D&D 5E (2014) Will you continue to give WotC D&D your $$$

[Clint_L]

It's hard for me to gauge how to read all these responses, because many are from folks who, long before this, were making generally anti-D&D or anti-5e posts and threads. I'll be interested to see some objective numbers on the impact this controversy has on actual sales, though I'm not sure how easy it will be to tease that out of the data. DnDBeyond subscriptions might give us a clue, but it can be very hard to distinguish between correlation and causation.

For example, if sales go up, someone might claim, "a-ha - the OGL fiasco didn't make a difference, just as I suspected!" Except maybe they would have gone up even more without it. Conversely, if sales drop off, we'll probably see claims of, "you see! they shot themselves in the foot." Except maybe sales would have dropped anyway regardless of the OGL thing.

My suspicion is that there will be a negative impact that will tie into a general decline in D&D's popularity that I felt was already happening (at my school, for example, there isn't the uptake there was even a year ago). In the long, long term, I don't think it will make much difference. I think the movie, WotC successfully implementing an intuitive VTT, and successfully making the shift to OneD&D are going to matter far more to D&D's overall success.

 

[Demetrios1453]

As I've said in the like 5 previous threads with basically this same question, I will continue to purchase whichever WotC products that interest me.

 

[Oofta]

It is dubious whether OGL 1.0 is revokable, but then I’m not the one who has to try to prove my case in court against a large corporation. The threat to revoke OGL 1.0 has already caused a huge disruptions to anyone who had used it. If they insist on revoking it, then many companies will have to pivot very quickly in order to keep selling their products. This includes people who are in the middle of fulfilling kickstarters or planning products for the next year. It’s rather glib to say this state of affairs has zero impact on anyone.

The current OGL 2.0 gives them 6 months. As far as taking them to court, that's going to be up to the big (well, relatively big in TTRPG 3PP space) guys.

That’s open gaming content—with the idea being that everyone can share and use it. That’s very different from wotc saying that if you publish with their license, they own your content and you don’t.

So ... anyone anywhere being able to copy your stuff, including WOTC, is somehow better? How? WOTC has only ever used this once based on what others have said. If others are stopped from copying your work and the one entity has never found a reason to do so since the inception of the OGL, how is that a terrible thing? If that's even the case, we haven't seen detailed wording yet (not that I'm saying arguing that aspect one way or another).

At the very least, OGL 2.0 will have “zero impact” because 3pp will refuse to sign on to such terms.

People will still go where the money is.

edit: oh and they also want to be able to change the terms with 30 days notice. Even better!

If they can legally change it now they will be able to legally change it in the future.

 

[Oofta]

It's hard for me to gauge how to read all these responses, because many are from folks who, long before this, were making generally anti-D&D or anti-5e posts and threads. I'll be interested to see some objective numbers on the impact this controversy has on actual sales, though I'm not sure how easy it will be to tease that out of the data. DnDBeyond subscriptions might give us a clue, but it can be very hard to distinguish between correlation and causation.

We know that DDB took a hit, we don't know by how much or how many people would have renewed before their current subscription expired. The PHB is still #115 in sales on Amazon (I checked earlier, I was curious) which means it's still selling roughly 9,000 per month. It's a bit down from December, but that's to be expected. In comparison the PF 2E PHB is #1,109 or about 2,000 per month.

For example, if sales go up, someone might claim, "a-ha - the OGL fiasco didn't make a difference, just as I suspected!" Except maybe they would have gone up even more without it. Conversely, if sales drop off, we'll probably see claims of, "you see! they shot themselves in the foot." Except maybe sales would have dropped anyway regardless of the OGL thing.


My suspicion is that there will be a negative impact that will tie into a general decline in D&D's popularity that I felt was already happening (at my school, for example, there isn't the uptake there was even a year ago). In the long, long term, I don't think it will make much difference. I think the movie, WotC successfully implementing an intuitive VTT, and successfully making the shift to OneD&D are going to matter far more to D&D's overall success.

I agree.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I voted "doesn't affect me or my table, if they make something I like I'll buy it." and that it's a basically true statement, I haven't purchased anything from WotC since 3.5. So whatever they do to the OGL doesn't apply to my buying habits of D&D products which is basically zero over the past 13 years. I did purchase Spelljammer 5e and that was a disappointment. I bought it with the intent that I was going to publish a 3PP Spelljammer supplement. Now I guess I won't due to the OGL issues. So while I would buy something from WotC if I thought I'd like it, I basically buy nothing from WotC because they've got nothing I like. As a 3PP this is an issue, as a GM of my table it's completely meaningless.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I bought it with the intent that I was going to publish a 3PP Spelljammer supplement. Now I guess I won't due to the OGL issues.

The OGL doesn't affect your ability to make a Spelljammer supplement. You can only reference Spelljammer if you publish though the DM's Guild and accept that license. There is no Spelljammer SRD.

 

[Malmuria]

So ... anyone anywhere being able to copy your stuff, including WOTC, is somehow better? How? WOTC has only ever used this once based on what others have said. If others are stopped from copying your work and the one entity has never found a reason to do so since the inception of the OGL, how is that a terrible thing

The OGL (and other licenses) allow creators to distinguish what is OGC and what is not. That means Kobold press could (for example) tell everyone, wotc included, that they can’t use the Midgarde campaign setting but otherwise allow 3p to create for their product. The proposed OGL 2.0 gives wotc ownership of everything you create under that license. Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

As to which is better, I assume people using the OGL wanted both safe harbor but also, as in the case of pathfinder 2e, a license that would allow 3p to create for their system. That is, they were interested in the concept of open gaming content to grow their products.

 

[Vael]

Ultimately, I do think that the choice in my groups is either play DnD or not play at all. And I'd rather play. We've tried a few alternative systems and they haven't stuck. Sure, games like Honey Heist are great for one-shots, and the Exalted campaign came closest, but it's not something that I care to DM. I've tried P2 and didn't like it. Monster of the Week and other PbtA games were okay, but again, I'm not sure I'd DM them. FATE remains the system I'd prefer to go to, but some of my players still baulk at aspects and how free form it is. So DnD 5e remains the one we can all default to.

 

[Uta-napishti]

Not one penny until the threat to the OGL 1.0a is acknowledged as irrevocable. Don't care about getting rid of "the suits", as it's an internal matter. I only care about external actions.

 

[Oofta]

The OGL (and other licenses) allow creators to distinguish what is OGC and what is not. That means Kobold press could (for example) tell everyone, wotc included, that they can’t use the Midgarde campaign setting but otherwise allow 3p to create for their product. The proposed OGL 2.0 gives wotc ownership of everything you create under that license. Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

As to which is better, I assume people using the OGL wanted both safe harbor but also, as in the case of pathfinder 2e, a license that would allow 3p to create for their system. That is, they were interested in the concept of open gaming content to grow their products.

According to the OGL 1.0a FAQ, unless you declare something as PI anyone can copy what you write at any time.

But this is getting into the weeds ... I just don't see a big difference. When it comes to producing something that will make more money or less, I think many 3PPs will choose to make more money.