Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Burt Baccara" data-source="post: 8910491" data-attributes="member: 6990746">Before we can compromise we need to a) understand what WotC's goals are in stirring the pot as they are the ones who rocked the boat; b) remember that the current regime at WotC has a history of not playing nicely once contracts are signed (see; Gale Force 9, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, et al).From the original leaks and looking at 1.2, we can see two goals:1. Prevent a repeat of 4e. From WotC's POV the lesson from 4e was that people did not migrate to the GSL, organically ending the age of the OGL, and worse, the OGL other companies to create new versions of D&D that competed with WotC (see: Castle & Crusades, Pathfinder, and the collective OSR—the latter was small potatoes, but with OSE and some OSR adjacent publications' success the OSR might not be as far below the radar as it once was). They want control back to stop future competition and hobbling the current competition.Where does this end? We do not know. Since Castle & Crusades, Pathfinder, and much of the collective OSR use OGL 1.0a and the 3/3.5 SRD, removing this license and access to the 3/3.5 SRD can be catastrophic. Paizo said Pf2 does not need OGL 1.0a, though there is still clearly content pulling from the 3/3.5 SRD, so that claim is questionable. No more OGL 1.0a or 3/3.5 SRD, could expose Castle & Crusades, Pathfinder, and others to claims of copyright infringement possibly killing the current competition.2. Speaking of competition, VTTs are clearly another target that WotC would like to remove, and will settle for hobbling.So overall, WotC looks to be out to restrict or eliminate competition and corral customers into One D&D.Will Paizo pick a fight? If they feel they have to proactively fight for OGL 1.0a, maybe, though with ORC that seems less likely.The bigger question is, once WotC takes out OGL 1.0a, will WotC drop a C&D on Paizo for a perceived infringement? This is more likely if WotC is really looking to lockdown competition. WotC does not want to kill 3PP of content? No, want more control over them and they want a cut of the bigger publishers' profits. The royalty fees are gone, but I'm not sure they have given up on trying to get a cut of the big earners. Would not be surprised to see a new revenue scheme based on large 3PPs come up later (e.g., development fees to incorporate 3PP adventures, rules, class, items, etc. into the D&DB VTT platform).WotC does not want a repeat of 4e, so yes, they want to hobble, restrict, or kill competing RPGs that have the potential to take market share and dollars.No idea, since WotC is not compromising, they are revising and finding new ways to accomplish their original goals (e.g., skim large 3PP profits move from royalties to some other scheme; move restrictions of VTTs from the OGL1.1 to a policy; etc.). We need to hold the line until they stop the shell game and actually compromise.That said before we can decide "What Does a Compromise Look Like?" We need to decide what are our goals too. We want to protect 3PPs and competing RPG publishers large and small. We want to be able to play on VTTs without WotC dictating what they can do so we can have a choice in service providers and choice in what kinds of experience we want.In all cases, WotC is ignoring the existence of other non-SRD derived RPGs that use the OGL 1.0a and the chaos revoking/deauthorizing the license will cause those RPGs, and these publishers and their players deserve not have their apple cart upset as collateral damage. WotC also ignores that VTTs are used to play these RPGs as well. There are features used in any RPG on some VTT, like lighting, will dynamic lighting need to be disabled for D&D on those VTTs since that can be considered an enhancement over playing in person?</blockquote>

Verification