It is time to offer WOTC a way out - join the ORC.

[ECMO3]

WOTC's claims in writing they only have 2 reasons for crafting a new OGL:

1. Be good stewards of the game

2. Benefit the fans

If these are really their goals it would seem that signing on to the OCR is the best way to do this. It is undoubtedly what the fanbase wants and it will enable them to still influence the RPG community instead of fracturing it.

Another important benefit is it would make "trust" irrelevant. Since the OCR will not be a WOTC license they will not be in the position of having to convince fans and creators that they can be trusted. At this point even if they say "Ok we are just going to leave 1.0a in place" who is to say this won't happen again.

Moving to the OCR is the best way forward for them and if their motives are as altruistic as they claim there is no reason not to.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Realistically, WotC will probably never go for ORC.

Adding the term "irrevocable" to the OGL (1.0a --> 1.0b?) would potentially be the solution that works it out.

Having the other companies using both (irrevocable added version) OGL and the anticipated collab-driven ORC might be the best case scenario, as it's been said that a fractured market is much tougher than a unified one for the non-WotC companies to survive in, financially speaking.

 

[Scribe]

Neither of those solves what they perceive to be an existential threat to their value.

 

[Yaarel]

That would be the wisest move.

Transfer all SRDs to the ORC license: 3.0, 3.5, d20 Modern, and 5.1.

Add new SRDs for 1e and 4e, as a goodwill gesture: not necessary, but nice.

These 3e and 5e SRDs under OGL 1.0a are a done deal. It is nonsensical to try deathorize the OGL 1.0a. There is no going back from that.



If Hasbro-WotC no longer wants an Open Gaming License, then create new content for a closed license. Market that new closed game in the DnDBeyond-DMsGuild-VTT-OneD&D market entity. I suspect the new D&D movie can be a kind of Harry Potter brand focusing on specific characters.

Honestly, I suspect switching to a closed license would fail for the same reasons that 4e failed. But few would begrudge the right to do it. If Hasbro-WotC ever went back to an open license, there will be a living thriving gaming community waiting for them.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I've been as harsh on WotC as anyone over all this, and even I have to say that it's unrealistic for WotC to agree to being bound by a license that hasn't even been written yet. They need to focus on salvaging the OGL (and by that I mean walking back the revocation of 1.0a and strengthening it with a 1.0b) for now. Once the ORC has actually been published, then we can talk about WotC changing over.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I dunno how realistic it is, but I like the idea plenty. For both practical reasons (ORC seems like it'll be good), and for poetic justice reasons (we tried to close off the game and beefed it so bad we had to give it to a third party)

 

[Yaarel]

I've been as harsh on WotC as anyone over all this, and even I have to say that it's unrealistic for WotC to agree to being bound by a license that hasn't even been written yet. They need to focus on salvaging the OGL (and by that I mean walking back the revocation of 1.0a and strengthening it with a 1.0b) for now. Once the ORC has actually been published, then we can talk about WotC changing over.

Reinforcing the OGL 1.0a and collaborating to create ORC can be the same thing.

In a way, it would appear like gaining "approval" from Paizo, Green Ronin, and others, and would probably influence their fans to view Hasbro-WotC more positively.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Reinforcing the OGL 1.0a and collaborating to create ORC can be the same thing.

In a way, it would appear like gaining "approval" from Paizo, Green Ronin, and others, and would probably influence their fans to view Hasbro-WotC more positively.

Maybe, but it could also go the other way and make people trust ORC less. I for one, don't want Hasbro's lawyers within longbow distance of the actual creation of the ORC license. I want ORC to be better than the OGL, not just the same thing with different stewards.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe, but it could also go the other way and make people trust ORC less. I for one, don't want Hasbro's lawyers within longbow distance of the actual creation of the ORC license. I want ORC to be better than the OGL, not just the same thing with different stewards.

I hear ya.

 

[ECMO3]

Neither of those solves what they perceive to be an existential threat to their value.

But according to their statement Friday their value has nothing to do with why they need to release 1.1/2.0 (even though the draft OGL 1.1 implies that it does).

According to WOTC there are only "two things" that went into that decision that a new OGL was needed and money was not one of them.

If value is the reason for needing a new OGL, then their statement friday was a lie. Give them an opportunity to show it wasn't!