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

[mamba]

For me it’s simple, we are mostly good right now, that is I do consider buying WotC products again, but the hurdle is higher than it used to be. It used to be I needed a reason not to buy it, now I need a good reason in order to buy it.
I will also continue branching out into other TTRPGs, that will not change.

Finally, to show that the lesson was learned all WotC has to do is continue business as usual, that is release an updated SRD for 1DD under OGL and CC, and keep licensing their products to VTTs (under the same / similar terms as now), that is basically it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Snip.....

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.)

This strikes me as misconceived, I do not believe that the presence or absence of the word "irrevocable" would have made much of a difference on what happened nor have much of an impact in the future.
The OGLs biggest issue, when push came to shove was the unwillingness of any party that stood to benefit from it to declare their willingness to defend their rights in court. Now that may have changed if the fan backlash had failed to move WoTC management from their course.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

This strikes me as misconceived, I do not believe that the presence or absence of the word "irrevocable" would have made much of a difference on what happened nor have much of an impact in the future.
The OGLs biggest issue, when push came to shove was the unwillingness of any party that stood to benefit from it to declare their willingness to defend their rights in court. Now that may have changed if the fan backlash had failed to move WoTC management from their course.

Hi, just a couple days ago, I saw that Lisa Stevens posted that same ongoing request—to add “irrevocable” verbiage to OGL1.0. If my idea is “misconceived”, then I’m in good company.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Hi, just a couple days ago, I saw that Lisa Stevens posted that same ongoing request—to add “irrevocable” verbiage to OGL1.0. If my idea is “misconceived”, then I’m in good company.

My view is that in practise, a good lawyer can come up with an argument as to why any licence contract is invalid but if the other parties to that contract is to believe that, the party seeking to void the contract has too much money to litigate then the wording of the contract has little bearing.
My view from reading the lawyer threads here was that WotCs case was not the strongest, with varying degrees of strength depending on the exact line of attack and maybe "irrevocable" might help in some scenarios but the real issue was the cost of litigation.

 

[Justice and Rule]

For me it’s simple, we are mostly good right now, that is I do consider buying WotC products again, but the hurdle is higher than it used to be. It used to be I needed a reason not to buy it, now I need a good reason in order to buy it.
I will also continue branching out into other TTRPGs, that will not change.

Finally, to show that the lesson was learned all WotC has to do is continue business as usual, that is release an updated SRD for 1DD under OGL and CC, and keep licensing their products to VTTs (under the same / similar terms as now), that is basically it.

I'm in the same boat. Previously I had sustained a sub to DNDB for a while just because I had so much on there, but at this point I'm unlikely to ever go back to doing that. I'd also at least consider buying a book if it was interesting or running a game if requested, but at this point I don't think I'll be doing either.

I think the funniest thing about this is the other DM of our group is in the same boat, though he is going in the opposite direction when it comes to rules: I've been moving towards PF2 for a long time, while I think this is going to be what causes him to finally take the leap with OSE (which I know he's wanted to for a while).

 

[Retreater]

I prefer PF2 to 5E. If I'm running 5E, I prefer modules by companies other than WotC. I'm enjoying adding bits from Level Up into my existing 5E game (and the players are LOVING it).
As people on these boards (and even Kyle Brink) have noted, I don't need WotC anymore to play the game. I'm going to put that to the test.
The OGL debacle and the statements by the C-level folks were a sign to me that WotC has moved D&D past my interests - but I think I've known that for a few years now. This just makes it clear.
I guess if they produce something I really want, I'll look at it and make that decision then.