Official OGL Discussion Thread

[PhoenixPhyre]

Any restriction they impose will be a step down from 1.0a which barely had any (besides "no product identity" anyway.) I sympathize with that, and I don't expect to be able to sell you or anyone on it; all I can say is that I understand why the move makes sense from a business standpoint. And it's true that WotC's customers may not see the benefits of that for quite a while. The real goal of this updated license is future-proofing.

For a while. When, exactly, and how would they see any benefits at all, period? I have yet to hear word one how this helps anyone but WotC, and only in the most pecuniary, anti-competitive fashion. And no, "what's good for WotC is good for the industry" just ain't gonna cut it.

As I see it, customers get hosed. 3rd parties get hosed. WotC...doesn't really benefit that much at all, at least if they're doing it in good faith. Only way they can benefit is if they use the terms maliciously to cut competitors off at the knees.

All that guff about "keeping people from doing bad things"? Hasn't happened in over 20 years, even when publishing standards were way looser than they are now. And there are already clauses that make sure people under OGL 1.0a can't claim that WotC has approved the content. NFTs? They explicitly reserve the right to add those themselves, so all they're doing is keeping other people from officially doing it.

So explain to me exactly what this is future-proofing for. What benefit will customers see?

[ToranIronfinder]

For a while. When, exactly, and how would they see any benefits at all, period? I have yet to hear word one how this helps anyone but WotC, and only in the most pecuniary, anti-competitive fashion. And no, "what's good for WotC is good for the industry" just ain't gonna cut it.

As I see it, customers get hosed. 3rd parties get hosed. WotC...doesn't really benefit that much at all, at least if they're doing it in good faith. Only way they can benefit is if they use the terms maliciously to cut competitors off at the knees.

All that guff about "keeping people from doing bad things"? Hasn't happened in over 20 years, even when publishing standards were way looser than they are now. And there are already clauses that make sure people under OGL 1.0a can't claim that WotC has approved the content. NFTs? They explicitly reserve the right to add those themselves, so all they're doing is keeping other people from officially doing it.

So explain to me exactly what this is future-proofing for. What benefit will customers see?

No as I said, best possible outcome, DnD becomes a smaller part of the TTRPG eco system, with competition coming into the community, something the OGL chased out.

[Psyren]

For a while. When, exactly, and how would they see any benefits at all, period? I have yet to hear word one how this helps anyone but WotC, and only in the most pecuniary, anti-competitive fashion. And no, "what's good for WotC is good for the industry" just ain't gonna cut it.

Despite that getting crammed in my mouth repeatedly in this thread (by two posters in particular), I never actually said that. I know and agree that WotC is not the industry.

Anyway, to answer your question - the big issue with the current OGL (aside from the morality stuff which we'll probably never get agreement around) is the fact that the vagueness of what it covers means it could be used to fuel all kinds of competing non-tabletop experiences. What Deep Silver amd EAWare did with their video games is just the tip of the iceberg - as long as 1.0a continues to float out there, it can be used as an on-ramp by billion-dollar companies that don't need the help. And with DS's example, it will only continue to be used in this way, and will continue to be used this way with new technologies too. They'll not just spawn the next Paizo, but the first non-tabletop Paizo, and one that's likely to be far bigger than any TTRPG company could ever be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No as I said, best possible outcome, DnD becomes a smaller part of the TTRPG eco system, with competition coming into the community, something the OGL chased out.

I basically agree, but that's benefit despite the OGL, not from it. To say that we can thank the OGL for that is saying that the economy will improve if we go around and break everyone's windows so that we have to spend money replacing them.

And as someone who strongly likes 5e D&D and doesn't want to see it get wrecked for any reason, especially not corporate greed, it makes me sad that the growth will come at the expense of something I like and will likely be in a direction I'm not so fond of. If PF, OSR, or many of the other "non D &D" games gain ground due to 5e running into a self dug pit, I lose what I like. Better that everyone grow and the growing pie gets rebalanced less... forcefully.

Despite that getting crammed in my mouth repeatedly in this thread (by two posters in particular), I never actually said that. I know and agree that WotC is not the industry.

Anyway, to answer your question - the big issue with the current OGL (aside from the morality stuff which we'll probably never get agreement around) is the fact that the vagueness of what it covers means it could be used to fuel all kinds of competing non-tabletop experiences. What Deep Silver amd EAWare did with their video games is just the tip of the iceberg - as long as 1.0a continues to float out there, it can be used as an on-ramp by billion-dollar companies that don't need the help. And with DS's example, it will only continue to be used in this way, and will continue to be used this way with new technologies too. They'll not just spawn the next Paizo, but the first non-tabletop Paizo, and one that's likely to be far bigger than any TTRPG company could ever be.

I'm still not seeing the benefit to customers from stopping them. I don't care about WotC's health. I don't care if other people make kinda-D&D-like video games. That harms me not at all and may even be beneficial.

Where's the benefit to the customer?

[ToranIronfinder]

I basically agree, but that's benefit despite the OGL, not from it. To say that we can thank the OGL for that is saying that the economy will improve if we go around and break everyone's windows so that we have to spend money replacing them.

No, I'm coming from the standpoint that the OGL did something good for the hobby and something bad. On the good side, it prevented lawsuits on issues of similarities that were a significant problem. And that is where I think the lack of an OGL creates a significant problem. But the bad thing was, it tended to give us a single base system, and a system that is kind of limited in settings it could be applied to. Dnd does a particular style of game well, but it isn't very elastic because it is class based. I'm not saying classes are bad, but they have limitations into what they can model.

But I think the move from DnD would come anyway, it's what happened last time at least that fad gamers got out of the ecosystem.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, that's only the most recent example of WotC's "standards" being way more...extreme...than anything I'd consider sane to apply to anyone else's content. Sure, they can do whatever the heck they want with their own product, but when you're exercising life-or-death over someone else's content? Yeah. No thanks.

Especially when the OGL was basically used by (differently managed) WotC to set up a perpetual club with a shared pot, and then contributed the first bit to the pot. They kept all the stuff they wanted to be theirs alone.

At this point, others have borrowed stuff from the pot that has absolutely nothing to do with WotC since it wasn't even contributed by WotC, and then re-added their own stuff back in. And this has iterated several times.

And now WotC wants to come along and say they are dissolving the old club rules, claiming everything already in the shared pot is theirs, anything new added is also theirs, and they get to be the moral arbiter of anyone who wants to use the shared pot to boot.

Its hardly surprising that people are willing to walk away, even if it means abandoning their own contributions to the shared pot.

[Atranen]

Any restriction they impose will be a step down from 1.0a which barely had any (besides "no product identity" anyway.) I sympathize with that, and I don't expect to be able to sell you or anyone on it; all I can say is that I understand why the move makes sense from a business standpoint. And it's true that WotC's customers may not see the benefits of that for quite a while. The real goal of this updated license is future-proofing.

...

Anyway, to answer your question - the big issue with the current OGL (aside from the morality stuff which we'll probably never get agreement around) is the fact that the vagueness of what it covers means it could be used to fuel all kinds of competing non-tabletop experiences. What Deep Silver amd EAWare did with their video games is just the tip of the iceberg - as long as 1.0a continues to float out there, it can be used as an on-ramp by billion-dollar companies that don't need the help. And with DS's example, it will only continue to be used in this way, and will continue to be used this way with new technologies too. They'll not just spawn the next Paizo, but the first non-tabletop Paizo, and one that's likely to be far bigger than any TTRPG company could ever be.

I still don't understand the argument. How does this future proofing benefit me as someone who plays TTRPGs?

[Saintheart]

For a while. When, exactly, and how would they see any benefits at all, period? I have yet to hear word one how this helps anyone but WotC, and only in the most pecuniary, anti-competitive fashion. And no, "what's good for WotC is good for the industry" just ain't gonna cut it.

As I see it, customers get hosed. 3rd parties get hosed. WotC...doesn't really benefit that much at all, at least if they're doing it in good faith. Only way they can benefit is if they use the terms maliciously to cut competitors off at the knees.

I might note that even the threat of pulling the OGL, and causing a mad rush for the exits, might be seen by the Mind Flayers in Hazmat or WOTC as a good thing for them.

I think they are betting on the name recognition of D&D to outlast any new competitor. They don't care if the 3PP industry descends into a sudden atomisation of a half a hundred individual systems, none of which has significant draw or appeal, and all of which are cutting each other's lunch. That's good for their brand, because they know, or reason, that given a hundred different brands on the shelf, and with limited time to evaluate alternatives, odds are on that if you're a new or semi-new player, you'll go for the brand that's most recognised. You know ... the one that has a major movie with Chris Pine playing Chris Pine due for release and with the D&D symbol plastered all over it. They also know that you'll go for that brand because it's likely most of your friends want to play with that brand or own that brand.


I think they also believe it'll work because TTRPG design - and DM instruction - is just not that good across the board. It's usually cognitive heavy, it doesn't provide immediate sensory pleasure reward, and it doesn't properly teach DMs how to run it (for the most part). I mean, good grief, the fact ChatGPT is even being bandied around as a virtual DM is just a damning indictment on how badly the industry has got this wrong on setting TTRPGs apart from other forms of entertainment, or at least teaching DMs to make the experience distinct from that.

Especially when you compare it with CRPGs, which have been advancing in leaps and bounds in user experience and figuring out what works, what makes you keep coming back to a game, what keeps you pushing the buttons. I know: CRPGs and TTRPGs are chalk and cheese, but they compete in similar markets, and the CRPG industry just seems to have a much stronger handle on what makes them enjoyable than (I would posit) the TTRPG industry as a whole knows what makes TTRPGs enjoyable.

I think Hazmat/WOTC is betting that nobody out there among Paizo and friends is going to come up with a better, more engaging system than the d20 core mechanics, and in particular, that nobody's going to come up with a more engaging, popular setting that's distinct from the D&D standard lexicon including dragons, dungeons, beholders, and mind flayers. I think they're counting on the idea that ORC is going to be a mishmash of generalities which won't offer superior experiences or mechanics to what they can offer, and that they'll be able to outcompete anyone who does come up with something revolutionary by either copying it significantly or buying it out if need be, i.e. the Microsoft/big tech way of doing business ... remembering Big Tech corporate types now run that joint.


Hence why I think they don't mind walking back elements of the Offensive Gaming Licence. In part they already got what they wanted because they're chasing a large group of competitors into a space where they'll compete with one another much more than they'll compete with D&D. They think that people don't follow rulesets, they follow easy-to-understand settings and familiar lexicons. They don't think the ORC horde can survive without the D&D lexicon as a crutch. As evident from the unfortunate choice of acronym, which has as much association with D&D as it does with Tolkien.

It was the same gamble under fourth edition. There, WOTC miscalculated: the OGL existed and people had no impetus to shift to fourth because of the edition's own internal issues and because it was too different from third. This time it's the reverse: if OGL 1.0a is deauthorised, the ORC horde will have to come up with something to convince new people to come across to it, something that's demonstrably and distinctly better than the D&D lexicon. Absent a massive groundswell of support, people will just drift back for their microtransactioned scraps from D&D (although maybe not so much if economic conditions continue to worsen, who knows.) They are betting that the community of players and DMs is fickle and lazy enough to come crawling back for DBox One because it can't be bothered both learning a new system and finding something more distinctive than D&D. If I was in the ORC camp right now, I'd be pooling funds to hire exceptional rules designers, but even more talented writers. And looking for the best damn experts you can find on actual written communication, not just second-rate fantasy novelists.

The only missing piece, and what definitely has to go, is OGL 1.0a. That was what allowed Paizo to gazump them on fourth edition, and they see it as a standing risk going forward. WOTC cannot allow that licence to persist for this gamble to pay off. I doubt that will be walked back, even if the morality clause is. The very fact they're standing ground on that issue, and not on others, says to me that is their core goal, not making D&D "inclusive" for everybody (which is supposedly their Mission, according to Brink's own non-apology to the community.) That past licence just cannot be allowed to exist for WOTC to dominate the space going forward, which is ultimately what they want to do.

[Lemmy]

I also don't see how this new OGL helps with video-games anyway... Video-games use the same mechanics as each other all the time!

How many platformers mimic Mario?? How many RPGs mimic Final Fantasy? How many fighting games mimic Street Fighter?? How many FPS follow the formula used by Wolfestein and Doom?? How many generic Scrabbles/Monopoly/UNO/Farmville clones are there??

Does the OGL 1.2 magically makes Hasbro/WotC the one and only company allowed to have monopoly over game mechanics?

[Saintheart]

Does the OGL 1.2 magically makes Hasbro/WotC the one and only company allowed to have monopoly over game mechanics?

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

[Atranen]

I might note that even the threat of pulling the OGL, and causing a mad rush for the exits, might be seen by the Mind Flayers in Hazmat or WOTC as a good thing for them.

--snip--

Excellent post. I agree that they'll get away with it and generally have a good result from pulling the OGL, at the expense of the TTRPG community.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I also don't see how this new OGL helps with video-games anyway... Video-games use the same mechanics as each other all the time!

How many platformers mimic Mario?? How many RPGs mimic Final Fantasy? How many fighting games mimic Street Fighter?? How many FPS follow the formula used by Wolfestein and Doom?? How many generic Scrabbles/Monopoly/UNO/Farmville clones are there??

Does the OGL 1.2 magically makes Hasbro/WotC the one and only company allowed to have monopoly over game mechanics?

It has nothing to do with video games so I don't really understand the comparison, the beginning section of this document is also very explicit that the mechanics are under creative commons and don't require you to use the license at all. This might be the only "upgrade" the new license has over the old, there's plenty of content that they're no longer able to pretend is locked behind the OGL and they're being upfront about that.

[Snowbluff]

It has nothing to do with video games so I don't really understand the comparison, the beginning section of this document is also very explicit that the mechanics are under creative commons and don't require you to use the license at all. This might be the only "upgrade" the new license has over the old, there's plenty of content that they're no longer able to pretend is locked behind the OGL and they're being upfront about that.

I think this CC bit is a better deal than OGL 1.0a in its own way. I see a lot of people saying that OGL 1.0a was toothless and clearly isn't as irrevocable (or insert correct term here) as people thought. Having something actually capable of lasting, and dare I say it, outside of WotC's influence, is probably as good as a licensing deal could get.

The OGL 1.2 is more restrictive, but at the same time it doesn't cover as much, and with the CC 4.0 there won't be a legal challenge over you using base mechanics at least, settling that question for good without litigation (it seems).

[Lemmy]

It has nothing to do with video games so I don't really understand the comparison, the beginning section of this document is also very explicit that the mechanics are under creative commons and don't require you to use the license at all. This might be the only "upgrade" the new license has over the old, there's plenty of content that they're no longer able to pretend is locked behind the OGL and they're being upfront about that.

Sorry, I'm not sure how to word all of this... It was more a point about their multi-media plans and... ahem... "future-proofing" D&D.

[Psyren]

I'm still not seeing the benefit to customers from stopping them. I don't care about WotC's health. I don't care if other people make kinda-D&D-like video games. That harms me not at all and may even be beneficial.

Where's the benefit to the customer?

I still don't understand the argument. How does this future proofing benefit me as someone who plays TTRPGs?

For fans of D&D it means a better chance of more D&D long-term. If you don't care about D&D specifically and are happy with any TTRPG, then I don't suppose it benefits you, no, but neither do they need to prioritize your wants. Cleared up?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sorry, I'm not sure how to word all of this... It was more a point about their multi-media plans and... ahem... "future-proofing".

You'll have to clarify further then because I don't understand the correlation you're trying to make here. The OGL has nothing to do with video games and doesn't prevent someone from using the core mechanics of D&D even if it did.

So, in response to this -

Does the OGL 1.2 magically makes Hasbro/WotC the one and only company allowed to have monopoly over game mechanics?

I'll say again - it doesn't. In fact it explicitly doesn't.

The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content.

So, again, it doesn't. And has nothing to do with video games.

[Lemmy]

You'll have to clarify further then because I don't understand the correlation you're trying to make here. The OGL has nothing to do with video games and doesn't prevent someone from using the core mechanics of D&D even if it did.

That's kinda my point... But nevermind. Just let it go. I'm off to bed. I might be able to post a more clear explanation of what I mean after I've had some sleep.

Good night!

[ToranIronfinder]

It has nothing to do with video games so I don't really understand the comparison, the beginning section of this document is also very explicit that the mechanics are under creative commons and don't require you to use the license at all. This might be the only "upgrade" the new license has over the old, there's plenty of content that they're no longer able to pretend is locked behind the OGL and they're being upfront about that.

Except if I understand it, too small a part of the SRD is under the CC license. I don't think the real threat to other RPGs is the threat of suing on the grounds that, your medpac looks like our heal potion, your sneak class is too much like a rogue, your merlin knockoff class is too similar to our wizard, your followers of the Dark are too much like our warlocks. . . That is, a case made on a number of superficial points, drawing on lore farnolder than DnD. That's why games that had no actual WOTC content put the OGL in their books, say Savage worlds, it's always good to have some protection from frivolous suits that require you to pay high legal fees. The OSR started with the OGL as well, but some of the latter works actually did some additional changes to DnD 1e or 2e, but they were different at times from the types of changes that DnD 3e made.


What I think WOTC is forgetting is, this hobby waxes and wanes, and we are likely far closer to the top than the bottom, it isn't a great time to chase off your longer term audience, in order to chase those that you can't count on in the long term.

[Delicious Taffy]

At this point, it applies to anything that
a) includes mechanical content (so it's not covered by the fan policy)
b) uses material from the non-CC portions of the SRD (so basically any class information, species information, magic items, anything from a monster at a minimum).

Commercial vs non-commercial matters not in the slightest.

Welp, guess I'll have to put my homebrew out with all the crunch completely removed, then. Not that there was much already, and at least they can't reach into an existing campaign's shared Google Doc/Discord server and mess with people that way. The way people were talking, I though they were threatening to somehow come to your house and rip up your GM's binder.

[Snowbluff]

Welp, guess I'll have to put my homebrew out with all the crunch completely removed, then. Not that there was much already, and at least they can't reach into an existing campaign's shared Google Doc/Discord server and mess with people that way.

Well, not necessarily. As pointed out, WotC is putting out a Creative Commons 4.0 license for base mechanics. Depending on what you had in your document, it may not be OGL at all. I think if you say, wrote a new monster, that would be CC, but if you included a WotC one from the SRD, that would be OGL.

I think it needs to be said, CC is not OGL. OGL's terms are more restrictive.

DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
System Reference Document 5.1
Preamble
Introduction to System Reference Document 5.1
MANY WAYS TO CREATE. Dungeons & Dragons content is available to you in many ways:
• The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

The way people were talking, I though they were threatening to somehow come to your house and rip up your GM's binder.

Golly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Welp, guess I'll have to put my homebrew out with all the crunch completely removed, then. Not that there was much already, and at least they can't reach into an existing campaign's shared Google Doc/Discord server and mess with people that way. The way people were talking, I though they were threatening to somehow come to your house and rip up your GM's binder.

It's easier to convince people of the importance of being vigilant about the changes if you make it seem like an even bigger deal than it is.

To be clear, this is a very big deal, but it's a big deal for those who make a hobby/living out of publicizing and sharing their homebrew content. If your content is your own and kept private, you really don't need to be alarmed. I think it's still an issue worth caring about regardless.

If we exaggerate too much I fear we'd run the risk of being dismissed on account of "not understanding" exactly what's being done. I think it's important now that we have concrete information to work with that we address that information as directly as possible rather than speculation on consequences 10 or 12 steps removed from the more immediate issues. In addressing the immediate issues, most of those far removed ones will be addressed as well, but it keeps the feedback focused and, hopefully, productive.

[Tanarii]

Welp, guess I'll have to put my homebrew out with all the crunch completely removed, then. Not that there was much already, and at least they can't reach into an existing campaign's shared Google Doc/Discord server and mess with people that way. The way people were talking, I though they were threatening to somehow come to your house and rip up your GM's binder.

Ypu don't use a public-facing wiki for your multi-party open-table campaigns?

To be clear, this is a very big deal, but it's a big deal for those who make a hobby/living out of publicizing and sharing their homebrew content. If your content is your own and kept private, you really don't need to be alarmed. I think it's still an issue worth caring about regardless.

Except, y'know, the massively negative impact for the consumer base across the hobby. Except for those that use first-party WotC hard copy products only. Put together with the decline in quality of those products since 2020, even those folks are going to be hard pressed IMO.

Otoh when they fail m their primary goal of taking even more control of the market and it backfires instead ... massive loss of subscribers, announcement of the ORC license and Black Flag projects, boycotts for their upcoming movie, and overall loss of Q1 revenue driving down stock prices, and long term loss of market share driving them both down further ... it will end up being a net positive for the consumer base. Except those that liked buying 3PP products for 5e.

[Atranen]

For fans of D&D it means a better chance of more D&D long-term. If you don't care about D&D specifically and are happy with any TTRPG, then I don't suppose it benefits you, no, but neither do they need to prioritize your wants. Cleared up?

It's bad for D&D fans because someone like Microsoft would come along, make a popular TTRPG (Micros and Macros), and everyone would leave D&D for Micros and Macros?

I guess I understand that you think that. I don't think it's a compelling argument. It holds that something like Pathfinder: Kingmaker existing (you've called out Owlcat a few times) is a net loss to me, because it means people might go play Pathfinder instead of D&D. And I just don't see that as a loss, even for a strict D&D fan.

As it happens, I am someone who likes a broader range of TTRPG, including D&D, D&D-adjacent (OSR), and totally unrelated system (PBtA, Blades, Lancer, etc.) In which case, I'm glad that you agree I'm getting a bad deal from WoTC and I don't have any power to stop them.

Because that's exactly what's happening.

[Psyren]

It's bad for D&D fans because someone like Microsoft would come along, make a popular TTRPG (Micros and Macros), and everyone would leave D&D for Micros and Macros?

No - a CRPG. Or app. Or a VTT that crosses the line into video game territory. Or even a full-blown AI. Or anything else not covered by this OGL. That's the point, they don't care about rival TTRPGs anymore (nor should they.)

[Delicious Taffy]

No - a CRPG. Or app. Or a VTT that crosses the line into video game territory. Or even a full-blown AI. Or anything else not covered by this OGL. That's the point, they don't care about rival TTRPGs anymore (nor should they.)

What effect does a hypothetical CRPG have on any of this? Nobody's leaving D&D for Dragon Quest, if that's what you're implyling. Your point is still pretty unclear.

[Psyren]

What effect does a hypothetical CRPG have on any of this? Nobody's leaving D&D for Dragon Quest, if that's what you're implyling. Your point is still pretty unclear.

They don't care about rival TTRPGs anymore. They do care about everything else. How is that not clear as day from looking at this document and what it excludes now? I'm really confused at how that couldn't be coming through. Make all the TTRPGs with it that your heart desires.

[Liquor Box]

I actually do have a "better alternative". It's pretty simple...NOBODY gets to have an effective monopoly on the market and simultaneously establish themselves as the morality police for what is acceptable in a TTRPG. Developers and audiences can decide that for themselves, they don't need Mommy of the Coast "thinking of the children".

Surely there is competition? There are TTRPG alternatives to DnD.

That would be the best for everyone involved. Corporations should not get to decide what is considered "moral", especially when most of the people in charge of them have no morality. Unfortunately due to board rules I cannot bring up specific examples of how our society has been changed for the worse when this was allowed in the past, but I'm sure you can think of a few if you've been following the news over the last 15 years or so.

Very much agree with this. Corporations should not be trying to decide what is moral or ethical. Instead they should focus on profit. while acting within the law.

There are ways to realize their core goals that do not require that restriction in the license.

How do you know? I mean you might be right that other methods might accomplish their goals better, but you might be wrong. And isn't that their call to make.

I cannot express how little of a **** I care about Wizards' core goals.

Of course you shouldn't, except insofar as their core goals coincide with something you want - like producing rpg products. And they should care equally little about your goals or desires - except where your goals coincide with something they want (like profit).

So the situation is explicitly worse for me as a consumer compared to what it was previously, when 1.0a was authorized?

Isn't that also true when someone puts the price up for a product - and they do that all the time. A business is entitled to do what it need to do to make a profit. The only question is whether there product is still good enough that you want to pay for it.

[RedWarlock]

I really think most of us are not looking in the same direction that WOTC / HAsbro is. Most of us are looking at other TTRPGs.

The CEO told the world, D&D is an "undermonetized brand." PAthfinder and Critical Role are small potatoes compared to whatever it is that they're working on to monetize that brand--movies, VTT / MMORPG / CRPG with AI DMs.

I suspect that they are worried about "big companies" benefiting from OGL products in emerging technology spaces. But they're not worried about Pathfinder or a Pathfinder CRPG or Critical Role etc. They're worried -- or they should be -- about Microsoft / Activision, Facebook / Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon.

Notice that after two weeks of bad press, which really isn't anything in the real world (unless losing D&D Beyond subscriptions is a bigger financial hit than I thought), they've retreated on claiming royalties. But they're still moving forward with --- something.

Yes. Yes it was. A CYOA for companies that don't need one, and one that saved those companies considerable costs in figuring out where those lines were drawn.

And I get that that doesn't seem like a big deal to you; I'm merely explaining why it (still) matters to WotC. You don't have to agree, but expect them to not budge on the second bullet of my subsequent post.



Exactly, they are.

Why would they want to? D&D might be a recognizable name, but the OGL didn't give MS, Google, etc, anything they would bother with. Why would giants pick up children's toys? Hasbo/WotC is a yapping dog vs a herd of elephants, in that scene. They could step on it like a bug, and I seriously doubt there's anything they would even bother messing with from the OGL's entire catalog. It's too small potatoes.

[Delicious Taffy]

They don't care about rival TTRPGs anymore. They do care about everything else. How is that not clear as day from looking at this document and what it excludes now? I'm really confused at how that couldn't be coming through. Make all the TTRPGs with it that your heart desires.

The implicit insults about my intelligence (bolded) are very much not called for, and I'll thank you to knock that off. I already mentioned this in my first post here, but understanding legalese isn't my forte, which is why I asked a clarifying question to begin with.

If WotC don't care about rival TTRPGs and would rather make video games or whatever you've changed your answer to, what good does it do literally anyone for them to put up restrictions on their iconic TTRPG, the thing most people even know them for in the first place? Like, I'm honestly asking, if that's not the market this OGL thing is focused on, what relevance does it have to anything other than telling people to stop charging $5 for their homebrew?

[Psyren]

Why would they want to? D&D might be a recognizable name, but the OGL didn't give MS, Google, etc, anything they would bother with. Why would giants pick up children's toys? Hasbo/WotC is a yapping dog vs a herd of elephants, in that scene. They could step on it like a bug, and I seriously doubt there's anything they would even bother messing with from the OGL's entire catalog. It's too small potatoes.

When you can pick up those toys by doing practically nothing, like Bioware and Deep Silver did, someone will continue doing so.

Saying "not many people took advantage of this loophole before now" is not a reason to keep the loophole around. Especially when the amounts those folks get from using it are only increasing. And it's easy to say "those are video games, who cares" - but as the line between games and virtual tabletops and AI and everything else continues to blur, the OGL 1.0a is increasingly showing that it's not designed to get its owners the benefit it should.

The implicit insults about my intelligence (bolded) are very much not called for, and I'll thank you to knock that off. I already mentioned this in my first post here, but understanding legalese isn't my forte, which is why I asked a clarifying question to begin with.

I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, I was truly / genuinely confused. If that came across as critical I apologize, I assure you that wasn't my intent.

If WotC don't care about rival TTRPGs and would rather make video games or whatever you've changed your answer to, what good does it do literally anyone for them to put up restrictions on their iconic TTRPG, the thing most people even know them for in the first place? Like, I'm honestly asking, if that's not the market this OGL thing is focused on, what relevance does it have to anything other than telling people to stop charging $5 for their homebrew?

...And I'm confused again What restrictions are you referring to specifically?

They released the core rules as Creative Commons now (no restrictions at all), and everything else is just considered Licensed Content (TTRPGs and VTTs only, which per your admission are what they are most known for, so a rival trying to make one of those should be fine.) To repeat - if you're making a rival TTRPG with this license, or supplemental content for theirs, there is almost nothing here stopping you.