D&D 5E Who tried to end the OGL?

[billd91]

If I remember correctly, Winninger wouldnt criticize WotC but he voiced strong support for the OGL.

He might have a disparagement clause relevant he has to abide by. Or he might just be avoiding burning his bridges behind him.

 

[Yaarel]

I suspect, during the talk of "monetizing" D&D, and the hiring of personnel from the profitable videogame sector, there was a motive to treat D&D players like videogame players, and D&D as if videogame property. Then the idea of killing the OGL was too clever by half.

 

[Yaarel]

He might have a disparagement clause relevant he has to abide by. Or he might just be avoiding burning his bridges behind him.

I think the latter. Winninger worked at WotC, loved its games, and wanted WotC to succeed. ... The right way.

 

[Blue]

"Without last year's revolt against the attempt to end the OGL, the 2024 rules would almost certainly be Hasbro IP, and taboo to outsiders except for a fee."

So...DnDBeyond?

With the huge number of other games, from Fate to 13th Age to DCC, and 3pp published support for 3.x and 5e, and likely much of the OSR movement with all legality removed from them.

The OGL isn't (just) about D&D 5e, or even just about D&D anymore. Many other game systems believed in it.

 

[Blue]

But nothing changes my point. This rumor, even if true which it may be, changes nothing. We know someone in HASBRO made a stupid mistake. It doesn't matter who did it, no one individual in the organization makes all of the decisions. Unless you personally have the power to fire someone, it makes no difference.

Just yesterday someone was telling me that the OGL was safe now. To me, the legal loophole they hoped to exploit is still there, untested in court. Knowing that the wish to do this came from the highest level, and that person is still there, helps me estimate how safe or unsafe it currently is. It makes me wonder about the broken promises for the 3.x OGLs done by end of 2023 might be intentionally unprioritizing. It gives us a level of expectations if there are new licenses or changes to the OGL when the SRD 5.2 is published to evaluate them under.

Having knowledge of who did it and their current power level is useful, at the very least to maintain vigilance or to watch future companies they may work for. Talk of firing has to do with them - my concern and action has to do with me, which is under my control.

 

[Dire Bare]

Not sure the outraged crowds overlap much in these two cases.

The folks who enjoy being outraged will find the strength within themselves to be outraged at both issues.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The folks who enjoy being outraged will find the strength within themselves to be outraged at both issues.

The OGL isn't a culture war issue and can't really be turned into one.

 

[Dire Bare]

You put them away?

I keep mine right by the door for outrage emergencies.

 

[Dire Bare]

Cocks has worked hard to brand himself the "cool gamer" CEO and him being behind the OGL fiasco, if true, suggests that either he doesn't really understand the gaming space or his gaming cred doesn't really make a meaningful difference.

I'm not sure Cocks has tried to be "the cool gamer CEO", but Cocks has stated that he is a huge fan of D&D. I believe him.

Being a fan of D&D does not equate to thinking the OGL is a good license for your business. Nor does it give you an awareness or concern for the larger TTRPG community surrounding D&D.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Who else would it have been? Either the plan was Cock's idea or he approved of it. He'd be a truly incompetent big boss if he let someone else move forward with a major policy change like that without his support.