D&D General Why Mike Mearls left D&D, an interview by Ben Riggs.

[mamba]

Yes or they could have set it at 500k or 10m or 250k or 15m... the point was they were looking for feedback on it... again, it was not finalized, not ready to be signed.

I am not sure it was not ready to be signed, to me that was part of the spin after the thing blew up

Also, changing one number is very little change when the whole document needs heavy revisions to be anywhere even close to acceptable and WotC is breaking the existing contract to get anyone to show any interest in the new version

 

[Imaro]

I am not sure it was not ready to be signed, to me that was part of the spin after the thing blew up

If there were various versions... how could it have been finalized? Or better question... what were the terms of the finalized version?

 

[Staffan]

Yes or they could have set it at 500k or 10m or 250k or 15m... the point was they were looking for feedback on it... again, it was not finalized, not ready to be signed.

And the issue is that regardless of the threshold, it was a mistake.

The whole raison d'être of the OGL is to enlist third-party companies into supporting D&D. As has been explained many, many times, small adventures and the like are not profitable for a WOTC-sized corporation with massive overhead, high production standards, and so on, but they can work out for smaller operations (particularly if sold as PDFs instead of having printer costs and so on), so it's a win-win.

 

[darjr]

Finalized or not is a straw man.

Even the revisions under public pressure were terrible. Maybe worse.

This was a flawed idea and from what Mike says made in a way to guarantee an echo chamber even if it was sent out.

Look what it took to make WotC do the right thing and back down from revoking the original license? Do you really think that private feedback would have done better?

I am grateful that WotC saw the light and even more grateful that they released it under a CCby license. That was wonderful.

 

[Imaro]

And the issue is that regardless of the threshold, it was a mistake.

The whole raison d'être of the OGL is to enlist third-party companies into supporting D&D. As has been explained many, many times, small adventures and the like are not profitable for a WOTC-sized corporation with massive overhead, high production standards, and so on, but they can work out for smaller operations (particularly if sold as PDFs instead of having printer costs and so on), so it's a win-win.

How does the videogame Solasta fit into that model? How did it support D&D?

 

[mamba]

If there were various versions... how could it have been finalized? Or better question... what were the terms of the finalized version?

it blew up first I believe, and then the next version did not solve that. Either way, the limited amount of changes shows that this was not a ‘hey, I had this idea, what do you think’ scenario WotC tried to excuse it for after it had blown up

The fact that they were willing to violate existing contracts to pressure people into the new ones (which otherwise would be DoA) tells me enough about how they were just talking…

 

[mamba]

How does the videogame Solasta fit into that model? How did it support D&D?

it was close to D&D, might get people interested in the game. Support is not limited to ‘pays a fee to WotC’

 

[Pedantic]

How does the videogame Solasta fit into that model? How did it support D&D?

While I'm sure you could make a case that it's further secondary advertising to an audience that might not play tabletop D&D, that's not actually the point. If it produced a third party adventure/monster book market and also a random video game, that's still a success.

 

[Imaro]

While I'm sure you could make a case that it's further secondary advertising to an audience that might not play tabletop D&D, that's not actually the point. If it produced a third party adventure/monster book market and also a random video game, that's still a success.

Success for who and in what way?

 

[Imaro]

it was close to D&D, might get people interested in the game. Support is not limited to ‘pays a fee to WotC’

Yes and playing any fantasy videogame "might" get someone interested in D&D but I wouldn't claim that's supporting D&D nor did I say the only way was to pay a licensing fee...