Why We Should Work With WotC

[Justice and Rule]

The idea that a company wouldn’t do a thing if that thing was stupid really needs to die. It is entirely divorced from reality. Companies do stupid naughty word all the time.

If companies didn't do dumb things, we'd be talking about TSR right now. You'd think people in this hobby would know that companies do stupid things all the time.

 

[FormerLurker]

You do know there are more entities than Paizo and Hasbro in the world, right?

Are you seriously implying the hobbyist 3PP who does books in their freetime as a home business should sue WotC?

Paizo has the resources. Name one other 3PP with an actual office and employees not working from home.

 

[gamerprinter]

Why I should work with WotC? Because I never close my options, though I make sure I'm also diversified and not totally dependent on the 800# gorilla. I'm near completion with a Spelljammer 3PP supplement that I intend to publish under the Community Content Agreement at the DM's Guild. I also publish 3PP for Starfinder, which will undergo licensing issues, perhaps going to ORC, and I'll continue to support that system under that license. I also create map sets and map object sets, which are completely unlicenseable content, which is the majority of my content. I also operate as a freelance illustrator and cartographer. I am more fully diversified than most 3PP, so I'm willing to publish for D&D, as long as I can continue to profit doing so.

 

[raniE]

Are you seriously implying the hobbyist 3PP who does books in their freetime as a home business should sue WotC?

Paizo has the resources. Name one other 3PP with an actual office and employees not working from home.

No, I’m saying they should ignore Hasbro and let them sue if they want to. Paizo doesn’t have the legal resources alone to face off in a suit against Hasbro anyway. But any software company that wants the idea that something like the GPL 2.0 can be revoked taken down into a mineshaft, shot in the head and buried might feel inclined to help. As might the EFF. And so would I. Crowdfunding is powerful today.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a difference between "believing" and "accepting."
They're going to do it. They're not going to change their mind. They're willing to give the fans the benefit of the doubt and listen to some feedback, but don't believe for a second that this is going to end in any way other than the OGL 1.0a going away and the new OGL replacing it. They're hoping they can convince the majority of holdouts that the new license can be made to work.... but if they can't then the people complaining are a replaceable number of gamers. And by taking feedback and holding up the changes, they can spin the survey & its numbers to sell this as a success.

So we can either struggle endlessly against an unwinnable battle, wasting our time and effort on a hopeless fight.
Or we can work with them and make the final product better, winning the war.

Because what's the actual goal? It's not "preserve the 1.0a" Not really. It's protect 3rd Party Publishers, small publishers, and Open Gaming. And if we work at it, we can achieve that goal with WotC and the new license, ensuring the next generation of 3PP and small gaming studios has a chance.

I believe they're not going to change their mind. I don't believe they can actually do it, and have zero interest in "falling into line" behind them, as you seem to be insisting everyone do.

 

[FormerLurker]

I disagree. There's a lot of orphaned content lost in that licensing structure now. If they can "deauthorize" the whole thing, we're not allowed to use any of it. And we're not allowed to use any of it under a new structure like the ORC either, unless the updated OGL expressly allows that.

Which would have been an excellent thing for people to be talking about BEFORE they started filling out surveys instead of the OGL 1.0a

(But, realistically, if it's orphaned, no one will sue you if you borrow it, edit it, and re-release it.)

I would probably accept an armed robbery as a fait accompli too. But they're not pointing a loaded gun at anyone. They've just gone to great lengths to convince people that they do, with some very unsavory techniques of psychological manipulation involved to achieve that. It saddens me to see that it's working so well.

And yet no one was hurt or robbed, Paizo is selling out of PHBs, and the only loss is orphaned content that doesn't have an owner to be hurt.

WotC didn't hurt you. You hurt yourself. You got yourself so worked up, you inflicted trauma.

 

[Iosue]

This is my take.

WotC has announced their biggest goal is control over what is attached, even peripherally, to the D&D brand. Royalties, claiming IP, none of that was as important as having the power to control what is considered "D&D compatible". WotC wants to avoid some potentially controversial product proudly displaying "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" and them having no recourse. They are doing their very best to move the game from "Satanic Panic of the 80's" to "quirky storytelling game of Let's Pretend" and sell it to teens and parents who watched Stranger Things and think Chris Pine is dreamy. They don't want some Hard R product muddying that water.

You can see it in there licencing model: the closer the game looks to D&D, the more control they have. The CC stuff is as broad as can be; you can make an RPG with it, but not really a D&D-looking one. The lack of races, classes, spells, and monsters (you know, the stuff that people associate with the game) is done to stop another Pathfinder game taking all their game elements and making a clone. If you want access to all those game elements; you have to agree to WotC's content moderation (which looks like the standard is "don't make us look bad"). Need D&D's actual IP? DM's Guild gives you the actual ability to use it, but with even tighter restrictions (and some revenue to boot).

So, like you, I believe the fight to keep 1.0a is a bit of lost cause. I don't know what the WotC "nuclear option" (deauthorize 1.0a and replace it with... nothing?) but I have a hard time believing there is any path forward that ends with 1.0a surviving. WotC right now is negotiating what it would take to get enough people to accept its demise and replacement. Fight for 1.0a, but if WotC's hard stance is no, then the fight must be on making 1.2 the best it can be for us. We still have the ability to mold 1.2 farther in our favor. If the line is 1.0a or death, we're getting death. If the line is 1.2 but we demand further concessions, we have a good chance of getting those.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I've come to the conclusion that WotC really doesn't care about 3PP content. They're not worried about another Pathfinder stealing 1D&D's thunder, they don't care about the revenue the 3PP market is generating, they probably don't even really care about hate speech content, at least not to the extent they've claimed. The endgame here is ultimately VTT. They have absolute dominance of the print RPG sphere. What they're worried about is someone using the 5.1 and/or 1D&D SRD to create a super awesome VTT that could rival the DND Beyond one.

To that end, they want to put strictures on how their SRD content can be used in VTTs. OGL 1.0a didn't give them this power. Ergo, they need to switch to a license that does, and at the same time invalidating the current OGL as far as their content goes.

The royalties and all that other stuff in 1.1? That was just, "Since we're doing this anyway, let's shoot for the moon and see what we can get." Given how quickly and easily they dropped it, I don't see the existing 3PP print market as being something they really care about. The key here is the VTT policy.

My prediction is that at the end of this process, we'll see something largely akin to the status quo vis-a-vis print 3PP content. It might require some contract language wrangling, but we'll end up with something that allows existing 3PP under 1.0a to continue being printed and sold, previous OGC to be sub-licensed, and any new content under a truly irrevocable license. The various loopholes that people think are trojan horses will be wrapped up, and the morality clause that is their public-facing fig leaf justifying the whole procedure will be modified to terms widely accepted by the community. The VTT policy will even be modified some to make to more palatable to the community, without losing the restrictions that WotC wants to place on DND Beyond competitors.

When OGL 1.0 was first conceived and disseminated, WotC wasn't in the video game/application making business. Any such development would be licensed outside the company anyway, so what did they care if someone made a video game or electronic tools using the SRD? Now they are in that business, so OGL 1.0 is no longer compatible with their needs.

So I agree with those saying 1.0 is a lost cause. They need it gone to take back control over digital content, the core of their development strategy under current leadership. I don't see any outcome that doesn't end with 1.0a "de-authorized." The best case scenario (at least until there is a challenge in court, if any) is that 1.x will offer functionally the same terms as 1.0a, but only for print and "static media", with options for VTT producers limited under their VTT policy.

 

[mamba]

What 5e and PF 2e proves is that the main RPG holder can only be profitable with adventures or core books, not both. No one has done both and stayed big yet.

pretty sure WotC makes a profit on both

 

[mamba]

Like, what is actually being gained here? They've conceded nothing because they've created an OGL they can smash at any given time. We aren't gaining anything if they can take it away with no way of stopping them.

then add the ways to prevent this as required changes to the OGL 1.2 in your feedback

 

[mamba]

How do you access a text file on a PS5?

add a button in the menu

Plus it needs to be accessible to a "reasonable person." Ask your parents or a preteen to find a specific text file for a computer game on your hard drive sometime.

see above