So the point here is to talk about breaking WotC power over the tabletop RPG hobby in general. But first, I want to review WotC history as I see it.

-------

D&D and the tabletop RPG as a whole were declining during the 1990s. TSR went bankrupt, and while White Wolf did well, its growth didn't equal the shrinkage of D&D. Wizards of the Coast (WotC) acquired D&D thanks to their Magic: the Gathering money. Their dilemma was how to make money on D&D, when TSR couldn't?

I posit that it wasn't primarily a question of design of game mechanics. There have been lots of innovative RPG designs, but that hasn't consistently translated into market success. First of all, creating a great game system just creates a one-time market success. But once everyone buys the core system, then the company is stuck with ever-smaller margins.

On the other hand, the #1 problem for the hobby as a whole has little to do with mechanics. It's that play depends on a group, and it's hard to recruit and organize players into a group. Even a small edge in making new groups is crucial for the success of a major game line. The network effect means that when lots of people have heard of a game and know the genre well, it's easier to recruit for it. For example, I love playing Amber Diceless, but it's harder getting people together for those games than for better-known games like Call of Cthulhu or especially D&D.

Back in 2000, WotC reasoned that their copyright on the AD&D2 game system wasn't actually that valuable. Lots of game designers were coming up with all sorts of new RPG designs, and AD&D2 wasn't especially competitive based on that. But they did have brand name recognition even though play of D&D had dwindled. So they created the OGL v1.0a, which meant that those who used it surrendered their right to declare trademark compatibility, but still created mostly compatible material that enhanced the network effect around D&D fantasy.

This strategy was hugely successful. Twenty two years later, D&D has bigger name recognition and is more popular than ever. The network effect is very strong for D&D-like games. WotC can stay ahead of its competition to market to D&D players because its trademark gives it a strong edge. While 3.5E and 4E seem like failures, I suspect they were reasonable experiments as far as trying to get more money out of D&D. Even though they failed, the attempts might have maybe even helped 5E - just as "New Coke" fiasco helped boost later Coke sales.

-----

So to the point - the OGL 1.1 is an unethical switch, and I would want the hobby to be free of it. Nevertheless, I think there are good things about the boom that we've seen that lots of people have shown interest in the hobby. The strong network effect around D&D is a good thing, and it helps bring people into the hobby. Lots of people love D&D 5E but still hate the OGL 1.1 tactic - or would if it was explained to them.

So I'd encourage sticking with D&D 5E for those who enjoy it. Just don't give WotC money for your 5E campaign - only buy 5E compatible stuff from third parties who haven't signed the OGL 1.1, or free fan material. I've been running a D&D 5E campaign currently, and had been helping my son develop a setting for D&D 5E. I'm not dropping either - but I'd make clear to players and any users of the setting to stay away from any WotC or OGL 1.1 stuff.

Staying in the network helps spread word within the network about problems with WotC. Abandoning D&D would mean that the word doesn't spread within the biggest network around.

How about liberating the hobby from WotC and other mega corps?

I agree that the network effect is real, but I think we're at a crossroads where we can choose to keep on baking corporate sludge (playing, talking about it IS baking it with your time and attention and thus strengtening THEIR network effect) or create a different network effect to push other games that aren't corporate sludge.

My proposal:

1.- Clean your stuff from WotC goo.

2.- Publish under a unified license (in my layman's eyes the CC By SA seems perfect but maybe an Ip/Trademark lawyer knows or creates a better one).

3.- Try and mantain broad compatibility.

These 3 steps will create a network effect, especially now that so many people are mad/angry at WotC. Which in turn would create a rising tide that will lift ALL boats.

D&D is dead, long live the OSR!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 05:01:01 PM
How about liberating the hobby from WotC and other mega corps?

I agree that the network effect is real, but I think we're at a crossroads where we can choose to keep on baking corporate sludge (playing, talking about it IS baking it with your time and attention and thus strengtening THEIR network effect) or create a different network effect to push other games that aren't corporate sludge.

First of all, even if one were to create another successful network outside of D&D (like World of Darkness was close to doing in the 1990s), then corporations would just pivot to sell products to people within that network. Make a successful sci-fi RPG network with tons of players? Then corporations will sell sci-fi RPG products to those players.

Second, I don't think it's practical, in that creating a new network is extremely difficult. No other identifier even close to the network effect of D&D, and lots of people genuinely love D&D. They aren't mind-controlled drones, and most have never taken an interest in the business practices of either TSR or WotC - because why should they? It's just a game they enjoy playing. I think most of them could or would sign onto an anti-OGL-1.1 stance.

Quote from: jhkim on January 10, 2023, 05:27:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 05:01:01 PM
How about liberating the hobby from WotC and other mega corps?

I agree that the network effect is real, but I think we're at a crossroads where we can choose to keep on baking corporate sludge (playing, talking about it IS baking it with your time and attention and thus strengtening THEIR network effect) or create a different network effect to push other games that aren't corporate sludge.

First of all, even if one were to create another successful network outside of D&D (like World of Darkness was close to doing in the 1990s), then corporations would just pivot to sell products to people within that network. Make a successful sci-fi RPG network with tons of players? Then corporations will sell sci-fi RPG products to those players.

Second, I don't think it's practical, in that creating a new network is extremely difficult. No other identifier even close to the network effect of D&D, and lots of people genuinely love D&D. They aren't mind-controlled drones, and most have never taken an interest in the business practices of either TSR or WotC - because why should they? It's just a game they enjoy playing. I think most of them could or would sign onto an anti-OGL-1.1 stance.

Yeah, but those corporations wouldn't own/control the first movers, they would be 3PP, and IF one of them creates a good product that's compatible and under CC BY SA (Or whatever other trully open licence)? They are welcome to the club and I will be happy to reap the benefit from their publicity budget.

"It's hard so why try!?"

That's the sum total of your stance.

Black pilled much?

Kobold Press is going out on their own and telling WOTC to pound sand:

https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/

Quote
Raising Our Flag

To our fellow Kobolds,
Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.

This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).

In particular, Deep Magic Volume 2 will remain fully compatible with the 5E rules. We are working with our VTT partners to maintain support for digital platforms.

As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.



All Kobolds look forward to the continued evolution of tabletop gaming. We aim to play our part in making the game better for everyone. Rest assured, Kobold Press intends to maintain a strong presence in the tabletop RPG community. We are not going anywhere.

To receive future announcements and to register to playtest this new core fantasy ruleset, please sign up VIA THIS FORM.

Join the Kobold Press community in our official Discord to unlock new secrets about our upcoming project. Help us #RaiseTheFlag.

Question regarding the history. Were there not two licenses, one that allowed claiming compatibility with D&D but prohibited including character creation rules while the other could not claim compatibility, used the d20 mark and allowed character creation rules? Moreover, was the former not screwed over by 3.5 as there was no provision to distinguish if a work was meant for 3.0 or 3.5 while the two are only notionally compatible?

Quote from: Wisithir on January 10, 2023, 09:01:16 PM
Question regarding the history. Were there not two licenses, one that allowed claiming compatibility with D&D but prohibited including character creation rules while the other could not claim compatibility, used the d20 mark and allowed character creation rules? Moreover, was the former not screwed over by 3.5 as there was no provision to distinguish if a work was meant for 3.0 or 3.5 while the two are only notionally compatible?

Yes. I believe you're talking about the Open Gaming License (OGL, v1.0a) and the d20 System Trademark License. No one else could use the "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D" trademarks, but they have allowed third parties to use a special "d20" trademark that they developed that people would understand means compatibility with D&D. And yeah, there were problems with distinguishing 3.0 with 3.5. You can look over the latest version of it here:

https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/D20_System_Trademark_License

Notably, it has always had the clause,

QuoteWizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or new releases of the d20 System Trademark logos without prior notice.  You will, at the earliest possible opportunity, update all material distributed by you to use the updated and/or new version of the d20 System Trademark logos.  You may continue to distribute any pre-existing material that bears an older version of the d20 System Trademark logo.

So here's a serious question.  Do any of the other "big" TTRPG publishers allow and encourage 3pp to the same extent as OGL 1.0 / 1.0a?

There are about two dozen community content programs on DTRPG/OBS that on first glance seem to have very similar guidelines in that you split any profits from your work with OBS and the publisher of the game.  That's where things start to diverge.  White Wolf let's you pretty much use any of their games. Chaosium only wants you to publish for 7e Call of Cthulhu. Savage Worlds restricts the use of various Pinnacle settings (Deadlands, Rifts for SW, etc). Monte Cook Games won't let you publish Cypher System content set in Numenera, but you can for Masters of the Night.

Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 10, 2023, 09:43:43 PM
So here's a serious question.  Do any of the other "big" TTRPG publishers allow and encourage 3pp to the same extent as OGL 1.0 / 1.0a?

There are about two dozen community content programs on DTRPG/OBS that on first glance seem to have very similar guidelines in that you split any profits from your work with OBS and the publisher of the game.  That's where things start to diverge.  White Wolf let's you pretty much use any of their games. Chaosium only wants you to publish for 7e Call of Cthulhu. Savage Worlds restricts the use of various Pinnacle settings (Deadlands, Rifts for SW, etc). Monte Cook Games won't let you publish Cypher System content set in Numenera, but you can for Masters of the Night.

Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?

You're mixing some things here. Savage Worlds having restrictions on use of certain settings is no different from the restrictions WotC has on Forgotten Realms. OGL 1.0a is no more permissive than Pinnacle is, it was more intended as outreach because TSR had been like Palladium about suing. So Pinnacle doesn't need to do anything like that because they don't have the history.

If you want to make content for a generic D100 system (basically BRP), you can. It's largely cross-compatible.

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 10, 2023, 09:43:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?

Compared to others? No. On the surface, the proposed/leaked OGL is much more similar to something like Savage Worlds' Fan/SWAG licenses with how it is divided between Commercial and Non-Commercial applications. However, the problems begin to arrise when you dig just a little below the surface. OGL 1.1 (as far as I can tell) does not allow you to protect your IP. The 1.0a version had "Product Identity" that kept stuff separate from Open Content. OGL 1.1 just has "Licensed Content" (whatever is in the SRD) and "Your Content" (whatever the licensee publishes), and you must license all of Your Content to WotC without any provision... forever! Oh, they say you still "own" your material, so you can always go publish it somewhere else, but WotC has a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" license to it, so they can treat it as their own without a care in the world. Top it off with their ability to Terminate you license under "sole discretion" for things as vague as being discriminatory or hateful... and these are the type of people who believe microaggressions (i.e. - imaginary injustices) cause "real harm."

The OGL 1.1 is nothing but trap to steal your ideas and hedge you out by allowing WotC to market those ideas themself.

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 07:16:45 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 10, 2023, 09:43:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?

Compared to others? No. On the surface, the proposed/leaked OGL is much more similar to something like Savage Worlds' Fan/SWAG licenses with how it is divided between Commercial and Non-Commercial applications. However, the problems begin to arrise when you dig just a little below the surface. OGL 1.1 (as far as I can tell) does not allow you to protect your IP. The 1.0a version had "Product Identity" that kept stuff separate from Open Content. OGL 1.1 just has "Licensed Content" (whatever is in the SRD) and "Your Content" (whatever the licensee publishes), and you must license all of Your Content to WotC without any provision... forever! Oh, they say you still "own" your material, so you can always go publish it somewhere else, but WotC has a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" license to it, so they can treat it as their own without a care in the world. Top it off with their ability to Terminate you license under "sole discretion" for things as vague as being discriminatory or hateful... and these are the type of people who believe microaggressions (i.e. - imaginary injustices) cause "real harm."

The OGL 1.1 is nothing but trap to steal your ideas and hedge you out by allowing WotC to market those ideas themself.

So here's the thing.  That particular piece could be interpreted as share and share alike in that they get to use your IP for free like you are using their IP for free.  The way it is worded is troublesome in that they can terminate your access but you can't terminate their's.

The other piece to this is that it appears that you can't access their campaign setting IP under the existing OGL or the proposed OGL 1.1.  Under the DM Guild program, you *can*  use setting info as long as it is a setting currently supported by them; alternatively if it isn't setting info, you can use the entire 5e rules set in your product. You also retain the rights to your IP up to and including having WotC pay you a licensing fee to use your IP in their products.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you'd be better protected using the DM Guild licensing structure of you're making content for D&D and the OGL (in it's current form 1.0a) is better suited for just making stuff that uses the 5e rules, such as a modern or superheroes game - but in that case, you don't even really need the OGL at all since xd20 + modifier >= Target isn't their IP. I would even argue that Strength, Constitution, etc. aren't their IP so long as you don't copy their verbiage and don't post the modifiers in tabular form.  (Attribute - 10) ÷ 2 round down is not IP.

Want to pub D&D stuff - use the DM Guild licensing to. Want to make Space Pirates using 5e mechanics? No license needed.

You're not better protected using the DM's Guild, it's just that if you want to publish something for Forgotten Realms, you'd have no right to do so under the OGL anyway. It's not like creating your own original setting using the OGL, getting your license terminated and having WotC publish and sell it instead.

Yeah, that's why I'm begining to think it's a poison pill. They wanted to axe the OGL for a while, so they design a version so bad no one will willingly use it. They want the big 3pp to cut custom deals (sans OGL) and have their pretty little walled garden. Who knows how this will play out longterm?

Human nature is what it is. I suspect that everyone not making their living full-time on game-design can get behind a singular Open License... but the moment someone breaks ahead and "get popular" I believe the immediate result will be this same issue we're seeing now with WotC.

Obviously this wouldn't be immediate, but it'll happen I think. Because that's what happens when your IP becomes a valuable brand. There is a reason why non-OGL games keep a tight reign on their IP and have their own rules for licensing, so they don't create their own Doppleganger-Paizo.

But in the "short term" it's a good idea for the general hobby specific to d20 since this will directly undermine WotC and keep "D&D" democratized. For better or worse.

Quote from: migo on January 11, 2023, 10:01:46 AM
You're not better protected using the DM's Guild, it's just that if you want to publish something for Forgotten Realms, you'd have no right to do so under the OGL anyway. It's not like creating your own original setting using the OGL, getting your license terminated and having WotC publish and sell it instead.

You can publish setting *or* non-setting D&D content in DMG without risk of them publishing it out from under you. They may want to use your original IP, but they can't take away your right to do so. You can even use other 3pp content in your own work.

The OGL allows for non-D&D content where the DMG program does not.

In my mind, the DMG program was designed to allow WotC to have 5e content produced at a fraction of the cost it would take to internally staff enough people to do it themselves. OGL allows 3pp to make their own games without WotC directly profiting (even if they may directly benefit).

I think if you want to continue making D&D content, then the DMG program is "safer" for you as a 3pp and it allows you to use all of the D&D IP.

If you want to make non-D&D using D&D mechanics or you want to develop tools that will undercut their shitty electronic offerings, you'll be stuck doing so under OGL 1.1 if they try and claim OGL 1.0a is null and void.  So - make those things without using the OGL. Yes, you can't use the SRD, but if your content isn't D&D anyway, who cares.

I think there is a key point in how to stop this OGL 1.1.  back in December, there was a chat with Chris Cocks where he indicated that DMs are 20% of the users but they make that lion's share of purchases. People who do the GMing are much more likely to be doing the creating. Get consensus from them to either wholesale switch to a new game or wholesale *not* publish anything on DmGuild or OBD.