasfilm IP!
• Realize that the OGL as it stands is a good thing for their IP, and therefore embrace its use - release the eventual One D&D under the OGL 1.0b we've been discussing.

If WOTC had opened DMs Guild creation to the Legacy Editions years ago, they could have pocketed a large chunk of that instead went to retroclones such as OSE/Necrotic Gnome.

Opening the old editions on the Guild is much more likely that providing SRDs for those editions. But still extremely unlikely, I think. I may be wrong, of course.

 

[delericho]

I am basically in complete agreement with the OP (including the bit about Orcs of Thar, which I had not thought of but is a damn good idea).

I'm inclined to think that if "Orcs of Thar" really is that bad, it really should just be deleted - ask Disney to put it in their extra-deep vault with "Song of the South". But YMMV on that one.

• I would suggest releasing Birthright under the OGL and/or ORC rather than making it PD. Partly because it is putting the remedy where the actual harm was, and partly because AIUI there is some debate about whether it is even possible to unilaterally place things in the Public Domain (which would give WotC wiggle room to renege later).

I must have missed something. What's the issue with Birthright? I would have thought that would just be a setting like any other?

 

[glass]

Your OP gave the distinct impression that these were a set of things you required to resume making purchases. In which case, as soon as you hit the first that they wouldn't/couldn't provide, the rest of the list can be ignored - if you need all and they can only offer all but one then there's no deal

I am not the OP, although we seem to be of similar mind on this matter. For me, they could replace some of them with different things of a similar scale, and that would be OK too.

I must have missed something. What's the issue with Birthright? I would have thought that would just be a setting like any other?

No issue with Birthright AFAIK. The OP suggested it as a gesture/recompense of appropriate scale, and I agree with them that it is about right.

 

[Dausuul]

For me, it would be enough to have the OGL 1.0a -- with the 3E and 5E SRDs -- affirmed as irrevocable. That could be done by Wizards, or by a judge. Wizards could do it a lot faster, but they almost certainly won't.

They can put any terms they want in their license for 1D&D. It'd be nice if they used the real OGL, but whatever. What I care about is, first, allowing 3PPs to continue using the material already released, and, second, maintaining the commitment Ryan Dancey made that D&D belongs to the players and can't be destroyed by its corporate owner. Whether that destruction takes the form of TSR staggering into bankruptcy or Hasbro mothballing the brand, the OGL was supposed to ensure that someone could always pick up the torch.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

In other threads, folks (such as moderator @Umbran) have asked those, such as I, who are embarking on a lifetime boycott of WOTC/Ha$bro products: exactly what actions would it take from WOTC in order to 'make it right,' and thus for me to continue as a patron of D&D-branded products.

That is a tall order. Yet I meditated on it last night, and brought this question to my community service this morning. And, upon reflection, this is what it would take, as a complete suite of amendatory, deeply trust-building actions.

WOTC, take these actions of amends:

1. Promptly release OGL 1.0b which includes only two changes: 1) the word "irrevocable", and 2) also say something like: "WOTC perpetually and irrevocably affirms that the previous version of this license, OGL 1.0a, is likewise irrevocable." (Note: I understand that You (WOTC) do not wish to release 6E under OGL1.0a or OGL1.0b. I'm actually okay with that. See further down this post.)
2. Promptly re-issue the 3.0 SRD, 3.5 SRD, d20 Modern SRD, and 5.0 SRD with OGL 1.0b documentation.
3. As soon as the ORC License is on-line, release those SRDs under ORC as well.
4. Announce that the following SRDs will be released soon: an OD&D SRD, a Holmes BASIC SRD, 1E SRD (including 1.5E UA), B/X SRD (Moldvay/Cook BASIC edition), BECMI SRD (Mentzer BASIC edition), Rules Cyclopedia/Wrath of the Immortals SRD (Allston BASIC edition), 2E SRD (including the 2.5E "Players/DMs Option" system, as errata'ed in DRAGON mag), and 4E SRD. Extract the rules content for each of those editions, and release these under both OGL 1.0b and ORC documentation.
5. Open DMs Guild for content creation using any of the Legacy Editions. They are all D&D. Just make clear search tags for each edition. And make an easily discernible Community Content logo for each edition, for placing on the cover. Besides DMs Guild revenue, the Legacy Editions will also still indirectly bring in money for WOTC via classic PDF sales, and via a general flourishment of the gaming culture, which fuels sales of non-edition-specific stuff, such as D&D novels, D&D t-shirts, D&D media, etc.
6. Mongolian / Asian "yellow orcs" and Native American "red orcs"? WTF. Stop making money off the crudist racism. Write an amendatory 5E or 6E web-enhancement for the most racist book you've ever published: GAZ10: The Orcs of Thar. You have been making money off this PDF since 2014, and you even updated the file in 2020. The milquetoast boilerplate disclaimer You posted on the DriveThruRPG page is not enough. And don't split the community by yanking it and 'punishing' me as a 'censor' for bringing it up. As a person who has done graduate work in Native American Studies at Montana State University, as a speaker of Chinese who has lived in China, and student of linguistics, I researched the real world origins of the 'comedic' racist Native American- and East Asian-themed parodies contained therein: here, with key follow-up points here and here, with a call for concrete actions of amends laid out beginning here, and continuing here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, with the steps of amends re-summarized here, continuing here, yet another recap of the amends steps here, followed by a comparative analysis with later Native-American themed portrayals in the AD&D Savage Coast. ....Yet when I posted my research on ENWorld, and called for You to make amends, You ignored this call. For amends, You must have a cultural team review the book in detail, and author a detailed scholarly analysis of the insensitivities therein, along with a revised perspective and rendition (even if only in barest outline) of the Land of Thar as it exists in the 5E or 6E reality, as a web-enhancement which is forever bundled with the GAZ10 PDF. And either change the price of the product to "free," or perpetually donate all proceeds (including all past sales of this racist PDF, dating back to 2014) to a relevant charity (I recommend Lakota Waldorf School). I understand that some folks suggest that the latter option might be offensive to the recipient (to receive monies for sales of such an ugly product), but You could ask the school and see.
7. Release the Jeff Grubb-authored vaporware AD&D 2E Mystara Worldbook manuscript onto DMs Guild as a free download. I myself launched the petition for that. When I wrote to Your customer service reps about the signatures we'd gathered, we were completely ignored. Then, when the webmaster of Official Mystara Fansite (who has Grubb's manuscript in hand) contacted You, You told him it was okay to post it, but then, once he announced it on ENWorld as a news-story, You backtracked and said no. What a souring breach of trust. It's the little things.
8. As an action of goodwill, take the one major D&D world which has (AFAIK) been completely unmentioned in any 5E product: Aebrynis, the World of the BIRTHRIGHT campaign setting...and, as a gift to the community, release all BIRTHRIGHT products (including novels) into the Public Domain. Reserving only certain terms contained therein, such as "Dungeons & Dragons." Switch the classic BIRTHRIGHT PDFs at DMs Guild to "pay what you will."
9. I reserve the right to add and edit in more actions as I think of them!

Suggestion for the license regime for 6E:

1. I understand that, minus the malice-tinged B.S., one main thing You were trying to do is to basically turn all of 6E into the DMs Guild model, but with now the garden enclosing the use of the 6E rules set (not only the setting IP), so that there's a clearly defined play-space, and everyone (including WOTC) is free to draw ingredients from the pot and re-use them. And everyone knows that up-front. Well, then just do that. DMs Guild is great, for what it does. Don't make an OGL for 6E at all. Just enclose all 6E Content Creation in DMs Guild and/or clearly-defined playspace extensions thereof: the "D&D Sixth Edition Compatibility License" (6ECL; don't dishonestly call it an "OGL"! Don't pretend that a Compatibility License is a Open Game License.) and also the "D&D Fan Content Policy." Done. Don't f*** with the existing OGL and SRDs. (You'll still glean income directly and indirectly from a flourishing of Legacy D&D editions.)

Tonal suggestions:

1. In regard to the twisted gaslighting verbiage found in Your recent statements. Find a wordsmith who is not emotionally tone deaf, and who can speak straightly (= honestly and forthrightly), out of both sides of their mouth. If You had something actually trustworthy and heartening to say, there would be no shortage of WOTC creatives willing to step up as serve as the face and voice of amends, rather than as the Mouth of Sauron.
2. Refrain from smiling shark-like "Corpor-UwU-tist" verbiage in future legal documents.
3. I strongly recommend You refrain from using the legitimate struggle for human and civil rights as a marketing ploy and smoke-screen for Your shameless greed.

As far as calls to fire one, two, or three executives:

1. Having experienced the struggle to pay rent and keep the wolf from the door (while patronizing Your over-priced products for 40 years), I am one person who is not eager to call for anyone to lose their livelihood. Including executive bigshots. Yet I am astounded at the threads of intertwined ignorance (incompetence) and malice which led to a decision to burn and destroy ten years of hard-won goodwill. Yet if the actions which I outlined above were taken, it would show that whoever was behind those ignorant+malicious actions, also has the capacity for wisdom and human 'repentance' (if that's a fitting word). Under these outlined conditions, those one, two, or three executives would be free to again go about their daily work, perhaps even at Hasbro. I'm sure, at a personal level, these are fine human beings, and at a professional level, have some awesome skill sets. Probably best to keep a workmanlike low profile for the next decade.

If You (WOTC) wish for further guidance, You know where to find Me. Betta make it quick!
In the meantime, I'm rolling out a lifetime boycott of new WOTC/Ha$bro products. And I told all my players as well. I won't be developing any player network for You over-paid backstabbers anymore. Rather, we are switching entirely to ORC-allied creators.

-Travis Henry, Dungeon Master since 1983
CEO of Twelvefold Works Publishing
Creator of the "Malice of the Three-Headed Giant" meme:

I’m pretty certain none of that is going to happen.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

For me, it would be enough to have the OGL 1.0a -- with the 3E and 5E SRDs -- affirmed as irrevocable. That could be done by Wizards, or by a judge. Wizards could do it a lot faster, but they almost certainly won't.

They can put any terms they want in their license for 1D&D. It'd be nice if they used the real OGL, but whatever. What I care about is, first, allowing 3PPs to continue using the material already released, and, second, maintaining the commitment Ryan Dancey made that D&D belongs to the players and can't be destroyed by its corporate owner. Whether that destruction takes the form of TSR staggering into bankruptcy or Hasbro mothballing the brand, the OGL was supposed to ensure that someone could always pick up the torch.

Well said.

 

[Umbran]

Fantasy? …or pony wishing?

We shall see. My goal here is to say what I—myself personally—really want.

So, the question is... if you screwed up, and the folks you wronged came back with pony wishes for demands to make it right... what do you do? You know you can't please them, so... do you try anyway?