Official OGL Discussion Thread

[thethird]

1) I don't understand how "they couldn't anticipate things 20 something years down the line" is somehow an acceptable justification for the original drafters of the OGL to want to leave it alone, but not for the current stewards to want to make changes.

2) "FAQ" is about as useful to the license as it is to a pure RAW discussion, which is to say not much. And while I won't attempt to do so here, try comparing OGL 1.0a to any open software license worth its salt like the GNU GPL 3.0 and then tell me those are on remotely similar footing.

3) Streaming D&D is Fan Content Policy, an entirely separate kettle of fish from the OGL (and explicitly reaffirmed to be such by Kyle's statement today.)

The current stewards can (and should) make updates (or make new licenses as they did with the GSL during 4e), they can't make changes (to the OGL 1.0a as it's written).

[Theoboldi]

If I wasn't already mostly moving away from D&D in my roleplaying simply because it stopped being interesting to me, I think what's going on right now would be souring me on it enough to do so anyways.

Even with all the misinformation that got reported against them tuned out, Wizards has completely lost any trust I had in their intentions for their product and the hobby. Their apology means very little to me since it came only after their plans had to be leaked, and even if it was genuine there is no guarantee that they can't just roll back any of their promises at any time. Benefit of the doubt is not what I'm willing to give to the group who holds all the cards, and gains a ton of benefit from lying.

Plus their previous statements did that whole spiel about wanting to 'stop discriminatory language' with their new legal document as if this whole thing was well-intentioned and not clearly an effort to make more profit. Just from the viewpoint of somebody who has faced discrimination, it makes me feel used. Heck, it makes me feel used as someone who was not even involved in any of this.

Whether or not they continue doing well I don't particularly care about. But I am too put off from the game to do more with it for a good long while.

[Brookshw]

Of course the product with world-wide brand recognition and backing from a billion dollar corporation will survive... But that doesn't mean this move won't do precisely the opposite of what it was intended to do: make WotC more money.

Sure, but that's their decision to make, no? I mean, I get that there's a certain amount of "who moved my cheese"-ism and feelings of bad faith going on, and a certain air of WoTC punching down which is never popular (punching up or sideways, pretty accepted). But if they want to take the hit to their good will on this, well, power too them I guess. It's not like its a brand that's had a consistent design team since day 1, its hard to feel a sense a loyalty to something when there's a certain lack of continuity (even the settings have taken hits).

Personally I'm thrilled to see ORC coming out of this, and consider it the best possible outcome (hopefully anyway, we'll see what they come out with, some of the teams involved I think are terrific, others I have no interest in).

[Lemmy]

Not different enough; The Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous CRPGs were explicitly released under the OGL, or at the very least stated to be. Whether Deep Silver and Owlcat ultimately needed to use it in order to safely lift/translate the PF1/3.5 tabletop mechanics to their CRPG is a legal question we can't answer here - but what we can say for a fact, is that they clearly felt the OGL to be enough of a shield to try, without needing to approach WotC for a special license of their own first. And they made considerable bank doing so - which, if nothing else, would have encouraged additional AAA publishers and developers to try their hand at OGL-fueled CRPGs.

TL;DR - I think it's eminently reasonable for WotC to say "hey, this license we created was supposed to help out the next Green Ronin or Kobold Press, not the next Deep Silver or Electronic Arts. Let's change it to make that clear."

Those games used the OGL because they are basically 1-to-1 adaptations of PF games (just like DDO tries to be with D&D). They use all the same names for all the same mechanics... And even then, it's debatable if it really needed the OGL in the first place. Starfinder and Pathfinder 2nd edition didn't really need the OGL, but were still
released under it, for convenience.

No one needs the OGL to use D&D's mechanics. You don't need WotC's permission to release a product compatible with D&D. And they are not entitled to one cent from you even if you do. WotC do not and cannot own game mechanics.

The main value the OGL had was being able to slap a "compatible with D&D" on your marketing material and, more importantly, providing to creators the confidence and security that the giant soulless corporation wouldn't try to come after them to get a cut of their money... Because unfortunately, even if they are wrong, it's really easy for a billion dollar corporation to push others around. They don't even have to win the case... Just stall long enough until the other side runs out of money. Now that confidence is gone. That's the greatest harm this whole debacle caused...

Sure, but that's their decision to make, no? I mean, I get that there's a certain amount of "who moved my cheese"-ism and feelings of bad faith going on, and a certain air of WoTC punching down which is never popular (punching up or sideways, pretty accepted). But if they want to take the hit to their good will on this, well, power too them I guess. It's not like its a brand that's had a consistent design team since day 1, its hard to feel a sense a loyalty to something when there's a certain lack of continuity (even the settings have taken hits).

Personally I'm thrilled to see ORC coming out of this, and consider it the best possible outcome (hopefully anyway, we'll see what they come out with, some of the teams involved I think are terrific, others I have no interest in).

Well, yeah, they are indeed free to release their products under whatever licence they want... Doesn't make the new OGL any less of a **** move.

And whether or not they are free to revoke/deauthorize the OGL 1.0 is debatable. I'd say "no". And that's definitely the original intention, as said multiple times by the very creator of the OGL. But billion dollar corporations are known to get away with things that they shouldn't get away with... So even if WotC is wrong, what are small content creators to do if the evil giant knocks on the door?

[Rynjin]

Did Coca-Cola make an Open Formula License I'm unaware of?

Coca-Cola is actually an extremely good example of why WotC doing what they're doing is ultimately pointless and shockingly dumb.

The Coca-Cola formula is a closely guarded secret. Like, I'm pretty sure Coke has more precautions in place to protect the secret Coca-Cola formula from being discovered than the US government puts into protecting nuclear launch codes.

That is because you can't effectively, legally, protect a recipe. You can protect an "expression" of a recipe (like a cookbook; this is why so many cookbooks and food blogs have little anecdotes and whatnot in them to add to the "literary expression" that's required), but not the actual ingredients etc. itself.

What you CAN do, however, is keep it as a "trade secret". If the recipe is unknown except to those that sign an NDA not to share said recipe, the recipe is effectively protected by law, so long as said recipe is never shared openly to the public (or oopsie toodles shared to someone not under an agreement to keep it a secret, who then does so).

On top of that, you CAN protect the concept of a brand, like Coca-Cola, which becomes associated with said recipe even though some people have unofficially reverse engineered the Coke recipe and you can technically make it at home; you just can't sell it as Coca-Cola. Of course what you CAN do is use an Open Source Cola recipe to make your own Psy-Cola or whatever, which tastes identical to Coke, and sell it if you want.

And here-in lies the rub. Game mechanics are a lot like recipes. The only way that Wizards would effectively be able to "protect" them is by keeping them a trade secret. Which would mean never releasing the game to the public. Which is a bit counterintuitive to trying to sell rulebooks.

They can trademark the D&D brand, certain terminology...but at the end of the day, even with the OGL 1.1, even with ANYTHING they try to do, there is literally nothing stopping another company from making a game which functions 100% identically to D&D, down to the last fiddly little mechanic, switching some names around so "Proficiency modifiers" become "Universal Bonuses" or whatever, and releasing it to the public.

If they really wanted to make more money off the D&D brand in specifically the tabletop arena, what they would have done is start licensing out the setting(s) to other RPG publishers. Because the setting, ultimately, is what people care about when it comes to D&D. People don't think D&D and go "Wow, golly! I sure do love how the game has ten base classes and optional Feats!" they go "I wanna play D&D because it's the one I've been hearing about".

D&D, long ago, became almost a generic name for TRPGs, or at least d20 systems. Kinda like Coke. You go and try to order a Coke somewhere, at least in my neck of the woods, they'll often ask "what kind?". Because "Coke" just means "soda". Similarly, they were in such a good spot. "D&D" means "RPG". When it's time for our weekly Pathfinder game, we don't typically say "It's time for Pathfinder", it's "It's time for D&D".

That's the thing they needed to leverage, and they're blowing it.

[Brookshw]

And whether or not they are free to revoke/deauthorize the OGL 1.0 is debatable. I'd say "no". And that's definitely the original intention, as said multiple times by the very creator of the OGL. But billion dollar corporations are known to get away with things that they shouldn't get away with... So even if WotC is wrong, what are small content creators to do if the evil giant knocks on the door?

Not gonna touch this one with a 10 foot pole.

[Snowbluff]

While I'm here, does anyone have any evidence that 1.1 leaks weren't of a draft? The Gizmodo article insinuate that it's a draft. The copy I saw was full of missing/bracketed bits.

Not that the deal wasn't bad out the gate, but I don't think the narrative of "WotC is lying about this being a draft" is coming from any facts.

[Brookshw]

While I'm here, does anyone have any evidence that 1.1 leaks weren't of a draft? The Gizmodo article insinuate that it's a draft. The copy I saw was full of missing/bracketed bits.

Not that the deal wasn't bad out the gate, but I don't think the narrative of "WotC is lying about this being a draft" is coming from any facts.

The copy that was leaked was self contradictory in certain places, and misreferenced it's sections, at a minimum. I wouldn't hang my hat on it being the final at that time.

[thethird]

While I'm here, does anyone have any evidence that 1.1 leaks weren't of a draft? The Gizmodo article insinuate that it's a draft. The copy I saw was full of missing/bracketed bits.

Not that the deal wasn't bad out the gate, but I don't think the narrative of "WotC is lying about this being a draft" is coming from any facts.

To be fair, I don't think anyone can provide evidence. That said to me, the fact that Kickstarter came out and said hey this is real we negotiated down from 25% to 20% is evidence. Unless you want to assume that Kickstarter negotiates on drafts. Which I guess they could...

To each their own.

[Batcathat]

To be fair, I don't think anyone can provide evidence. That said to me, the fact that Kickstarter came out and said hey this is real we negotiated down from 25% to 20% is evidence. Unless you want to assume that Kickstarter negotiates on drafts. Which I guess they could...

To each their own.

While I have no idea if that's the case here, it's certainly possible to start negotiations before every detail of something is worked out. In my experience, things can frequently keep changing right up until the parties involved actually sign everything.

[thethird]

While I have no idea if that's the case here, it's certainly possible to start negotiations before every detail of something is worked out. In my experience, things can frequently keep changing right up until the parties involved actually sign everything.

In my experience if that's the case you don't post it in twitter. But again, that's anecdotal experience. To me the fact that kickstarter confirms it (who is from outside the chamber of resonance), and some people I trust in the community confirm it, then that makes me believe it's likely true. But that's my belief/opinion.

[warty goblin]

To be fair, I don't think anyone can provide evidence. That said to me, the fact that Kickstarter came out and said hey this is real we negotiated down from 25% to 20% is evidence. Unless you want to assume that Kickstarter negotiates on drafts. Which I guess they could...

To each their own.

I mean you kind of have to negotiate on a draft, because the negotiations impact what is in the final non-draft version.

I see no contradiction in what was leaked being a draft and also being "real" in the sense of representative of what Wizards wanted to accomplish with the OGL revisions. The fact that they went to the bother of setting up NDAs, negotiating rates with Kickstarter and all the rest shows it wasn't an internal document they had legal write up as an exercise or thought experiment. It wasn't necessarily complete or the final text they were going to implement, bit it was the path they wanted to pursue. Given their very carefully worded non-retractions, it still seems like the path they want go take.

The thing is, at this point, I think they've already killed the golden goose. Even if they completely abandon their changes (which they won't) no third party publisher is going g back to any form of the OGL. Until a month ago there was no reason to ever not use it so long as your game touched d20 type mechanics at all, because everything used it, and doing so cost absolutely nothing. Now, given the upcoming availability of other, better licenses, why would you?

Worse (from Wizards POV), the existence of such licenses means that we could very well see a number of distinct rules ecosystems, all of which are easier and more open to publish under than official D&D. They could very well in some cases be almost directly compatible with D&D, or so easy to port between that a trained monkey can do it on the fly. So sure D&D has monks or whatever, but a hypothetical Caverns and Carnivores has, um, medative masters who use Qi energy to attack with a volley of strikes.

Seems to me that a whole lot of people would rather release stuff for C&C rather than D&D. That way there's almost no legal jeopardy, and your product line isn't one Twitter mob away from getting literally canceled. Or release the same basic content (theme and art and ideas) under multiple opem rule sets.

[Zuras]

I have no idea if Hasbro can technically de-authorize/revoke the OGL 1.0a, but if they can, it’s almost worse. If the legal answer is “LoL, nothing matters, written agreements with megacorporations are like contracts with Fey creatures written in a language you don’t understand” what is the point of even having rules?

Any answer to that question seems inherently political and beyond the scope of this forum, but I would suggest that anyone who characterizes the people upset enough by the OGL issue to boycott Hasbro as “taking their ball and going home” or similar metaphors is misreading the situation, given the implication of childishness.

[OldTrees1]

While I'm here, does anyone have any evidence that 1.1 leaks weren't of a draft? The Gizmodo article insinuate that it's a draft. The copy I saw was full of missing/bracketed bits.

Not that the deal wasn't bad out the gate, but I don't think the narrative of "WotC is lying about this being a draft" is coming from any facts.

Allegedly the 1.1 OGL was sent out attached to some contracts (with NDAs) sent out to some 3rd party publishers. Allegedly some of those 3rd party publishers leaked that information.

Those allegations are coming from the same 2nd hand sources that would have access to 3rd party publishers and provided other advanced information that was later verified.

This is the evidence. It is not proof, but it is evidence that is more likely to exist in a world where it happened than in a world where it didn't happen. According to Bayesian Probability this evidence should decrease the credibility of WotC's claims that it was merely a draft (WotC implying colloquially that it was never attached to any contracts sent for signatures).


Given my priors about trusting people I didn't know online (next to nothing) vs trusting WotC (low), and evidence that has shifted those priors for specific sources and specific topics, I do trust these allegations. There is no proof yet, but I do believe the OGL 1.1 was sent out attached to contracts.

I believe the most likely reality is the one where the OGL 1.1 was sent out as part of contracts (for 3PP to sign) and WotC is using the word "draft" as PR to do disaster recovery. "Draft" might even be the technically correct word in some way, but it is still being used for a deception check.

[da newt]

What does 'the director of Studio Operations at WotC' job entail? Do they have an in house studio dept? Do they produce all the WotC videos?

[OldTrees1]

What does 'the director of Studio Operations at WotC' job entail? Do they have an in house studio dept? Do they produce all the WotC videos?

https://gamejobs.co/Director-of-Stud...-the-Coast-591

I don't know what it means, but here is it from WotC's HR's mouth

[Oramac]

https://gamejobs.co/Director-of-Stud...-the-Coast-591

I don't know what it means, but here is it from WotC's HR's mouth

I can't touch on all of that without breaking the rules, but as I understand it, most of it is basically just a lead for their DDB and other digital presence. The word "digital" is used like candy, which tells me they're far less concerned with table top (i.e. non-digital) leadership.

[Psyren]

The current stewards can (and should) make updates (or make new licenses as they did with the GSL during 4e), they can't make changes (to the OGL 1.0a as it's written).

And whether or not they are free to revoke/deauthorize the OGL 1.0 is debatable. I'd say "no".

This is the crux of the issue, but is not a debate we can have here.

Personally I'm thrilled to see ORC coming out of this, and consider it the best possible outcome (hopefully anyway, we'll see what they come out with, some of the teams involved I think are terrific, others I have no interest in).

Indeed and frankly, something like ORC was always going to happen or gain visibility, this just sped up the timetable.

Those games used the OGL because they are basically 1-to-1 adaptations of PF games (just like DDO tries to be with D&D). They use all the same names for all the same mechanics... And even then, it's debatable if it really needed the OGL in the first place. Starfinder and Pathfinder 2nd edition didn't really need the OGL, but were still
released under it, for convenience.

Whether they needed it or not is irrelevant. They benefited from it. They were able to openly say things like "FULL PATHFINDER EXPERIENCE" in their marketing. Their trailers were able to include stylistic camera shots of zooming past miniatures and dice on a table straight into the OGL-based Pathfinder rulebooks where the pages quite literally came to life. In short, they made it very clear to the target audience of this game what they were getting - a digital translation of a tabletop game that was based on WotC's OGL, NOT a generic CRPG.

No one needs the OGL to use D&D's mechanics. You don't need WotC's permission to release a product compatible with D&D. And they are not entitled to one cent from you even if you do. WotC do not and cannot own game mechanics.

All I will say on this point is that the extent of people's understanding of this particular mantra has not been tested in court in a TTRPG context. Whether it will prevail or not is outside the scope of this forum in multiple respects.

The main value the OGL had was being able to slap a "compatible with D&D" on your marketing material and, more importantly, providing to creators the confidence and security that the giant soulless corporation wouldn't try to come after them to get a cut of their money... Because unfortunately, even if they are wrong, it's really easy for a billion dollar corporation to push others around. They don't even have to win the case... Just stall long enough until the other side runs out of money. Now that confidence is gone. That's the greatest harm this whole debacle caused...

You do realize Deep Silver is itself a subsidiary of a billion dollar corporation (THQ Nordic)? Why is it so unreasonable for one billion dollar corporation to not want to inadvertently subsidize another? And even if that was Dancey's full intent, it's a dumb intent from a business standpoint.

While I'm here, does anyone have any evidence that 1.1 leaks weren't of a draft? The Gizmodo article insinuate that it's a draft. The copy I saw was full of missing/bracketed bits.

Not that the deal wasn't bad out the gate, but I don't think the narrative of "WotC is lying about this being a draft" is coming from any facts.

I think the meaning of "draft" in this context is important. Every contract is a draft until it's signed. In other words, WotC/Kyle are being "technically correct (the best kind of correct.)"And that is all I can say on that topic.

[OldTrees1]

What does 'the director of Studio Operations at WotC' job entail? Do they have an in house studio dept? Do they produce all the WotC videos?

I can't touch on all of that without breaking the rules, but as I understand it, most of it is basically just a lead for their DDB and other digital presence. The word "digital" is used like candy, which tells me they're far less concerned with table top (i.e. non-digital) leadership.

I think Oramac is on the money here.

My personal estimation is they are just the messenger in this situation and their job is largely unrelated to the OGL decisions. As always we should be polite and respectful to messengers (generally we should be polite and respectful to everyone). The days of shooting the messenger are long gone.

[Atranen]

I don't see the support for that conclusion. The survey results so far have shown the vast majority of proposed changes have been well-received, minus a few stragglers like the Crit Rule and the 1.0 Dragonborn/Ardling.

And heck, even if you're right and most communities end up preferring 5e, I expect they'll still be lifting 1DnD's good ideas for their 5e games for years to come, including things like feats at 1st level and the TWF changes.

I said specifically in this community. I suspect the changes will be well received enough that many people move to OneD&D, and poorly received enough that others do not, and go somewhere like Kobold press.

Right - so... do that?

I mean, back when it had the licenseback and other bad things I could understand that being a dealbreaker, but that's why they're improving it. And while we'll need the final wording to know for sure, I really don't see how you won't be able to use it to make 5e-compatible content, or even 3e for that matter. Once released, it will be an authorized version of the OGL, just like 1.0a is now.

Publish under the new OGL? This just illustrates my point--WoTC feels they cannot let anyone use the old OGL, and cannot let anyone publish material for 5e using the old OGL. They need to control this market, because what they're offering with OneD&D is not good enough to compete on its own.

If ORC is successful enough then they might, otherwise they have no reason to.

WoTC has been clear that an open license does not fit their needs. They will not use ORC.

Yeah. Kobold Press has posted a followup to their Project Black Flag saying "yeah, it's still on." So I'm fairly sure they're not going to be going to great strides to publish OneD&D material. Or even likely much more 5e material, depending on how the playtest of PBF goes.

And happy to see it. It will be nice to have supported alternatives.

[Joe the Rat]

Coca-Cola is actually an extremely good example of why WotC doing what they're doing is ultimately pointless and shockingly dumb.

<snip>

D&D, long ago, became almost a generic name for TRPGs, or at least d20 systems. Kinda like Coke. You go and try to order a Coke somewhere, at least in my neck of the woods, they'll often ask "what kind?". Because "Coke" just means "soda". Similarly, they were in such a good spot. "D&D" means "RPG". When it's time for our weekly Pathfinder game, we don't typically say "It's time for Pathfinder", it's "It's time for D&D".

That's the thing they needed to leverage, and they're blowing it.

The Coca-Cola analogies are crazily applicable, particularly in terms of history and position.

I live in a part of the country where "Coke" is the word for "any fizzy sweetened water, plus colors." Having that sort of common usage is a huge boon. You blow it, someone is going to take that branding space, or your name being the generic name for a thing will be an odd footnote in the history of language.

The other thing to note for Coca-Cola is nostalgia - they've been around forever, you have happy memories about it (so marketing wants you to think), it's branded out the wazoo, freaking murals and santas and polar bears and grandma and just whatever you can throw at the world and make it stick in your brain as a happy thought associated with the best-selling, second-best tasting mass-produced nut juice. That nostalgia game? D&D. You leverage the hell out of that. side products, official accessories, shirts, product placement, oh, maybe some sort of primary media engagement.

And you don't actively try to screw over your adjacencies and irritate your fans and blow your reputation with your consumer base.

This little legalese blow-up? Hasbro totally New Coke'd it up. Again. Given the reactionary nature of interweb discourse, this is going to New Coke it up for everything with two D's and an ampersand attached, whether or not Hasbro is in charge of it.

[ToranIronfinder]

Whether they needed it or not is irrelevant. They benefited from it. They were able to openly say things like "FULL PATHFINDER EXPERIENCE" in their marketing. Their trailers were able to include stylistic camera shots of zooming past miniatures and dice on a table straight into the OGL-based Pathfinder rulebooks where the pages quite literally came to life.

Here is where I disagree with you. Yes, they advertised it to Pathfinder (not DnD) players, and I expect that limited its demographic more than helped it, since a lot of CRPG players are uninterested in, or find TTRPGs distasteful. I did not buy Kingmaker, I did not buy it BECAUSE it was a Pathfinder product. And as I noted a lot of companies post the OGL 1.0a, not because they are using WOTC's content, (and as I have noted the question remains, have they paid holders of copyrights to older systems whose systems DnD was similar too?), but because it's a means of protection from frivolous suits, which is a good thing.

I think the meaning of "draft" in this context is important. Every contract is a draft until it's signed. In other words, WotC/Kyle are being "technically correct (the best kind of correct.)"And that is all I can say on that topic.

Even outside of law, when I turn in a paper on something Plantinga or Nietsche wrote, it is still a "draft" it is a final draft to be sure, but a "draft" nonetheless.

As I said I understand the seller's remorse, I wish I had held onto the GE I bought at 10, but I did never the less issue the sale. The OGL chased competition out of the TTRPG market, it seems to be bad faith to claim that, once the competing systems have been mothballed they can now change the rules the industry has played by for 23 years. As I said, best thing that will happen from all of this will be fewer games using WOTC's mechanics and more competition, it may take a few years to get there, but I will be more interested in what their competitors produce either way

[Segev]

If they really wanted to make more money off the D&D brand in specifically the tabletop arena, what they would have done is start licensing out the setting(s) to other RPG publishers. Because the setting, ultimately, is what people care about when it comes to D&D. People don't think D&D and go "Wow, golly! I sure do love how the game has ten base classes and optional Feats!" they go "I wanna play D&D because it's the one I've been hearing about".

These are very good points. Licensing their settings and NPCs to third parties in licenses other than the OGL would be quite doable, and I'm pretty sure the people behind things like Savage Worlds and Powered By The Apocalypse would at least be interested, depending on what the costs were. D&D is so dominant that it would be something they could leverage for very favorable royalties, since accessing the "well-known settings" would be a big "in" for other systems. And still wouldn't seriously threaten WotC's market share.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

These are very good points. Licensing their settings and NPCs to third parties in licenses other than the OGL would be quite doable, and I'm pretty sure the people behind things like Savage Worlds and Powered By The Apocalypse would at least be interested, depending on what the costs were. D&D is so dominant that it would be something they could leverage for very favorable royalties, since accessing the "well-known settings" would be a big "in" for other systems. And still wouldn't seriously threaten WotC's market share.

Or imagine a Call of Cthulhu adventure set in the forgotten realms, where you play as villages being attacked by a mindflair or similar DnD BBEG

[Psyren]

I said specifically in this community. I suspect the changes will be well received enough that many people move to OneD&D, and poorly received enough that others do not, and go somewhere like Kobold press.

"Some portion of the base will like the changes and some portion won't" is certainly a safe bet, if on the banal side.

Publish under the new OGL? This just illustrates my point--WoTC feels they cannot let anyone use the old OGL, and cannot let anyone publish material for 5e using the old OGL. They need to control this market, because what they're offering with OneD&D is not good enough to compete on its own.

Yes, publish for 5e under the new OGL is exactly what I'm suggesting.

WoTC has been clear that an open license does not fit their needs. They will not use ORC.

If it makes the most business sense for them to do so - say, no 3PP wants to use their OGL ever - then they might. I truly don't think that will happen, but there's a nonzero chance.

Here is where I disagree with you. Yes, they advertised it to Pathfinder (not DnD) players, and I expect that limited its demographic more than helped it, since a lot of CRPG players are uninterested in, or find TTRPGs distasteful. I did not buy Kingmaker, I did not buy it BECAUSE it was a Pathfinder product. And as I noted a lot of companies post the OGL 1.0a, not because they are using WOTC's content, (and as I have noted the question remains, have they paid holders of copyrights to older systems whose systems DnD was similar too?), but because it's a means of protection from frivolous suits, which is a good thing.

I strongly disagree that such positioning hurt it or "limited its demographic." Quite the opposite. Because that clear differentiator of being not just a CRPG, but a D&D-like CRPG similar to Baldur's Gate or NWN (which routinely make Greatest RPG of All Time lists) got them a nearly unquanitifiable amount of free publicity. At the time that Kingmaker was announced, people were craving that very experience. You even had major outlets like IGN straight up giving them free advertising and directly making all the D&D parallels they couldn't make themselves due to the OGL, on their behalf. ("Oh, we didn't call it a D&D game, IGN and PCGamer did! wink wink, lol.")

And the results of that are plain for everyone to see - Kingmaker sold over a million of copies and put Owlcat on the map. The belief that basing it on the OGL and getting as close to "D&D game" in their marketing as they could get, did not benefit them, is just not borne out by reality.

[ToranIronfinder]

I strongly disagree that such positioning hurt it or "limited its demographic." Quite the opposite. Because that clear differentiator of being not just a CRPG, but a D&D-like CRPG similar to Baldur's Gate or NWN (which routinely make Greatest RPG of All Time lists) got them a nearly unquanitifiable amount of free publicity. At the time that Kingmaker was announced, people were craving that very experience. You even had major outlets like IGN straight up giving them free advertising and directly making all the D&D parallels they couldn't make themselves due to the OGL, on their behalf. ("Oh, we didn't call it a D&D game, IGN and PCGamer did! wink wink, lol.")

And the results of that are plain for everyone to see - Kingmaker sold over a million of copies and put Owlcat on the map. The belief that basing it on the OGL and getting as close to "D&D game" in their marketing as they could get, did not benefit them, is just not borne out by reality.

But as I noted a number of DnD "like" games have been very good sellers, been compared to Baldurs gate without claiming to be DnD. I saw DnD comparisons to dragons age (also why I did not buy dragons age), which isn't DnD. I have seen Planescape compared to non-DnD properties. As I would suggest, Balfurs gate probably benefited TTRPGs more than DnD helped mske Baldur's gate successful, a lot of BG fans have never played AD&D. That is, DnD might have been good for BG n the very short term, in the long term, it was a good game, so even if you aren't a DnD fan, you will enjoy it.

DnD is popular, but that popularity likely will wane, we are closer to a high than a low.

[KorvinStarmast]

None of this is a big shocker to me, they want to make all the money and can't be satisfied with only some of the money. Some corporate suit came in was like "only 1/6 of our customer base is buying stuff!? and we're allowing free stuff to be used by other companies!? we need to monetize this NOW!" not knowing how the ttrpg environment works and only looking at immediate gains with customers being an obstacle to getting those gains.

It is not too hard to imagine how that meeting went.

"not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose." -- snip --
I wonder if they're worried about much bigger fish--the trillion-dollar tech giants. -- snip--
I think they're being driven by Hasbro/ Wall STreet people. We think about D&D as a game, they see it as a "brand." An undermonetized brand, but a brand. --snip--
But if I'm WOTC, if I'm any billion-dollar company frankly, I'm worried about how the trillion-dollar tech giants might eat my lunch 5 years down the road.

How it impacts indies / 3PP would be collateral damage.

You should not expect anything to work directly or to be able to smoothly play a 5e character in OneD&D or vice versa. You might be able to run a 5e module in a OneD&D game...if you convert monsters to the new versions...Specifically, they absolutely don't want to end up with a forked playerbase like happened with 4e. Which is exactly why they want to force everyone to move to a new license and not publish anything new for 5e, because if they can, and OneD&D isn't absolutely perfect, then people will continue publishing 5e material and the forking is inevitable.

As I am sure you can imagine, I substituted in a term that fork is sometimes used as a mask for, for my own amusement.

The OGL is the only thing that kept D&D alive all these years. Stranger Things, Critical Role and the pandemic brought a lot of fad-players, but as expected, they left pretty quickly (as seen by the huge decrease in WotC revenue last year).

I had not realized that the fad player migration was the cause. I suspected that it was bloat, and thing that WotC has run into and that TSR ran into. (And maybe a bit of market saturation).

Stranger Things won't last forever, and CR now has all the incentive in the world to drop D&D and use their own material. Neither of those shows is watched because of D&D, au contraire, people tried D&D because of those shows (and then dropped it a couple years later)...There's no incentive for the producers of those shows to continue to use D&D unless WotC gives them VERY favorable terms.

I think you are right.

there were thriving non-DnD systems Long before WOTC.

Indeed.

I believe the most likely reality is the one where the OGL 1.1 was sent out as part of contracts (for 3PP to sign) and WotC is using the word "draft" as PR to do disaster recovery. "Draft" might even be the technically correct word in some way, but it is still being used for a deception check.

Given what I have learned over the years about how contracts and business work, hard not to agree with this estimate.

The days of shooting the messenger are long gone.

Wait, what? This isn't Sparta?

Hasbro totally New Coke'd it up. Again.

Well I remember those taste tests ...

[Xihirli]

You do realize Deep Silver is itself a subsidiary of a billion dollar corporation (THQ Nordic)? Why is it so unreasonable for one billion dollar corporation to not want to inadvertently subsidize another? And even if that was Dancey's full intent, it's a dumb intent from a business standpoint.

Ehhh I don't know, specifically the two editions of D&D on the OGL are the biggest ones and I'm inclined to agree with the idea that D&D is where it's at because they've marketed the OGL to 3pp well enough to become synonymous with gaming. Sure, some of the people who use the OGL will benefit from it more than planned, but I think the OG OGL not including any text that implies "we want you to have success off of the OGL but not too much WOULD have made it a harder sell to the many people who came forward to make products that didn't enrich WOTC directly, but did solidify their brand.

The OGL overall was a hugely successful business move, and going line-by-line determining which parts would and wouldn't be included with added foresight... like there's a difference when arguing intent between "obviously you INTENDED it to not be revokable when you wrote 'perpetual'" and "obviously we INTENDED to include a royalty clause in case the beneficiaries of the license do too well."

Like one is an argument rooted in the good faith of the contract and the direct word of the people who wrote it where the other is "well OBVIOUSLY we meant to include an entirely absent clause to keep other games from doing too well, we just forgot to and have never mentioned it for 20 years."

[Atranen]

"Some portion of the base will like the changes and some portion won't" is certainly a safe bet, if on the banal side.

Do you have a more specific statement to offer? My point is that a number of people, e.g. in this community, have expressed displeasure with OneD&D, to the extent that we shouldn't expect everyone to switch to it out of love for its mechanics.

Yes, publish for 5e under the new OGL is exactly what I'm suggesting.

Of course they can. But the fact that they have to shows OneD&D isn't offering as much as coercing.

If it makes the most business sense for them to do so - say, no 3PP wants to use their OGL ever - then they might. I truly don't think that will happen, but there's a nonzero chance.

"There's a nonzero chance" is certainly a safe bet, if on the banal side

I could believe them doing it at some point--say, 5+ years--in the future. But they won't until their walled garden approach is shown to be a failure. I've remarked more in the D&DBeyond thread, but I expect it to be a success (for them).

[ToranIronfinder]

So when it comes to being marketwd as being "like Baldur's gate," I'd say that has less to do with being TSR or WOTC's materials and far more to do with 1. A fantasy setting with 2 an engine that looks and feels like the infinity engIne, at least from a videogamer's perspective.