We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[Slander]

My non professional idea would be that you're getting small publishers free riding off the bigger publisher. How many people are buying D&D in order to play amazing third party products?

Spitballing, but 3PP likely affects churn rate more than acquisition. A lot of 3PP target GMs more than players. If WotC retains a GM because 3PP covers a topic WotC doesn't, it retains that GM plus all of that GMs players. Some portion of those players then become DnD GMs and the cycle continues. Is that enough to impact WotCs bottom line? They clearly think not.

 

[Ondath]

My non professional idea would be that you're getting small publishers free riding off the bigger publisher. How many people are buying D&D in order to play amazing third party products?

This is one way to look at it, but at the time it was designed, WotC really didn't see it that way. Ryan Dancey (the man behind the OGL) explained the rationale behind the OGL by saying that TSR had started competing with itself by releasing too many supplementary products (adventures, add-on rules, settings etc.). One benefit of the OGL for WotC would be off-loading the supplementary products to smaller third-party groups, and since all of these would still need the core rules to be used, D&D would benefit from being the biggest fish that uses the OGL while allowing more 3PPs to create stuff within its ecosystem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was.

My non professional idea would be that you're getting small publishers free riding off the bigger publisher. How many people are buying D&D in order to play amazing third party products?

 

[Desdichado]

That claim was a big part of why the OGL was originally created. The belief, espoused by Ryan Dancey in particular, that "network externalities" drove the popularity of D&D.
It was discussed a lot on the "Gentleman's Agreement" pre-3.0 OGL discussion email group in 1999, which I was part of.
The idea was that more people knowing D&D rules meant more people played D&D. And, therefore, if you could make those rules even MORE commonly known, the biggest company with the biggest market share (WotC) would be the one that benefits the most from network growth.

What Ryan Dancey likely did NOT anticipate was where we are now where multiple people are using the OGL to create D&D clones that people can buy and play without any reference to D&D itself as currently in print, however. Which is exactly why the OSRIC guy, who's name slips my mind, had to deal with hasslin' from WOTC at the time, because that wasn't at all what they wanted the OGL to do. The whole existence of the OSR who ignores 5e and in fact disparages it in many instances was not the intent of the OGL at all. I can imagine why WOTC isn't thrilled with the actual result as opposed to the theoretical one.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can imagine why WOTC isn't thrilled with the actual result as opposed to the theoretical one.

OSRIC gave birth to the OSR movement, which WotC has been influenced by and hired designers from that scene, all the while energizing a group of players who had largely already moved on to other games or had just gone back to playing their tattered old copies of TSR games. It also kept people playing what was functionally D&D during a time when 4E had driven a lot of people away, which made it easy for people like me to come back when the 5E ruleset was more to my liking.

"My feelings got hurt because the OSRIC guy said 1E was better than modern systems" is a very dumb rationale to make a business decision. I guess we should be glad they didn't buy a social media network, at least.

 

[mamba]

What Ryan Dancey likely did NOT anticipate was where we are now where multiple people are using the OGL to create D&D clones that people can buy and play without any reference to D&D itself as currently in print, however. Which is exactly why the OSRIC guy, who's name slips my mind, had to deal with hasslin' from WOTC at the time, because that wasn't at all what they wanted the OGL to do. The whole existence of the OSR who ignores 5e and in fact disparages it in many instances was not the intent of the OGL at all. I can imagine why WOTC isn't thrilled with the actual result as opposed to the theoretical one.

I find it difficult to argue that the OGL caused D&D / WotC harm when you look at the market and how dominant D&D is

 

[Micah Sweet]

What I'm hung up on is, even very recently, WotC's line was that what they really cared about was people play D&D, in whatever form. Now it seems they have contracted that desire. A lot.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What I'm hung up on is, even very recently, WotC's line was that what they really cared about was people play D&D, in whatever form. Now it seems they have contracted that desire. A lot.

There is no "WotC." There are people who work there. This all feels very much like two or three top execs who don't get the world of open source having a knee jerk reaction and the power to not listen to arguments to the contrary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no "WotC." There are people who work there. This all feels very much like two or three top execs who don't get the world of open source having a knee jerk reaction and the power to not listen to arguments to the contrary.

Those execs are ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Those execs are ruining it for the rest of us.

That's what execs do.

 

[bedir than]

I have other sources, who aren't going public, unrelated to Mark and Stephen. There are clear signs they are getting their info from a different source and that it corroborates (and predates) rather than duplicates what Mark and Stephen have.
To be honest, it freaks me out. I still find this fantastically difficult to think it what is, for sure, happening.
So I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than: this isn't a single source or a ratings stunt.

Thank you

 

[Staffan]

What Ryan Dancey likely did NOT anticipate was where we are now where multiple people are using the OGL to create D&D clones that people can buy and play without any reference to D&D itself as currently in print, however.

Ryan Dancey is on record as saying that one of the purposes of the OGL was to make sure that if Wizards went under or made intolerable changes to D&D, the game would be able to go on anyway. Pathfinder was not an unintended consequence of the OGL, one of the purposes of the OGL was to enable that very thing.

Back in the day, there was a companion license to the OGL called the d20 System Trademark License which was much more restrictive. It allowed you to use the "d20 System" logo and to write something along the lines of "Requires the use of the D&D Player's Handbook" on your product (thereby claiming compatibility with D&D, something the OGL specifically disallows), and in exchange you had to follow a long list of rules. Among those rules were that you were not allowed to include the rules for creating or leveling up a character. You could have a class writeup, but you could not say "When you get so-and-so many XP, you gain a level and follow this procedure." In addition, the SRD did not include those rules, and nor did it (as I recall) include most other rules related to XP (such as how much XP you get for a level X encounter) – that, by the way, is why Pathfinder 1 has highly different XP tables from 3.5e and doesn't use the "level vs CR" system 3e used and instead awards a fixed number of XP based on CR, and adjusts the XP tables accordingly.

So the idea was that the SRD itself was extremely open. You could do pretty much anything with it. One of the FAQs was even "Could I publish the whole thing?" and the answer was "Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try." (And I do believe someone did publish a "pocket SRD", basically just reprinting the SRD in a smaller and more portable format.) But if you wanted to use the d20 logo and the name "d20 system", you basically had to make your product a support product for D&D (or eventually d20 Modern).

 

[Desdichado]

Ryan Dancey is on record as saying that one of the purposes of the OGL was to make sure that if Wizards went under or made intolerable changes to D&D, the game would be able to go on anyway. Pathfinder was not an unintended consequence of the OGL, one of the purposes of the OGL was to enable that very thing.

Yes, yes, I remember, but we're not really talking about what Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison wanted, we're talking with what the current management of WOTC thinks about it. After they struggled through the dominance of the OSR and Pathfinder competing head to head with 4e, I can imagine that they're not very happy with the actual result of the OGL. And although 5e has been pretty dominant, I doubt that the WOTC management sees Pathfinder or the OSR as actually helping grow D&D further.

 

[Nikosandros]

(And I do believe someone did publish a "pocket SRD", basically just reprinting the SRD in a smaller and more portable format.)

Yes, Mongoose did publish some pocket books. I remember that I had the pocket PHB, which was quite convenient at the gaming table.

 

[Scribe]

What I'm hung up on is, even very recently, WotC's line was that what they really cared about was people play D&D, in whatever form. Now it seems they have contracted that desire. A lot.

The idea or claim that 'WotC' actually cares about anything they claim to, has been, and forever will be, lip service to avoid negative PR, and maximize profits.

 

[Desdichado]

New article on Gizmodo about the topic too: Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition

 

[Cadence]

New article on Gizmodo about the topic too: Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition

Same as the one in post #343 (with link to it in post #3)?

 

[jerryrice4949]

The idea or claim that 'WotC' actually cares about anything they claim to, has been, and forever will be, lip service to avoid negative PR, and maximize profits.

This is beyond over simplistic. I imagine many members and employees of WoTC care deeply about many things. However what the CEO and shareholders care about may be different.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2022: LaNasa managed to have everyone rooting for the big bad corporation. WotC had a lot of goodwill
2023: Wotc: "Well, we can't have that, can we! Hold my beer!"

 

[Scribe]

This is beyond over simplistic. I imagine many members and employees of WoTC care deeply about many things. However what the CEO and shareholders care about may be different.

Hence the quote 'WoTC'.

Individual employees are probably just as pissed as a lot of folks, and feel bad for the people who are fearful for their income/jobs.

WotC? Does not care.