Thread by @WhatDoIKnowJR

So I'm seeing a lot of Monolithic "WotC doesn't want to do this" or "WotC doesn't care about this" comments in regard to a lot of trending points of conversation, and I think, once again, it's important to point out "WotC" in these instances isn't a monolith.

The people in charge of the profitability of the company have their goals, the people in charge of marketing the brands of D&D and Magic want certain things, and they want those things in context of the brands, not the specific games.

The people in charge of the actual game development and the success of the specific games want different things than all of those other folks, and have to balance those desires against what gets set as a company priority.

I'm saying this in part to point out that the person that wants the D&D movie to be successful, wants D&D streaming shows to take off, and wants D&D clothing and other merchandise to take off probably has very little care for what the OGL is or does.

If the OGL doesn't touch on anyone else using WotC IP to market themselves, then it's not really part of their sphere of responsibility.

The people that are working more directly on digital initiatives are worried about generating a steady revenue stream through D&D Beyond and other digital tools. The OGL doesn't allow anyone access to their digital platforms, so it's likely not part of their overall plans.

The decisions they are making will likely revolve around the continued offering of new official content will be on 3rd party sites, like VTTs, once WotC is closer to having their own solutions.

While there are ramifications for 3pp publishers, in that their material cannot digitally interact with official resources produced after a certain date, the exclusivity is likely more about controlling the revenue stream rather than cutting off 3pp profits.

The real hurdle, for anything regarding the OGL, is much more likely someone making a case that anything new should be added or updated as the rules change for 2024.

We know when D&D 4e was released that there were people that worked at WotC that wanted an OGL, and from what was said at the time, the road to the GSL was more of a battle with the legal department than it was with anyone that had a conflicting business plan.

It's probably also worth noting the breadth of what has been done with existing OGL statements. Older editions of D&D have been reverse-engineered from the 3e version of the OGL, and WotC wasn't moved to challenge them.

Early in #DnD5e's life cycle, before the 5e version of the OGL was released, a couple of years into the game's release, there were OGL 5e supplements released using the 3e version of the OGL.

The main bit of tiptoeing that happened with these adventures and settings, which usually featured monsters, backgrounds, magic items, and spells, but stayed away from too much subclass design, was using phrases like "tactical advantage" instead of just "advantage."

I think the biggest area of concern for 3pp isn't going to be if they can produce content under the 2024 rules. It's going to be how much the consumers of the 2024 rules consider the digital means of delivery, and thus, how cut off they will be from the assumed experience.

The main thing that is going to affect that is going to be if WotC finds out that their integrated VTT solution isn't going to progress as quickly as they hope, and the degree to which they want to cut themselves off from sales on VTT platforms while they wait.

And all of that is only going to concern the upper echelons of the company and brand management if it seems like that will cut into the sales of the game itself.

We're going to see a lot revolve around how much some of the newer people in key positions at WotC can make the VTT and D&D Beyond work like ongoing "games as a service" or "licensed software" models used by companies that provide digital content.

@threadreaderapp unroll