Official OGL Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 3 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Blackdrop

2023-01-20, 06:17 PM

Without going into the specifics, as an attorney, I'd like to point out that there is disagreement within the legal community on this point as it applies to D&D, with some leaning one way, some the other, and no general consensus other than "could be".

And the people that think they can copyright the D&D game mechanic are just the most adorable people, bless their heats. And on the day one of those brave, simple legal scholars works up the (liquid) courage (or loses a bet) to walk into a courtroom and say to a judge:

"Your Honor, we believe we can copyright the very specific act of rolling dice, using mathematics, and listing things in pursuit of playing a game of make believe."

On that day (if the judge in question doesn't have to be taken to the hospital from Laughter-Induced-Asphyxia) I'll consider this a valid idea worth considering. Until then, I'm just gonna to continue to do what I've been doing, which is cupping my hands around my mouth and screaming the actual, legally-accepted answer:

YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT GAME MECHANICS!

:sigh:

Submitted my feedback. High scores for comprehension (most of the place), low scores for how much I liked it.

Dit-Dit-Ditto.

I also called out that nothing in OGL 1.2 actually prevents WotC/Hasbro from pulling this stunt again in 6/12/18 months by revoking OGL 1.2 and instituting OGL 1.3 with all the cow-pucks like the Royalties Clause added back in.

NichG

2023-01-20, 06:20 PM

An even better (and constructive!) counter-play would be to collectively write and publish lots of homebrew, adventures, setting books, etc for other systems instead and to use open licenses on your own stuff so other people can in turn riff off of it.

Basically, the value a community provides is in network effects, viral marketing, etc. People's passion for a thing and desire to do it and share it even if not being compensated translates to the equivalent compensation for that work basically being gifted for free in the form of free advertising, promotion, content development, testing, etc. So take that value and give it to someone else.

Some sort of concerted push, the equivalent of starting a wiki or other online repository for 'open license gaming content' and bringing in prolific homebrewers to archive their work would be a move at scale above and beyond just wasting breath into the void. Regardless of whether it changes WotC's mind about what to do, hey, you now have a community sharing gaming content with one another! So its win-win.

Brookshw

2023-01-20, 06:20 PM

If this is true, no one's re-deployed their online profile. Their site still says they're churning out D&D stuff.

I'm really not sure on this one, on the one hand, once you're tied into that wholesale distribution channel, you do tend to find out things faster than the general public, otoh, the only reason to pull the license I see would be if they wanted to launch an internally manufactured line or found a cheaper supplier, I'm a bit skeptical either could be the case. It certainly seems WizKids is still plenty active, but there could be some type of silence agreement in place and stock selloff right.

@Toran, glancing at FASA's website, looks like they use Ral Partha.

Segev

2023-01-20, 06:22 PM

If that's truly all you're doing then you have nothing to worry about whether that clause exists or not.I disagree. The clause as it exists would absolutely permit them to declare Waylocator to be "offensive" and revoke access. Even with my stipulation that Waylocator is no more offensive than Pathfinder. Remember: they don't need to justify it, identify the offensive content, nor defend their reasons (should they choose to give them) why their insane troll logic makes it offensive.

If their true offense is "We didn't want Pathfinder, and couldn't do anything about it, and now we CAN get rid of Waylocator," they don't have to admit that, and can name or even leave unnamed whatever offense they choose to invent.

And, no, I don't trust Hasbro Execs to NOT use this to shut down products they simply don't like for reasons they can leave unspecified other than to say "it was offensive." And "don't like" can mean anything from "we noticed that Segev, creator of Waylocator, posted something we don't like on Giant in the Playground Forums 10 years ago" to "Waylocator uses a blue cover, and we don't like the color blue" to "Waylocator is getting praise as more-D&D-than-OneD&D, and we don't like that."

Then we may just be at an impasse, because I don't see any of these potential challenges as good enough reasons to not include the clause (with remedies.) Yes, it will be hard to argue and defend and may result in a win for the licensor. But at the end of the day you made the calculation that the license was needed to do whatever you wanted to do, so you're in the weaker negotiating position to begin with; if you don't think you need the license, don't use it and you won't have to worry about any clauses in it.And I don't see the clause as being necessary for any reason other than to smear people they want to cut off, and then cut them off.

From harm would be the morality clause. Defining the license as only applying to TTRPGs and VTTs may not overtly harm them but it's still leaving money on the table from a videogame, AI, etc. licensee that they wouldn't otherwise be in a great position to negotiate, and therefore still reasonable in my book.The morality clause is not the only change in 1.2, so it clearly isn't the only thing they want. If it were, we could have a different discussion.

But the issue is that 1.2 makes changes that aren't necessary for the purposes they claim to be made, and if you look at what they do allow as "oops, totally unintended side effects," it paints a very dark picture. It's better than 1.1 was. It isn't good enough.

They need to remove the "deauthorize" clause, or it's basically a no-go anyway.

Let me paint a picture for you why the morality clause isn't something you should support, either: Let's say that the Hasbro executive team, in 2-3 years, winds up being replaced by people who have morals that align against what you support. Even if we ignore the "they don't need to have any excuse at all" aspect of the clause, this would mean that Hasbro could prevent a work which includes more freedom to make races be any class, supports positive depictions of societal elements you highly value, and Hasbro could ban it and anything like it from being printed precisely because of those elements you value. And, unlike the Waylocator example, they're not even being disingenuous; they genuinely think that stuff is immoral and besmirches D&D's image if it's included! You may think them wicked, but the clause still gives them that power. And even with your "remedies," who's to say what qualifies as "moral?" They certainly will have, in this case, a moral argument, even if YOU disagree with it. You're not the judge. Or the jury. And WotC will definitely strive to get a jury that is made up of the kind of people who share their morals, in this kind of case.

1.2 is absolutely designed to prevent a Waylocator from existing. Amongst other things. Whether it can succeed at that is irrelevant. If it weren't, there'd be no need to deauthorize 1.0(a), because they could absolutely release OneD&D under a different license than the OGL entirely, if the yreally wanted to.

EggKookoo

2023-01-20, 06:24 PM

You're not thinking like a corpo. Wizards is making a ton of money for Hasbro.

But a ton of money is only some of the money. They want ALL the money. They want ALL the money so so much that they're willing to give up a lot of the money at the mere chance to get more of the money.

Corpo looks at the OGL and says "Here's your problem, this is holding you back". Because on paper it is, corpo cares nothing for the customer's worthless opinion. Corpo wants customer's MONEY. And customer will give us MONEY if we make sure they have no choice.

Corpos are very simple people. They're like wild apes, but dumber. Grug want money. Grug get more money? GIVE GRUG MORE MONEY!

Brand growing? NOT FAST ENOUGH! Making lots of money? MAKE MORE!

What you mean "ride the wave"? No, we ride wave we make SAME money. Same money BAD. Need MORE money. MORE!

It's not complicated. Unlimited, unrestricted, unattainable growth is the only goal of any corporation,a nd they will literally chop their own feet off in an attempt to throw themselves further ahead in the metaphorical race.

I'm generally pro-business and not at all anti-capitalism or anti-profit. This is absolutely accurate.

It's sometimes hard to see because good businesses work hard to disguise it in the hopes that their customers will be fooled into thinking they care.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-20, 06:24 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-20, 06:24 PM

I'm really not sure on this one, on the one hand, once you're tied into that wholesale distribution channel, you do tend to find out things faster than the general public, otoh, the only reason to pull the license I see would be if they wanted to launch an internally manufactured line or found a cheaper supplier, I'm a bit skeptical either could be the case. It certainly seems WizKids is still plenty active, but there could be some type of silence agreement in place and stock selloff right.

@Toran, glancing at FASA's website, looks like they use Ral Partha.

I'd put it at "plausible but highly unconfirmed." Plausible, because bringing the "toy" part of it in-house is a mostly-rational move. Toys (of which miniatures are one variety) are Hasbro's oldest specialty, right? Highly unconfirmed because you'd think someone would have posted something about it online.

I mean...there are a lot of sources for D&D-compatible minis out there other than WizKids, and I've not been particularly impressed with the WizKids lineup anyway (you know how hard it is to find a large bear? And how useful that would be for my moon druid players?)

Palanan

2023-01-20, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Atranen
Unify around a real alternative and show that this kind of conduct is not acceptable for a corporation that wants to succeed in this space.

Agreed in principle, but unfortunately this is the sort of silent reaction which won’t register with WotC. It won’t get their attention the way the spike in cancellations did. That was visible, by the metrics they watch, and it also made the news, so it had a double impact, however fleeting.

I’m thinking something more tangible. And I’m remembering the mail-in campaign that got the original Star Trek renewed for a third season.

There have been various campaigns like that ever since; I’m thinking of the ball bearings that fans sent in to protest the cancellation of Sarah Connor Chronicles. And I’m betting there are more opponents to this current situation than there were fans of SCC.

What’s a simple, physical symbol of our opposition to this? One we can mail in large numbers?

animorte

2023-01-20, 06:28 PM

I have been somewhat attempting to keep up with this hot topic thread, but I no doubt will maintain mostly an observant presence. (Much appreciation to the mods for providing this space. Come friends, let's not screw it up. :smallsmile:)

Anyway I read the OGL 1.2 and went through the survey. These things right in the opening summary caught my attention and I think they're worth putting here.

OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn't.
We'll share what we heard from you and updates to the OGL document as a result.
The process will extend as long as it needs to. We'll keep iterating and getting your feedback until we get it right.

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

Brookshw

2023-01-20, 06:34 PM

I'd put it at "plausible but highly unconfirmed." Plausible, because bringing the "toy" part of it in-house is a mostly-rational move. Toys (of which miniatures are one variety) are Hasbro's oldest specialty, right? Highly unconfirmed because you'd think someone would have posted something about it online.

I mean...there are a lot of sources for D&D-compatible minis out there other than WizKids, and I've not been particularly impressed with the WizKids lineup anyway (you know how hard it is to find a large bear? And how useful that would be for my moon druid players?)

All good points, and agreed (I'm also not too impressed, but the price point kinda pushes that I suspect).

Well, unless someone has any actual info on it I'll toss it aside until something is actually known.

Snowbluff

2023-01-20, 06:35 PM

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

This is my impression as well. Even if you don't believe them, you're leaving a potential opportunity to wither if you don't participate in the survey.

I think the CC is a big step forward. I would like to see the ability to refer to classes/spells (so you can make subclasses for classes and use spells on your own classes) and for 3rd edition material to be added to some license so people can make product for that edition, even if it's less common now.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 06:35 PM

I'm not sure why you're so insistent on approaching this discussion as if you are an employee of Wizards of the Coast. You, as a consumer, are not obligated to defend business-oriented decisions just because they're made in regards to a product line you like.

An effective monopoly, of any industry, is bad for everyone. That includes fans of the product. This has been proven time and time again.

If the company is willing to backbite and scheme and engage in general snake-like behavior, that doesn't stop when they have no more rivals. It just then gets turned toward their own audience instead.

You, as a fan of D&D, also get NOTHING from this arrangement. There was never any threat of not getting more D&D. All this will ensure is that there will be less of everything else.

I find this "**** you, got mine" attitude frankly sickening.

D&D is not an industry. It is a product within an industry. The industry is TTRPGs, and Wizards does not have a monopoly on that. Wizards having a monopoly on DnD is no different from Ford having a monopoly on fords, it doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the motor vehicle industry.

Palanan

2023-01-20, 06:44 PM

The survey is a plausible simulation of listening, nothing more.

Given their behavior in recent weeks, it strains credulity to imagine the survey is anything but an airlock for venting into space.

_______

Also, I drive by my local Barnes & Noble every day and they’re doing just fine, so not sure what that reference was supposed to mean.

Borders, on the other hand, closed down over ten years ago. It was traumatic, unnecessary, wrecked countless lives, and I watched it unfold at very close range. Maybe that’s what’s being referred to?

Atranen

2023-01-20, 06:47 PM

Borders, on the other hand, closed down over ten years ago. It was traumatic, unnecessary, wrecked countless lives, and I watched it unfold at very close range. Maybe that’s what’s being referred to?

--Redacted--

Palanan

2023-01-20, 06:50 PM

I don't understand your response, nor the need for blue text.

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 06:59 PM

D&D is not an industry. It is a product within an industry. The industry is TTRPGs, and Wizards does not have a monopoly on that. Wizards having a monopoly on DnD is no different from Ford having a monopoly on fords, it doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the motor vehicle industry.

I'm not really sure how this pertains to what I'm talking about.

Wizards is trying to shut a bunch of other businesses out of the TTRPG market. Not just the "D&D market". They're essentially trying to take ownership of the entire d20 concept.

Atranen

2023-01-20, 07:01 PM

I don't understand your response, nor the need for blue text.

Barnes & Noble (although more appropriately Borders) was brought up as a potential fate for D&D if they didn't adopt a new license. I found the argument weak because I don't think D&D is at risk of failing if it sticks with OGL 1.0a.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 07:05 PM

I'm not really sure how this pertains to what I'm talking about.

Wizards is trying to shut a bunch of other businesses out of the TTRPG market. Not just the "D&D market". They're essentially trying to take ownership of the entire d20 concept.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about? I thought you were suggesting that what Wizards is doing was to create a monopoly.

It is not - it is saying that businesses may not use content based on intellectual property it says it owns. Even if that puts a raft of other gaming companies out of business it doesn't create monopoly because there are still other tabletop roleplaying competitors.

And yet you seem eager to do so. Throughout the thread you've been favoring WotC and their OGL plans almost to the point of praise while acting casually dismissive of other companies and non D&D rule sets or arguments about the potential for the OGL to be a stifling thing which many who have looked at it have absolutely agreed it is.

Not really very different from those people who, throughout the thread, have been disafavouring WotC and its OGL plans almost to the point of criticism, while being casual dismissive of arguments about the potential of OGL to be a reasonable thing.

Except that you disagree with him.

Unoriginal

2023-01-20, 07:09 PM

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 07:11 PM

Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about? I thought you were suggesting that what Wizards is doing was to create a monopoly.

They certainly seem to want to try, and claiming ownership over something they have no right to claim ownership of (d20 mechanics, and to a broader extent the work of other people) is a good first step.

I do not trust them not to take the logical next steps once they have their legal foothold to bully other companies out of the business.

I may not be talking about a literal, legal monopoly, because those do not exist. But monopolies in all but name do (look into internet service provider "turfs" sometime, it's eye opening), and they all start with moves like this that strangle the competition and ensure nobody can ever be big enough to challenge them for the throne.

Palanan

2023-01-20, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Atranen
I found the argument weak because I don't think D&D is at risk of failing if it sticks with OGL 1.0a.

That didn’t come through in your blue-text post. Felt more like an attack on me personally.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 07:18 PM

They certainly seem to want to try, and claiming ownership over something they have no right to claim ownership of (d20 mechanics, and to a broader extent the work of other people) is a good first step.

I do not trust them not to take the logical next steps once they have their legal foothold to bully other companies out of the business.

I may not be talking about a literal, legal monopoly, because those do not exist. But monopolies in all but name do (look into internet service provider "turfs" sometime, it's eye opening), and they all start with moves like this that strangle the competition and ensure nobody can ever be big enough to challenge them for the throne.

Whether they have ownership of those things is a matter for the courts if it gets that far.

They may use their market power to to put pressure on smaller tabletop companies, and they may or may not do that is a way that is permissable. But we can't really be too critical of them for something they have not yet done.

Literal monopolies do exist, btw. But more to your point, I doubt there's anything Wizards can do so that there are no other TTRPGs commercially available.

MonochromeTiger

2023-01-20, 07:31 PM

Not really very different from those people who, throughout the thread, have been disafavouring WotC and its OGL plans almost to the point of criticism,

I understand you're trying to play off my own words but really shaming someone through throwing what they say back at them only works if there's something to be ashamed of. There is no almost, people are being critical because they've been given reason to be critical. We have doubts because we've been given reason to doubt. We question motive because we have reason to question WotC's and Hasbro's motives.

As I've said before in this thread, they're a business and they exist to make money. When your purpose is to make money people have the right to consider that maybe your reason for trying to kill an agreement that hasn't been a problem so far while replacing it with something that gives you the ability to shut down anyone who agrees to it on vague grounds just might be thinking of money instead of ethics.

while being casual dismissive of arguments about the potential of OGL to be a reasonable thing.

There is a more reasonable OGL. They're currently trying to get rid of it. People have said multiple times the points they find unreasonable in this attempt at making a new OGL, among them the dissolution of the previous OGL and the morality clause which is so hilariously exploitable it's insulting. Get rid of some of those points and people would find it much more reasonable.

Except that you disagree with him.

And you find that surprising? It's not a personal issue with Psyren, we simply disagree. Our viewpoints are opposed and, though I do question why anyone would repeatedly post in favor of a multi billion dollar company's right to casually terminate agreements that were originally meant to be a permanent fixture just to force much more restrictive terms, I'm confident that on other topics I'd find their stance more agreeable. Again, the "shame with their own words" tactic only works if there's something to shame, this is a divisive topic though as the thread shows the divide is heavily weighted in one side's favor. So yes, I do find it odd when there are defenses of WotC's and Hasbro's actions especially when that defense hinges on trusting that a company is being genuine and honest on their stated motives or moral and legal fairness when the actual content of what they do and say points toward a more monetary focus and willingness to alter the spirit of things that were previously implied to be set in stone.

Atranen

2023-01-20, 07:33 PM

That didn’t come through in your blue-text post. Felt more like an attack on me personally.

I'm sorry; I was agreeing with you. I didn't mean for it to sound like that. I'll clean the post because I didn't do a good job of expressing my thought.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 07:48 PM

I understand you're trying to play off my own words but really shaming someone through throwing what they say back at them only works if there's something to be ashamed of. There is no almost, people are being critical because they've been given reason to be critical. We have doubts because we've been given reason to doubt. We question motive because we have reason to question WotC's and Hasbro's motives.

I'm not trying to shame you at all. I don't think that people who are arguing for or against Wizards have anything to be ashamed of. They (we) are all just people who happen to have a different opinion on this topic.

The reason I mimicked your own words was to demonstrate that the people on each side of the argument are not really acting differently to one another. They are favouring/disfavouring, dismissing opposing argument etc etc similarly. It's just that you think one side is right, and the other wrong.

As I've said before in this thread, they're a business and they exist to make money. When your purpose is to make money people have the right to consider that maybe your reason for trying to kill an agreement that hasn't been a problem so far while replacing it with something that gives you the ability to shut down anyone who agrees to it on vague grounds just might be thinking of money instead of ethics.

They have the right to consider that. And others have the right to suggest that their reasons are their stated ones.

There is a more reasonable OGL. They're currently trying to get rid of it. People have said multiple times the points they find unreasonable in this attempt at making a new OGL, among them the dissolution of the previous OGL and the morality clause which is so hilariously exploitable it's insulting. Get rid of some of those points and people would find it much more reasonable.

I get that you think that. And others think that the OGL they now propose is reasonable. They can make that point if they want, and you can say why you think they are wrong. It doesn't mean that the people who are disfavouring your perspective have some ulterior motive or whatever you were trying to imply.

And you find that surprising? It's not a personal issue with Psyren, we simply disagree. Our viewpoints are opposed and, though I do question why anyone would repeatedly post in favor of a multi billion dollar company's right to casually terminate agreements that were originally meant to be a permanent fixture just to force much more restrictive terms, I'm confident that on other topics I'd find their stance more agreeable. Again, the "shame with their own words" tactic only works if there's something to shame, this is a divisive topic though as the thread shows the divide is heavily weighted in one side's favor. So yes, I do find it odd when there are defenses of WotC's and Hasbro's actions especially when that defense hinges on trusting that a company is being genuine and honest on their stated motives or moral and legal fairness when the actual content of what they do and say points toward a more monetary focus and willingness to alter the spirit of things that were previously implied to be set in stone.

You say you simply disagree, then go on to say "I do question why anyone would repeatedly post in favor of a multi billion dollar company'.....". The simply reason why he posts in that company's favour is because he thinks what they are doing is fine. Of course his perspective is odd to you, because you disagree with it. Just like your perspective is presumably odd to him, because he disagrees with it.

Again, there's nothing to be ashamed of for anyone here - whether they support WotC or disagree with WotC.

Imbalance

2023-01-20, 07:50 PM

I stopped into the LGS this afternoon and, while chatting with the owner, was told WizKids recently lost the D&D license. I was pretty surprised to hear that, and didn't see anything online to the effect, but I've known the guy who runs it for over a decade, not someone I'd expect to be telling tales. Has anyone heard anything about the minis line license getting pulled?

Edit: who also mentioned he was getting new orders for GURPS (I smiled), and PF (1e I think?) was sold out by his distributor.

The next time you are there, please, inquire for more information and perhaps a source.

Brookshw

2023-01-20, 08:00 PM

Just in case anyone needs more evidence as to why having WotC has the one arbiter of what content is or isn't acceptable would be terrible for the hobby, we have this one. (https://twitter.com/AliciaFurness/status/1611085220060753920)

So, the issue here didn't seem as self-evident to me as the other example, and I wanted to look into it a bit, it's kind of an interesting test case I think.

First, that book is currently available on DMGuild and adventures are available on DrivethruRPG, so it's not like it went away. This seems to suggest they do have some kind of process to work with content creators, I don't know what it is, but the books availability speaks for itself, and that they don't just reach for the nuclear option.

The ads for the product in both places seem to have a fairly minor difference, one uses the term "anti-tyranny" (DMGuild), one uses "anti-capitalism" (DrivethruRPG).

Both describe the content as "Tackling issues of workersÂ’ rights, health care, the prison industrial complex, the environment, animal rights, agriculture and more, these adventures will make you passionate to join the revolution. ", And have a content warning "While most of these adventures don't come with specific content warnings, it's safe to assume that they will deal with exploitation of workers, marginalized communities, or other people. Many are violent, as is common in fantasy TTRPGs. As always, talk to your group and use appropriate safety tools.". Personally I'd say the subject matter could be described as sensitive, but clearly WoTC is okay with it.

It's unclear to me if and to what extent changes may have been required aside from the "capitalism" to "tyranny", I'd love to know the answer to that.

MonochromeTiger

2023-01-20, 08:02 PM

The next time you are there, please, inquire for more information and perhaps a source.

Agreed. Second or third hand information, even if the person relaying it is respected and trusted, should have some backing before being assumed as fact. We've already had some odd cases of disinformation both for and against in this, the possibility of rumors gone out of control can't be discounted.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 08:09 PM

I don't trust Hasbro Execs to NOT use this to shut down products they simply don't like for reasons they can leave unspecified other than to say "it was offensive."

If you don't think the remedies I proposed prevent that, then we can leave it there, I have nothing else to suggest.

The morality clause is not the only change in 1.2, so it clearly isn't the only thing they want. If it were, we could have a different discussion.

I never said it was "the only thing they want." I said it was the one relevant to harm specifically.

The other stuff, like preventing video games and third-party NFTs etc - doesn't relate to harm specifically, it's just sensible business.

They need to remove the "deauthorize" clause, or it's basically a no-go anyway.

Again, good luck with that. Only a court is going to stop this one.

Let me paint a picture for you why the morality clause isn't something you should support, either: Let's say that the Hasbro executive team, in 2-3 years, winds up being replaced by people who have morals that align against what you support.

Hey look, I'll save you some time - well, not really since you already typed the rest of that, but still... yes, I'm well aware this could one day in the distant or even not-so-distant future be weaponized by execs with an opposite view to mine now, e.g. bigots taking over and yanking the license from inclusive publishers. I'm aware that such a phenomenon could take place. I'm rolling the dice on that anyway, happily, because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me. Easiest calculus of my life.

Borders, on the other hand, closed down over ten years ago. It was traumatic, unnecessary, wrecked countless lives, and I watched it unfold at very close range. Maybe that’s what’s being referred to?

I wasn't exclusively going for bankruptcies and failures, just big disruptions to business models - but sure, Borders works, possibly even better.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-20, 08:15 PM

Just one thought on intent. I'm very skeptical of WOTC on this, and I think the goal likely includes trying to use marketshare and the long term reliance on OGL 1.0a in an anticompetitive fashion (not used in any legal sense) rather than to focus on improving their product. Why?

It isn't that I am anticorporate (I'm neither a gung-ho corporatist nor an avowed anticorporatist), that I am against this. I'm getting back not the hobby so it's no long seated animosity-though the OGL probably did harm my preferred system.

My thought is this, when you represent a license as they did, in terms of its inviolability as its intent was communicated clearly, and then reneg on those agreed upon terms 23 years later, due to regrets as to the effect of those terms (rather than say a true inability to fulfill a contract), they either lied in the way they represented it then or they prove themselves to be acting in bad faith now. I won't comment on the legality of the situation, but either way, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and their motives should be treated with suspicion.

That is the most I will note add it to the list of things I am not commenting on further, but it is not unreasonable to be very cautious in these circumstances. My thoughts, I don't do business with people I can't trust to keep their word. Any reneging on 1.0a means I will buy no WOTC products for the foreseeable future.

Brookshw

2023-01-20, 08:19 PM

Agreed. Second or third hand information, even if the person relaying it is respected and trusted, should have some backing before being assumed as fact. We've already had some odd cases of disinformation both for and against in this, the possibility of rumors gone out of control can't be discounted.

All true, but I had to go pick up my kids, not get into a lengthy discussion, hence looking into it further, including looking into it online and asking here if anyone knew something :smallconfused: when I see him next, and if I have time, I'll ask him.

Blackdrop

2023-01-20, 08:38 PM

Saintheart

2023-01-20, 08:42 PM

Anyway I read the OGL 1.2 and went through the survey. These things right in the opening summary caught my attention and I think they're worth putting here.

OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn't.
We'll share what we heard from you and updates to the OGL document as a result.
The process will extend as long as it needs to. We'll keep iterating and getting your feedback until we get it right.

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

Leaving aside the opening summary is essentially corporate damage controlspeak, I would continue to ask - and indeed I did in the survey: get it right for who exactly?

Psyren

2023-01-20, 08:48 PM

My thought is this, when you represent a license as they did, in terms of its inviolability as its intent was communicated clearly, and then reneg on those agreed upon terms 23 years later, due to regrets as to the effect of those terms (rather than say a true inability to fulfill a contract), they either lied in the way they represented it then or they prove themselves to be acting in bad faith now. I won't comment on the legality of the situation, but either way, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and their motives should be treated with suspicion.

That is the most I will note add it to the list of things I am not commenting on further, but it is not unreasonable to be very cautious in these circumstances. My thoughts, I don't do business with people I can't trust to keep their word. Any reneging on 1.0a means I will buy no WOTC products for the foreseeable future.

I find no fault with your decision, I just want to point out that "intent" and "agreed upon terms" are very different things.

You're doing the exact same- who is making money abusing the OGL 1.0(a) now, today, by using it to post hate speech?

1) I'm talking about what the current language allows.
2) There are current examples - both of hate speech (TSR) and less severe yet still potentially damaging uses of the license (BoEF).

Leaving aside the opening summary is essentially corporate damage controlspeak, I would continue to ask - and indeed I did in the survey: get it right for who exactly?

Presumably - as many fans and creators as possible, after accounting for WotC themselves.

Unoriginal

2023-01-20, 08:48 PM

You're doing the exact same- who is making money abusing the OGL 1.0(a) now, today, by using it to post hate speech?

That'd be Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro, depending on your definition.

because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me.

WotC is already more than able and happy to deal with bigots now, today.

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 08:50 PM

Hey look, I'll save you some time - well, not really since you already typed the rest of that, but still... yes, I'm well aware this could one day in the distant or even not-so-distant future be weaponized by execs with an opposite view to mine now, e.g. bigots taking over and yanking the license from inclusive publishers. I'm aware that such a phenomenon could take place. I'm rolling the dice on that anyway, happily, because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me. Easiest calculus of my life.

So who are these bigots who are currently using the OGL to publish bigotry and hatespeech in their 3rd party published game material? Do any currently exist or are these also hypothetical?

1) I'm talking about what the current language allows.
2) There are current examples - both of hate speech (TSR) and less severe yet still potentially damaging uses of the license (BoEF).

I feel like if you have to dig back nearly 20 years to find an example that makes your case, it's not a very strong case.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 08:53 PM

WotC is already more than able and happy to deal with bigots now, today.

"Able to" does not mean they need to keep the license around that could potentially make it harder.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-20, 08:54 PM

I find no fault with your decision, I just want to point out that "intent" and "agreed upon terms" are very different .

Perhaps. There is a really interesting semantics question indicating changes in what the agreed upon terms meant at that time and what they mean today which gets into a lot of issues of interp that are too boring for these boards, unless you are a philosophy nerd.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-why-didnt-the-ogl-contain-the-word-irrevocable.694514/

Unoriginal

2023-01-20, 08:55 PM

"Able to" does not mean they need to keep the license around that could potentially make it harder.

It did not make it harder for 20 years.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-20, 08:58 PM

So who are these bigots who are currently using the OGL to publish bigotry and hatespeech in their 3rd party published game material? Do any currently exist or are these also hypothetical?

I feel like if you have to dig back nearly 20 years to find an example that makes your case, it's not a very strong case.

And I'm not sure how WotC is expected to do better, since the number of "problematic" 1st party materials vastly outnumbers the count for 3rd party objectionable materials. Especially by the only standards that get more that a trivial number of total such works.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 08:58 PM

It did not make it harder for 20 years.

Technically it did; that no one took advantage of that flaw in that time doesn't mean the possibility didn't exist.

And I'm not sure how WotC is expected to do better, since the number of "problematic" 1st party materials vastly outnumbers the count for 3rd party objectionable materials. Especially by the only standards that get more that a trivial number of total such works.

"WotC does problematic things themselves!"
Yeah, and they don't have to sue themselves to get them recalled, they can just do it. False equivalency is false.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-20, 09:01 PM

"WotC does problematic things themselves!"
Yeah, and they don't have to sue themselves to get them recalled, they can just do it. False equivalency is false.
Giving exclusive ownership of the cleaning supplies, as well as unilateral authority to define what messy is, to the messiest person around seems like a great plan.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 09:01 PM

I also want to repeat my stance here--

I don't care about protecting WotC from PR harm. That doesn't help me in the slightest. And in many ways it hurts me as a consumer. And my initial question was "how do I benefit from this new license." So far, I have seen exactly zero attempts to actually answer the question--lots of "well, it helps WotC" + handwaving answers, no direct or even plausibly indirect benefits to consumers. WotC has no intrinsic moral right to be protected from PR harm, and therefore no intrinsic right to definitely harm someone else in order to prevent PR harm to themselves from hypothetical third parties.

That, alone, is enough to oppose the entire thing. "I can do this thing that hurts you and benefits either me or no one" is not a position we should encourage companies to take. Nor is "I am going to measurably hurt you to slightly-and-insignificantly decrease the chances that someone else you have no connection to will make us have to make unpopular statements on Twitter." It's exactly monopolistic anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior. And that's inherently bad.
I have no idea if you benefit from the new license. But why should you? Why should WotC take actions that benefit you?

I'm really more interested in what the hell this OGL thing does to help me, an actual real-life person who actually enjoys D&D the real tabletop game. So far, it seems like the answer is somewhere between "nada" and "zilch". Seems a lot more like it's just gonna make it easier for some jealous goon to punish me for posting pics of my OC or sharing the cool setting I came up with. Like, the question has been asked and the answers are being cloaked behind "I wish to vaguely condemn somebody who's not even real. My reasons are my own (but I assure you they're Very Good)."
As above, why should it help you?

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-20, 09:03 PM

I have no idea if you benefit from the new license. But why should you? Why should WotC take actions that benefit you?

So I should be fine with actions that hurt me to no benefit? I should be fine with them hurting people for selfish gains, just because they can?

Yeah, not incredibly persuasive. If you want someone to accept your changes, show them how it helps them as well. Not say "yeah, it screws you over for my personal pecuniary benefit. But that's too bad, because I'm the one with the power here and you have to lump it." Because, in the end, I don't have to accept it. And don't plan on accepting it.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 09:03 PM

Giving exclusive ownership of the cleaning supplies, as well as unilateral authority to define what messy is, to the messiest person around seems like a great plan.

If we keep going back to square one we'll never make any progress. I'm not in favor of "unilateral authority" as I thought I made clear multiple times now.

So I should be fine with actions that hurt me to no benefit? I should be fine with them hurting people for selfish gains, just because they can?

You don't have to be "fine" with anything you don't want to be.

Unoriginal

2023-01-20, 09:09 PM

Technically it did; that no one took advantage of that flaw in that time doesn't mean the possibility didn't exist.

So in your eyes, "The OGL 1.0a has a flaw that no one took advantage of during two decades that technically give the possibility to make it harder (not impossible, just harder) for WotC to deal with bigots" is so much a far worse state of affair than "removing the OGL 1.0a and giving WotC full power to annihilate the works they do not like, with a possibility for abuse fully acknowledged" than replacing the former with the later is "the easiest calculus in your life"?

Do I understand your position correctly?

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-20, 09:14 PM

If we keep going back to square one we'll never make any progress. I'm not in favor of "unilateral authority" as I thought I made clear multiple times now.

It'll always be unilateral unless you're willing to go to court. Which is a phantom thread.

And no one has even begun to give evidence that there's even a problem here that needs solving, let alone that the appropriate solution is to give all the power to the least responsible, least accountable[1] group involved.

[1] seriously--big corporations are well known for taking only token efforts to appease the twitter mobs in cases that might make them look bad without actually doing anything about any underlying issues. And it took a massive, coordinated, nearly-unanimous "heck no" and massive numbers of cancelations to even budge the needle slightly. Giving them more power seems...unwise at best. And self-serving claims of "oh, look, we need all this power to deal with...a problem that only exists in theory, 20 years ago" are suspect and should be disregarded IMO.

Blackdrop

2023-01-20, 09:15 PM

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 09:16 PM

So I should be fine with actions that hurt me to no benefit? I should be fine with them hurting people for selfish gains, just because they can?

Yeah, not incredibly persuasive. If you want someone to accept your changes, show them how it helps them as well. Not say "yeah, it screws you over for my personal pecuniary benefit. But that's too bad, because I'm the one with the power here and you have to lump it." Because, in the end, I don't have to accept it. And don't plan on accepting it.

Should you be fine with it? Not sure. I think the point is that it's not WotC's job to benefit you personally. You can be not fine with that if you want, but I don't think it has much to do with their decision.

Like, if you drink cola, and the price of cola goes up because there's a shortage of carbonated water, then that hurts you for not benefit at all. Would you be 'not fine' with that.

If by 'not accept it' you mean you wont spend your money on their products anymore, that would be relevant if enough people share your view. But I get the feeling you mean something more than 'the product isn't worth it for me anymore so I wont buy it'?

I suppose I get the feeling that you think that WotC have some obligation to not do things that don't benefit you (or DnD players more generally perhaps you mean)? Do you think that? If so, why?

It's also worth pointing out that we expect a mutually beneficial arrangement because there has been a mutually beneficial arrangement for the last twenty years and had no reason to suspect not having one for the next twenty until about a month ago.

When you say 'we', do you mean consumers, or third part creators.

I'm sure Wizard want a mutually beneficial arrangement too. But they obviously felt that the arrangement wasn't sufficiently beneficial to them anymore (probably with regard to profitability), so they are entitled to propose a different arrangement. It is now for consumers to vote with their wallets whether this new arrangement is sufficiently beneficial to them.

Saintheart

2023-01-20, 09:18 PM

It did not make it harder for 20 years.

To be fair, the 3PP Book of Erotic Fantasy was publishable - and indeed was published - under the OGL 1.0 (or (a), I can't be bothered to go back and check the citation precisely). That's how it got out there after Valar Project's right to use the d20 trademark on the book (as distinct from OGL 1.0a) was pulled by WOTC. BoEF was certainly "objectionable" by what passed for social media witch hunting community standards back when published, and that's likely what prompted its d20 trademark licence being taken out.

However, the market and asking people to decide for themselves worked better than handing unilateral power to a corporation to decide what you Should Or Not Should Be Purchasing Which Has A Tangential Association With Us. Valar Project went bust not long after it published, which was basically because of the poor perception of the product, not because WOTC pogrom'ed them under a morality clause. Amazingly, WOTC was not wiped out because of a book published by a third party publisher which had a ruleset link with D&D.

Point being: the OGL 1.0a somehow managed to secure the Mental Safety/contemporary standards of community decency/damp down Twitter ragemobs without needing a morality clause in it - simply because people's wallets made the decision and people still had enough brains to understand OGL 1.0a =/= direct authorisation of the content or attitudes of the authors using the OGL 1.0a. If WOTC really thinks it needs a morality clause to stop a tangentially-related product being even associated with it - which is all that the morality clause really does - then it's clearly not a product with enough recognition or innate value that deserves to survive.

But in my view, it's not about morality/community decency/inclusiveness/antibigotry/however you choose to phrase the current day form of the moral panic. It's about using that fig leaf to cover up pushing competitors out, or pushing them into a space where they'll hurt one another a lot more than they hurt WOTC/Hazmat.

Brookshw

2023-01-20, 09:20 PM

[1] seriously--big corporations are well known for taking only token efforts to appease the twitter mobs in cases that might make them look bad without actually doing anything about any underlying issues.

In fairness, they did institute new quality control measures after SJ, and have been diversifying their content writers, that seems to speak to addressing underlying issues.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 09:27 PM

So in your eyes, "The OGL 1.0a has a flaw that no one took advantage of during two decades that technically give the possibility to make it harder (not impossible, just harder) for WotC to deal with bigots" is so much a far worse state of affair than "removing the OGL 1.0a and giving WotC full power to annihilate the works they do not like, with a possibility for abuse fully acknowledged" than replacing the former with the later is "the easiest calculus in your life"?

Do I understand your position correctly?

Bold is the part you got wrong as I've been stating repeatedly. I've proposed suggestions that reduce WotC's power from "full."

It'll always be unilateral unless you're willing to go to court. Which is a phantom thread.

How about this then - there's another provision in the Paizo version that we could borrow here, a curative. Here's their language:

"If you fail to comply with any of the terms of this License, you will be in breach and we will have the right to terminate this License. We will send notice to the contact information you provided in your registration. You will have thirty days from the date we send notice to cure the breach to our satisfaction. If the breach has not been fully and completely cured, we reserve the right to terminate the License with no further notice. After termination, you will not have the right to secure a new license from us without specific written consent."

Change "to our satisfaction" to a general public standard, and the license might never be revoked at all.

(And again I note the irony in that Paizo, who everyone is counting on to save the world with ORC, have multiple provisions in their license that WotC would be excoriated for including.)

Blackdrop

2023-01-20, 09:27 PM

When you say 'we', do you mean consumers, or third part creators.

Both. All of the above.

Consumers get access to a larger pool of products to enhance or expand their entertainment value.
3P Creators get the safety net of being able to operate and profit without fear of litigation.
WotC gets to increase their market footprint and brand exposure without needing to spend a dime.

purepolarpanzer

2023-01-20, 09:27 PM

But in my view, it's not about morality/community decency/inclusiveness/antibigotry/however you choose to phrase the current day form of the moral panic. It's about using that fig leaf to cover up pushing competitors out, or pushing them into a space where they'll hurt one another a lot more than they hurt WOTC/Hazmat.

100% agreed. I feel this is much more likely to be weaponized against third party publishers to eliminate the competition than for nearly non-existent moral panics.

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 09:31 PM

Should you be fine with it? Not sure. I think the point is that it's not WotC's job to benefit you personally. You can be not fine with that if you want, but I don't think it has much to do with their decision.

Like, if you drink cola, and the price of cola goes up because there's a shortage of carbonated water, then that hurts you for not benefit at all. Would you be 'not fine' with that.

This is not an issue of a shortage. This is the company raising the price of cola because they think nobody will care and they'll make more money of off it, while simultaneously lobbying to argue that they have the legal right to own their biggest competitors.

Sure, it's not Wizards' job to benefit me personally. But by that same token, I have zero vested interest in their own continued existence. I'm sure there will be enough people who are unaware or uncaring enough to keep buying whatever they put out, but I'll be damned if I'm one of them.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 09:33 PM

Both. All of the above.

Consumers get access to a larger pool of products to enhance or expand their entertainment value.
3P Creators get the safety net of being able to operate and profit without fear of litigation.
WotC gets to increase their market footprint and brand exposure without needing to spend a dime.

Well, whether its consumers or creators the answer is the same - WotC seemingly considered they were not getting sufficient benefit from the arrangement (with creators or consumers). That is their decision to make. It is not for us to decide whether the old arrangement was sufficiently beneficial for them.,

What we (consumers or creators) can now decide is whether the new arrangement is sufficiently beneficial to us - and if not, not buy the products.

This is not an issue of a shortage. This is the company raising the price of cola because they think nobody will care and they'll make more money of off it, while simultaneously lobbying to argue that they have the legal right to own their biggest competitors.

Sure, it's not Wizards' job to benefit me personally. But by that same token, I have zero vested interest in their own continued existence. I'm sure there will be enough people who are unaware or uncaring enough to keep buying whatever they put out, but I'll be damned if I'm one of them.
Fair enough. If the cola company raises prices because they were not as profitable as they want to be, they are entitled to do so. It's then up to consumers to decide fi their cola is still worth the new price.

It sounds like you have decided that the product is no longer worth buying for you, which is your call to make. But some people seem to be making out like it's something more than that - that there's some sort of great scandal or unfairness here, rather than just several parties (including consumers and WotC) acting in their own interest.

Atranen

2023-01-20, 09:34 PM

WotC is already more than able and happy to deal with bigots now, today.

So who are these bigots who are currently using the OGL to publish bigotry and hatespeech in their 3rd party published game material? Do any currently exist or are these also hypothetical?

It did not make it harder for 20 years.

Technically it did; that no one took advantage of that flaw in that time doesn't mean the possibility didn't exist.

This sums up a lot of my concern. Psyren, I know we agree the new OGL is worse for the TTRPG community than the old one, at least for anyone who likes more than just D&D. I'm sympathetic to WoTC trying to do right by inclusivity. But there's so little proven here that the OGL would improve in that respect. I'd much rather they spend time and energy taking other steps (like, say fixing whatever let the Hadozee get through) rather than this. And because there's so little proven, I'm skeptical that it's so important that it demands a shift in OGL.

"WotC does problematic things themselves!"
Yeah, and they don't have to sue themselves to get them recalled, they can just do it. False equivalency is false.

This is still a valid reason not to trust their judgement, regardless of whether it's equivalent.

So in your eyes, "The OGL 1.0a has a flaw that no one took advantage of during two decades that technically give the possibility to make it harder (not impossible, just harder) for WotC to deal with bigots" is so much a far worse state of affair than "removing the OGL 1.0a and giving WotC full power to annihilate the works they do not like, with a possibility for abuse fully acknowledged" than replacing the former with the later is "the easiest calculus in your life"?

Do I understand your position correctly?

This seems an accurate reading of the position to me.

Should you be fine with it? Not sure. I think the point is that it's not WotC's job to benefit you personally. You can be not fine with that if you want, but I don't think it has much to do with their decision.

Like, if you drink cola, and the price of cola goes up because there's a shortage of carbonated water, then that hurts you for not benefit at all. Would you be 'not fine' with that.

If by 'not accept it' you mean you wont spend your money on their products anymore, that would be relevant if enough people share your view. But I get the feeling you mean something more than 'the product isn't worth it for me anymore so I wont buy it'?

I suppose I get the feeling that you think that WotC have some obligation to not do things that don't benefit you (or DnD players more generally perhaps you mean)? Do you think that? If so, why?

Obviously they can make decisions I'd be unhappy with. The main thing I take issue with is it's dressed up as "being stewards of the game" or "trying to protect inclusivity" or "protecting the hobby from big corporations" or any of the other things we've heard, both from WoTC and it's defenders.

Just look me in the eye and say, "hey, we're a company, we want to make money for our shareholders, and we're willing to do something that negatively affects your favorite hobby in order to do so."

We know that's the score. They know that's the score. Let's be honest about it.

(And again I note the irony in that Paizo, who everyone is counting on to save the world with ORC, have multiple provisions in their license that WotC would be excoriated for including.)

I addressed this before and don't recall getting a response. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Paizo license is entirely different because there is an OGL and then a separate license for a compatibility sticker. I don't think anyone would complain if WoTC followed this model, keeping the OGL and adding terms for the compatibility sticker.

Saintheart

2023-01-20, 09:36 PM

Change "to our satisfaction" to a general public standard, and the license might never be revoked at all.

(And again I note the irony in that Paizo, who everyone is counting on to save the world with ORC, have multiple provisions in their license that WotC would be excoriated for including.)

1. Community decency standards in the d20 trademark licence were what got BoEF's licence cancelled. They were also basically what killed the d20 trademark, along with the whole "revocable any time" change to the licence.

2. It's one thing to agree to the clause from the start of your association with a product. It's another thing to bait and switch your stakeholders. The latter is what WOTC is doing.

Blackdrop

2023-01-20, 09:39 PM

Some good information and insights from Foundry here (https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/)

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 09:39 PM

Obviously they can make decisions I'd be unhappy with. The main thing I take issue with is it's dressed up as "being stewards of the game" or "trying to protect inclusivity" or "protecting the hobby from big corporations" or any of the other things we've heard, both from WoTC and it's defenders.

Just look me in the eye and say, "hey, we're a company, we want to make money for our shareholders, and we're willing to do something that negatively affects your favorite hobby in order to do so."

We know that's the score. They know that's the score. Let's be honest about it.

Fair enough to be a bit skeptical about WotC moral justification. Sure in an ideal world businesses would be able to just be honest and say 'we want more money' and there would be no outcry. But that's not the world we live in, and of course businesses (and people generally) are going to justify their actions and spin them a certain way.

It's also true of both side. I see that the foundry link in the post above my own, also spins things from it's own perspective.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 09:51 PM

This sums up a lot of my concern. Psyren, I know we agree the new OGL is worse for the TTRPG community than the old one, at least for anyone who likes more than just D&D. I'm sympathetic to WoTC trying to do right by inclusivity. But there's so little proven here that the OGL would improve in that respect. I'd much rather they spend time and energy taking other steps (like, say fixing whatever let the Hadozee get through) rather than this. And because there's so little proven, I'm skeptical that it's so important that it demands a shift in OGL.

This is still a valid reason not to trust their judgement, regardless of whether it's equivalent.

"The TTRPG community" is not WotC's responsibility. At best, some of their goals intersect.

I addressed this before and don't recall getting a response. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Paizo license is entirely different because there is an OGL and then a separate license for a compatibility sticker. I don't think anyone would complain if WoTC followed this model, keeping the OGL and adding terms for the compatibility sticker.

Yes, it's not a perfect comparison - but (a) it's the best preview we have for the kinds of things Paizo might put in a license they're crafting, and (b) as I mentioned to PhoenixPhyre, theirs contain a number of clauses that shift absolute power away from them and towards the community, that might be worth considering.

1. Community decency standards in the d20 trademark licence were what got BoEF's licence cancelled. They were also basically what killed the d20 trademark, along with the whole "revocable any time" change to the licence.

2. It's one thing to agree to the clause from the start of your association with a product. It's another thing to bait and switch your stakeholders. The latter is what WOTC is doing.

A license that can feasibly prevent the next BoEF is a given. The folks who want to make one anyway have the Creative Commons version for that.

Unoriginal

2023-01-20, 09:55 PM

Bold is the part you got wrong as I've been stating repeatedly. I've proposed suggestions that reduce WotC's power from "full."

Thank you.

However, WotC seems unwilling as of now to put any offer that would consider those suggestions or anything else that reduces the power the new license(s) would grant them.

Would you agree that "keeping the the OGL 1.0a as is" would be better than implementing one of the WotC-proposed alternatives, so far?

Atranen

2023-01-20, 09:57 PM

"The TTRPG community" is not WotC's responsibility. At best, some of their goals intersect.

Agreed!

Yes, it's not a perfect comparison - but (a) it's the best preview we have for the kinds of things Paizo might put in a license they're crafting, and (b) as I mentioned to PhoenixPhyre, theirs contain a number of clauses that shift absolute power away from them and towards the community, that might be worth considering.

It really isn't. Paizo has a tiered licensing model--the OGL and then their compatible license. You're guessing from that that their proposed successor to the OGL will look like their compatible license. It's more likely it will look like the OGL.

Amidus Drexel

2023-01-20, 10:03 PM

(And again I note the irony in that Paizo, who everyone is counting on to save the world with ORC, have multiple provisions in their license that WotC would be excoriated for including.)

I'd argue (as have others in this thread), that WotC's OGL doesn't actually contain much (if any) copyrightable material, or WotC's trademark (at all). It's pretty much just game mechanics. Despite all the legal language present, it was (in effect) a public statement that they wanted to foster a community around their game system, which worked pretty well for them until 4th edition. As you know, they had a separate license at the time for their branding (the d20 license), which they could and did revoke for a few publishers, without causing any major PR issues.

On the other hand, Paizo's Community Use License (non-commercial) and Compatibility License (commercial) are licensing their branding and art (they call out explicitly their copyright and trademarks in the opening blurb for the community use license, and the commercial compatibility license literally only gives you use of their logo and font), and not much else. That's pretty standard language for licensing branding and art, and I don't really see anyone attacking WotC for that.

1. Community decency standards in the d20 trademark licence were what got BoEF's licence cancelled. They were also basically what killed the d20 trademark, along with the whole "revocable any time" change to the licence.

2. It's one thing to agree to the clause from the start of your association with a product. It's another thing to bait and switch your stakeholders. The latter is what WOTC is doing.

Also this.

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 10:04 PM

Fair enough. If the cola company raises prices because they were not as profitable as they want to be, they are entitled to do so. It's then up to consumers to decide fi their cola is still worth the new price.

It sounds like you have decided that the product is no longer worth buying for you, which is your call to make. But some people seem to be making out like it's something more than that - that there's some sort of great scandal or unfairness here, rather than just several parties (including consumers and WotC) acting in their own interest.

Something which is within someone's own interests is not necessarily by that nature fair or not worthy of a scandal.

Psyren

2023-01-20, 10:08 PM

It really isn't. Paizo has a tiered licensing model--the OGL and then their compatible license. You're guessing from that that their proposed successor to the OGL will look like their compatible license. It's more likely it will look like the OGL.

I really hope not - but if it does, one more reason to ignore ORC.

Thank you.

However, WotC seems unwilling as of now to put any offer that would consider those suggestions or anything else that reduces the power the new license(s) would grant them.

They literally have a survey out right now (https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7182208/OGL-1-2-Feedback-Survey) whose sole purpose is to consider suggestions for the license, so I have no idea where you're getting this from :smallconfused:

Would you agree that "keeping the the OGL 1.0a as is" would be better than implementing one of the WotC-proposed alternatives, so far?

No, I wouldn't; that should be abundantly clear by now.

Atranen

2023-01-20, 10:12 PM

I really hope not - but if it does, one more reason to ignore ORC.

No, I wouldn't; that should be abundantly clear by now.

What is your primary reason for opposing ORC? I've heard several justifications for why ending the OGL is good move for WoTC, an acknowledgement it's bad for the TTRPG community but could be good for D&D fans in the long run. But I'm not sure what your primary reason for opposing ORC is. Is it the lack of an enforceable morality clause?

Psyren

2023-01-20, 10:21 PM

What is your primary reason for opposing ORC?

That wasn't an entirely serious statement, don't read too much into it. I'll evaluate it and anything released through it whenever it exists.

It's less that I "oppose" ORC, than I am skeptical that it will save the TTRPG genre the way OGL detractors believe it will.

Snowbluff

2023-01-20, 10:29 PM

DnD Beyond FAQ about 1.2 OGL and CC (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1433-ogl-1-2-where-to-find-the-latest-information-plus)

Will additional content be added to the Creative Commons license and OGL 1.2?

Yes. We are looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2. We wanted to get this into your hands for feedback ASAP and focused on 5.1, but look for more content to be included throughout these discussions.
Oh they're looking at older editions for CC and OGL.

It's also true of both side. I see that the foundry link in the post above my own, also spins things from it's own perspective.

Yeah, I think ascribing intent is gonna lose points with me on that front.

Saintheart

2023-01-20, 10:32 PM

DnD Beyond FAQ about 1.2 OGL and CC (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1433-ogl-1-2-where-to-find-the-latest-information-plus)

{Scrubbed}

Tanarii

2023-01-20, 10:55 PM

In terms of what we can do here, the answer is simple: Talk to your FLGS about running non-D&D games. Is there a game you've been wanting to try but couldn't find players for? Now is the time to strike, you will find plenty of players. Make sure your FLGS advertises the game on their online games board! The number one entry point for new players outside of high school buddies is game stores.

Palanan

2023-01-20, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Blackdrop
It's also worth pointing out that we expect a mutually beneficial arrangement….

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre
And it took a massive, coordinated, nearly-unanimous "heck no" and massive numbers of cancelations to even budge the needle slightly.

Picking back up on this point, because the needle needs a lot more budging, but there doesn’t seem to be any plan for a follow-up to the initial wave of cancellations.

And that’s the sort of thing that needs to keep happening. Making statements by supporting alternate systems is effectively passive and invisible to WotC. Compared with a spike in cancellations, quietly leaving for other games simply won’t register with them, and won’t help budge that needle—not when we need it to.

Rather than endlessly reiterating that 1.0a can’t be deauthorized, and endlessly rebutting that this can only be settled in court, we need to do something active and visible to keep real pressure on WotC—as effective as the cancellations, but from a different angle. Think of it as rotating phaser frequencies so the Borg can’t adapt.

Most of the exchanges in most of the threads I’ve seen have been based on ideals rather than tactics, but it’s tactics that actually win a fight. Is anyone anywhere talking about effective tactics?

.

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 11:03 PM

Most of the exchanges in most of the threads I’ve seen have been based on ideals rather than tactics, but it’s tactics that actually win a fight. Is anyone anywhere talking about effective tactics?

.

The current tactic, as I see it, is to throw your backing behind the ORC, visibly and with money behind it.

Unless you're planning a protest outside of Wizards headquarters, that's probably the most effective option.

Palanan

2023-01-20, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Rynjin
The current tactic, as I see it, is to throw your backing behind the ORC, visibly and with money behind it.

As I understand it, the ORC doesn’t actually exist yet, so difficult to put money behind it.

And “backing” the ORC, however firmly and sincerely, isn’t something WotC will notice. They did notice the cancellations; major news and financial sites covered that, and obviously it had an impact on WotC.

But that was a blip, and there needs to be something equivalent to continue the real-world pressure.

Snowbluff

2023-01-20, 11:20 PM

That wasn't an entirely serious statement, don't read too much into it. I'll evaluate it and anything released through it whenever it exists.

It's less that I "oppose" ORC, than I am skeptical that it will save the TTRPG genre the way OGL detractors believe it will.
I mean, ORC doesn't even exist, how am I supposed to support it? It's been made clear to me by other TTRPGers I know that it's not like people can't readily make CC license themselves.

Depending on what's actually in it, I could see it being used to clone Paizo's poor game design to other systems, and also maybe lead to more industry stagnation akin to what I've seen people characterize OGL 1.0's influence as. I don't see an upside other than the admittedly cute acronym.

Most of the exchanges in most of the threads I’ve seen have been based on ideals rather than tactics, but it’s tactics that actually win a fight. Is anyone anywhere talking about effective tactics? I did say you should do the survey even if you think it's fake. I'm not saying don't do other things, but you shouldn't discount it.

.
>:v

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 11:26 PM

As I understand it, the ORC doesn’t actually exist yet, so difficult to put money behind it.

And “backing” the ORC, however firmly and sincerely, isn’t something WotC will notice. They did notice the cancellations; major news and financial sites covered that, and obviously it had an impact on WotC.

But that was a blip, and there needs to be something equivalent to continue the real-world pressure.

Any of those equivalents are going to need to come from Wizards' actual playerbase, because they're the only ones who can deny an existing resource to the company. I'm not sure what you're looking for here, board inappropriate (and illegal) drastic measures? I don't think anybody is quite THAT invested.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-20, 11:28 PM

Picking back up on this point, because the needle needs a lot more budging, but there doesn’t seem to be any plan for a follow-up to the initial wave of cancellations.

And that’s the sort of thing that needs to keep happening. Making statements by supporting alternate systems is effectively passive and invisible to WotC. Compared with a spike in cancellations, quietly leaving for other games simply won’t register with them, and won’t help budge that needle—not when we need it to.

Rather than endlessly reiterating that 1.0a can’t be deauthorized, and endlessly rebutting that this can only be settled in court, we need to do something active and visible to keep real pressure on WotC—as effective as the cancellations, but from a different angle. Think of it as rotating phaser frequencies so the Borg can’t adapt.

Most of the exchanges in most of the threads I’ve seen have been based on ideals rather than tactics, but it’s tactics that actually win a fight. Is anyone anywhere talking about effective tactics?

.

There is always talk of splitting the hobby, personally I think that is a good thing, for all of us, and I think if new systems develop and gain sales, WOTC will notice, if Castles and Crusades or other OSR games soar, thdy will notice. If Paizo picks up sales or the new game Kobold press promises is successful, they will notice. Public corporations have to report earnings, so everyone else will notice as well.

And really it's good for the industry and you as a player. In the 90s, before the OGL, we had a lot of options, in a lot of genres. A lot of people like WOD, way too dark for my tastes at the time, but it was largely modern horror. Shadowrun was another big game, combining cyberpunk with urban fantasy, and it worked surprisingly well. I got into the Star Wars RPG in D6 in the late eighties or early 90s, and I played a bit of mechwarrior, which was fairly successful. There were a large number of other games, as well.

The OGL seemed to be a way of getting into more than just the type of high fantasy setting DnD did, but without making the mistake earlier companies did by trying to maintain multiple inhouse systems (TSR had not only DnD but FASERIP and a few variations, WEG had D6, but they also had Masterbook and Paranoia. FASA had a different syst for each game).

D20 tried to do all these other genres, it did not do them well, IMO. If you like DnD the hobby being split is still good for you, WOTC will have to work harder to compete, and will be incentivized to make better--and from what I am hearing more--products. The new edition does high fantasy well from what I can tell. And I think it is inevitable, some of us like more varieties of genre.

So ultimately I think splitting the hobby at this point is inevitable, but it's not a bad thing. Try a few things, it may get you what you want, and you will likely have fun along the way.

Palanan

2023-01-20, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rynjin
I'm not sure what you're looking for here….

We need Luke Skywalker.

Seriously. Friend of mine is with a group who recently got Mark Hamill to comment on a very different issue. Can’t discuss that here, but there is a connection with D20 Star Wars. That would certainly keep this in the news.

Originally Posted by Snowbluff
I did say you should do the survey even if you think it's fake. I'm not saying don't do other things, but you shouldn't discount it.

I’m sure it’s a real survey, and I’m also sure it’s meant to allow people to fill it out, vent a little, and go to bed feeling like they’ve Made A DifferenceTM.

But I fully expect this is just a tactic to allow the community to burn off some energy, feel like they’ve contributed, and go back to their regular lives. Unless WotC agrees to publish the full text of every response, there’s no way to verify—and no reason to believe—anything they tell us about the results.

And absolutely no reason to believe anyone is even reading the responses, much less factoring them into the next "iteration."

.

Liquor Box

2023-01-20, 11:42 PM

Something which is within someone's own interests is not necessarily by that nature fair or not worthy of a scandal.

Doing something within it's own interests doesn't disqualify it from being a scandal, but it doesn't by itself make it a scandal (or not fair). I was just replying to those who said "how does its actions benefit me" as if no action can ever be taken that doesn't benefit them personaly.

What, other than WotC acting increase its own profits, do you think makes it not fair or a scandal though?

Yeah, I think ascribing intent is gonna lose points with me on that front.
What do you mean 'ascribing intent'?

Tanarii

2023-01-20, 11:42 PM

Rather than endlessly reiterating that 1.0a can’t be deauthorized, and endlessly rebutting that this can only be settled in court, we need to do something active and visible to keep real pressure on WotC—as effective as the cancellations, but from a different angle. Think of it as rotating phaser frequencies so the Borg can’t adapt.

Most of the exchanges in most of the threads I’ve seen have been based on ideals rather than tactics, but it’s tactics that actually win a fight. Is anyone anywhere talking about effective tactics?
IMO it's too late to stop WotC from doing what they are planning on doing.

Long term is the only option. Most importantly, start building a player base for alternative games both online and offline, especially among new players.

Palanan

2023-01-20, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Tanarii
IMO it's too late to stop WotC from doing what they are planning on doing.

The cancellations already stopped them from implementing their original plan. Something along those same lines can stop the next iteration, but it needs to be done now, rather than waiting for some misty hoped-for future of alternate games.

.

Delicious Taffy

2023-01-20, 11:51 PM

I was just replying to those who said "how does its actions benefit me" as if no action can ever be taken that doesn't benefit them personaly.
You mean the ghosts you invented in your head so you could argue against something nobody ever said? The whole "why should they" spiel only works if anyone was saying "they should".

Rynjin

2023-01-20, 11:55 PM

Doing something within it's own interests doesn't disqualify it from being a scandal, but it doesn't by itself make it a scandal (or not fair). I was just replying to those who said "how does its actions benefit me" as if no action can ever be taken that doesn't benefit them personaly.

What, other than WotC acting increase its own profits, do you think makes it not fair or a scandal though?

Acting to increase your own profits at the expense of everyone else is scandalous behavior. It's scandalous behavior too many people have become numb to, but scandalous all the same.

Brookshw

2023-01-20, 11:58 PM

There is always talk of splitting the hobby, personally I think that is a good thing, for all of us Agreed. I appreciated the broad spectrum of games available in the early 90s once the industry was a bit developed and would like to see a sort of renaissance movement, the ORC may not be good for that, but there is something to be said for compatibility and easy of entry.

Shadowrun was another big game, combining cyberpunk with urban fantasy, and it worked surprisingly well.

I have tried to like that game so many times, but every time its the decking that ruins it for me.

Acting to increase your own profits at the expense of everyone else is scandalous behavior. It's scandalous behavior too many people have become numb to, but scandalous all the same.

Depends on the level of expense, personally I don't find this to be ruinous, or evenly mildly inconvenient. If anything I've gained out of this whole thing with other publishers working on new systems which I may enjoy. If you're heavily invested in 3PP, obviously its a different level of expense for you.

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 12:03 AM

Acting to increase your own profits at the expense of everyone else is scandalous behavior. It's scandalous behavior too many people have become numb to, but scandalous all the same.

So every business is scandalous? The local plumber is making enough, so increases his hourly rate - scandalous? I think that's a stretch.

You mean the ghosts you invented in your head so you could argue against something nobody ever said? The whole "why should they" spiel only works if anyone was saying "they should".

So do you think they should?

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-21, 12:05 AM

.
I have tried to like that game so many times, but every time its the decking that ruins it for me.
Their rules need to be hacked through quite a bit, I never did do much with it, and 4e and 5e made those problems worse, IMO, no idea what they did in 6e, but there are a lot of complaints. But there are die hard shadowrun fans and some of the novels were pretty good.

Rynjin

2023-01-21, 12:06 AM

So every business is scandalous? The local plumber is making enough, so increases his hourly rate - scandalous? I think that's a stretch.

If you're going to make metaphors, make ones that are a little better, please. You and I both know these are not equivalent scenarios, and "at the expense of someone else" has a meaning outside the literal.

Snowbluff

2023-01-21, 12:07 AM

What do you mean 'ascribing intent'?

The Foundry statement, not what you said. They imply that WotC is trying to intentionally harm them. I might be overly cautious about these kinda statements, but I've been through fake leaks and people support fake leaks despite knowing they are fake because it suits their purposes. These kinda things simply create a more hostile environment less conducive to a functioning discussion.

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 12:10 AM

If you're going to make metaphors, make ones that are a little better, please. You and I both know these are not equivalent scenarios, and "at the expense of someone else" has a meaning outside the literal.

It's not as metaphor. You said "Acting to increase your own profits at the expense of everyone else is scandalous behavior." I was just pointing out that by your logic everyone who sells their services or something they make for a profit is scandalous. A plumber increasing their charges comes at the expense of their customers - the customers are worse off because they have to pay more for plumbing services.

I'm not sure I do know what you meant by "at the expense of someone else". How do you think WotC's actions are at people's expense in a way that is different from a host of other ordinary businesses who withdraw products or increase prices etc?

The Foundry statement, not what you said. They imply that WotC is trying to intentionally harm them. I might be overly cautious about these kinda statements, but I've been through fake leaks and people support fake leaks despite knowing they are fake because it suits their purposes. These kinda things simply create a more hostile environment less conducive to a functioning discussion.

Yeah well, as I said, businesses like Foundry and WotC will try to spin things a way that benefits themselves - not ideal but realistic. Foundry's might be a bit worse because it is casting aspersion at others I guess.

Rynjin

2023-01-21, 12:16 AM

It's not as metaphor. You said "Acting to increase your own profits at the expense of everyone else is scandalous behavior." I was just pointing out that by your logic everyone who sells their services or something they make for a profit is scandalous. A plumber increasing their charges comes at the expense of their customers - the customers are worse off because they have to pay more for plumbing services.

I'm not sure I do know what you meant by "at the expense of someone else". How do you think WotC's actions are at people's expense in a way that is different from a host of other ordinary businesses who withdraw products or increase prices etc?

I will assume this is a question asked in good faith and you do not actually know what this phrase means.

First, a definition:

at the expense of
phrase of expense
so as to cause harm to or neglect of.
"the pursuit of profit at the expense of the environment"

Now that we have defined the term, an expansion:

"At the expense of" does not imply that literally it is an expense another person has to pay, like money.

Your metaphor would be more accurate if the plumber had, over the last 20 years, formed an amicable business relationship with other plumbers in the region and then, without warning, put something in motion to freeze them out of the industry.

This is duplicitous and two-faced behavior. This is good for the plumber, but comes at the expense of other people.

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 12:21 AM

I will assume this is a question asked in good faith and you do not actually know what this phrase means.

First, a definition:

Now that we have defined the term, an expansion:

"At the expense of" does not imply that literally it is an expense another person has to pay, like money.

Your metaphor would be more accurate if the plumber had, over the last 20 years, formed an amicable business relationship with other plumbers in the region and then, without warning, put something in motion to freeze them out of the industry.

This is duplicitous and two-faced behavior. This is good for the plumber, but comes at the expense of other people.

So you mean causing harm over and above just delivering a less desirable product or charging more?

I take it you are referring to the idea that WotC might somehow freeze out competition? But wasn't that something that you were saying you didn't trust them to not do? So it is not now a scandal, you just think it may possibly become one?

As for the plumber, it depends how he does the freezing out - some ways are ok, some are not.

Tanarii

2023-01-21, 12:28 AM

The cancellations already stopped them from implementing their original plan.
Did it? Their original plan to replace the existing OGL continues. I don't see anything significant has changed.

Delicious Taffy

2023-01-21, 12:40 AM

So do you think they should?
That's not a question that matters. I never said they should or shouldn't do anything or offered any opinion about that. I asked if this specific thing does benefit me, the player of the game itself. "Should" isn't a worth with value in this scenario. The question was "Does it or not", and the answer I got (which I was very satisfied with, lest you hound in on that too) was a resounding "Not at all, it's pretty much irrelevant to regular players". Then you brought up this "should" concept for reasons known only to yourself.

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 12:48 AM

That's not a question that matters. I never said they should or shouldn't do anything or offered any opinion about that. I asked if this specific thing does benefit me, the player of the game itself. "Should" isn't a worth with value in this scenario. The question was "Does it or not", and the answer I got (which I was very satisfied with, lest you hound in on that too) was a resounding "Not at all, it's pretty much irrelevant to regular players". Then you brought up this "should" concept for reasons known only to yourself.

I know, I asked you if you think it should because that was I thought your question implied (you and another poster, whose reply suggested I was spot on). You've chosen not to answer saying it doesn't matter, so not confirmed or denied that's what you were implying.

How do you think the question of whether it benefits matters to the general conversation? Is it just because you were curious for your own benefit?

Delicious Taffy

2023-01-21, 01:01 AM

I know, I asked you if you think it should because that was I thought your question implied. You've chosen not to answer saying it doesn't matter, so not confirmed or denied that's what you were implying.

I don't need to "confirm or deny" anything to do with this nebulous "should". It simply does not matter. Kindly drop it.

How do you think the question of whether it benefits matters to the general conversation?

I don't "think the question benefits matters". What are you even talking about? Your understanding of what I said is so fundamentally detached from the words, I don't even know where to begin engaging with it.

Is it just because you were curious for your own benefit?
Why yes, I did ask a question out of simple, basic curiosity. And it was answered very clearly. All is extra baggage is yours, not mine. Please quit trying to get me to carry it.

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 01:06 AM

I don't need to "confirm or deny" anything to do with this nebulous "should". It simply does not matter. Kindly drop it.

I don't "think the question benefits matters". What are you even talking about? Your understanding of what I said is so fundamentally detached from the words, I don't even know where to begin engaging with it.

Why yes, I did ask a question out of simple, basic curiosity. And it was answered very clearly. All is extra baggage is yours, not mine. Please quit trying to get me to carry it.

No worries. So you only asked for own curiosity. Given that there was no implication that whether it benefitted you was relevant to WotC decision, then no further questions from me.

Segev

2023-01-21, 01:10 AM

I'm generally pro-business and not at all anti-capitalism or anti-profit. This is absolutely accurate.

It's sometimes hard to see because good businesses work hard to disguise it in the hopes that their customers will be fooled into thinking they care.Technically, the good businesses don't have to try to hide that they care about the product and service and customer, because they recognize that caring about those things is caring about making profit and being sustainable. Enlightened self-interest, and all that.

If you don't think the remedies I proposed prevent that, then we can leave it there, I have nothing else to suggest.I do! Don't put that clause in. Don't accept the clause, and don't use v. 1.2 of the license if it's in there. Same with the "deauthorize" nonsense.

Again, good luck with that. *scrub the post, scrub the quote*Perhaps. *scrubbed*

Hey look, I'll save you some time - well, not really since you already typed the rest of that, but still... yes, I'm well aware this could one day in the distant or even not-so-distant future be weaponized by execs with an opposite view to mine now, e.g. bigots taking over and yanking the license from inclusive publishers. I'm aware that such a phenomenon could take place. I'm rolling the dice on that anyway, happily, because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me. Easiest calculus of my life.That's... a chilling position to take. I don't think I can explain why without breaking forum rules, but suffice it to say we have a fundamental disagreement about entrusting power to unaccountable people.

Atranen

2023-01-21, 01:11 AM

Snowbluff

2023-01-21, 01:19 AM

DnD Beyond FAQ about 1.2 OGL and CC (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1433-ogl-1-2-where-to-find-the-latest-information-plus)

Oh they're looking at older editions for CC and OGL.

Hello, myself. I'm going to give a write in for 4th edition as well. Might as well take a shot at that one, I know everyone seems to hate GSL.

Well, that would be a capital idea, myself.

Yeah well, as I said, businesses like Foundry and WotC will try to spin things a way that benefits themselves - not ideal but realistic. Foundry's might be a bit worse because it is casting aspersion at others I guess.

Yep. There is potential this could give rise to online abuse/harassment, which is why I'm weary of this sort of speech. We saw some of that with the alleged leaks a few days ago.

NichG

2023-01-21, 02:01 AM

thethird

2023-01-21, 02:23 AM

Hello, myself. I'm going to give a write in for 4th edition as well. Might as well take a shot at that one, I know everyone seems to hate GSL.

Well, that would be a capital idea, myself.

As you have said already (and I agree) availability of older editions is a necessary thing. Having 4th edition there would be something new (and thus better) even if probably not that many people play 4th anymore. But 4th being so videogame-y might have merit to explore further with a focus on VTT.

That said I still believe (and as far as I understand so do you) that being able to reference names of classes/feats/races/spells etc would be much appreciated in the CC.

EggKookoo

2023-01-21, 06:01 AM

Technically, the good businesses don't have to try to hide that they care about the product and service and customer, because they recognize that caring about those things is caring about making profit and being sustainable. Enlightened self-interest, and all that.

I always think of it as long- vs. short-term thinking. Good companies want a way to keep profits coming, even if that profit-per-time-unit is a little lower. Bad companies want all the profit now.

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 06:17 AM

I always think of it as long- vs. short-term thinking. Good companies want a way to keep profits coming, even if that profit-per-time-unit is a little lower. Bad companies want all the profit now.

I would have thought that Wizard's move was probably a more long term strategic move, sacrificing some short term profit. They must have known there'd be some backlash and short term pain with this option.

Unoriginal

2023-01-21, 06:35 AM

No, I wouldn't; that should be abundantly clear by now.

Then you have me confused.

You're now saying that accepting the new-OGL-proposals is better than keeping the old OGL, despite all the OGL-proposals giving WotC the full power to decide and annihilate works they do not want included, something you bolded as not being your position.

Either you support keeping the old OGL for now and until WotC makes a proposal which does not give them full power, or you support giving them full power.

"I'm supporting the contract that gives them full power but would add something to limit said power if I could" is just saying "I'm supporting the contract that gives them full power".

MonochromeTiger

2023-01-21, 07:02 AM

I would have thought that Wizard's move was probably a more long term strategic move, sacrificing some short term profit. They must have known there'd be some backlash and short term pain with this option.

Not necessarily. You don't need to be particularly socially aware or capable of thinking through your actions to get to a decision making role in a company. It's just as open to chance, charisma or false expectations replacing merit, and "failing upward" as anything else.

"We need to wring more money out of this business that board members keep saying is worth so much more than we're getting" really doesn't require the slightest hint of understanding or interest in how the community that business sells to will react. It just requires knowing there's the potential for money and picking a way to act on it then hoping it works out. Out of all of this the fact that they had the backlash they did then chose an initial response that was really a false apology mixed with "nuh uh we didn't lose we totally meant to do this the whole time" doesn't speak highly of their foresight. Given that long term gain over short term gain is a minority view in corporate culture I have doubts they've got some grand plan worked out that accounts for all the variables and find it much more likely they saw something they thought could cut out other companies from the initial money from the new edition and then crossed their fingers and said "this will probably work out fine."

Liquor Box

2023-01-21, 07:16 AM

Not necessarily. You don't need to be particularly socially aware or capable of thinking through your actions to get to a decision making role in a company. It's just as open to chance, charisma or false expectations replacing merit, and "failing upward" as anything else.

This is simply not true. If it were that easy, everyone would do it. I do not for a moment think that members of this forum (or the community generally) are as well positioned regarding knowledge, judgment or market awareness as the executives/directors of the companies that actually participate in the market. Thinking we know business better than those who do it for a living makes no more sense than thinking we know medicine better than doctors, the law better than lawyers, or farming better than a farmer.

That is before you even factor in that the executives will have taken expert advice and are not merely relying on their own feel for things, and they of course are intimately familiar with their own performance and revenues to date. Frankly, it is a little bit silly for us to think we know Wizard's situation and what is best for it than it knows itself.

That's not to say that it is impossible that they will turn out to be wrong. Possibly this business decision wasn't the best for them (we will probably never know). But they'd have a much better chance of predicting that than we would.

EggKookoo

2023-01-21, 07:33 AM

I would have thought that Wizard's move was probably a more long term strategic move, sacrificing some short term profit. They must have known there'd be some backlash and short term pain with this option.

I don't think any of this is WotC's decision.

To address your point, though, yes, it could be viewed as that. But "term" doesn't always just mean span of time. I'm sure Hasbro sees the OGL itself as a bad thing in the long term.

Long/short-term decisions are more about the implications of the decision, rather than the length of time they have to play out. Hasbro/WotC apparently think they'll come out on top of this "in the end" (whatever that means). No one can know, and the state of tabletop RPG is not like it was in 2000 or even 2008. Smaller companies have way more collective leverage than before.

Unoriginal

2023-01-21, 07:36 AM

This is simply not true. If it were that easy, everyone would do it. I do not for a moment think that members of this forum (or the community generally) are as well positioned regarding knowledge, judgment or market awareness as the executives/directors of the companies that actually participate in the market. Thinking we know business better than those who do it for a living makes no more sense than thinking we know medicine better than doctors, the law better than lawyers, or farming better than a farmer.

That is before you even factor in that the executives will have taken expert advice and are not merely relying on their own feel for things, and they of course are intimately familiar with their own performance and revenues to date. Frankly, it is a little bit silly for us to think we know Wizard's situation and what is best for it than it knows itself.

That's not to say that it is impossible that they will turn out to be wrong. Possibly this business decision wasn't the best for them (we will probably never know). But they'd have a much better chance of predicting that than we would.

The higher you are in a company's food chain, the less competent you have to be to keep your job.

That is a provable and proved fact.

Furthermore, the higheryou are in a company, the less you need to be connected with the custommers.

Again, provable and proved fact.

Which means that the corporate suits in charge of making decisions for big, multi-companies businesses do not need to have any idea about to whom they're tryong to sell things, and if they fail they have an endless supply of underlimgs to cushion the blame.

That does not incentivise competency among the corporate suits.

DeMouse

2023-01-21, 07:37 AM

Saintheart

2023-01-21, 07:57 AM

I think "save the TTRPG genre" is a bit much. I'm a big ORC proponent, but I've been upfront that I think WoTC will maintain market dominance despite any OGL changes.

And that will happen because, as I've said before, 1500 publishers all working off the same ruleset but producing competing settings is not likely to produce one distinctive product that grabs significant market share from D&D. Which is part of why WOTC seems confident enough to press on with its' "deauthorising" of the OGL. *scrubbed*

When it comes to market share and "what if", "who's going to be the new Paizo," or "who's got the recognition to challenge WOTC in a clash of settings/rulesets" ... well, hot take here, and just a 'what if', but I'll be very interested in seeing how the Gloomhaven RPG goes later this year. Cephalofair Games is notable by their absence from the ORC horde (of course they might just not be official yet or something ... or they could just have their own proprietary ruleset in mind. Haven't dived deep but haven't seen them weighing in on the OGL, and I think they very distinctly stay clear of the D&D tag in their setting and classes.)

Sure: they've only done tabletop before, and I understand the general view is that Gloomhaven can't match a well-run bog-standard RPG ... but. Recognition matters, and if they manage to build a RPG as engaging and imagination-catching as their boardgames did, then it might not be a smash hit overnight, but they do have a potent audience to build off that gets together around real or virtual tables regularly.

It's not as simple a connection as Paizo made - using their subscription lists from Dragon and Dungeon magazine - but the Kickstarter figures make you take a step back. Frosthaven's Kickstarter got just shy of 13 million in , from over 83,000 people. That is the sort of built-in customer base even Paizo would kill to have. And my guess is they would've seen how WOTC futzed fourth edition with its focus on tactical combat and hopefully learned a lot from it.

As said, it's just an interesting 'what if', and it depends on their RPG being as good an RPG as their tactical boardgames are ... well, tactical boardgames.

MonochromeTiger

2023-01-21, 08:04 AM

This is simply not true. If it were that easy, everyone would do it.

Notice I don't say "it's so simple anyone can do it." I simply say that you don't need to be particularly socially aware or capable of thinking through your actions to get into that kind of position. Which you genuinely don't. There is an element of chance in all things and, quite frankly, having money and the right connections absolutely helps with getting any kind of corporate position.

I've yet to see a business that doesn't regularly have gripes of people showing up, getting put into a high paying influential position based simply off of the fact that they had a high paying influential position elsewhere, then throwing things into chaos and leaving for the next business. Nor can I think of many that aren't prone to higher ups spreading influence around the social circles they're used to navagating.

That isn't saying their executives are incapable or that none of them have business acumen, it's just saying what I said before.

Not necessarily. You don't need to be particularly socially aware or capable of thinking through your actions to get to a decision making role in a company. It's just as open to chance, charisma or false expectations replacing merit, and "failing upward" as anything else.

Nowhere in that is there a specific person named or attributed with the decisions they've made. Nowhere in there is a statement that this is absolutely the reason behind their decision. What is in there is the fact that just being in a position to make a decision isn't the same as always thinking through every aspect of that decision.

I do not for a moment think that members of this forum (or the community generally) are as well positioned regarding knowledge, judgment or market awareness as the executives/directors of the companies that actually participate in the market. Thinking we know business better than those who do it for a living makes no more sense than thinking we know medicine better than doctors, the law better than lawyers, or farming better than a farmer.

You might also notice I don't include "and I could've done this so much better" at any point. Nor do I say "they should make me an executive and I'll fix everything" or "if I was in charge I'd never make any mistakes." I do not claim superiority in business dealings, I simply point out that people can make financial decisions, even from the upper levels of a multi billion dollar company, without much concern for community backlash or long term effects.

That is before you even factor in that the executives will have taken expert advice and are not merely relying on their own feel for things

Been advised? Sure. Taken all of the advice into serious consideration? That's as much an assumption as anything I'm saying. Short of knowing exactly who made the call on this I wouldn't even say they did or didn't as fact. Even then I'd need an account from somebody who was in the room at the time.

and they of course are intimately familiar with their own performance and revenues to date. Frankly, it is a little bit silly for us to think we know Wizard's situation and what is best for it than it knows itself.

Again, I don't claim to know its situation and what's best for it better than it does. Even if I did that doesn't make me immune to human error or the possibility of making a decision and following through on it through stubbornness or pride. Things that aren't exactly uncommon in business.

That said as @EggKookoo says I doubt this was WotC making the decision and instead it was likely Hasbro making a sweeping decision.

That's not to say that it is impossible that they will turn out to be wrong. Possibly this business decision wasn't the best for them (we will probably never know). But they'd have a much better chance of predicting that than we would.

Alternatively they'd know that business in general is a risk and might simply feel they've got enough stability to weather the results if it doesn't work out. Seriously I'm not saying I have insight into the mind of the person who made the decision, but I am absolutely cautioning against assuming perfect decision making and years spanning planning simply on the grounds of being in a position to decide something like this.

Businesses are complex, they aren't immune to people making mistakes or being given too much credit. If anything the larger the business the more likely those are simply due to statistics. Hasbro isn't the biggest business out there but it's still big and right now WotC seem to be juggling controversies between D&D and Magic the Gathering which are both commonly attributed to Hasbro's oversight and influence. I'm not saying that this is absolutely someone poking something they shouldn't without thinking it through but I am saying that's a possibility that shouldn't be discounted.

Unoriginal

2023-01-21, 08:24 AM

Notice I don't say "it's so simple anyone can do it." I simply say that you don't need to be particularly socially aware or capable of thinking through your actions to get into that kind of position. Which you genuinely don't. There is an element of chance in all things and, quite frankly, having money and the right connections absolutely helps with getting any kind of corporate position.

I've yet to see a business that doesn't regularly have gripes of people showing up, getting put into a high paying influential position based simply off of the fact that they had a high paying influential position elsewhere, then throwing things into chaos and leaving for the next business. Nor can I think of many that aren't prone to higher ups spreading influence around the social circles they're used to navagating.

That isn't saying their executives are incapable or that none of them have business acumen, it's just saying what I said before.

Nowhere in that is there a specific person named or attributed with the decisions they've made. Nowhere in there is a statement that this is absolutely the reason behind their decision. What is in there is the fact that just being in a position to make a decision isn't the same as always thinking through every aspect of that decision.

You might also notice I don't include "and I could've done this so much better" at any point. Nor do I say "they should make me an executive and I'll fix everything" or "if I was in charge I'd never make any mistakes." I do not claim superiority in business dealings, I simply point out that people can make financial decisions, even from the upper levels of a multi billion dollar company, without much concern for community backlash or long term effects.

Been advised? Sure. Taken all of the advice into serious consideration? That's as much an assumption as anything I'm saying. Short of knowing exactly who made the call on this I wouldn't even say they did or didn't as fact. Even then I'd need an account from somebody who was in the room at the time.

Again, I don't claim to know its situation and what's best for it better than it does. Even if I did that doesn't make me immune to human error or the possibility of making a decision and following through on it through stubbornness or pride. Things that aren't exactly uncommon in business.

That said as @EggKookoo says I doubt this was WotC making the decision and instead it was likely Hasbro making a sweeping decision.

Alternatively they'd know that business in general is a risk and might simply feel they've got enough stability to weather the results if it doesn't work out. Seriously I'm not saying I have insight into the mind of the person who made the decision, but I am absolutely cautioning against assuming perfect decision making and years spanning planning simply on the grounds of being in a position to decide something like this.

Businesses are complex, they aren't immune to people making mistakes or being given too much credit. If anything the larger the business the more likely those are simply due to statistics. Hasbro isn't the biggest business out there but it's still big and right now WotC seem to be juggling controversies between D&D and Magic the Gathering which are both commonly attributed to Hasbro's oversight and influence. I'm not saying that this is absolutely someone poking something they shouldn't without thinking it through but I am saying that's a possibility that shouldn't be discounted.

Another aspect is that business people tend tonmake decisions that seem good to other business people, rather than to customers or other positions in the company.

Example: the movie "Mars Needs Moms" tanked, the suits thought it was because audiences did not want Mars-based movies. So they made sure the advertising of John Carter of Mars did not show it was a Mars-based movie... and removed most of the advertising in the process.

From a business point of view, it makes sense, you're protecting your investment by not letting people see what you think they do not want to see. From any other point of view, it's a ridiculous course of action based on the unsubstanciated idea that people did not want Mars-based movies.

You can see that again and again in the movie industry.

EggKookoo

2023-01-21, 08:44 AM

You can see that again and again in the movie industry.

A lot of that has to do with the middle-management buffering you see in big companies, which relates to your "food chain" comment upthread.

Middle management, by and large, produces nothing. It functions as a conduit between the bigwig execs that control the money, and the foot soldiers doing the actual work. The creates a fuzziness between corporate decisions and actions.

OldTrees1

2023-01-21, 10:39 AM

I filled out the survey and it mentioned the results will be shown on Feb 17th.

I was pleasantly surprised it did not require a D&DBeyond account.

I expect the survey submissions will be distributed across the window.

Edit: Wow this thread exploded (the pages doubled since I last read it)

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-21, 10:50 AM

Thinking about it, leaving aside all the recriminations, here's where I stand.

Pre-1.1 leak: 5e was my jam. Wasn't planning on going to OneD&D, but that for purely content reasons.
Post 1.1, pre 1.2: Planning to abandon D&D and OGL games entirely once current campaigns finished. Yeah, I felt that strongly about it.
Post 1.2: 1.2 is still unacceptable as it stands. But moving the core system into CC means that I can strike a balance. Things I'd need to do to have a fully functioning, 5e-like system:

* Races. Done. Already, actually. Just not implemented as required.
* Classes. Partially done. But I can start small with just the ones my players want to play.
* Spells and spellcasting. This is the big one. Thankfully, D&D spellcasting is already the weakest point for me and something I wanted to completely overhaul anyway. And I have a partial implementation of a ritual system that replaces a chunk of the non-combat spells anyway.
* Items. These are stupidly generic and easily replaceable and I tended to do custom ones anyway.
* Monsters. I tended to homebrew a lot of those, and since the core is similar, I can continue to use 3PP and official 5e monsters in my own games, just not publishing them.

So basically, I'll do exactly what they didn't want to happen--fork the game. An opportunity to make the changes I've wanted to make, experiment with some things. Since I have little plans to actually publish this for general use, I can be much more selective about content and just leave gaps.

EggKookoo

2023-01-21, 11:09 AM

Post 1.2: 1.2 is still unacceptable as it stands. But moving the core system into CC means that I can strike a balance.

Can someone with more caffeinated brain cells than me explain what it means to move the core system to Creative Commons? Does that essentially put the current SRD out of WotC's reach?

Snowbluff

2023-01-21, 11:18 AM

As you have said already (and I agree) availability of older editions is a necessary thing. Having 4th edition there would be something new (and thus better) even if probably not that many people play 4th anymore. But 4th being so videogame-y might have merit to explore further with a focus on VTT.

That said I still believe (and as far as I understand so do you) that being able to reference names of classes/feats/races/spells etc would be much appreciated in the CC.
Ye!

Can someone with more caffeinated brain cells than me explain what it means to move the core system to Creative Commons? Does that essentially put the current SRD out of WotC's reach?

*scrubbed* I think so? It's not the whole SRD, however. Their specific classes, spells, and races as they've expressed them are still OGL if you want to use them. thethird and I've been talking about adding the ability to refer to said spells and classes at least so new subclasses (of OGL classes) and classes (spellcasting) can at least pull from what is current OGL without reprinting it.

Tanarii

2023-01-21, 11:47 AM

This is simply not true. If it were that easy, everyone would do it.It is very true that that corporations regularly promote folks above their capabilities. It's far more the norm than not the norm. And "everyone" does do it, to the extent there are regular management slots becoming available. And once you've got the title, you can take it to the next place and they have no clue how successful or not you were. This goes especially for c-levels, who just have to sell themselves to a board regardless of actual previous success metrics.

And due to the pressures to delegate and not micromanage (which is a good thing to learn in theory) any title of director or above strongly lends itself to being out of touch with what happens at the ground level if they aren't very careful about it.

I do not for a moment think that members of this forum (or the community generally) are as well positioned regarding knowledge, judgment or market awareness as the executives/directors of the companies that actually participate in the market.
Some of us are positioned very well regarding the typical knowledge, judgement, and customer awareness of executives/directors in big corporations.

The higher you are in a company's food chain, the less competent you have to be to keep your job.

That is a provable and proved fact.

Furthermore, the higheryou are in a company, the less you need to be connected with the custommers.

Again, provable and proved fact.Much more succinctly said than I. And yeah, director level executives can and do buck the trend regularly. But c-levels that do it are fairly rare.

But it's by certain measures of competency. C-levels often very good at dealing with investors or vendors in their area of expertise for example, and have absolutely no qualms about making important decisions with full knowledge at any time they might blow up in their face. (Oh, and they're often utterly charming in person :smallamused: )

EggKookoo

2023-01-21, 12:00 PM

It is very true that that corporations regularly promote folks above their capabilities. It's far more the norm than not the norm. And "everyone" does do it, to the extent there are regular management slots becoming available. And once you've got the title, you can take it to the next place and they have no clue how successful or not you were. This goes especially for c-levels, who just have to sell themselves to a board regardless of actual previous success metrics.

In my experience, Price's Law is very much a thing. In most of corporate America, that manifests as middle manager bloat.

Tanarii

2023-01-21, 12:08 PM

In my experience, Price's Law is very much a thing. In most of corporate America, that manifests as middle manager bloat.
Don't get me wrong. Skilled management, including executive level, absolutely can enhance the productivity of their direct reports by more than the total of their own time dedicated to managing of some kind, as opposed to personally doing the work. And most folks are very risk averse to making important decisions, so someone needs to.

It's just that being out of touch and sending down crazy directives from on high is far more the norm than not. It's all about if they have the ability to listen to internal pushback before it bites them on the ass. And cultivating a corporate culture that encourages that pushback when they're being crazy.

Ashtagon

2023-01-21, 12:16 PM

Unoriginal

2023-01-21, 12:17 PM

It is very true that that corporations regularly promote folks above their capabilities. It's far more the norm than not the norm.

Absolutely true.

Decades ago, it was due to the widespread happening of the Peter Principle: people who were good at X task where promoted to a position where they had to do Y task, and if they were also good at Y task they got promoted to Z task, etc.This meant that people stayed in the position where they ended up having not enough skills to master.

The typical example: being a good engineer and being good at leading a team of engineers are two different skillsets, meaning that if you promote your best engineer to team leader you now have your best engineer no longer doimg engineerimg and a newbie team leader who may not be good at leading. If they do prove to be good at leading a team and you promote them again to a position where they suppervise all your teams, you now are out of your best engineer and a good team leader, and have a supervisor for all your teams who may not be goodat the job. Etc.

Businesses eventually noticed, and it gave rise to the widespread happening of the Dilbert Principle: since promoting the one who is best at X to do Y is bad, then promoting the one who is worst at X to do Y and let the people who are good at X do X will work out. This backfired, as not only being incompetemt at X did not mean they were any more competent at Y, but Y generally gace them authority over those doing X. Meaning that those doing X either had to ignore those doing Y, or obey people incompetent at X telling them how to do X.

Typical example: the least competent engineer is promoted to team leader. Now the engineering team has to obey someone who is notgood at engineeringor spend risks and efforts disobeying them.

Businesses eventually realizef that it was bad, and decided to solve the issue by no longer promoting internally as much as before, and instead hiring peoplewho were formed for Y to do Y or had the job of doing Y in a different company and let those formed to do X do X. It backfired, as if under the Dilbert Principle people making the decisions may have been bad at task X, they still knew task X, now those doing task Y no longer know how task X works.

Typical example: an engineering team has someone who did business school and knows nothing of engineering as team leader.

Brookshw

2023-01-21, 12:25 PM

The next time you are there, please, inquire for more information and perhaps a source.

Was able to connect with the store owner. Apparently it's something going around on certain retailer forums. Until I see something further, I'm leaving it in the tin foil hat category.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-21, 12:47 PM

I have opinions about the fact that they are deauthorizing OGL1.0 for their old editions instead of simply going with new OGL wording for their next edition but honestly I don't think it really matters. Despite there being creatives who work for WOTC at the end of the day the way it operates is as a corporation not a creative and for a corporation money is the primary goal. Last time they tried to go a different way but leave the old license in place was 4e and we all saw how that went. Even if leaving the old OGL in place for old editions is the fair and moral thing to do that just doesn't matter to a corporate entity.

My biggest hope is that the effect of this OGL controversy is a wider range of TTRPG systems getting attention. The way things were D&D ate up a lot of the creative juices out there and made it hard for great alternatives to get any attention unless they were attached to a pre-existing IP like Star Wars or 40k. For example I am a massive fan of the Genesys system but while it hasn't died it has a miniscule presence among TTRPG players despite being far more fun and interesting than D&D and it having the advantage of working for more than just fantasy settings. I'll be interested to see how this all shakes out over the next few months.

My initial thought was this is an anticompetitive practice, if they put races that are common to literature, basic classes, monsters that are common in followed, *scrubbed*, then I will reassess that view.

But, the next bit of competition they need to worry about isn't going to be another game doing another high fantasy system, 5e from what I can tell does that type of setting pretty well, and name recognition will be important. The next competition they might want to sue would be the next Shadowrun or Traveller, because fads change and the high fantasy fad is running long in the tooth, and DnD isn't really a great toolbox system.

And as a D6 Star Wars fan, I have the same hopes, though we've had periods when I thought D6 had a chance for a comeback.

Segev

2023-01-21, 01:49 PM

My initial thought was this is an anticompetitive practice, if they put races that are common to literature, basic classes, monsters that are common in followed, *scrub the post, scrub the quote*, then I will reassess that view.

Ironically, I think it would be feasible to release an "Elf" race that uses the creative commons core rules, and then by adding in +2 Dexterity, and rewording other features or assigning slightly different ones, it's fine and dandy.

I could be wrong. *scrubbed* But....let's see what Paizo and others do.

Rynjin

2023-01-21, 02:12 PM

Ironically, I think it would be feasible to release an "Elf" race that uses the creative commons core rules, and then by adding in +2 Dexterity, and rewording other features or assigning slightly different ones, it's fine and dandy.

I could be wrong. *scrub the post, scrub the quote* But....let's see what Paizo and others do.

*scrubbed*

warty goblin

2023-01-21, 02:14 PM

I asked upthread but I think the question got lost in the fast-moving thread.

1) They have assigned certain content to CC. But they also include a mechanism in which the entire licence can be revoked. *scrub the post, scrub the quote*

2) Given the basic principle that games rules can't be copyrighted, to what extent is the content that they have assigned to CC actually copyrightable in the first place?

This should in no way be construed as advice, merely my own flawed understanding.

The material that they are proposing to release under CC is going to be usable by anyone, for anything, and Wizards can't do anything to you. The CC licensed content can be modified, sold, or whatever, without constraint. The CC license is irrevocable, once WoTC issues material under it, they cannot get it back, ever, nor can they revoke anybody's right to use it. The license that is revocable is for stuff like specific classes, spells, monsters and so on.

*scrubbed*

The way this relates to their whole morality cancelation thing is weird to me. You can make absolute filth using the CC rules, have your result be 100% interoperable with D&D, still be using WoTC rules text, and you are totally in the clear. They're in the same boat they are right now with the current OGL. But if there's one owlbear feather in your work, they can nuke it, because you need to agree to the non-CC licensed material for that.

So truly though we walk through the shadow of the valley of 8kun, we shall fear no racist owlbears, for verily I say unto you WoTC hath chosen to be like unto our guardian angel and shall raise up the pussiant shield of the OGL 1.2 and deliver us from iniquity.

But we're still on our own with the D&D compatible but 100% original racist hawkwolves.

Snowbluff

2023-01-21, 02:23 PM

The basic rules they've thinking of puttingvput under CC is stuff that probably can't be copyrighted, or would at least be unclear enough that *scrub the post, scrub the quote*

The way this relates to their whole morality cancelation thing is weird to me. You can make absolute filth using the CC rules, have your result be 100% interoperable with D&D, still be using WoTC rules text, and you are totally in the clear. They're in the same boat they are right now with the current OGL. But if there's one owlbear feather in your work, they can nuke it, because you need to agree to the non-CC licensed material for that.

*scrubbed*

Ashtagon

2023-01-21, 02:44 PM

Sorry, when I referred to the licence being revoked, I wasn't referring specifically to the morality clause (although that is indeed egregious in itself). There are several mechanisms which WotC has left open to deactivate the licence. The morality clause, a licencee challenging part of the overall contract, WotC "discovering" that part of it is unenforceable, and simple "deauthorisation". The last two of these could conceivably deactivate this licence universally for all parties worldwide at once.

Snowbluff

2023-01-21, 02:52 PM

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-21, 03:00 PM

This license does nothing for me, a player and DM. For the moment, it harms me because many creative folks are going elsewhere to publish, and that means that my chances of using D&DOne is massively reduced.

NuTSR: I read a bit of the summary on that clown show (which I was not aware of) and when I got to the part about the gutter-insult to Tim Kask, I can only say that I wish those tools nothing but the worst outcome. It was interesting to see that little to no product has been released anyway.

As to the survey, my session timed out (wife summoned me, and I had to do a few things around the house, then I got back to the PC) ... when I opened the survey it told me I had already filled out the survey.
Which I had not.

Typical WotC craphouse implementation.

I suspect that I'll be able to do this via other means, but for the time being, they have earned a further amount of negative feedback for their sloppiness.

A lady I know at work (and whom I have helped as a DM a few times while she grows her campaign and game world) wants to put together a movie party when the movie comes out. I'll probably support her, since I am going to see it anyway, but at the moment I am not encouraging anyone in my D&D circle (which is a few dozen people) to support it.

As to the OGL:
The "I'll know it when I see it" attitude as regards content in 6f is, among other things, extraneous given para 6e. (Which forbids illegal content, and which I support). 6f is not only over- the-top-subjective, it is changeable over time such that an objective measure of what is or is not a violation is a never ending legal ambush waiting to happen.

It is also profoundly hypocritical, given that the product this company sells deals in murder, assassination, mind control through magic, grave robbing, robbery, coercion through intimidation, and a lot else that is profoundly unsavory in their game mechanics and in the style of play.

*scrubbed*

I do agree on this aspect: *scrubbed* I understand their concerns under that risk assessment. (My son-in-law is in the music industry, 'nuff said).

There is no need to bully third party content providers just because of that fact.

EDIT: yes, survey finally completed.

Psyren

2023-01-21, 03:46 PM

I was just replying to those who said "how does its actions benefit me" as if no action can ever be taken that doesn't benefit them personally.

Yeah that was a headscratcher for me too.

I think "save the TTRPG genre" is a bit much. I'm a big ORC proponent, but I've been upfront that I think WoTC will maintain market dominance despite any OGL changes.

I agree with you on that, but I'm going one step further. I believe ORC will end up containing its own fair share of unpopular provisions, even its final version. Not as many as a license designed primarily to protect one large player, but at least some.

I mean, ORC doesn't even exist, how am I supposed to support it? It's been made clear to me by other TTRPGers I know that it's not like people can't readily make CC license themselves.

Depending on what's actually in it, I could see it being used to clone Paizo's poor game design to other systems, and also maybe lead to more industry stagnation akin to what I've seen people characterize OGL 1.0's influence as. I don't see an upside other than the admittedly cute acronym.

^ That too.

I do! Don't put that clause in. Don't accept the clause, and don't use v. 1.2 of the license if it's in there. Same with the "deauthorize" nonsense.

No and no.

Perhaps. It does look like, if WotC tries to include it, *scrub the post, scrub the quote* to me, too, because we have 20 years of precedent, WotC's own FAQ for at least most of those 20 years, and statements from a honcho who was heavily involved in drafting the OGL saying outright that the intended take-away by anybody using the OGL v. 1.0(a) was that it could not be revoked in any way, no, not even by calling revocation something else.

Then you should be excited about them moving forward with deauthorization, so they can lose a challenge as easily as you believe they will, and 1.0a will thus be safe forever.

That's... a chilling position to take. I don't think I can explain why without breaking forum rules, but suffice it to say we have a fundamental disagreement about entrusting power to unaccountable people.

*scrubbed*

Brookshw

2023-01-21, 03:56 PM

When you couple that with the outrageous *scrub the post, scrub the quote*[/I]

*scrubbed*

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-21, 04:23 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-21, 04:53 PM

This should in no way be construed as advice, merely my own flawed understanding.

The material that they are proposing to release under CC is going to be usable by anyone, for anything, and Wizards can't do anything to you. The CC licensed content can be modified, sold, or whatever, without constraint. The CC license is irrevocable, once WoTC issues material under it, they cannot get it back, ever, nor can they revoke anybody's right to use it. The license that is revocable is for stuff like specific classes, spells, monsters and so on.
*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

The way this relates to their whole morality cancelation thing is weird to me. You can make absolute filth using the CC rules, have your result be 100% interoperable with D&D, still be using WoTC rules text, and you are totally in the clear. They're in the same boat they are right now with the current OGL. But if there's one owlbear feather in your work, they can nuke it, because you need to agree to the non-CC licensed material for that.

So truly though we walk through the shadow of the valley of 8kun, we shall fear no racist owlbears, for verily I say unto you WoTC hath chosen to be like unto our guardian angel and shall raise up the pussiant shield of the OGL 1.2 and deliver us from iniquity.

But we're still on our own with the D&D compatible but 100% original racist hawkwolves.

Exactly. It's why I can't see the "morality clause" as being anything other than a smokescreen/"virtue wash" (pretending to be virtuous when your real goal is either something else or merely appearance)--the existence of the CC stuff means that you actually have less control than OGL 1.0a (with its non-attribution disclaimer clause) had. But you have more control over certain specific things, which is mostly not the sort of things big corporate enemies would take.

Saintheart

2023-01-21, 06:41 PM

Exactly. It's why I can't see the "morality clause" as being anything other than a smokescreen/"virtue wash" (pretending to be virtuous when your real goal is either something else or merely appearance)--the existence of the CC stuff means that you actually have less control than OGL 1.0a (with its non-attribution disclaimer clause) had. But you have more control over certain specific things, which is mostly not the sort of things big corporate enemies would take.

And the choice of what is released to CC is stategic: they basically only want you to have half a system, which you then have to put an immense amount of work into to actually make viable, *scrubbed* if Hazmat thinks your Martial Specialist looks a lot like the Fighter (and with an increasing amount of probability that Hazmat will think so, if by some miracle you produce something more popular and profitable than whatever DBox One is going to contain.)

EggKookoo

2023-01-21, 06:59 PM

And the choice of what is released to CC is stategic: they basically only want you to have half a system, which you then have to put an immense amount of work into to actually make viable, *scrub the post, scrub the quote* if Hazmat thinks your Martial Specialist looks a lot like the Fighter (and with an increasing amount of probability that Hazmat will think so, if by some miracle you produce something more popular and profitable than whatever DBox One is going to contain.)

*scrubbed*

Psyren

2023-01-21, 07:19 PM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

If you're sticking to the CC rather than the OGL then you aren't actually subject to the provisions of the OGL. *scrubbed*

Brookshw

2023-01-21, 07:44 PM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

*scrubbed*

Unoriginal

2023-01-21, 07:53 PM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

*scrubbed*

Brookshw

2023-01-21, 08:20 PM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

*scrubbed*

Imbalance

2023-01-21, 09:14 PM

Was able to connect with the store owner. Apparently it's something going around on certain retailer forums. Until I see something further, I'm leaving it in the tin foil hat category.

Mighty beholden to ye.

Devils_Advocate

2023-01-21, 11:24 PM

But some people seem to be making out like it's something more than that - that there's some sort of great scandal or unfairness here, rather than just several parties (including consumers and WotC) acting in their own interest.
I would have thought the context obvious to anyone who has been following this conversation. "Wizards of the Coast is acting within its rights" is not an uncontroversial opinion. That claim is debatable, and is being debated.

WotC has announced plans to call backsies on something that had no backsies not only as part of its text but as a major part of the reason for its existence. One of the points, if not the point, of the OGL was for others to be able to use some specified stuff in their works without having to worry about Wizards pulling the rug out from under them. So the question isn't whether WotC is acting unethically and in bad faith; they plainly are. The question is whether they have sufficient legal shenanigans, or threat of legal shenanigans, or stonewalling, or whatever, to nullify what everyone including WotC thought they were agreeing to.

Breaking ordinary promises is totally standard expected greedy amoral corporation behavior. Going against an official legal document is different. It's in the mutual interest of a lot of people that that sort of behavior be punished, and I think that it's totally reasonable to on those grounds call for punishing attempts to get away with doing so, whether they're successful or not.

Honestly, though, the hit to their reputation may prove to be punishment enough. There are many sorts of agreements that people are justifiably hesitant to enter into if there's a good chance that the other party won't hold up their end, or will do so only in the form of lawful evil monkey's paw horsecrap. And even if they give up on deauthorization, or fail, we'll still know that they intended to do it, so the deserved loss of trust in the company can't be easily undone. No puttin' that genie back in the bottle.

Segev

2023-01-22, 02:03 AM

No and no.We disagree, obviously.

Then you should be excited about them moving forward with deauthorization, so they can lose a challenge as easily as you believe they will, and 1.0a will thus be safe forever. It will hurt third party production in the meantime, and will harm WotC's standing with Hasbro, possibly leading Hasbro to deciding that, if they can't have their way, they'll just shut the whole thing down. You know, rather than admit that they, in their executive wisdom, might have been wrong about something.

It's not something that needs to happen.

I'm not against WotC's best interests, here.

*scrub the post, scrub the quote**scrubbed*
In short: your remedies you propose are non-remedies. They lead either to my preference that the whole clause be removed *scrubbed*

Trance and fey ancestry are the sticky ones. The rest of generic mechanics. And elves as nimble is super generic."Elves taking a long rest only need to spend 4 hours meditating on their memories." "Due to their fae nature, elves have advantage when rolling saving throws against charm effects. Because they can't sleep, they can't be made to sleep, either."

Psyren

2023-01-22, 03:48 AM

It will hurt third party production in the meantime, and will harm WotC's standing with Hasbro, possibly leading Hasbro to deciding that, if they can't have their way, they'll just shut the whole thing down.

What? You're going to have to explain the bold to me because I'm not seeing it. There's literally no way Hasbro is not in favor of deauthorization, even attempted.

The way you've proposed the remedies? It's impossible.

We disagree, obviously.

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

*scrubbed*

Raven777

2023-01-22, 04:01 AM

So, there are some analysis and replies to the released 1.2 draft already, and "Are they daft" would seem to be the most (only?) appropriate reply. Here's the one from Foundry (https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/).

Gems include:

A blanket "By using Our Licensed Content, you agree to the terms of this license."
Retroactively latching 1.2 on the current 5e 2016 5.1 version of the SRD.
Doubling down on 1.0a deauthorization, including the poison pill of waiving your rights to 1.0a upon accepting 1.2.

This is a dangerous trifecta, because that means you can sabotage yourself by publishing any 5e content going forward.

Enshrining severability of the entire licence at WotC's discretion, at any time.
Allowing WotC to terminate a third party's licence unilaterally and immediately if they decide that there's copyright infringement on material WotC deems theirs outside of the OGL.

What does the "O" in OGL stands for, again?

VTTs are only allowed to replicate and automate the plain "table experience". Anything more, like special effects or animations, makes you an unlicensed "video game" and not a VTT.

In other words, they want competing VTTs to "be good, but not too good".

That's... How on earth are they expecting people to take any of that? Those things are core to the whole riot >.>
I understand the intent is clearly to a) nip a Pathfinder repeat in the bud and b) preempt competition against their own digital efforts, by making a branching of 5e into it's own spinoff impossible. But being able to do just that is what most of the community wants now. Because the bridge is so thoroughly burned that people want an independent 5e-like ruleset. I doubt WotC can ever make anything less go through, now.

Lemmy

2023-01-22, 04:36 AM

Good gods... The part about animations in VTT still baffles me... If that doesn't show how much of a thinly veiled attempt at anti-competitive practices this license is, I don't know what does!

They can try to smoke-screen it as much as they want with their talk of promoting inclusivity and protecting themselves from big corporations... But the terms of the license are so absurdly greedy and tyranical that the smoke screen might as well be a couple grains of dust floating in the air on a breezy day.

Kane0

2023-01-22, 05:00 AM

Satinavian

2023-01-22, 06:13 AM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*OGL 1.0a is an internationally used licence and a significant portion of publishers using it don't even sit in *scrubbed*.

Now we are looking for a replacement that includes a morality clause intentionally left vague. *scrubbed*

The main draw for using OGL 1.0a was always that it meant *scrubbed*

But people will probably just use ORC. It offers the same kinds of security OGL 1.0a did, it gets intentionally drafted to work for many jurisdictions (no, it is not a Paizo only effort) and is in every way far less of a hassle. And if all of that was not appealing enough, it will have significant more rules covered considering how many different systems already are pledged to move there.

Tanarii

2023-01-22, 10:34 AM

We
I'm not against WotC's best interests, here.

Ultimately, that's the problem at hand. Hasbro/WotC are actively acting not only against the interests of 3PPs and their customers, but they're also acting against their own best interests.

EggKookoo

2023-01-22, 11:06 AM

Ultimately, that's the problem at hand. Hasbro/WotC are actively acting not only against the interests of 3PPs and their customers, but they're also acting against their own best interests.

I would say WotC's best interests follow from the best interests of the gaming community. It doesn't determine them. WotC doesn't inherently deserve to thrive (or even survive) more than any other publisher. The idea that WotC should occupy some special social space because D&D was the first TTRPG is spurious at best. Among other things, it fuels the very-debatable (and IMO frankly incorrect) notion that WotC owns certain core elements of TTRPGs, which in turn fuels the idea that *scrubbed*

The OGL had value precisely to the extent that WotC basically ignored it. Now that WotC is claiming actual ownership over it with this updating/deauthorizing stuff, it has gutted it of any value the community might have ascribed to it.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-22, 11:19 AM

One thing that would make the claim that they're really opening up the core system more believable and the material more useful is having a canonical, "clean" copy of the CC material as a separate document.

By clean, I mean both free of anything not CC and also free of annoying formatting. As it is, the PDFs aren't exactly either--they mix CC stuff with examples excluded from CC status (the boundaries of which are very unclear) and have stupid formating tricks that make using it directly in another document painful unless you retype it from scratch.

Gimme a plain text version, a Markdown version, heck, a plain HTML version. PDF is great... For printing. Not so much for reuse, which is the point of CC.

Segev

2023-01-22, 11:31 AM

What? You're going to have to explain the bold to me because I'm not seeing it. There's literally no way Hasbro is not in favor of deauthorization, even attempted.
On my phone, so apologies if my formatting is poor.

*scrubbed*

As opposed to getting through their heads that what they're lying is counterproductive to monetization.

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*
*scrubbed*
Either way, your "remedies" do not achieve the goal you and I agree they are designed to achieve.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-22, 12:17 PM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote**scrubbed*

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-22, 12:55 PM

Ultimately, that's the problem at hand. Hasbro/WotC are actively acting not only against the interests of 3PPs and their customers, but they're also acting against their own best interests.

I was backing out of this, but as I noted, I half jokingly have wondered if some Hasbro execs may not have a shirt position on the stock via an overseas brokerage account. I think some issues with any deauthorization creates a legal thicket-if OGL 1.0a is deauthorized, does that mean similarities between the way C&C handles saving throws and the way 5e handle saving throws creates a problem for WOTC? If I understand it C&C did it first, Troll Lord games won't be signing the 1.2 OGL, and WOTC likewise would not be able to use 1.0a, which means they couldn't continue to use OGC in new products from Troll Lord Games or any other non-WOTC OGC, which is authorized by OGL 1.0a in their products. Trying to figure out what parts of OGC belong to whom, given the use of so many independent design consults may have only one beneficiary--lawyers.

More interestingly I noted similarities between 3.x's skill system and WEG's skills from the revised and expanded rules released in the mid-90s. Interestingly enough, WOTC's development of their own Star Wars licensed products was concurrent with DnD 3.0--both the first edition of Star Wars D20 and DnD 3.0 were released in 2000, and some former WEG Star Wars creators were involved in that project. That was before the OGL or WEG was an open system, but it indicates the real problems for a.lot of these issues with intertwined products being treated as kind of a common set of standards and approaches.

*scrubbed* I tend to think mid-size to large OSR publishers will likely have the most to fear here.

Brookshw

2023-01-22, 01:08 PM

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

*scrubbed* There's a lot of potential hypos that would be fun to discuss (e.g., what happens if someone uses OGL content but doesn't incorporate the license and argues 17 USC 102(b), or 107, etc., if the de-authorization only exists through the contract has WoTC unintentionally incorporated a poison pill against themselves where they won't be able to void 1.2 without restoring 1.0(a)?) It's hard to thread the needle what we can discuss here considering the subject matter.

jjordan

2023-01-22, 01:10 PM

A blanket "By using Our Licensed Content, you agree to the terms of this license."
*scrubbed*

Ashtagon

2023-01-22, 01:59 PM

Pretty sure this is going to be *scrub the post, scrub the quote* and the source of some sort of generic 'This material is NOT published under the WotC OGL or any other licensing agreement' statement that will be attached to a lot of material.

I for one certainly intend on putting such a statement on anything I ever publish in future that is gaming related.

Peelee

2023-01-22, 02:11 PM

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Closed for review.

Peelee

2023-01-23, 08:54 AM

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Re-opening thread. Please remember the guidelines from the opening post, reiterated below (bolding mine):
The Forum Staff have discussed this at length, and we would like to point out the following topics should be avoided:

1) Legal Advice and Opinion (even speculative and theoretical)
2) Real World Politics including discussion of government actions, laws, and regulations, such as copyright and other intellectual property rights
3) Insulting Hasbro/WotC or its employees, some of whom do post or lurk here
4) Insulting others based on their opinions on this issue

Overall, we expect (and will require) a high level of civility in this thread. Expect it to be moderated tightly in hopes that it can be kept in-bounds and peaceful.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-23, 09:28 AM

*scrubbed* There's a lot of potential hypos that would be fun to discuss (e.g., what happens if someone uses OGL content but doesn't incorporate the license and argues 17 USC 102(b), or 107, etc., if the de-authorization only exists through the contract has WoTC unintentionally incorporated a poison pill against themselves where they won't be able to void 1.2 without restoring 1.0(a)?) It's hard to thread the needle what we can discuss here considering the subject matter. Indeed.

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Re-opening thread. Please remember the guidelines from the opening post, reiterated below (bolding mine): I appreciate what you are getting at, but quite frankly, since the survey itself is on topic, and the topic is a draft of a legal document, where you draw the line remains elusive. I accept that it boils down to a judgment call - has to, it's why the mods get extra pay :smallbiggrin:

I believe that we are all making a good faith effort to stay within those guidelines, which are, in implementation, so broad as to be nearly as hard to apply as the draft OGL in question. :smallwink:

On to the topic at hand: once the feedback arrives at WotC-Hasbro's various in-boxes, does another draft get floated for comment, or do they go final internally after having said "Thanks for your interest in RPG publishing" with that tone deaf rhetorical style that their PR team have adopted?

I ask this based on some life experience. I was involved in a lot of staff work (more in the military, but also in corporate America) where drafts get floated around for comment before going final.
How many times that cycle repeats is a function of both organizational culture and who the audience of the finished correspondence actually is.

What we have seen for this particular document is a 1.1 that wasn't ready for prime time, and 1.2 that is also in need of some kind of polish. That admitted as much themselves in that post at DDB.

Tanarii

2023-01-23, 09:52 AM

MoiMagnus

2023-01-23, 09:54 AM

A quite interesting link was dropped in the D&D Beyond thread, and the OGL was mentioned so I think it is relevant to this thread too.

Another vid drop. Take however you will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kGMsZSdbY
If inappropriate, mods please delete.

If the leaks are true, the main target of the OGL changes are all the VTTs (roll20, etc), because to be able to triple the revenue in 5 years, they can't afford to have competition to their upcoming products.

EggKookoo

2023-01-23, 09:57 AM

- what alternative games, if any, are positioned long term to grab market share D&D is losing?

At the same time, there are whole threads on this site that are essentially "I'd like to move away from D&D, what are some good suggestions." Which, taken broadly enough, amount to the same subject.

Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted as "things we shouldn't discuss."

Batcathat

2023-01-23, 09:57 AM

- is it too late for D&D's reputation to be salvaged?

For the people who are vehemently against the proposed changes? Probably.

For the roleplaying community in general? Probably not.

(That said, I doubt the reputation is completely unsalvagable even among most of the harshest critics, though it'd probably take quite a while in some cases).

Idkwhatmyscreen

2023-01-23, 10:11 AM

For the people who are vehemently against the proposed changes? Probably.

For the roleplaying community in general? Probably not.

(That said, I doubt the reputation is completely unsalvagable even among most of the harshest critics, though it'd probably take quite a while in some cases).

It's all a matter of time really. Wotc has to rebuild community trust from essentially 0 at this point. And I think with Hasbro's interest in Magicing DnD, they have more trust breaking maneuvers that they need to do.

OldTrees1

2023-01-23, 10:27 AM

I believe it's best not to mention those topics at all.

Things I'd like to discuss:
- what are likely impacts on the gaming community if Hasbro/WotC does or does not back down?
- is it too late for D&D's reputation to be salvaged?
- what alternative games, if any, are positioned long term to grab market share D&D is losing?
- does this mean D&Done/5.5, slated for release in 2024, is DOA?
- is WotC likely to experience a large shake up in the management and design teams, and go straight to a 6e in something like 2026-2028?

1) I suspect a migration of 3PP away from D&D to a new open license. Even if OGL 1.0a is protected in court, there is growing distrust of the reliability of the SRD. This means some other RPG system(s) will be reaping the hegemony building benefits derived from the dominant open license. I suspect WotC will fight some of this (thus the new dominant open license offers less protection vs frivolous lawsuits than OGL 1.0a did) in an effort to wall off D&D and crush alternatives. This will probably result in 2 dominant systems (with all the trickle down effects that has on finding/building playgroups).

2) No? Trust was lost but trust can be earned. There is/will be an unavoidable hit to D&D reputation, but they could salvage it in the long run.

3) Good question. I would keep an eye out for new open licenses. We all know about the ORC WIP, but another might be created (xkcd standards joke (https://xkcd.com/927/)).

4) Unlikely. It will be for some, but there will be players that play D&Done. I suspect it will be successful (although not as successful).

5) I don't have any insights/predictions about a management shakeup. However I doubt a jump to 6E so quickly.

EggKookoo

2023-01-23, 10:45 AM

2) No? Trust was lost but trust can be earned. There is/will be an unavoidable hit to D&D reputation, but they could salvage it in the long run.

I never really felt peoples' trust in WotC itself was ever very high. People love D&D as a game. I don't know how many love the BigHugeCo, Inc. above it.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-23, 11:01 AM

If the leaks are true, the main target of the OGL changes are all the VTTs (roll20, etc), because to be able to triple the revenue in 5 years, they can't afford to have competition to their upcoming products. Man, that's mean spirited if true. r20 sells e versions of D&D5e (and other) products which of course means that WotC gets revenue from that since it is WotC. (Don't know what the percentages are).

But I can see how "I buy it at DDB" versus "I but it from r20" (which is what I do for e-materials) would be seen in a corporate board room as 'losing market share' or 'losing revenue' or something like that.

I can also see them looking at VTT and deciding that "You know, we need to make one! It can offer an additional revenue stream!" Makes sense, given how well VTT's have done, particularly during the COVID hard times that put a damper on public and private gatherings in the past few years.

That leads us to "wait, they were our partners, now they are our competition!" as a mind set, rather than something more like "how do we make this a win-win situation?" that has been the mind set to date.

Roll20 and DDB worked together (albeit before WotC/Hasbro bought out DDB) to have a link/plug in that allows talk between the two. I have used it a few times in play.
Granted, it's a little bit redundant for the games I run, but for those who buy books on DDB but play on roll20, it's a win win, or seems to be.

Right now, DMs are going to be put in a hard place, and DMs by WotC/Hasbro's own admission are their major source of revenue, moreso than the players. :smallyuk:

johnbragg

2023-01-23, 11:10 AM

Man, that's mean spirited if true. r20 sells e versions of D&D5e (and other) products which of course means that WotC gets revenue from that since it is WotC. (Don't know what the percentages are).

But I can see how "I buy it at DDB" versus "I but it from r20" (which is what I do for e-materials) would be seen in a corporate board room as 'losing market share' or 'losing revenue' or something like that.

I can also see them looking at VTT and deciding that "You know, we need to make one! It can offer an additional revenue stream!" Makes sense, given how well VTT's have done, particularly during the COVID hard times that put a damper on public and private gatherings in the past few years.

That leads us to "wait, they were our partners, now they are our competition!" as a mind set, rather than something more like "how do we make this a win-win situation?" that has been the mind set to date.

Roll20 and DDB worked together (albeit before WotC/Hasbro bought out DDB) to have a link/plug in that allows talk between the two. I have used it a few times in play.
Granted, it's a little bit redundant for the games I run, but for those who buy books on DDB but play on roll20, it's a win win, or seems to be.

Right now, DMs are going to be put in a hard place, and DMs by WotC/Hasbro's own admission are their major source of revenue, moreso than the players. :smallyuk:

Listening to the D&D Shorts videos, WOTC is looking to massively increase the revenue D&D brings in. From the $100-$150M a year range to closer to the billion dollar range. They're not going to do that selling hardback books, or PDFs through roll20. They're working on something in Unreal Engine, some kind of hybrid of VTTs, CRPGs, MMORPGs. "You can play as a group with a DM, you can play as a group without a DM, you can play without a group" That's what the "$30 a month for D&D Beyond highest tier" was talking about, except it's the highest tier in the D&D- branded Next Big Thing.

To get to the numbers WOTC is apparently throwing around, they need to real well beyond the audience that are current TTRPG players.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-23, 11:27 AM

Listening to the D&D Shorts videos, WOTC is looking to massively increase the revenue D&D brings in. From the $100-$150M a year range to closer to the billion dollar range. They're not going to do that selling hardback books, or PDFs through roll20. Concur. I seem to remember a DDO product from a decade or so ago, I bought two copies of that computer game, but we never played. (I think it was using the 3.5e backbone?) Are they aware of that products history? I hope so. Is DDO still ongoing?

They're working on something in Unreal Engine, some kind of hybrid of VTTs, CRPGs, MMORPGs. I wish them luck. I wonder if they can make each a discrete package, on a menu, and have a variety of fan bases depending on the product type. Again, DDO: how did it do as an MMORPG? No, I didn't end up playing it, wish I had gotten the chance to, life was getting a bit crazy in2009 what with one chiled in college and the other getting ready to ... and much else. It was my brother who had sent me the "hey, let's do this!" email that got me started, just as five years later he said "Hey, let's do D&D 5e" which has turned out a lot better).

"You can play as a group with a DM, you can play as a group without a DM, you can play without a group" That's what the "$30 a month for D&D Beyond highest tier" was talking about, except it's the highest tier in the D&D- branded Next Big Thing. Those are three different kinds of games ... I mean, I like grilled onions, I like peanut butter, and I like oatmeal, but I don't put all three in the same bowl. (Anymore. Anything I did in the college and bachelor years to put fuel into my body cannot be held against me! :smalltongue: )

To get to the numbers WOTC is apparently throwing around, they need to real well beyond the audience that are current TTRPG players. They want to compete with Blizzard. That will be an interesting battle to watch, and didn't MS just buy Blizzard, or is that on hold?

Blizzard has already established their Diablo brand on PC, XBOS, PS, AppleOSWhateveritis, and phones. (Immortal). Diable IV is coming out this summer. (I am so excited, and I am a hopeless Diablo fan despite having removed D III from my hard drive). Of course, Blizzard has never set a release date that they could not miss ... :smallbiggrin:

If they are competing for subscriptions, they are playing catch up, I think.

animorte

2023-01-23, 11:40 AM

If they are competing for subscriptions, they are playing catch up, I think.
Better late than never. The digital era is here and it's the most accessible thing. It would be foolish for them not to invest. As long as I still get my hard copy. Your entire post was a treasure to read, by the way.

EggKookoo

2023-01-23, 11:42 AM

They want to compete with Blizzard. That will be an interesting battle to watch, and didn't MS just buy Blizzard, or is that on hold?

Blizzard has already established their Diablo brand on PC, XBOS, PS, AppleOSWhateveritis, and phones. (Immortal). Diable IV is coming out this summer. (I am so excited, and I am a hopeless Diablo fan despite having removed D III from my hard drive). Of course, Blizzard has never set a release date that they could not miss ... :smallbiggrin:

What's interesting is that from a Certain Point of View, Blizzard could be seen as encroaching the frack out of D&D's IP.

Amnestic

2023-01-23, 11:48 AM

and didn't MS just buy Blizzard, or is that on hold?

*scrubbed*

On the MMO front, Neverwinter is still chugging along quietly and has been receiving regular updates. Wikipedia tells me that the latest one was October 2022 and they're generally ~5-6 months apart, so they're not overdue for another one yet. While it may not be WoW level, it's clearly still profitable since it's a 9-10 year old game at this point, though I'll freely admit I've not touched it since shortly after it came out.

Amidus Drexel

2023-01-23, 11:54 AM

Things I'd like to discuss:
- what are likely impacts on the gaming community if Hasbro/WotC does or does not back down?

Assuming they don't back down - Some people are definitely going to move away from D&D, or at least won't buy on to the new edition when it comes out. I'd expect the new edition to still be widely played.
Assuming they do back down - basically the same, with more people staying with D&D.

- is it too late for D&D's reputation to be salvaged?

It survived TSR collapsing on itself, but it will take some time (or a change of hands) for that reputation to come back. Certainly, in the short term, many of those bridges are burned.

- what alternative games, if any, are positioned long term to grab market share D&D is losing?

Pathfinder is the obvious one, as it's trying to serve the same audience. I'm not sure what other popular medium-complexity high-fantasy games are out there, but I'm sure there are plenty.

Personally, I'm more looking forward to playing games in other genres. There's a new Paranoia edition out and I've still got Mouseguard on my shelf.

- does this mean D&Done/5.5, slated for release in 2024, is DOA?

I don't have any strong opinions on this one, but I'd be surprised to hear WotC shelve it considering how much effort they've spent marketing (and, presumably, making) the thing. If it's compatible with 5e (i.e. a true 5.5), we'll likely see a number 3PP stick with it (either on OGL1.0a or OGL1.2, or a future unreleased revision). If it's not compatible enough with 5e, I expect most 3PP to ignore it.

- is WotC likely to experience a large shake up in the management and design teams, and go straight to a 6e in something like 2026-2028?

RE: design - no strong opinions here. I'm not a 5e fan, and I don't really know what the community (or WotC/Hasbro) thinks of them in general. I've heard mostly lukewarm things, but I also get the impression that not very many people are working on the actual game design.

RE: management - that's going to depend on what happens to Hasbro's stock and D&D's sales because of this. If they lose a lot of money long-term, I'd expect some turnover at all levels. If they lose enough money short-term that they make their shareholders angry, I'd expect turnover at the top level. If they do really well despite all of the drama, I doubt much will change.

Psyren

2023-01-23, 11:59 AM

- what are likely impacts on the gaming community if Hasbro/WotC does or does not back down?

This gets a bit close to the "speculation" line that Peelee articulated above.

- is it too late for D&D's reputation to be salvaged?

To know that we have to know the true extent of the damage, which we likely won't have any inclination of until we see things like the DnD movie's box office, BG3 sales, and ultimately, OneD&D sales.

- what alternative games, if any, are positioned long term to grab market share D&D is losing?

Most of the major D&D youtubers I follow are at least giving PF2 a look. How many ultimately stick with it long-term is an open question.

- does this mean D&Done/5.5, slated for release in 2024, is DOA?

I strongly doubt this - the "ten year anniversary of 5e" is too splashy a headline to pass up. Maybe it'll be a bit later in 2024 than they originally planned, but it'll still be that year. Realistically, they've only lost a couple of weeks.

- is WotC likely to experience a large shake up in the management and design teams, and go straight to a 6e in something like 2026-2028?

I doubt there'll be a large shakeup. Maybe a high profile departure if things stay at an elevated temperature, but D&D isn't even top 10 trending anymore on Twitter.

johnbragg

2023-01-23, 12:12 PM

Those are three different kinds of games ... I mean, I like grilled onions, I like peanut butter, and I like oatmeal, but I don't put all three in the same bowl. (Anymore. Anything I did in the college and bachelor years to put fuel into my body cannot be held against me! :smalltongue: )
They want to compete with Blizzard. That will be an interesting battle to watch, and didn't MS just buy Blizzard, or is that on hold?

Blizzard has already established their Diablo brand on PC, XBOS, PS, AppleOSWhateveritis, and phones. (Immortal). Diable IV is coming out this summer. (I am so excited, and I am a hopeless Diablo fan despite having removed D III from my hard drive). Of course, Blizzard has never set a release date that they could not miss ... :smallbiggrin:

If they are competing for subscriptions, they are playing catch up, I think.

I have no idea how they're going to do what they're going to do, or exactly what they think they're going to do. I don't *think* it's a straight-up D&D branded MMORPG -- they've done that before with D&D Online.

The attempt to change the OGL makes corporate sense if they're developing a product that currently doesn't exist, that they would have a monopoly on. I can imagine AI chatbots that "DM" encounters? So you could interact with, say, the named NPCs in Phandelver?

Not sure how that the valuable proprietary tech there is OGL related though. If you figure out how to chatbot a conversation to convince a dragon to leave the village alone, it seems pretty trivial what game engine the dragon's stats are built on.

If they're not doing that, then I don't see why they're so worried about competing VTTs. Worrying about Microsoft Blizzard makes a tone of sense. Worrying about Facebook Meta, about Apple, about Alphabet Google, sure. Worrying about whether roll20 can animate your fireball, I don't think that's a sensible corporate strategy.

Psyren

2023-01-23, 12:20 PM

I have no idea how they're going to do what they're going to do, or exactly what they think they're going to do. I don't *think* it's a straight-up D&D branded MMORPG -- they've done that before with D&D Online.

Also Neverwinter, which has been extremely lucrative, closing in on nearly half a billion dollars (https://mmos.com/news/pwe-acquisition-report-neverwinter-has-logged-20m-players-and-made-400m-to-date) lifetime revenue as of a year or so ago.

If they're not doing that, then I don't see why they're so worried about competing VTTs. Worrying about Microsoft Blizzard makes a tone of sense. Worrying about Facebook Meta, about Apple, about Alphabet Google, sure. Worrying about whether roll20 can animate your fireball, I don't think that's a sensible corporate strategy.

They're not - not really. As above, what they're worried about are video games, and as VTTs grow in capability they'll start to blur that line more and more.

Segev

2023-01-23, 12:26 PM

If they can make a VTT that is super special awesome, it will compete handily with the existing ones and they don't need to try to coerce people into an OGL. There is plenty of stuff that historically third parties have avoided precisely because they're not released under the OGL. The D&D-branded VTT will have those things. That gives them a competitive edge even if they "merely" match the quality of existing VTTs.

As to video games blurring the line... I don't see how that changes anything. If every video game out there started using SRD material as the core of its gameplay, that is to WotC's benefit, because it starts making D&D the go-to tabeltop game to simulate "your favorite video game," even ones WotC isn't making.

It's not like the inability to use the SRD in a video game has stopped fantasy video games from existing.

WotC's IP is always going to be their discriminator in terms of video game content. (Though gameplay and quality of interface and graphics and the like will also matter. But they'll never be a permanent discriminator as everybody chases the best and most popular formats.)

Psyren

2023-01-23, 12:43 PM

I don't see how that changes anything. If every video game out there started using SRD material as the core of its gameplay, that is to WotC's benefit, because it starts making D&D the go-to tabeltop game to simulate "your favorite video game," even ones WotC isn't making.

1) If those video game developers see a benefit in making a game that is based on WotC's rules/expression, then they can realize that benefit even with a custom license in place.

2) Video games aren't like tabletop splatbooks; the money doesn't come from a wide diaspora of lean design teams making adventures and other material to narrowly suit each playgroup's divergent tastes. Rather, it's concentrated in a handful of major studios that focus on making huge sales of a more broadly appealing product, like Cryptic and Bioware and Larian do. And even when those companies decide that going to WotC for a custom license is their most profitable option, the existence of 1.0a and its various SRDs still gives them an edge in those negotiations, because they'll always have a feasible plan B that doesn't require WotC's approval.

Snowbluff

2023-01-23, 01:02 PM

Indeed.
I appreciate what you are getting at, but quite frankly, since the survey itself is on topic, and the topic is a draft of a legal document, where you draw the line remains elusive. I accept that it boils down to a judgment call - has to, it's why the mods get extra pay :smallbiggrin:

I believe that we are all making a good faith effort to stay within those guidelines, which are, in implementation, so broad as to be nearly as hard to apply as the draft OGL in question. :smallwink:

Indeed. I think one of my posts strayed into the category and I respect that. The other one is a link provided by WotC in their OGL playtest. Given that even a non-speculative link provided by WotC cannot be shown, I don't think there's really any room to speak on about anything maybe? I'll just avoid anything to do with the OGL.

Things I'd like to discuss:

- is it too late for D&D's reputation to be salvaged?
- what alternative games, if any, are positioned long term to grab market share D&D is losing?
- does this mean D&Done/5.5, slated for release in 2024, is DOA?
- is WotC likely to experience a large shake up in the management and design teams, and go straight to a 6e in something like 2026-2028?
1) I think it's important to delineate between WotC's reputation, which is not great to begin even without controversy, and DnD is important. Most players don't seem to care.

2) None that I can think of. DnD is probably too big. Someone pointed out that despite recent controversy, the relative size of the 5e reddits and the PF2 one is a vast difference. This is a sample of the more invest players, mind you.

3) I feel like ODD will be delayed. This is partially because of the problems it's been having, but also this controversy will likely cludge up its own surveys and boards.

4) Hard to say. The sudden change in tack recently may be a sign that things will be for the better.

Idkwhatmyscreen

2023-01-23, 01:02 PM

Better late than never. The digital era is here and it's the most accessible thing. It would be foolish for them not to invest. As long as I still get my hard copy. Your entire post was a treasure to read, by the way.

I imagine the physical books will be "collector boostered"; big price increase and an emphasis on flashyness over functionality

Basically ment to be on your shelf, rather than at your table

Atranen

2023-01-23, 01:05 PM

1) If those video game developers see a benefit in making a game that is based on WotC's rules/expression, then they can realize that benefit even with a custom license in place.

Although once you add on the complications of negotiating a custom license, possibly paying royalties etc., maybe Core Fantasy released under ORC starts looking better.

I imagine the physical books will be "collector boostered"; big price increase and an emphasis on flashyness over functionality

Basically ment to be on your shelf, rather than at your table

This is one of my big fears based on the news. Nicer books, but with an increase in price ($80? $100? who knows) with the justification 'you can get the rules cheaply online'. That would be a net loss for me.

Batcathat

2023-01-23, 01:13 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-23, 01:23 PM

I imagine the physical books will be "collector boostered"; big price increase and an emphasis on flashyness over functionality

Basically ment to be on your shelf, rather than at your table

Not sure how likely that is, considering I haven't really seen much of that in regards to paper books in general, despite the popularity of e-books and audio books. That said, I suppose the market for novels and the one for something like a rule book might look different.

They've already started to do it in a big way. Many more "flashy alternate covers" and "collectors edition box sets" recently. For example, the Spelljammer set (3 tiny little books + DM screen + ancillary stuff) retails for $39 on amazon. The alternate hard-cover set retails for $62.35 on amazon. Same content, different covers.

Oddly enough, the digital version of the set (which doesn't have the accessories) sells for $49.99 on D&D Beyond. That brings up another idea--physical books sell via retailers. Who manage the prices themselves (since they buy from WotC and then resell). There's also a substantial 2nd-hand market for TTRPG rulebooks. Centralizing that under WotC's direct control means they can control the entire chain and "cut out" the other avenues entirely. For better or worse.

Tanarii

2023-01-23, 01:30 PM

Assuming they don't back down - Some people are definitely going to move away from D&D, or at least won't buy on to the new edition when it comes out. I'd expect the new edition to still be widely played.
Assuming they do back down - basically the same, with more people staying with D&D.I'm not expecting D&Done to be widely played. Both D&D and MtG nights have already taken the hit at my local stores, and in my email lists for games. D&D is already a mostly dead game, a few short term campaigns are still wrapping up. Alternative games are already being brought online to replace it. So far I've heard the names Savage worlds, Warhammer (at a store that heavily focused on war gaming to begin with), Pathfinder/Starfinder, PbtA (not sure which one(s)).

WotC might be able to make it up with new customers who don't have a grudge. Especially if they really are going to focus on CRPGs.

Batcathat

2023-01-23, 01:31 PM

They've already started to do it in a big way. Many more "flashy alternate covers" and "collectors edition box sets" recently. For example, the Spelljammer set (3 tiny little books + DM screen + ancillary stuff) retails for $39 on amazon. The alternate hard-cover set retails for $62.35 on amazon. Same content, different covers.

I don't quite remember the details, but didn't comic books go through a phase where they kind of went insane with flashy alternate covers until it sort of imploded? Though I suppose that's not the only possible outcome.

NichG

2023-01-23, 01:35 PM

Although once you add on the complications of negotiating a custom license, possibly paying royalties etc., maybe Core Fantasy released under ORC starts looking better..

Or just making their own thing, which is what most video game developers do. It's not as off-putting in CRPGs because you don't generally need to get a group together who agree on what rules to use in order to play, you don't need to learn them well enough to run things yourself, you don't actually need to do the math or crunch bits out by hand...

Divinity Original Sin, Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Elder Scrolls, Path of Exile, Witcher, etc all run on their own things and haven't suffered for it - even have the advantage of cultivating followings.

For a new studio, the attention boost of 'we're making computer D&D' is pretty valuable, like being able to say you're making an official Harry Potter or Star Wars or MCU game. I think larger studios have already moved past the point of needing anything like the SRD as a plan B and it would be more about whether the creatives at the company we're inspired in that direction by their own love of it. Like, I doubt Larian was like 'wow, we got to do BG3, what a relief we don't need to make RPG rules anymore' versus 'wow, we get to do BG3, that's such an honor given how much we loved the Baldur's Gate games'

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-23, 01:39 PM

I don't quite remember the details, but didn't comic books go through a phase where they kind of went insane with flashy alternate covers until it sort of imploded? Though I suppose that's not the only possible outcome.

They've been doing the flashy covers (well...alternate, since they're generally just different) for a while, but what stood out to me is that the Spelljammer set isn't actually available in the three separate books, only as a collectors set (physically at least). Players can buy the individual player options digitally, but they can't just buy the one (of the 3) books that has player options in it. Why they packaged it as 3 separate books is a mystery to me unless they were doing it to increase "shelf-displayability". The whole set is smaller than most of the regular adventure books (which is what it is) and having it as three books just means duplicated pages and a substantial increase in "overhead" (ie covers, boilerplate pages, etc). Although I could be wrong about the numbers of pages involved--maybe it made more sense to do it that way?

Or just making their own thing, which is what most video game developers do. It's not as off-putting in CRPGs because you don't generally need to get a group together who agree on what rules to use in order to play, you don't need to learn them well enough to run things yourself, you don't actually need to do the math or crunch bits out by hand...

Divinity Original Sin, Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Elder Scrolls, Path of Exile, Witcher, etc all run on their own things and haven't suffered for it - even have the advantage of cultivating followings.

For a new studio, the attention boost of 'we're making computer D&D' is pretty valuable, like being able to say you're making an official Harry Potter or Star Wars or MCU game. I think larger studios have already moved past the point of needing anything like the SRD as a plan B and it would be more about whether the creatives at the company we're inspired in that direction by their own love of it. Like, I doubt Larian was like 'wow, we got to do BG3, what a relief we don't need to make RPG rules anymore' versus 'wow, we get to do BG3, that's such an honor given how much we loved the Baldur's Gate games'

Strong agree. The SRD doesn't really give you the right pieces for a video game anyway. Especially the 5e SRD, since it has so much "ask the DM" territory. The actually useful parts are the things the old SRD explicitly disallowed use of--the branding, the various "iconic" names/settings/monsters/spells/etc.

Atranen

2023-01-23, 01:41 PM

I'm not expecting D&Done to be widely played. Both D&D and MtG nights have already taken the hit at my local stores, and in my email lists for games. D&D is already a mostly dead game, a few short term campaigns are still wrapping up. Alternative games are already being brought online to replace it. So far I've heard the names Savage worlds, Warhammer (at a store that heavily focused on war gaming to begin with), Pathfinder/Starfinder, PbtA (not sure which one(s)).

WotC might be able to make it up with new customers who don't have a grudge. Especially if they really are going to focus on CRPGs.

At my FLGS, D&D is still going strong, but there are a lot of grumblings about the OGL. I think people are waiting to see how that situation resolves, and the whole community could easily jump ship.

Or just making their own thing, which is what most video game developers do. It's not as off-putting in CRPGs because you don't generally need to get a group together who agree on what rules to use in order to play, you don't need to learn them well enough to run things yourself, you don't actually need to do the math or crunch bits out by hand...

Divinity Original Sin, Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Elder Scrolls, Path of Exile, Witcher, etc all run on their own things and haven't suffered for it - even have the advantage of cultivating followings.

For a new studio, the attention boost of 'we're making computer D&D' is pretty valuable, like being able to say you're making an official Harry Potter or Star Wars or MCU game. I think larger studios have already moved past the point of needing anything like the SRD as a plan B and it would be more about whether the creatives at the company we're inspired in that direction by their own love of it. Like, I doubt Larian was like 'wow, we got to do BG3, what a relief we don't need to make RPG rules anymore' versus 'wow, we get to do BG3, that's such an honor given how much we loved the Baldur's Gate games'

Yeah. As I understand, Larian isn't doing a direct port of 5e rules anyway, like Solasta did. D&D mechanics are already being video-gamified because different things work in different contexts. I think the cRPG genre is large enough it's not necessary. The main benefit for BG3 is access to the lore.

animorte

2023-01-23, 02:03 PM

skyth

2023-01-23, 02:23 PM

With video games, you literally pay the same whether it's strictly software download or a hardcopy from the store, not to mention WotC apparently moving forward with "buy your physical copy that includes the code for the same copy online."

The physical copy that comes with a code is only if you order directly from WotC, not if you pick up the book at your FLGS.

Psyren

2023-01-23, 02:38 PM

I'm not expecting D&Done to be widely played. Both D&D and MtG nights have already taken the hit at my local stores, and in my email lists for games. D&D is already a mostly dead game, a few short term campaigns are still wrapping up. Alternative games are already being brought online to replace it. So far I've heard the names Savage worlds, Warhammer (at a store that heavily focused on war gaming to begin with), Pathfinder/Starfinder, PbtA (not sure which one(s)).

WotC might be able to make it up with new customers who don't have a grudge. Especially if they really are going to focus on CRPGs.

Even assuming this is true/widespread, that's more incentive for them to move on from 5e, not less.

Although once you add on the complications of negotiating a custom license, possibly paying royalties etc., maybe Core Fantasy released under ORC starts looking better.

I'm sure it would, but how much that will ultimately matter to a AAA publisher is another question entirely. Most of them are already fine paying royalties etc.

This is one of my big fears based on the news. Nicer books, but with an increase in price ($80? $100? who knows) with the justification 'you can get the rules cheaply online'. That would be a net loss for me.

As long as they keep the microtransaction model then that's the main thing for me. "That Spelljammer book doesn't have what I'm looking for, but I want to make a Plasmoid" is worth a few dollars for some.

Or just making their own thing, which is what most video game developers do. It's not as off-putting in CRPGs because you don't generally need to get a group together who agree on what rules to use in order to play, you don't need to learn them well enough to run things yourself, you don't actually need to do the math or crunch bits out by hand...

Divinity Original Sin, Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Elder Scrolls, Path of Exile, Witcher, etc all run on their own things and haven't suffered for it - even have the advantage of cultivating followings.

I'm not denying that you can make great / successful RPGs without any kind of WotC license. But it's still a way to differentiate oneself in a crowded market. I doubt anyone would have cared about Solasta without them being able to say it was based on the 5e SRD for example.

Palanan

2023-01-23, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by animewatcha
Another vid drop. Take however you will.

I liked this one, seems like a comprehensive summary. I don’t know the channel other than from recent events, so don’t know what spin he may or may not be applying, but he seems to have put in some effort to provide a solid overview.

Originally Posted by Idkwhatmyscreen
I imagine the physical books will be "collector boostered"; big price increase and an emphasis on flashyness over functionality….

This was a key point from the above-mentioned video—one of the execs wants to turn physical releases into collector’s editions only.

Even if I were interested in what they’re planning, this alone would drive me away.

Originally Posted by Atranen
At my FLGS, D&D is still going strong….

I can only envy those who have an FLGS. Years ago I tried dealing with an UFLGS and it was a misery. They’ve since changed management and no longer have any roleplaying materials or events. There isn't another one in my area that I'm aware of.

I’d be interested in knowing more about the overall landscape of LGSs, how they’ve changed and where they’re headed.

Zombimode

2023-01-23, 04:07 PM

I'm not denying that you can make great / successful RPGs without any kind of WotC license. But it's still a way to differentiate oneself in a crowded market. I doubt anyone would have cared about Solasta without them being able to say it was based on the 5e SRD for example.

Hm... I'm not sure about that. Story/campaign focused singleplayer games like RPGs don't compete with each other the way that multiplayer games or other genres like grand strategy or idle games do.

Plus, party based isometric fantasy rpgs are not exactly flooding the market. And I would imagine player who are interested in these kind of games are likely to buy most of them eventually.

True, without the use of 5e this particular detail could not have been used in the marketing - but especially for Solasta there is no need: Solasta actually has quite a few innovations that sets it apart from similar games. Those could have been put in the focus of the marketing.

Atranen

2023-01-23, 04:20 PM

I'm sure it would, but how much that will ultimately matter to a AAA publisher is another question entirely. Most of them are already fine paying royalties etc.

As long as they keep the microtransaction model then that's the main thing for me. "That Spelljammer book doesn't have what I'm looking for, but I want to make a Plasmoid" is worth a few dollars for some.

I'm not denying that you can make great / successful RPGs without any kind of WotC license. But it's still a way to differentiate oneself in a crowded market. I doubt anyone would have cared about Solasta without them being able to say it was based on the 5e SRD for example.

Not paying royalties is always better than paying royalties! And a AAA publisher is very different than Solasta, where using the SRD is part of the draw. Larian doesn't need the 5e SRD to make a popular cRPG. But the lore may help.

I'm fine with people buying things a la carte in D&D Beyond, in a vacuum. But in practice, that means dead-tree folks like myself will get later access to content and be forced into a digital ecosystem that we're not interested in to be up to date. Especially, say, for DMing organized play; digital tools may go from optional to a requirement at the table.

Hm... I'm not sure about that. Story/campaign focused singleplayer games like RPGs don't compete with each other the way that multiplayer games or other genres like grand strategy or idle games do.

Plus, party based isometric fantasy rpgs are not exactly flooding the market. And I would imagine player who are interested in these kind of games are likely to buy most of them eventually.

True, without the use of 5e this particular detail could not have been used in the marketing - but especially for Solasta there is no need: Solasta actually has quite a few innovations that sets it apart from similar games. Those could have been put in the focus of the marketing.

Agree that the market for this kind of thing is not that crowded, especially when you pare it down to folks who want tabletop mechanics. Solasta having 5e rules is a draw for me; but them implementing Core Fantasy or PF2e or any other ruleset as faithfully would also be a draw.

The main barrier for me is having a computer than can run anything post 2015 :smallsmile:

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-23, 04:20 PM

Better late than never. The digital era is here and it's the most accessible thing. It would be foolish for them not to invest. As long as I still get my hard copy. Your entire post was a treasure to read, by the way. *blush* Thank you, and hooray that it didn't get scrubbed. :smallsmile:

What's interesting is that from a Certain Point of View, Blizzard could be seen as encroaching the frack out of D&D's IP. Diablo I was a pretty nice dungeon crawl. :smallbiggrin: I think it was released while TSR was still a going, if troubled, company.

I strongly doubt this - the "ten year anniversary of 5e" is too splashy a headline to pass up. And it's the 50 year anniversary of D&D being published/released for play. :smallsmile:

I don't *think* it's a straight-up D&D branded MMORPG -- they've done that before with D&D Online. Maybe the idea is "D&D online would have been better if only we had done {this list of things} so now we are doing that, and more. DDO v 2.0 will rock the world! It'll be raining Grover Clevelands from the ceiling tiles around here!"

I found this thought to make a lot of sense:

Worrying about Microsoft Blizzard makes a tone of sense. Worrying about Facebook Meta, about Apple, about Alphabet Google, sure. Worrying about whether roll20 can animate your fireball, I don't think that's a sensible corporate strategy. I already use that when I DM. My players appreciate it. :smallsmile: But for my money, when we see similar stuff on Foundry in Phoneix's game, it's far better.

Segev

2023-01-23, 04:41 PM

Snowbluff

2023-01-23, 05:55 PM

I'm not denying that you can make great / successful RPGs without any kind of WotC license. But it's still a way to differentiate oneself in a crowded market. I doubt anyone would have cared about Solasta without them being able to say it was based on the 5e SRD for example.

I've mixed feelings. Solasta does some cool things like the character trait driven dialogue and banter, but that's kinda intrinsically mapped to the characters being entirely generated like in a 5e game. Furthermore, it makes good use of 5e's system and I also feel like, most important, a grid system which a lot of CRPGs have dropped or never had to their detriment.

Then again, if someone were to make such a game without it being 5e or even, I think it would be pretty good. I just don't know if there's any interest by CRPG devs to do. If people have more grid drive, character building centric CPRG, I will gladly take suggestions.

NichG

2023-01-23, 06:22 PM

I've mixed feelings. Solasta does some cool things like the character trait driven dialogue and banter, but that's kinda intrinsically mapped to the characters being entirely generated like in a 5e game. Furthermore, it makes good use of 5e's system and I also feel like, most important, a grid system which a lot of CRPGs have dropped or never had to their detriment.

Then again, if someone were to make such a game without it being 5e or even, I think it would be pretty good. I just don't know if there's any interest by CRPG devs to do. If people have more grid drive, character building centric CPRG, I will gladly take suggestions.

There's Druidstone (same company as made the Grimrock games) but I haven't played it. Also Blackguards and Blackguards 2 which are based on DSE. I feel like also seen a bunch of others lately, but skipped over them on the basis of 'too much other stuff to play.

Psyren

2023-01-23, 06:28 PM

Hm... I'm not sure about that. Story/campaign focused singleplayer games like RPGs don't compete with each other the way that multiplayer games or other genres like grand strategy or idle games do.

It's not about "competing with each other" so much as it is getting noticed in the first place.

Solasta for instance got a bunch of free publicity (https://www.gamespot.com/articles/this-video-game-taught-me-dungeons-and-dragons-so-my-friends-didnt-have-to/1100-6510365/) from major outlets (https://www.pcgamer.com/finally-an-rpg-let-me-make-the-weird-dandd-party-of-my-dreams/) that there's no way it would have if it was a generic CRPG.

If so, then there's no need to worry about it, because only WotC has the Trademark and the IP to make that discriminator part of their (video) game.

"D&D" specifically - yes. But "rules based on the world's most popular roleplaying game! Wink! :smallwink:" or similar - there's value in that too.

And it's the 50 year anniversary of D&D being published/released for play. :smallsmile:

Right, that too :smallcool:

Maybe the idea is "D&D online would have been better if only we had done {this list of things} so now we are doing that, and more. DDO v 2.0 will rock the world! It'll be raining Grover Clevelands from the ceiling tiles around here!"

At the risk of repeating myself, they blew DDO out of the water a while ago.

Larian doesn't need the 5e SRD to make a popular cRPG.

My point exactly - that's why they didn't use it. They were famous long before DOS2 even.

Atranen

2023-01-23, 06:51 PM

I'm sure it would, but how much that will ultimately matter to a AAA publisher is another question entirely. Most of them are already fine paying royalties etc.

My point exactly - that's why they didn't use it. They were famous long before DOS2 even.

I don't follow. You say previously royalties etc would not be a big deal to a AAA publisher, and hence not a significant barrier to them using the SRD instead of ORC. You used this as part of an argument that AAA publishers get something out of the SRD. Now you say that using the SRD doesn't add much for a AAA company. But that implies AAA publishers don't get much out of the SRD and would turn their nose at royalties (for mechanics).

So I don't understand what you think regarding whether AAAs will be using the SRD (with or without royalties), or using ORC, or making their own system. Does the SRD add any value for a large company?

I get royalties for lore, which is a different question.

Really the worrying implication here is that the OGL changes will hit small studios and games like solasta, while doing nothing to affect the AAA space. It reads as more of an attempt to squash small competitors than to square off with the most popular cRPGs.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-23, 07:00 PM

Really the worrying implication here is that the OGL changes will hit small studios and games like solasta, while doing nothing to affect the AAA space. It reads as more of an attempt to squash small competitors than to square off with the most popular cRPGs.

Yeah, the whole thing (not just this particular thing) seems very much more designed to "punch down" rather than "punch up". None of this stuff would even slightly worry Microsoft Game Studios, etc. WotC as a whole is a rounding error to them. And they'd prefer to have their own (monetizable) IP anyway. It's designed to stifle the market for competing VTTs, TTRPG companies, and other smaller competitors. Because that's how anti-competitive actions work--you can't exercise them against companies with greater market power than you do. It's always putting barriers to entry behind you, downstream. Against the smaller actors. And it's not exactly a shining example of how competitive markets are supposed to function, at least in theory[1].

[1] of course, there's the old saying in the theoretical science community--the difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice and in practice there is.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-23, 07:41 PM

At the risk of repeating myself, they blew DDO out of the water a while ago. So what?
I am not sure what experience you have with senior executives, I have no small amount of that. (And it's part of why I drink).
Their "well, if we do it my way, it will work this time" self confidence seems to be a character trait. (Sometimes "it" does work, and sometimes "it" doesn't).

Psyren

2023-01-23, 08:27 PM

So what?
I am not sure what experience you have with senior executives, I have no small amount of that. (And it's part of why I drink).
Their "well, if we do it my way, it will work this time" self confidence seems to be a character trait. (Sometimes "it" does work, and sometimes "it" doesn't).

My point here was more that they would try for Neverwinter 2.0 rather than DDO 2.0, as the former made much more money :smallsmile:

Really the worrying implication here is that the OGL changes will hit small studios and games like solasta, while doing nothing to affect the AAA space. It reads as more of an attempt to squash small competitors than to square off with the most popular cRPGs.

My point here is this: just because the bigger players usually opt for a custom license (and again, *not all of them did* - Deep Silver used 1.0a to make millions) doesn't mean that WotC got the best deal it could have, with that option floating out there. Cutting it off, without touching on any questions of rights or legality, is just sensible from a business perspective.

Rynjin

2023-01-23, 08:31 PM

Neverwinter definitely made more money, but DDO is a better game, even to this day. Not that Wizards seems to really care about the quality of their products these days.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-23, 08:34 PM

Neverwinter definitely made more money, but DDO is a better game, even to this day. Not that Wizards seems to really care about the quality of their products these days.

My point here was more that they would try for Neverwinter 2.0 rather than DDO 2.0, as the former made much more money :smallsmile: Spoken like an executive. I'd like to recommend you for the management track. *picks up the phone to HR* :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2023-01-23, 08:39 PM

Spoken like an executive. I'd like to recommend you for the management track. *picks up the phone to HR* :smallbiggrin:

Are you sure I'm not one already? :smallamused:

Rynjin

2023-01-23, 08:41 PM

Are you sure I'm not one already? :smallamused:

I'd commend you on the long con lol.

Atranen

2023-01-23, 08:56 PM

My point here is this: just because the bigger players usually opt for a custom license (and again, *not all of them did* - Deep Silver used 1.0a to make millions) doesn't mean that WotC got the best deal it could have, with that option floating out there. Cutting it off, without touching on any questions of rights or legality, is just sensible from a business perspective.

I agree with the first, not the second. WoTC can get a better deal *for games that use the SRD* on explicit licenses. But because the AAA companies don't need the SRD and can do just as well with their own systems, I suspect harsher terms will lead to people (at least appreciably big players) abandoning the SRD in video games entirely. And I think that's a bad thing for WoTC, because they lose, as Segev noted, the ability to make "D&D the go-to tabletop game to simulate "your favorite video game,"".

If Solasta 2.0 instead uses the ORC license and Core Fantasy? Free press for that system and more attention at it. WoTC is counting on its massive advantage in brand recognition insulating it from competitors, which is a risky move.

Snowbluff

2023-01-23, 09:04 PM

There's Druidstone (same company as made the Grimrock games) but I haven't played it. Also Blackguards and Blackguards 2 which are based on DSE. I feel like also seen a bunch of others lately, but skipped over them on the basis of 'too much other stuff to play.
Sweet, thanks!

Neverwinter definitely made more money, but DDO is a better game, even to this day. Not that Wizards seems to really care about the quality of their products these days.

I think I agree. DDO is actually kind of an amazing game. It's not super accurate to 3.5, but what they have there is pretty great. They really took the "DnD but an MMO" and ran with it. Neverwinter doesn't really feel like that, if the little bit I played is any indication.

animorte

2023-01-23, 09:21 PM

Their "well, if we do it my way, it will work this time" self confidence seems to be a character trait. (Sometimes "it" does work, and sometimes "it" doesn't).
In my knowledge, that's a prerequisite. Either that or statistical representation knowing the right people. :smallsigh:

And when the boss' boss' boss comes asking questions, it doesn't matter whether or not you know the answer, as long as you say it with confidence (because chances are, they don't know the answer).

Psyren

2023-01-23, 09:56 PM

I agree with the first, not the second. WoTC can get a better deal *for games that use the SRD* on explicit licenses. But because the AAA companies don't need the SRD and can do just as well with their own systems, I suspect harsher terms will lead to people (at least appreciably big players) abandoning the SRD in video games entirely.

So you think after Deep Silver made tens of millions off it (twice) that nobody else would even try? Ever?

If Solasta 2.0 instead uses the ORC license and Core Fantasy? Free press for that system and more attention at it. WoTC is counting on its massive advantage in brand recognition insulating it from competitors, which is a risky move.

I mean, let ORC get more press; I doubt WotC will lose much sleep over it.

I think I agree. DDO is actually kind of an amazing game. It's not super accurate to 3.5, but what they have there is pretty great. They really took the "DnD but an MMO" and ran with it. Neverwinter doesn't really feel like that, if the little bit I played is any indication.

It's nothing like 3e, no (it's based on 4e.)

Snowbluff

2023-01-23, 10:00 PM

It's nothing like 3e, no (it's based on 4e.)

Neverwinter? Ye I know. It doesn't feel like 4e really either. If anything the departures they made felt way larger than DDO's liberties. :smalltongue:

Rynjin

2023-01-23, 10:17 PM

Neverwinter is very much a "theme park MMO" in the vein of WoW. It's actually pretty fun in its own way, with very flashy combat, but it's really just a generic MMO that happens to be set in the Realms.

DDO is just...super unique, among MMOs. Extremely deep character building, a dungeon-based progression that ensures you can ALWAYS play with friends or go solo as you choose, and no overarching narrative to keep track of, while still telling nice self-contained stories within questlines.

There are really very few things like it on the market, and I would love to see a take on it with better graphics and less clunk.

Segev

2023-01-23, 11:05 PM

"D&D" specifically - yes. But "rules based on the world's most popular roleplaying game! Wink! :smallwink:" or similar - there's value in that too.

Which the Creative Commons promised stuff would let them do.

Atranen

2023-01-23, 11:33 PM

So you think after Deep Silver made tens of millions off it (twice) that nobody else would even try? Ever?

That's not at all the implication of what I said. I think given that Deep Silver chose to use the SRD in order to make their Pathfinder games, Wizards could have extracted more money from them. But, the other side of the equation is that Deep Silver chose Pathfinder because the OGL was available and free. If the OGL did not exist, they could just as easily have developed their own IP, or used a different system. At present there's no other contender (largely because of the OGL). But soon there will be: a flagship, open source fantasy system that does everything D&D does. This might be Pathfinder 2e at the moment; I'm not sure about the legalities. I expect core fantasy to be lighter on rules and more accessible, probably a better candidate than PF2e.

Anyway, in that environment, when Deep Silver faces a choice between licensing out to WoTC for mechanics or using the open fantasy system, I'll bet open fantasy looks like a better option. Note I'm specifically thinking of mechanics here; if they want to set it in the Forgotten Realms, that will be a draw. But that's lore and a different story.

If you're making a story in a new IP and face that choice, I don't think licensing with WoTC for the 5e ruleset (by itself) offers you much. Even the flagship D&D video game, Baldur's Gate III, is having to mess with the mechanics to get a working AAA title.

So the consequence is that new companies making cRPGs see the 5e (OneD&D) ruleset and pass on it in favor of Core Fantasy or PF2e or some in-house system. And that ends up being bad for business for WoTC, because then people who play cRPGs get introduced to their competitors, and start looking there rather than 5e.

How certain am I? I don't know the industry well enough or what will come out of ORC and Core Fantasy, or how many people will switch to it. It depends on any number of factors.

But I think that story is plausible enough that the idea that pulling the OGL is 'simply good business' is unsubstantiated. It's a risky move with nonobvious consequences and it may blow up in WoTC's face. And, you know, I'll do my part to make sure that happens :smallsmile:

I mean, let ORC get more press; I doubt WotC will lose much sleep over it.

This is the kind of (over?)confidence in their brand that makes me think WoTC is walking into a mistake.

Psyren

2023-01-23, 11:56 PM

That's not at all the implication of what I said. I think given that Deep Silver chose to use the SRD in order to make their Pathfinder games, Wizards could have extracted more money from them. But, the other side of the equation is that Deep Silver chose Pathfinder because the OGL was available and free. If the OGL did not exist, they could just as easily have developed their own IP, or used a different system.

Whether a AAA publisher uses 1.0a to make their video game, or foregoes a WotC license entirely to make their own IP, WotC gets nothing from them either way. They therefore might as well kill 1.0a and thereby have a chance at something.

But I think that story is plausible enough that the idea that pulling the OGL is 'simply good business' is unsubstantiated. It's a risky move with nonobvious consequences and it may blow up in WoTC's face. And, you know, I'll do my part to make sure that happens :smallsmile:

Cool, best of luck!

Which the Creative Commons promised stuff would let them do.

Which will occur thanks to 1.2, by which point 1.0a is dead. Great!

I haven't done a deep dive of the CC stuff yet and what could be done with it that couldn't be done without the OGL, though I suspect speculating on that wouldn't be something I could do here anyway.

Atranen

2023-01-24, 12:05 AM

Whether a AAA publisher uses 1.0a to make their video game, or foregoes a WotC license entirely to make their own IP, WotC gets nothing from them either way. They therefore might as well kill 1.0a and thereby have a chance at something.

This is a very "direct payments only" view. WoTC may not get paid, but they do get people playing their system rather than a competitors system. Fixating on "we aren't getting paid enough" and making a move that pushes the community away and causes cRPGs to introduce folks to a competitor is a mistake.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-24, 12:06 AM

This is a very "direct payments only" view. WoTC may not get paid, but they do get people playing their system rather than a competitors system. Fixating on "we aren't getting paid enough" and making a move that pushes the community away and causes cRPGs to introduce folks to a competitor is a mistake.

Exactly. Especially since there's just not that much in the OGL which is actually useful--90% of the value is in the protected IP.

Goodwill value is real value. In this case, most of the real value of the IP.

Zuras

2023-01-24, 12:47 AM

Whether a AAA publisher uses 1.0a to make their video game, or foregoes a WotC license entirely to make their own IP, WotC gets nothing from them either way. They therefore might as well kill 1.0a and thereby have a chance at something.

If my players started using this logic to justify breaking deals with NPCs, I’m pretty sure they’d be going full murder-hobo within three sessions.

Psyren

2023-01-24, 12:48 AM

This is a very "direct payments only" view. WoTC may not get paid, but they do get people playing their system rather than a competitors system. Fixating on "we aren't getting paid enough" and making a move that pushes the community away and causes cRPGs to introduce folks to a competitor is a mistake.

Time will tell. They pushed people to the competitor's system (Pathfinder) before, and it wasn't long before they took the top spot again with 5e. Maybe that's happening again, we'll have to see how much this latest kerfuffle is tempest vs teapot.

Satinavian

2023-01-24, 03:34 AM

I think I agree. DDO is actually kind of an amazing game. It's not super accurate to 3.5, but what they have there is pretty great. They really took the "DnD but an MMO" and ran with it. Neverwinter doesn't really feel like that, if the little bit I played is any indication.I stopped DDO years ago. But all this talk makes me considering a revisit. It still was pretty unique as far as MMOs go and i have not found another that held my interest nearly as long.

As for the rest, i don't see the OGL in any version particularly relevant for video games. Solasta was a special case with rule faithfulness as selling point, but generally tabletop rules are not that well suited for game adaptions. Using them is a burden for developers, not an asset.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-24, 09:00 AM

And when the boss' boss' boss comes asking questions, it doesn't matter whether or not you know the answer, as long as you say it with confidence (because chances are, they don't know the answer). Yep. Fun times can be had when the Deputy Sec Def drops into your cell during a war game (multi million dollar CPX) and tries to play stump the chump with you. Standing next to him is the VCJCS.

a flagship, open source fantasy system that does everything D&D does. ... I expect core fantasy to be lighter on rules and more accessible Finding the balance between playability and complexity is something that game designers wrestle with as a part of their craft.

If you're making a story in a new IP and face that choice, I don't think licensing with WoTC for the 5e ruleset (by itself) offers you much. Even the flagship D&D video game, Baldur's Gate III, is having to mess with the mechanics to get a working AAA title. I have not touched it in a while, it was kinda clunky during my first few hours of the beta. I wonder if it will get released around the same time as D&Done gets released? If it does, and it works well, that might set a bar for people to try and clear, OGL based (ORC, Black Flag, 1.x) or own IP based.

So the consequence is that new companies making cRPGs see the 5e (OneD&D) ruleset and pass on it in favor of Core Fantasy or PF2e or some in-house system. And that ends up being bad for business for WoTC, because then people who play cRPGs get introduced to their competitors, and start looking there rather than 5e. Or, BG III lands on its feat and brings the spotlight back to WotC and its brand with a fun and popular game. If I remember right, BG III is mostly based on 5e as it is, not D&Done, but maybe (since they so far share mostly the same internal game structure) the backwards compatibility piece might come into play. I would need to check on release dates, but I can see BG III being released a little after Honor Among thieves comes out. If it is ready to go 'gold disc' at that point.

But I think that story is plausible enough that the idea that pulling the OGL is 'simply good business' is unsubstantiated. While they intend to pull OGL 1.0a, it seems, replacing it with something (whatever form that takes) is not the same as pulling it and not replacing it at all. They are still working on that something.

Goodwill value is real value. In this case, most of the real value of the IP. But measuring it drives the bean counters a little crazy. :smallsmile:

They pushed people to the competitor's system (Pathfinder) before, and it wasn't long before they took the top spot again with 5e. Maybe that's happening again, we'll have to see how much this latest kerfuffle is tempest vs teapot. If that were to happen, then it might play out like you suggest: D&DOne becomes the 4e analogue, the PF analogue under ORC or Black Flag OGL or something gains traction, and in a few years 6e proper shows up. That's how the 3.5 to 4 to 5 with PF in a parallel track seemed to play out.

Rynjin

2023-01-24, 09:04 AM

EggKookoo

2023-01-24, 09:06 AM

Goodwill value is real value. In this case, most of the real value of the IP.

More than many other modern games (meaning mostly computer games), a TTRPG is a social experience. In that way it's similar to social media. People flock to the Main Social Media Outlet because people flock to the Main Social Media Outlet. That's where everyone is. Google+ was a lesson on this.

D&D is the Main TTRPG Outlet right now.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-24, 09:08 AM

I really hope it doesn't. Not out of malice for Wizards (this time) but because Baldur's Gate 3 kinda sucks ass and I'd like Larian to go back to making GOOD games instead of bad ones lol. Not sure how many hours you have played, but after a few hours I got a little frustrated with the UI and set it aside. I have heard that they have done quite a bit of patching. Did you play it all the way through?

Raven777

2023-01-24, 09:13 AM

So the consequence is that new companies making cRPGs see the 5e (OneD&D) ruleset and pass on it in favor of Core Fantasy or PF2e or some in-house system. And that ends up being bad for business for WoTC, because then people who play cRPGs get introduced to their competitors, and start looking there rather than 5e.

I can testify that Baldur's Gate I & II are what got me to even hear about "D&D" for the first time when I was 12 (on my mother's iMac, no less). This anchored D&D being synonymous with tabletop, "the" tabletop if you will, in my young mind. The same way Diablo II anchored in my young mind that a Necromancer must have a small army of skeletons in tow – that's non negotiable. I imagine if my first CRPGs had been Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, that anchoring would have been in favor of Pathfinder instead.

Ashtagon

2023-01-24, 09:26 AM

More than many other modern games (meaning mostly computer games), a TTRPG is a social experience. In that way it's similar to social media. People flock to the Main Social Media Outlet because people flock to the Main Social Media Outlet. That's where everyone is. Google+ was a lesson on this.

Indeed. g+ was the fantasy heartbreaker of social media. It's difficult, but not that difficult, to make a good [RPG|social media]. The hard part is getting a critical mass of people actively using it.

Rynjin

2023-01-24, 09:31 AM

Not sure how many hours you have played, but after a few hours I got a little frustrated with the UI and set it aside. I have heard that they have done quite a bit of patching. Did you play it all the way through?

I actually refunded it, I was really hoping for a Forgotten Realms-themed Divinity game, but it was not that, and I didn't like what it actually was enough to sit on it and hope it got better.

Tanarii

2023-01-24, 09:35 AM

If that were to happen, then it might play out like you suggest: D&DOne becomes the 4e analogue, the PF analogue under ORC or Black Flag OGL or something gains traction, and in a few years 6e proper shows up. That's how the 3.5 to 4 to 5 with PF in a parallel track seemed to play out.
I think this is pretty much a certainty at this point. But (and this is a big but) remember our history: 5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a). And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust in using an open license they "control", ever. They're going to have to switch to using ORC (assuming it has become the standard) when they finally try to pick up the pieces and publish 6e.

Satinavian

2023-01-24, 09:37 AM

Indeed. g+ was the fantasy heartbreaker of social media. It's difficult, but not that difficult, to make a good [RPG|social media]. The hard part is getting a critical mass of people actively using it.
But that also explains why many people with other favorite systems now see a chance in D&Ds weakness.

And why so many people are willing to leave D&D. A significant number were only there because it is big, not because they liked it over other offerings.

animorte

2023-01-24, 09:41 AM

But that also explains why many people with other favorite systems now see a chance in D&Ds weakness.

And why so many people are willing to leave D&D. A significant number were only there because it is big, not because they liked it over other offerings.
A fair number have admitted to playing something because that's what their people play.

EggKookoo

2023-01-24, 10:19 AM

Indeed. g+ was the fantasy heartbreaker of social media. It's difficult, but not that difficult, to make a good [RPG|social media]. The hard part is getting a critical mass of people actively using it.

Back around 2000 when Apple switched over to Intel processors, they did something clever. They partnered with a company to produce an app called Parallels that you could run on your shiny new Intel Mac and install a virtual Windows machine. You partitioned your hard drive. Initially you had to choose which OS to boot into but eventually they got to the point where you could access files across the two partitions.

This made it much less painful for Windows people to try out Mac OS. You could fall back on your Windows apps but you could also try out the Mac version of something if had it. Basically you could gradually transition yourself over.

Incidentally, those Intel Macs could also play most "Windows only" AAA games just as well as most pure Windows machines, which highlighted that the reason Macs weren't great for games wasn't the hardware. But that's a different topic...

I wonder if someone could make "Parallels for Pathfinder..."

Rynjin

2023-01-24, 10:30 AM

"Just as well" is a bit of a stretch, but "good enough", certainly. I had to use a Macbook for school when I went for game design, and did the whole dual boot Windows thing. It had a lot of problems kind of inherent to it, mostly that it ran slower than it should have.

But it was good enough to play then-modern games on low-medium settings, which is fine I guess.

Segev

2023-01-24, 10:40 AM

Which will occur thanks to 1.2, by which point 1.0a is dead. Great!

I haven't done a deep dive of the CC stuff yet and what could be done with it that couldn't be done without the OGL, though I suspect speculating on that wouldn't be something I could do here anyway.

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I feel the need to point out that as an argument for why 1.2 is necessary, "The CC that comes out with 1.2 will let the video game folks do the same thing the OGL 1.0(a) would have," is not a very strong argument for why 1.2 is going to help WotC make a discriminator of a product.

Xihirli

2023-01-24, 10:48 AM

Time will tell. They pushed people to the competitor's system (Pathfinder) before, and it wasn't long before they took the top spot again with 5e. Maybe that's happening again, we'll have to see how much this latest kerfuffle is tempest vs teapot.

Eh, there's a difference between what happened with 4e "we're just not putting the new edition on the OGL but otherwise we're leaving it alone" and "we are attempting to break a deal and deauthorize a perpetual license that we promised we'd never use to screw people over."

Like I'm already done with WOTC. If someone makes it clear they want to cheat people, believe them the first time.

Batcathat

2023-01-24, 11:00 AM

I am rather curious to see how many people have actually left the system (or at least stopped buying new products, if they otherwise would have) in a year or so. It wouldn't be the first time a big company does something wildly unpopular that "everyone" is upset about, only for their market share to be more or less the same after everything quiets down. There are exceptions, of course, so it'll be interesting to see whether this is one of them.

Psyren

2023-01-24, 11:07 AM

I can testify that Baldur's Gate I & II are what got me to even hear about "D&D" for the first time when I was 12 (on my mother's iMac, no less). This anchored D&D being synonymous with tabletop, "the" tabletop if you will, in my young mind. The same way Diablo II anchored in my young mind that a Necromancer must have a small army of skeletons in tow – that's non negotiable. I imagine if my first CRPGs had been Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, that anchoring would have been in favor of Pathfinder instead.

That's definitely a point in favor of their hostility towards 1.0a.

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I feel the need to point out that as an argument for why 1.2 is necessary, "The CC that comes out with 1.2 will let the video game folks do the same thing the OGL 1.0(a) would have," is not a very strong argument for why 1.2 is going to help WotC make a discriminator of a product.

I'm not arguing anything regarding the CC, beyond saying I think it's a good idea. Again, I haven't had a chance to dive into that material specifically.

If that were to happen, then it might play out like you suggest: D&DOne becomes the 4e analogue, the PF analogue under ORC or Black Flag OGL or something gains traction, and in a few years 6e proper shows up. That's how the 3.5 to 4 to 5 with PF in a parallel track seemed to play out.

Eh, there's a difference between what happened with 4e "we're just not putting the new edition on the OGL but otherwise we're leaving it alone" and "we are attempting to break a deal and deauthorize a perpetual license that we promised we'd never use to screw people over."

Like I'm already done with WOTC. If someone makes it clear they want to cheat people, believe them the first time.

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

Satinavian

2023-01-24, 11:24 AM

That's definitely a point in favor of their hostility towards 1.0a.How so ?

What they doing is preventing games like Solasta (that might get people into D&D) but leave games based on other systems ( like Owlcats Pathfinder and Rogue Trader or the TDE based Blackguards or Drakensang or the next Bloodlines) intact.

I know people who got into D&D from Baldur's gate. But I also know people who got into TDE from the Realms of Arcania games.

While there are a lot of cRPGs that don't have any tabletop game attached, there always have been many out there attached to other systems than D&D.

johnbragg

2023-01-24, 11:26 AM

I think this is pretty much a certainty at this point. But (and this is a big but) remember our history: 5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a).

IS that really even true though? If 5E had come out with the OGL 1.1, or 1.2, and the third-party creators all said "pass", unless they were working under a direct contract with WOTC (like Goodman Games converting 1E modules to 5E), I think 5E would have still done fine.

What's different? Critical Role couldn't have published TalDorei. Maybe they stay with, or go back to Pathfinder?

And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust in using an open license they "control", ever. They're going to have to switch to using ORC (assuming it has become the standard) when they finally try to pick up the pieces and publish 6e.

I think you had too many words and clauses there. I don't think taht you can un-spill the milk here.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust FULL STOP

But I don't think the execs at WOTC and Hasbro care. They're aiming for a bigger market than us.

johnbragg

2023-01-24, 11:36 AM

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

This is very very important. WOTC isn't even calling the new thing "6E", partially because they got burned so badly with 4E. They're going to strive for maximum compatibility with 5E stuff.

PArtially because (relying on D&DShorts), Wizards and Hasbro no longer especially care about TTRPGs. So "how can we fundamentally redesign the game to make it better" isn't a thought that's going to be anywhere on their radar. The books are going to be Collector's Editions, not the main revenue source for the "brand."

To Hasbro, D&D is one of their "brands", like Transformers and My Little Pony and Monopoly and GI Joe. And they're aiming to "monetize that brand" with some sort of subscription-based, pay-to-play and probably pay-to-git-gud online system.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-24, 11:37 AM

But I don't think the execs at WOTC and Hasbro care. They're aiming for a bigger market than us.

I've yet to see a "corporate makeover" that intentionally alienates and attacks the core, committed fanbase succeed. Of course, very few "corporate makeovers" succeed generally...

You could probably do it by very slowly making changes in the image and allowing natural attrition (by death if nothing else, but mostly by changing interests with age) whittle away the old guard. But getting into an open fight with your core fan base and intentionally telling them they're not welcome? Before you have a replacement fan base in place? Yeah...that's brand suicide. Even the MCU waited until much later to start making major changes...and that hasn't exactly gone perfectly either.

And this goes double for something like a TTRPG that requires a fair amount of dedication, investment, and especially community buy in. Unless you can completely transition to an atomized, "pick up game MMO" style revolving around paid DMs (or at least compensated DMs) where anyone can drop in or out and it's all online and "virtualized" and "transactional" (as opposed to repeating, "long-form" adventures with a group of friends), you need word of mouth, committed DMs and community invitations. And that transition is non-trivial. Especially if you've jettisoned a large majority of your formerly most loyal base before you even start.

This is very very important. WOTC isn't even calling the new thing "6E", partially because they got burned so badly with 4E. They're going to strive for maximum compatibility with 5E stuff.

Except the UAs put the lie to this. It's not compatible at all, except in the sense of "you can convert monsters and adventures to the new system (but not backward)" and "you can take isolated rule elements from OneD&D and use them in 5e, if you're careful". But those statements are true even for 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e.

Segev

2023-01-24, 11:39 AM

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

If the ORC folks are smart, they'll have some systems built on the core chassis of 5e, which is being released under the CC (according to WotC), which will make for a lot of third party products that use the ORC - and many that only use the CC - that are 5e compatible.

And I think that WotC will find that a lack of third party support for 5.1 is going to be more detriment than help, and the ill will they've engendered over their OGL 1.2 that might enable third parties will drive down third party participation even more than it might otherwise have. People in third parties are likely to feel less like they're over a barrel and need to keep up with the updated edition when there are so many fans vocally angry over how WotC has handled this, meaning sticking to 5.0 content they can legally use is more likely.

And that's not even getting into the legal battles some are already promising over the "deauthorization" clause, or loopholes in it some may attempt to exploit, which we can't discuss in any detail nor speculate on here.

Rynjin

2023-01-24, 11:43 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-24, 11:46 AM

That's sort of the main thing. Plenty of "corporate makeovers" have sadly worked, especially in the gaming sphere. But that's the video gaming sphere, where people are buying distinct products as distinct experiences.

TTRPGs are an inherently social hobby. You cannot play them without other people.

I think the suits misunderstand that distinction. "Well, it worked for Bethesda when they left behind their old userbase after Morrowind"; yeah, that's a series of single player games that were made to appeal to a broader audience.

You can't really engineer a TTRPG that way. In large part because despite being more mainstream than it was, this is STILL a niche hobby that is mostly spread by word of mouth. And if word of mouth says "yeah, this game/company sucks, play this instead", that's what gets played.

They'd basically need to astroturf FLGSes in every major city in the US (alongside other online communities) with paid GMs just to get traction.

But did those corporate makeovers go out of their way to alienate their base before they had anything out? Or did they just make something new and the fan base change as a result? The second is more doable--you've got momentum and there will always be turnover in fanbase. The first seems a lot more like intentionally shooting yourself in the kneecap[1] at the start line of the race.

[1] I used to be a big franchise like you, but then i took an arrow to the knee...

Atranen

2023-01-24, 11:53 AM

Or, BG III lands on its feat and brings the spotlight back to WotC and its brand with a fun and popular game. If I remember right, BG III is mostly based on 5e as it is, not D&Done, but maybe (since they so far share mostly the same internal game structure) the backwards compatibility piece might come into play.

Yeah, that's certainly a possibility. It will be interesting to see if they patch it to include One rules.

But measuring it drives the bean counters a little crazy. :smallsmile:

I'm not sure whether their gamble will be successful or not. But if it's not, the "issues were obvious in retrospect" article writes itself.

I think this is pretty much a certainty at this point. But (and this is a big but) remember our history: 5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a). And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust in using an open license they "control", ever. They're going to have to switch to using ORC (assuming it has become the standard) when they finally try to pick up the pieces and publish 6e.

This is my ideal scenario, so let's hope you're right!

But that also explains why many people with other favorite systems now see a chance in D&Ds weakness.

And why so many people are willing to leave D&D. A significant number were only there because it is big, not because they liked it over other offerings.

Yes--the network effects from the OGL did a lot for WoTC, and it seems they have stopped appreciating them and stopped realizing they even existed. If there's a critical mass for another system, you could see a pretty rapid shift.

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

Deep Magic 2 has been billed as being "backward compatible with 5e and forward compatible with Project Black Flag'. That's led people, myself included, to speculate that PBF will attempt to be similar to 5e and likely compatible with it more broadly. I suspect Kobold knows the score and will want a product people can use their 5E stuff with, rather than forcing a switch while OneD&D remains (?) compatible. Pathfinder 1e did the same thing.

Their first playtest is due to release in February, so we'll know more soon.

EggKookoo

2023-01-24, 11:56 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-24, 12:06 PM

And really where the rubber meets the road, 5e -> 1D&D and 3.5e -> 4e share one very identical aspect. They both will require people to buy new books, and will render the older books obsolete (assuming those players want to play the new system -- of course people can stick with 5e just like they could with 3.5e).

People were up in arms over 4e not necessarily because the rules were different, but because everyone had just gone through the painful but arguably necessary process of buying a whole new set of 3.5e books and throwing out their old 3e books.

Yeah. They could release a set of updates to 5e that wouldn't necessitate new books (although they could certainly provide them for those that wished). Just publish a set of "patch files". As long as the core remains the same and the relative balance still works (so a x.0 class/monster/etc works fine with an x.1 class/monster/etc). But they don't want to do that, because they need to get people to transition.

I expect them to do everything they can (without being open and illegal about it) to convince people to shift. Bribery, making the old materials hard to access on D&D Beyond, leaning on FLGS to stock only 1D&D, shifting AL instantly, etc. No, they won't come break down your door and steal your books. But definitely more of an Apple approach (update or else, if it breaks it breaks) than a Microsoft approach (where they're still including compatibility shims for XP-era bugs)[1].

[1] note these are the approaches to developers, not to consumers. Apple is notorious for doing things like changing big chunks of the layout and process in point-releases of their developer software and "deprecating" entire platforms fairly fast. Microsoft has a reputation of bending over backward to keep ancient software running as is.

Psyren

2023-01-24, 12:30 PM

Except the UAs put the lie to this. It's not compatible at all, except in the sense of "you can convert monsters and adventures to the new system (but not backward)" and "you can take isolated rule elements from OneD&D and use them in 5e, if you're careful". But those statements are true even for 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e.

If you think 1DnD<->5e will be anywhere near the magnitude of work that 3.5<->4e or 2e<->3e was for most people, I have no idea what to tell you beyond disagreeing. Those edition changes completely upended the skill system, the spellcasting rules, action economy and other fundamental things that are not changing nearly as drastically between 5e and 1DnD.

How so ?

The person I was responding to stated that, if Owlcat had been first to market with an isometric CRPG, many of the genre conventions they were anchored with might have seen Pathfinder's brand rather than D&D's as the genre originator or codifier. Such anchoring can still be lost by the right OGL game with the right technical advancements, so it's understandable for WotC to not want to leave a potential shortcut for the competition out in the ether.

What they doing is preventing games like Solasta (that might get people into D&D) but leave games based on other systems ( like Owlcats Pathfinder and Rogue Trader or the TDE based Blackguards or Drakensang or the next Bloodlines) intact.

Both Owlcat's Pathfinder games and Solasta will still be "left intact," as they already exist under 1.0a. It's the future stuff they have an eye towards. And it's extremely unlikely to expect that no other AAA publisher won't try to make something under 1.0a at some point in the future if it is left extant.

Critical Role couldn't have published TalDorei.

Hell, they still could have. Critical Role almost certainly has a custom license, which is how things like EGtW got made.