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

[Oofta]

We already did at huge length. That you didn't bother to read it doesn't mean we need to repeat it for you. No-one else is claiming this. It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to claim no-one has explained to you.

There have been literally thousand of posts. Believe it or not, I haven't read every one. The only thing I've seen stated repeatedly is that WOTC wants to destroy 3PP and that they've shown that they're basically the second coming of Hitler. Yet nobody explains why, they just jump to the conclusion that WOTC will give a **** and shut you down if you publish a mod.

Yes, they can change the contract with 30 days notice. If they can get revoke the 1.0a version (that's up to the courts to decide) they can revoke any version. They can, in theory, shut anyone down. It would not be in their best interest to do so outside of extreme examples like a NuTSR. Old content is not going to be removed, people would still have a grace period of 6 months to wrap things up and publish under 1.0a, they just won't be able to use the 1.0a in the future. They've always been able to copy the majority of things published and they have not so there's no reason to believe they will in the future.

See? That wasn't hard. An entire paragraph. Phew. My fingers are about ready to fall off! I'm not saying I support the decision, I think it was a mistake. I also don't think WOTC is putting the bootheel of the corporation on the throats of every individual who publishes material either.

If you're just going to respond "You're wrong!" don't bother.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They've always been able to copy the majority of things published and they have not so there's no reason to believe they will in the future.

Stuff like this is why people can't be bothered to argue with you.

It's already a moot point.

WotC already dropped it. So why are you bringing it up? I can't even tell if you just don't know, or you think there's some reason to bring up a moot point.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really draw much distinction between any of these companies - they are all trying to turn a profit and be competitive. I'm not interested in turning this into a pro wrestling situation of heels and babyfaces. If someone makes something I want at a reasonable price, I will buy it unless it was derived from criminal or otherwise unconscionable behaviour. The OGL situation doesn't come remotely close, in my books.

As far as I'm concerned there healthy profit, and unconscionable profit which is when the desire for profit turns to greed and harms people. What WotC is doing may not be killing people like drug companies do, but it is going to bankrupt some, cause some to lose homes and others hardship or even failure to be able to provide for their families. That's unconscionable in my book.

 

[Maxperson]

That was quite the screed that ignored (and conveniently didn't quote) my second sentence where I state that the OGL 1.0a is likely not [edit ] enforceable revocable [/edit] I'm talking about the proposed OGL 2.0 as it stands now. I think it would have little or no impact. The silly hyperbole theories have been things like "The only reason to publish a new edition is to force the sale of DndBeyond because they were too successful!" Tell me how buying DDB for $146 million is "forcing" anyone to sell? How an updated version to the game that's been out for a decade, that could use some updates, that corresponds with a 50th anniversary wasn't going to happen anyway?

The bolded is almost certainly incorrect. If you have been listening to the lawyers who have been talking on this site and others, you will have heard them mention that money, not correctness of position is often the deciding factor in cases. If OGL 2.0 comes out and still attempts to "deauthorize" OGL 1.0a, then WotC could go after the small content producers and strong arm them into losses or poor settlements.

Many smaller content providers won't produce content under those conditions, and many others will, but will be constantly stressed and worried about the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. That's not only not "little or no impact," but it's actually a very significant and negative impact.

 

[Oofta]

Stuff like this is why people can't be bothered to argue with you.

It's already a moot point.

WotC already dropped it. So why are you bringing it up? I can't even tell if you just don't know, or you think there's some reason to bring up a moot point.

I'm discussing the potential OGL 2.0, which I have stated repeatedly in every post since it was announced.

There are many people that say it changes nothing and I'm simply trying to explain why I'm taking a wait and see stance.

I was addressing my thoughts on future spending and why because that's the forum topic.

You're the one insisting on arguing with me and telling me that I'm wrong without explanation.

 

[halfling rogue]

I haven't bought anything from WotC since 2019. That was just Saltmarsh. Before that I hadn't bought anything since 2017.

The only thing on the horizon that even piqued my interest a little was the future Phandelver product, only because Lost Mines was so good. If they bring Rich Baker back for it, I might consider it. In all likelihood however, even if they bring him back, I'll wait to hear the feedback before buying anything.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm discussing the potential OGL 2.0, which I have stated repeatedly in every post since it was announced.

I'm so confused.

That element isn't in the potential OGL 2.0.

 

[Maxperson]

left

left

Left right left!

 

[Maxperson]

That element isn't in the potential OGL 2.0.

We don't actually what is in OGL 2.0. We only have the statement of WotC about what will be taken out, but until we see the actual OGL, things could change.

They said that they will be removing royalties. I believe them on that. To say that and then put the royalties in would be even worse than having left them in. However, they could very well charge 3PP by the word to use their content, or charge a flat fee of say $5000 per product, which would kill almost all 3PP like they want. Larger content producers like Paizo, Morrus and those who make hundreds of thousands or more could pay a $5000 fee, but those who make 10k, 15k, or even 50k wouldn't. Or there may be no base cost at all beyond what putting it up on DMsguild takes. We just don't know.

And that's with what we do kinda, sorta know based on their statement. There are a lot of things that they didn't comment on that may or may not show up in the OGL 2.0 or show up in a different form than was in OGL 1.0a.

 

[Umbran]

There have been literally thousand of posts. Believe it or not, I haven't read every one.

Mod Note:
Sure. But that doesn't mean you can reasonably assert that everyone else is wrong or unsupported just because they didn't explain it to you, personally. It is a busy time, and if you don't want to put in the effort, at least approach it like you are asking folks for a favor to get you up to speed.

See? That wasn't hard. An entire paragraph. Phew. My fingers are about ready to fall off!

And the snark is not helpful. In fact, you should know full well that it is antagonizing. Knowingly antagonizing people in the middle of controversy is a good way to get the hairy eyeball from moderators.

Going forward, you might want to approach the discussions as if everyone is already anxious and frustrated, and treat them with a bit more care.