Official OGL Discussion Thread

[PhoenixPhyre]

Point being though that they completely surrendered to the community. Now and FOREVER the original OGL will stand. It’s Creative Commons now and cannot ever be undone.

This is big. And it cost them lots of money to abandon their path and give in to the community. To give you an idea Treantmonks sources said doing this cost them 100s of millions.

Point of order--only the 5.1 SRD is CC. The SRDs for 3e are not -- they're still OGL, which is different. OGL =/= SRD; various SRDs (the stuff with the actual content) were released under the same OGL (license which governs what you can do with that content). So in some ways, 3e material is more restricted than 5e material, since the OGL 1.0a was more restrictive (in ways that haven't been tested, to be sure) than CC is.

[Jervis]

Just so everyone is clear the SRD 5.1 they filed in Creative Commons isn’t the same as the one on their website. Functionally the only difference is that they scrubbed off proprietary names like beholders and the like. https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf (Can’t use good looking hyperlinks on mobile, sorry).

I suspect things won’t be as generous going into dndone as many people have pointed out. But dndone and 5e are so similar from what we’ve seen in playtest that it’s fairly inconsequential unless they go out of their way going forward to differentiate them. I wouldn’t be surprised if this creates another Paizo situation where someone makes 5e+ultra omega edition sigma grindset mode but that was already happening anyway.

Current theory is that someone in legal pointed out that they have a high probability of loosing a court case, the accounting/pr guys pointed out that projected profits from this shift weren’t worth the backlash, or a mixture of the above.

[Melil12]

Eh, that’s being alittle nitpicky isn’t it? 3.5 was great but 5e is really what will be moving forward. And I garuntee no one cares if you’re playing 3.5 or earlier … anywhere really.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, that’s being alittle nitpicky isn’t it? 3.5 was great but 5e is really what will be moving forward. And I garuntee no one cares if you’re playing 3.5 or earlier … anywhere really.

Pedantry is my native language. So... Yes. A bit nitpicky is probably fair.

[Melil12]

It’s all good, I appreciate you sharing your response anyways. It was informative. I am excited to see how things work out.

[KorvinStarmast]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220217005358/en/Alta-Fox-Capital-Management-Nominates-Five-Highly-Qualified-and-Independent-Candidates-for-Election-to-Hasbro%E2%80%99s-Board-of-Directors The altfox creature is all about share prices and money, nothing about the game or the community. Proceed with caution.

Fine, I guess I'll go see the movie. Smiled, I did.

Alright, good work everybody. Let's pack up, hit the showers, and celebrate at Denny's. I'll get my Grand Slam breakfast: fried eggs over medium, bacon, dry rye toast, grits, coffee.

1) WotC tried all of these things.
2) WotC lied about trying all these things.

As such we should not forget. We should require WotC earns the trust they lost. However for now trust has stopped eroding. Cha Ching! We have a winner.

this is just a sacrificial virgin to placate the masses and calm the furor by sacrificing something soon to be obsolete, and that they'll still go forward with some of the planned changes downstream when tempers aren't so hot. Not gonna bet against this.

I'm really happy to see this... Hasbro/WotC really shouldn't have expected otherwise from a community whose centered around "banding together to defeat powerful evil monsters" and rules-laywering. :smallcool: Laughed, I did. :smallcool:

(How's that for the most useless non-legal advice you ever got :smallbiggrin:) Good enough that I'll buy you a Grand Slam breakfast at Denny's.

[Tanarii]

Color me shocked. (Not at all blue text.)

I still think they're gonna take a long term loss of TTRPG market share for new products.

If ORC license moves forward, which I fully expect it to, I think we'll see a bunch of stuff published under that.

Also they just guaranteed 100% there will be a forking between WotC D&Done content and third party 5e content.


Worst I could see them doing (look, me, being optimistic? What's wrong with me?) is trying to do a "no backsies" clause, saying that anything you publish under NEW_LICENSE can't also be published under OGL 1.0a. Not even a "you won't publish anything under 1.0a" clause like the GSL had, but a "this specific thing is NEW_LICENSE only" clause. Which is much less objectionable.
I don't think it's objectionable at all. They can release their new stuff under whatever license they like. Folks building things can either take it or leave it. If folks building things leave it, WotC won't participate in adding content to the shared pool of gaming content. It'll only be to the D&D pool, and that pool will be smaller because only WotC will be adding to it.

[animorte]

Not surprised whatsoever. I figured the community scared the pants off somebody, and WotC honestly had no legitimate intentions of outright running over their beloved community.

However, let this remain a clear lesson in open communication.

[OracleofWuffing]

I feel like I should be concerned that a 90% statistic happened and that data is being fudged. Like, it's a nice round number and it's incredibly high for a collection of people on the internet. But I guess it's rude to examine a gifted horse's teeth.

So, just to prove it to us all that we supported the wrong side, the market is going to be flooded- flooded- with billion-dollar AAA virtual tabletops that are morally objectionable. And we'll hear, "Oh, it's not us that are immoral, we just listened to our fans, they're the creepy ones!" :smalltongue: I, for one, welcome our pineapple-on-pizza drow overladies.

To be honest, I was kind of expecting Wizards to just say that the leaks were fake and everyone was overreacting, just to set the narrative in place. Then, some months down the line, release the license with no changes whatsoever, and just rely on "people on the internet overreacted early" momentum to prevent the "people on the internet actually had things factually right" rarity from being noticed. So, I gotta give Wizards a kudo for that. Just one, though.

[NichG]

Pleasantly surprised, and pushing stuff to CC is a legitimate money-where-their-mouth-is to me. I'm willing to give back a general level of benefit of the doubt over this.

[EggKookoo]

Just so everyone is clear the SRD 5.1 they filed in Creative Commons isn’t the same as the one on their website. Functionally the only difference is that they scrubbed off proprietary names like beholders and the like. https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf (Can’t use good looking hyperlinks on mobile, sorry).

They missed beholders and mind flayers in a few descriptive spots.

Page 245: "Aberrations are utterly alien beings. Many of them have innate magical abilities drawn from the creature’s alien mind rather than the mystical forces of the world. The quintessential aberrations are aboleths, beholders, mind flayers, and slaadi."

[Telok]

Wizards is still dead to me. IDGAF.

Just the fact that they thought they could get away with it in the first place is enough for me.

I've been willing to forgive them for 15+ years, they just have to fix the Bo9S errata and apologize for the delay. No money until they start fixing the previous "dur hur, **** the customers, theys stupid sheep" decisions instead of just doing damage control for the most recent one.... again.

[Jervis]

They missed beholders and mind flayers in a few descriptive spots.

Page 245: "Aberrations are utterly alien beings. Many of them have innate magical abilities drawn from the creature’s alien mind rather than the mystical forces of the world. The quintessential aberrations are aboleths, beholders, mind flayers, and slaadi."

0_o

Ok then. Yeeeeah that seems like a oversight. Gonna be entertaining seeing what happens next someone makes “Beholders, the musical”

[Tanarii]

, and pushing stuff to CC is a legitimate money-where-their-mouth-is to me.
Yup. That's the part that makes it feel like the statement means what it says, not just a "we'll sit on this and try again later" CYA.

At least for this generation of executives.

[Raven777]

Personal shoutout to the developers in the trenches at WotC and the 3rd party content creators who leaked the drafts in the first place and allowed the community to organize and make itself heard while WotC was off balance. They're the true MVPs of the story. Goes on to show that if your institution is doing something wrong and you whistle blow against it, you can actually achieve a course correction.

[Particle_Man]

0_o

Ok then. Yeeeeah that seems like a oversight. Gonna be entertaining seeing what happens next someone makes “Beholders, the musical”

I guess you could make something new called a beholder but use different stats and different fluff excepting what is in the srd?

[Corvus]

Good to see them cave in to public pressure. Hopefully they'll learn, but there is no guarantee of it so a close eye will need to be kept on them.

[Brookshw]

Personal shoutout to the developers in the trenches at WotC and the 3rd party content creators who leaked the drafts in the first place and allowed the community to organize and make itself heard while WotC was off balance. They're the true MVPs of the story. Goes on to show that if your institution is doing something wrong and you whistle blow against it, you can actually achieve a course correction.

Sure hope WoTC doesn't identify any employee who leaked, or 3rd party who was under an NDA....

[Segev]

I genuinely hope WotC didn't accidentally hand out IP like I've seen rumored. It's one of those that I've seen people crowing about that twists my stomach, because that's one of the good ways they could monetize D&D and which should be protected. I'm reading here that that might not be the case, which is reassuring.

I love the response they've given this last time. "Well, uh... okay. So the fans not only mean it, they know what they're talking about. We're ... not going to admit we tried to pull any fast ones, but we ARE going to acknowledge that we are responding to this, and responding decisively with 100% agreement with fan desires on these matters." (my paraphrasing of what I'm reading into what they said)

I don't blame them for not admitting they tried to pull a fast one; that's just not something that anybody will ever do when legal matters are on the line. Not unless they've got a super-dark motive to tank their own brand for some reason.

Putting the 5e SRD on the CC license is not a move I expected. Putting the whole thing on it certainly makes it a sincere move, rather than the somewhat insincere one I expected.

The promise not to touch OGL 1.0(a) is, I think, actually fairly trust-worthy, if only because they've acknowledged that touching it is a problem. Even though they haven't admitted they can't, the way they acknowledged this move suggests to me that they will (rightly) view it as a third rail (in the "third rail of politics" sense). And unless they suddenly have an urge to recreate 3.5e in a way that would encourage third parties to publish for it and also wanted to prevent such third party publications, 5e is the one that is the reason to "deauthorize" 1.0(a). So the motive is largely gone with the CC license.

I believe - and sincerely hope - that this will ultimately be a solid step back in the right direction for them financially, as well. The things they'll have to abandon due to not "walling off" 5e from forking, etc., are likely things that would have ultimately harmed the brand.

As long as those rumors of IP being released that shouldn't have been turn out to be false/overblown. Godlings, I hope that's not true in a way that really does make it impossible for them to monetize their IP.

Hasbro is a freaking toy company; they should be making D&D toys to complement the movie and other moves they're making!

[Kane0]

Hasbro is a freaking toy company; they should be making D&D toys to complement the movie and other moves they're making!

The quality of those toys is a different discussion.

[TuringTest]

But big corps these days rotate through "new management" like I go through hair conditioner. We can't allow every new manager to come along and be all "Well ya know I got hired into this new company that I don't know anything about, but I only care about making more money for shareholders, so maybe I'll just repeat all my predecessors mistakes!"

If it is any consolation, the company I work at (nothing gaming-related) got new management about three years ago, changed processes from top to bottom without knowing anything about the business, the product we've been building these years have been cancelled, and the CEO has been sacked; yet it looks like the company will survive anyway (fingers crossed).

The new manager will be giving his welcoming speech next week, so we'll see, but it seems that the experience is being a great example of how NOT to act from now on.

[EggKookoo]

I genuinely hope WotC didn't accidentally hand out IP like I've seen rumored.

I haven't gone through the CC SRD with a fine-toothed comb, but it does reference beholders and mind flayers by name. No stat blocks or images (I think?). I guess at most this means you could have a "beholder" in your "5th edition compatible" game but they would probably have to look and function very differently from WotC's.

[Trafalgar]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-movie-honor-among-thieves-trailer-chris-pine-wotc-1850017842). It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

[EggKookoo]

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

https://i.imgflip.com/793gmk.jpg

[Mechalich]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-movie-honor-among-thieves-trailer-chris-pine-wotc-1850017842). It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

Stephen Colbert has appeared on Critical Role (https://nerdist.com/article/stephen-colbert-critical-role-dungeons-dragons-one-shot-red-nose-day/#:~:text=The%20Late%20Show%20host%20joined,titled% 20Choose%20Stephen%20Colbert's%20Adventure%E2%80%A 6), and he is exactly the kind of person who could ask Chris Pine or Michelle Rodriguez about this on air, or even mention the controversy directly on 'Meanwhile' and that would be, from Hasbro's perspective, an epic disaster.

The D&D fanbase includes a surprisingly large number of people who occupy the middle of the Venn Diagram of 'nerds in the 1980s and 1990s' and 'culturally important in 2023.' D&D has a cultural legacy that is vastly greater than its economic importance, largely because it is in fact quite easy to play a lot of D&D without paying anything, the thing WotC was trying to halt.

[Trafalgar]

"I am here today with Chris Pine, star of the new Dungeons & Dragons movie. Tell me what you think about OGL 1.0a? Do you think it should be irrevocable?"

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJt44N8ZyJR6wG4-veITRoTMEc5JnBuSHedQ&usqp=CAU

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Raven777
Goes on to show that if your institution is doing something wrong and you whistle blow against it, you can actually achieve a course correction.

In real life this hardly ever happens. If it did here, then it’s the exception that proves the rule.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Hasbro has a quiet purge in the weeks and months to come.


Originally Posted by Brookshw
Sure hope WoTC doesn't identify any employee who leaked, or 3rd party who was under an NDA....

Almost certainly they will. This was a massive initiative and it blew up in their corporate faces. The kind of people involved at the top will find an avenue for retaliation, one way or another. That kind always does.


Originally Posted by Segev
The promise not to touch OGL 1.0(a) is, I think, actually fairly trust-worthy, if only because they've acknowledged that touching it is a problem.

Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

[Brookshw]

In real life this hardly ever happens. If it did here, then it’s the exception that proves the rule.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Hasbro has a quiet purge in the weeks and months to come.

No argument here, when the money people start being concerned, things change


Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

Why? It's on CC now. Are you thinking about 3pp working off 3e, or who released their own systems under 1.0a?

Unrelated, I was playing around with some theories this morning and checked the USPTO TM database for 'Mind Flayer', and started laughing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

With the majority of the content in CC now it's effectively the same thing, haven't had time to go over it in fine detail but my understanding is that all but a few proper names is included.

In a way they did make the OGL "obsolete" in this move, if they ever do anything to the OGL in the future the CC SRD 5.1 remains

The primary concern is about future SRD content, there's no guarantee any future SRD will also go into CC or that any new content will be licensed under OGL 1.0a. My hope is that they're being honest in there intentions at this stage and that them saying there will be other SRD or rulesets included into CC is truthful. This is far and away the best thing to come out of this disaster, perhaps the only good thing even

[Pex]

Maybe? Won't know until 5.5 and what it does, could be this is just a sacrificial virgin to placate the masses and calm the furor by sacrificing something soon to be obsolete, and that they'll still go forward with some of the planned changes downstream when tempers aren't so hot. They certainly seem to have learned something from all this at least.

They could be more strict with 6E. They wouldn't be wrong to do so as it's their new thing, but they would still have to compete with those who publish within 5E. That is what 4E had to do with Pathfinder of 3E. They have to hope 6E is not so intrinsically bad as 4E was (with bias). If as they say 6E is compatible with 5E, they can hope people will play 6E characters in third party 5E modules. DMs would be annoyed enough having to convert minor discrepancies they'll buy 6E modules. This is all speculation.

For now they saved their movie from boycott bombing, D&D Beyond might get some resubscribers, and they can be open with 6E to keep the peace. They earned skepticism, but that does leave room for hope they'll play nice.

[Atranen]

I genuinely hope WotC didn't accidentally hand out IP like I've seen rumored. It's one of those that I've seen people crowing about that twists my stomach, because that's one of the good ways they could monetize D&D and which should be protected. I'm reading here that that might not be the case, which is reassuring.

Wholeheartedly agree. This is a good move and it really suck for them to have mistakenly given the farm away.


The promise not to touch OGL 1.0(a) is, I think, actually fairly trust-worthy, if only because they've acknowledged that touching it is a problem. Even though they haven't admitted they can't, the way they acknowledged this move suggests to me that they will (rightly) view it as a third rail (in the "third rail of politics" sense). And unless they suddenly have an urge to recreate 3.5e in a way that would encourage third parties to publish for it and also wanted to prevent such third party publications, 5e is the one that is the reason to "deauthorize" 1.0(a). So the motive is largely gone with the CC license.

I hope this is true. We talked a lot earlier in the thread about possible risks of 3.5 OGL based videogames, like the Pathfinder ones released recently. Their statement does leave open the possibility of pulling the OGL for the 3.5 SRD in a way that hampers these games; they also have a way to do it now that will have less blowback ("given the success of the CC for the SRD, we're moving from the OGL to CC going forward, and encourage partners to do so..."). That keeps the 5e people happy, and only comes after the smaller 3.5 fan base.

It feels a bit conspiratorial minded to suggest that. I doubt it's a near future move, the next 3 years are probably clear. So there shouldn't be any issues with DLC for the current games.

But if I were putting a new game into development, I'd pick the 5.1 SRD or something ORC related.

[Blackdrop]

A win?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

Edit: now that I'm not on mobile--If I'm reading that right, it's a total win. Key paragraphs:



This is effective immediately.

I...what? No, say it isn't so! But we had it on such reliable and informed authority that OGL 1.2 was an inevitability! To think that Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast would abandon the Greater Good of the TTRPG Community! It's appalling that Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast would show their belly and surrender to the (checks up-thread)... 3PPs who used the OGL to make money, the hypothetical future bigots abusing the D&D brand, and the Big Tech Companies that don't give a wooden nickel about the OGL. For shame Hasbro/WotC, for shame!

[Psyren]

Oh hey all, I didn't miss anything did I? :smallbiggrin:
That's what I get for thinking nothing big will happen on a Friday and going out!

I'll admit, I didn't expect a greater-than-full retreat like this. I think WotC made more than one mistake here, but what's done is done. Looking forward to getting back to the OneD&D playtest now that this nonsense is laid to rest.

[Trafalgar]

For now they saved their movie from boycott bombing, D&D Beyond might get some resubscribers, and they can be open with 6E to keep the peace. They earned skepticism, but that does leave room for hope they'll play nice.

In my experience, positive reinforcement is the best way to train a dog. When a dog follows a command, immediately give them a treat, scratch them behind the ear, and say "Good Boy!"

If you cancelled your D&D Beyond account, you should resubscribe. I'll go to see the D&D movie if I can figure out the best way to send a message to Hasbro that I am going just because of OGL 1.0a still exists. Maybe through a tweet.

[Xihirli]

now I think I'll also see the movie.

Eh, if they really care that much about my $10.95 after they split it with the theater, they can find out if they want to. They'll figure it out.

[EggKookoo]

I'll admit, I didn't expect a greater-than-full retreat like this. I think WotC made more than one mistake here, but what's done is done. Looking forward to getting back to the OneD&D playtest now that this nonsense is laid to rest.

Yeah, I hope they didn't jump the gun with moving the SRD to CC. The existence of rogue references to mind flayers and beholders is probably harmless in and of itself, but it worries me that they didn't properly vet the document.

[Trafalgar]

A question I have is whether a certain webcomic can include beholders in it now?

[Jervis]

I guess you could make something new called a beholder but use different stats and different fluff excepting what is in the srd?

Nothing is stopping you from making a aberation that’s a beholder. You can’t make it a floating eyeball but you can make a floating squid with a thousand eyes called a beholder in theory. I advise against it, but it wouldn’t surprise me

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I hope they didn't jump the gun with moving the SRD to CC. The existence of rogue references to mind flayers and beholders is probably harmless in and of itself, but it worries me that they didn't properly vet the document.


A question I have is whether a certain webcomic can include beholders in it now?

Generally, nothing was stopping anyone from referring to "beholders" (or even the other Reserved Words) as a reference except the OGL itself (which forbade using Product Identity material even by name only). It's why generic toothpaste can say "compare to the active ingredients in <brand name>"--trademarks don't prevent references. And the OGL doesn't apply at all now. And even if there was an issue, the word "beholder" is likely way too generic to be protectable by itself.

Now if you use "beholder" to reference a monster with an anti-magic eye, a bunch of eye-ray shooting eyeballs on stalks, etc? Then you're in (potential, standard disclaimers apply) trouble and still are. Just having a reference to the name in CC doesn't make it unprotected, because the part that's CC isn't protectable anyway.

Similarly, mind flayer is a generic term now. In fact, it's what everyone else uses to avoid the much more protectable ithilid. And again, just having the name there doesn't really give away anything. If they'd given the full stat blocks for those (which they never have), that'd be a completely different matter.

[Jervis]

A question I have is whether a certain webcomic can include beholders in it now?

If my understanding of the situation is correct it can but it can’t make them floating eyeballs. So ironically TootS can include beholders now but Sunny can’t be one and they can’t look anything like him

[EggKookoo]

Generally, nothing was stopping anyone from referring to "beholders" (or even the other Reserved Words) as a reference except the OGL itself (which forbade using Product Identity material even by name only). It's why generic toothpaste can say "compare to the active ingredients in <brand name>"--trademarks don't prevent references. And the OGL doesn't apply at all now. And even if there was an issue, the word "beholder" is likely way too generic to be protectable by itself.

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

[NichG]

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

You can make money off of things without the ability to stop others from using them. Any 3pp is already doing that with settings they build on top of, for example. Mostly it just means that you won't get royalties when other people make stuff, which is lost income but is also more motivation to make that stuff directly yourself instead.

[Jervis]

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

Eh, tbh the best dnd content is third party anyway, *glares at Spelljammer 5e* they haven’t had the best track record as of late in the quality department.

[Snowbluff]

In my experience, positive reinforcement is the best way to train a dog. When a dog follows a command, immediately give them a treat, scratch them behind the ear, and say "Good Boy!"

If you cancelled your D&D Beyond account, you should resubscribe. I'll go to see the D&D movie if I can figure out the best way to send a message to Hasbro that I am going just because of OGL 1.0a still exists. Maybe through a tweet.
Yeah, uh probably, if the community is meant to look like it has any credibility, anyway. However, I've not been to a movie theatre in 3 years and I wouldn't buy into ODD unless they were to make some good game changes. It's a weird position to be in.

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

Speaking of not writing a good system, what would happen in this case? If DnD is no longer being published, would someone be able to pick up the slack? Paizo is the next biggest company, but its not as large, nor does it have a product with broad, or even nerd appeal. Here's to hoping KP doesn't bungle their next product.

[Kane0]

Eh, tbh the best dnd content is third party anyway, *glares at Spelljammer 5e* they haven’t had the best track record as of late in the quality department.

Yep, and now that CC is on the table (now being able to more easily bypass DMGuild?) I wager we're going to see more not less.

[Segev]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-movie-honor-among-thieves-trailer-chris-pine-wotc-1850017842). It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.I suspect this is part of it, but if it were ALL, I would've expected the CC release of 5.1 SRD to...not happen. Not yet, at least. Just a promise that they will "reconsider" their "update" to the OGL...and stop releasing things about it. The usual "hope it dies down" thing, with the ability to say, "We've said we're not going with the controversial license versions" and other forms of "asked and answered" without actually committing.

The release of the SRD to the CC that has me convinced they probably mean it - as much as any group of people whose constituent members can "mean it," which is to say for as long as they remain the people running it, or their immediate successors who got into power because of this debacle - sincerely. The main incentive to "deauthorize" OGL 1.0(a) was to prevent a fork a la Pathfinder. The 5.1 SRD being on the CC, I think, makes preventing that a losing battle, unless their next edition (or half-edition, or whatever) successfully avoids precipitating a desire for that fork.


In real life this hardly ever happens. If it did here, then it’s the exception that proves the rule.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Hasbro has a quiet purge in the weeks and months to come.



Almost certainly they will. This was a massive initiative and it blew up in their corporate faces. The kind of people involved at the top will find an avenue for retaliation, one way or another. That kind always does.It may not be so quiet if those who leaked are feeling their oats. And, while it's not a guarantee that the smart thing is what a corporation will do, especially when it is not in the interests of the people running it (as opposed to the shareholders who own it), the smart thing would be to bring the leakers they can find in, determine why they did it, and offer them rewards commensurate with saving the company from this blowback happening when it's too late for the company to recover by retreating. But tie those rewards to NDAs and the like that make leaking like this much harder in the future, and also providing them with a place to voice their concerns in the future. Maybe even publicly.

The ones who leaked - this time - showed their instincts were on the money for how bad this would be for the company. It still isn't behavior you want to encourage. And even worse, it's not entirely likely that the suits who were behind the bad choices will recognize that the problem was their initiative, not the leaks. "Oh, if only we could've FINISHED crashing the car into the cliff, rather than being told to stop and reverse course before we got there! Then there'd have been no problem!"




Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.Yeah, but it'll be even harder to try to weasel-word around it now that the specific concern has been raised.

Imagine a company publicly saying, "We will build you a house for $150,000!" in public statements, and somebody brings up, "Yeah, but you've got all sorts of hidden fees we have to pay before that." Then, the company says, "No, we promise, $150,000 is all you'll pay for it," again, very publicly. Then, the contract says "$150,000" on it, with no obvious extra fees, and only some clauses that, if you squint at them, might suggest they can change this number later, maybe.

If they then try to change that number, it's going to be quite the difficult battle to convince anybody that they weren't deliberately being deceptive in the design of the contract at that point. And our courts aren't run by Fair Folk or Devils, no matter how much we sometimes joke about it.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, etc., etc., and maybe I'm missing something, here, but just the huge backlash they'd face if they tried to renege on this any time in this generation of gamers is enough to make me think they're sincere. Couple that to the fact that their biggest incentive to "deauthorize" it is now no longer a possibility, as far as I can tell, and I think they mean it.

[Jervis]

Yep, and now that CC is on the table (now being able to more easily bypass DMGuild?) I wager we're going to see more not less.

DMs guild wasn’t really required for stuff that used the SRD. You still need it if you wanna reference stuff outside of the SRD like spells from other books, but personally I think that small benefit isn’t worth what the DMguild takes. CC is a step above the old OGL though.

[Zuras]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-movie-honor-among-thieves-trailer-chris-pine-wotc-1850017842). It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

Concern from Paramount over being financially damaged by Hasbro’s moves was probably a factor, but don’t discount the hard numbers from their distributors telling them Pathfinder 2E books were selling out everywhere.

It’s easy to say “it’s just a twitter outrage cycle”, but it’s a bit harder when you have hard numbers like “this announcement led to X cancellations and caused our largest competitor in the space to sell every available copy of their competing product”.

You can’t say it’s just a few loud malcontents if people are actually putting money where their outrage is.

[johnbragg]

Concern from Paramount over being financially damaged by Hasbro’s moves was probably a factor, but don’t discount the hard numbers from their distributors telling them Pathfinder 2E books were selling out everywhere.

It’s easy to say “it’s just a twitter outrage cycle”, but it’s a bit harder when you have hard numbers like “this announcement led to X cancellations and caused our largest competitor in the space to sell every available copy of their competing product”.

You can’t say it’s just a few loud malcontents if people are actually putting money where their outrage is.


Most "twitter outrage cycles" are driven by media ecosystems that pretty much focus on the next culture war topic. Sometimes the opposite side will "nutpick" something and try to whip up an outrage mob about it. but it's usually mostly limited to people who enjoy being outraged, or enjoy triggering outrage. (I've done it, justified anger is a good feeling. But not a healthy mental habit).

Most "twitter outrage cycles" aren't driven by the core consumers of your product. Said another way, by the core loyalists of your "undermonetized brand."

[Segev]

Most "twitter outrage cycles" are driven by media ecosystems that pretty much focus on the next culture war topic. Sometimes the opposite side will "nutpick" something and try to whip up an outrage mob about it. but it's usually mostly limited to people who enjoy being outraged, or enjoy triggering outrage. (I've done it, justified anger is a good feeling. But not a healthy mental habit).

Most "twitter outrage cycles" aren't driven by the core consumers of your product. Said another way, by the core loyalists of your "undermonetized brand."

Right, but to a disconnected executive, they look the same and, if the plebes are outraged at your obviously right choice, it must just be that media-driven thing. And if it isn't being driven by the media you consider important, it obviously must be that counter-outrage thing, which is safe to ignore. Maybe give the Real Media a cookie by asserting that it is you who is on the right side of the social issues, and therefore anyone against you is on the wrong side.

Seeing that it doesn't blow over and that it has real consequences has got to be as scary as learning that the horror movie monster you were laughing at the others in the theater for being jump-scared by has actually just cut off your left arm.

So I totally get a panicked response, if the sales numbers really looked as suggested in your post!

[Tanarii]

WotC has a recent history of quickly reversing content based on non-product-consumer outrage.
This was different, because they doubled down at first, and it was product-consumer outrage.

I think the core difference here was someone in the company clearly believed they needed to get rid of OGL 1.0(a) to monetize the brand and/or to prevent forking. Previous reversal of content was more on par with renaming demons/devils or using deity instead of god. It was irritating to many if not most product consumers ... but it was a clear PR move that was very likely to stop more loss of money that it caused. (As someone who was in the "they lost my spending" column, I still get why they went that route for the latter.)

I mean, this should have been obvious that it would cause more problems that it save ... but I can see why at an executive level that might not have been clear. The major failing was either no one was willing to speak up to the executives, they didn't listen ... or it got leaked before it went to the non-execs and the execs could start listening (or failing to)

[johnbragg]

Right, but to a disconnected executive, they look the same and, if the plebes are outraged at your obviously right choice, it must just be that media-driven thing. And if it isn't being driven by the media you consider important, it obviously must be that counter-outrage thing, which is safe to ignore. Maybe give the Real Media a cookie by asserting that it is you who is on the right side of the social issues, and therefore anyone against you is on the wrong side.

Right. A consistent thread in the PR statements was that the changes were to have a more inclusive, welcoming diverse etc D&D game. Impicitly, that's saying "our critics are mossbacked racist trogodytes" which is often true in these scenarios (pick your favorite media that got review-bombed for wokeness).


Seeing that it doesn't blow over and that it has real consequences has got to be as scary as learning that the horror movie monster you were laughing at the others in the theater for being jump-scared by has actually just cut off your left arm.

So I totally get a panicked response, if the sales numbers really looked as suggested in your post!

I don't think I had any sales numbers in my posts, and if I did they were completely arbitrary for the purposed of illustrating something I don't remember. But the scuttlebutt is that a lot of D&D Beyond subscriptions went POOF, and the feedback from the D&DBeyond playtest was probably what they said it was.


WotC has a recent history of quickly reversing content based on non-product-consumer outrage.
This was different, because they doubled down at first, and it was product-consumer outrage.

I think that the culture wars come into play here. Most recent content social media storms were driven by people or groups on the Right Side of History. (Hadozee, removal of Race as a term, etc). OGL 1.1 phrased itself in the terminology of being on the Right Side of History, which meant that any opposition was logically from Bad People with dark or at least unenlightened motives.

That crashed on the rocks of 1. the actual player base that's not necessarily invested in culture warring rallied to old-school, pre-culture-war anti-corporate populism and
2. the reaction from the actual paying player base (D&DBeyond subscribers), not just whose hashtag trended harder.

[Jervis]

WotC has a recent history of quickly reversing content based on non-product-consumer outrage.
This was different, because they doubled down at first, and it was product-consumer outrage.

I think the core difference here was someone in the company clearly believed they needed to get rid of OGL 1.0(a) to monetize the brand and/or to prevent forking. Previous reversal of content was more on par with renaming demons/devils or using deity instead of god. It was irritating to many if not most product consumers ... but it was a clear PR move that was very likely to stop more loss of money that it caused. (As someone who was in the "they lost my spending" column, I still get why they went that route for the latter.)

I mean, this should have been obvious that it would cause more problems that it save ... but I can see why at an executive level that might not have been clear. The major failing was either no one was willing to speak up to the executives, they didn't listen ... or it got leaked before it went to the non-execs and the execs could start listening (or failing to)

If the leaks I’ve heard from WotC employees are correct they were doing this to kneecap VTT competition, the possibility of a 5e clone coming out if dndone doesn’t do well was secondary. They were coming after foundery and talespire specifically from the sounds of it.

[Segev]

If the leaks I’ve heard from WotC employees are correct they were doing this to kneecap VTT competition, the possibility of a 5e clone coming out if dndone doesn’t do well was secondary. They were coming after foundery and talespire specifically from the sounds of it.

Which, given that they can't compel either of those to use D&D licensing at all, seems like it makes this even more foolish.

[Satinavian]

Overall this ia a good result.


But really, now i want to know who in management gets to shoulder the blame for this whole desaster. Shareholders can't be happy.

[The Glyphstone]

That's what Executive Vice Presidents are for, well-paid disposable scapegoats in case of corporate disaster.

[Zuras]

Right, but to a disconnected executive, they look the same and, if the plebes are outraged at your obviously right choice, it must just be that media-driven thing. And if it isn't being driven by the media you consider important, it obviously must be that counter-outrage thing, which is safe to ignore. Maybe give the Real Media a cookie by asserting that it is you who is on the right side of the social issues, and therefore anyone against you is on the wrong side.

Seeing that it doesn't blow over and that it has real consequences has got to be as scary as learning that the horror movie monster you were laughing at the others in the theater for being jump-scared by has actually just cut off your left arm.

So I totally get a panicked response, if the sales numbers really looked as suggested in your post!

The industry articles I’ve seen said the pathfinder 2E core books were sold out across the board, and that Paizo considered the pre-leak inventory sufficient for 6-8 months of normal demand.

Wizards would not know the specifics on the Paizo side prior to the recent articles, but they would know from their distributor relationships that they (the distributors) had sold every P2E core book in their warehouse, especially if the distributors wanted to stress the whole OGL thing was a bad idea. I don’t know what extra analytics tools Amazon gives major suppliers like Hasbro, but those tools would also show major spikes in their competitors sales.

Online sales from places like DrivethruRPG might not be as easily available, but if they have tools, or just someone there willing to provide hard data to persuade them not to do it (which isn’t a stretch to imagine) they could even be seeing the massive spike in non-D&D purchases vs the baseline.

If I were in Hasbro’s analytics department and wanted to convince management the OGL rage was a real problem, I’d probably just go with the Amazon numbers plus the anecdotal feedback from distributors.

Whether it was the DDB cancellations or competitors sales spikes, Hasbro looked at data with real dollars attached and realized they needed to change course. Money doesn’t talk, it swears.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zuras
The industry articles I’ve seen said the pathfinder 2E core books were sold out across the board, and that Paizo considered the pre-leak inventory sufficient for 6-8 months of normal demand.

Recent (https://www.wargamer.com/pathfinder/sales-rise-dnd-ogl?driver=popular-now) articles (https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/pathfinder-call-of-cthulhu-rpgs-sell-out-dnd-ogl-backlash) which give a bit more information. Not just Paizo that saw a huge surge in sales.


Originally Posted by Satinavian
But really, now i want to know who in management gets to shoulder the blame for this whole desaster.

I’ll be watching to see how this affects Chris Cao in particular. We shall be following his career with great interest.

[Witty Username]

All my hopes of Wotc revoking the Reserved List have died yet again.
Community promises have proven too strong.

[Tanarii]

Money doesn’t talk, it swears.
Agreed. And I think they're still in trouble if Paizo goes through with the ORC license initiative, and even more so if the major publishers who got on board with the ORC license follow through with stripping everything OGL-related from their products.

Several other publishers had indicate they are going to create their own OGLs as well, and it includes some who have complete systems of their own that have nothing to do with WotC content and we're just using the license to contribute to the shared TTRPG environment. (Free League for example.) If ORC really does come through, and fast enough, they might pick up some of those folks too instead.

Between that and directly losing customers playing their games at FLGSs, I think they've lost a chance to do well with D&Done.

Otoh they probably saved their movie. 2 months is long enough that I can't see a movie boycott happening. Even thought there are definitely a number of folks that will never give WotC money again, it won't be enough general outrage by then for a boycott.

[NichG]

Agreed. And I think they're still in trouble if Paizo goes through with the ORC license initiative, and even more so if the major publishers who got on board with the ORC license follow through with stripping everything OGL-related from their products.

Several other publishers had indicate they are going to create their own OGLs as well, and it includes some who have complete systems of their own that have nothing to do with WotC content and we're just using the license to contribute to the shared TTRPG environment. (Free League for example.) If ORC really does come through, and fast enough, they might pick up some of those folks too instead.


On the other hand, if ORC turns out to be more restrictive than Creative Commons, they might reflect the general distrust of hinky stuff in licenses that could be used against you in the future that was generated by their own attempt back at Paizo.

[thethird]

Otoh they probably saved their movie. 2 months is long enough that I can't see a movie boycott happening. Even thought there are definitely a number of folks that will never give WotC money again, it won't be enough general outrage by then for a boycott.

I think they have given the movie a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits. Maybe it's a meh movie when it comes out and people are meh about it. It's a better situation than where it was, certainly, but there isn't much excitement for it on the people around me. I'm the DM and people were like, if you really want to see it, we can, but it's more like getting together to do something together, we could do that with any movie (or for dinner, or actually play a Pathfinder game, we got stuck on Pathfinder 1E bringing in a lot of 3.5 stuff)

[Brookshw]

On the other hand, if ORC turns out to be more restrictive than Creative Commons, they might reflect the general distrust of hinky stuff in licenses that could be used against you in the future that was generated by their own attempt back at Paizo.

On the one hand, I can't imagine it'll be a particularly restrictive license as it's being negotiated/drafted by a consortium, and the respective interests of the parties should be keeping it honest[1]; otoh, I'm chuckling at the (potential) deviousness of WoTC in setting the bar at CC level to 'force' the hand of the consortium to broad license rights to ensure they are limited in the extent they can watch out for their own interests, at least, w/o WoTC being able to point to it as justification for them to launch a more restrictive license later.

[1] For example, FDP and AUTM templates (just to name a few) are the result of similar consortium style negotiated terms, and widely considered fair and reasonable.

[Rynjin]

I think the "Hasbro-Wizards are playing 5D chess" line of thought is a bit silly. You don't have to lay off 1000 people if all is going according to keikaku*.

*Translator's note: keikaku means plan.

[False God]

I think the "Hasbro-Wizards are playing 5D chess" line of thought is a bit silly. You don't have to lay off 1000 people if all is going according to keikaku*.

*Translator's note: keikaku means plan.

Laying off people is pretty typical when a company hyperfixates on short-term shareholder profits. I don't think the layoffs had anything to do with the OGL 2.0 disaster.

[Rynjin]

Laying off people is pretty typical when a company hyperfixates on short-term shareholder profits. I don't think the layoffs had anything to do with the OGL 2.0 disaster.

Yes and no. I think they were definitely looking for an excuse to lay people off, but I also think that this was not ideal timing for Hasbro to do so, given the main short term impact to their profits is sourced from bad PR, which layoffs aren't going to help with. At best, it makes them look WEAK.

[EggKookoo]

I think the "Hasbro-Wizards are playing 5D chess" line of thought is a bit silly.

I agree. To quote something else that's only tangentially-related: "Don't kid yourself. It's not that organized."

[warty goblin]

I think the "Hasbro-Wizards are playing 5D chess" line of thought is a bit silly. You don't have to lay off 1000 people if all is going according to keikaku*.

*Translator's note: keikaku means plan.

Really, I think what we saw was a clash between two internal factions at Wizards. Somebody clearly wanted the restrictive license and royalties and all the rest, otherwise they wouldn't have written that up. My guess is that's the group behind OGL 1.1 and the first particularly awful apology.

But that went super sideways with the leak and the backlash. My suspicion is that gave some wiggle room to a second group not in favor of trying to forcefully create a walled garden. That got us the second apology, the 1.2 draft, and the survey. At this point neither group held power, and things were still in flux.

But the continued bad press (I heard a bit about this on NPR for crying out loud, and if NPR isn't giving your anti-racism line the time of day, that dog don't hunt) and continued fan outrage, with potential consequences for the movie really torpedoed the walled garden group.

So I think every time the retraction goes "we wanted X, you wanted Y, here's Y" we should probably read it as " Carl*, that dumbass, convinced corporate we could get away with this stupid idea and now I've had to spend two weeks dealing with this darn mess, just like I said would happen. Thanks Carl."

*hypothetical name.

I have absolutely no concrete evidence of this. But the walk back was so substantial, and the shift in tone about how things were handled so abrupt - attempted stealth to reasonably transparent and accepting of feedback - that I find hard to believe that it was the same people calling the shots. Like, releasing the rules under CC is from a completely different planet than the 1.1 draft.

[EggKookoo]

I have absolutely no concrete evidence of this. But the walk back was so substantial, and the shift in tone about how things were handled so abrupt - attempted stealth to reasonably transparent and accepting of feedback - that I find hard to believe that it was the same people calling the shots. Like, releasing the rules under CC is from a completely different planet than the 1.1 draft.

It definitely had the feel of the parent in the room finally waking up and saying "I don't care who started it, stop making the mess NOW!"

[BRC]

Really, I think what we saw was a clash between two internal factions at Wizards. Somebody clearly wanted the restrictive license and royalties and all the rest, otherwise they wouldn't have written that up. My guess is that's the group behind OGL 1.1 and the first particularly awful apology.

But that went super sideways with the leak and the backlash. My suspicion is that gave some wiggle room to a second group not in favor of trying to forcefully create a walled garden. That got us the second apology, the 1.2 draft, and the survey. At this point neither group held power, and things were still in flux.

But the continued bad press (I heard a bit about this on NPR for crying out loud, and if NPR isn't giving your anti-racism line the time of day, that dog don't hunt) and continued fan outrage, with potential consequences for the movie really torpedoed the walled garden group.

So I think every time the retraction goes "we wanted X, you wanted Y, here's Y" we should probably read it as " Carl*, that dumbass, convinced corporate we could get away with this stupid idea and now I've had to spend two weeks dealing with this darn mess, just like I said would happen. Thanks Carl."

*hypothetical name.

I have absolutely no concrete evidence of this. But the walk back was so substantial, and the shift in tone about how things were handled so abrupt - attempted stealth to reasonably transparent and accepting of feedback - that I find hard to believe that it was the same people calling the shots. Like, releasing the rules under CC is from a completely different planet than the 1.1 draft.


This is about where I'm at too.

I think you have a group of people familiar with the TTRPG space, the history/original function of the OGL, and what happened with 4e.

And then you've got a group of people who come in from other spaces that don't have that history and see the OGL as leaving a pile of money on the table by enabling competition, and thinking to themselves that they can increase profits by getting a cut of that pie.

Heck, Dollars to Donuts the leak came from somebody in the first group hoping to scuttle the whole plan, because the only thing worse than dealing with all this backlash off a leaked draft would be dealing with the SAME backlash if WOTC tried to officially release the new OGL.

[Tanarii]

Yes and no. I think they were definitely looking for an excuse to lay people off, but I also think that this was not ideal timing for Hasbro to do so, given the main short term impact to their profits is sourced from bad PR, which layoffs aren't going to help with. At best, it makes them look WEAK.
Layoffs have to be planned well in advance of the announcement, because you have to file stuff in advance. There is zero chance it is related to the OGL debacle.

Since the layoffs announcement was lined up with Q4 financials being released, and that's the stated reason for the layoffs, then that's the reason for them.

[Rynjin]

Layoffs have to be planned well in advance of the announcement, because you have to file stuff in advance. There is zero chance it is related to the OGL debacle.

Since the layoffs announcement was lined up with Q4 financials being released, and that's the stated reason for the layoffs, then that's the reason for them.

Right, as said, it was already planned/they were looking for an excuse.

But it's not a good look with this timing.

[Segev]

All my hopes of Wotc revoking the Reserved List have died yet again.
Community promises have proven too strong.I'm not sure to what you're referring, here. Could you please elaborate?


So I think every time the retraction goes "we wanted X, you wanted Y, here's Y" we should probably read it as " Carl*, that dumbass, convinced corporate we could get away with this stupid idea and now I've had to spend two weeks dealing with this darn mess, just like I said would happen. Thanks Carl."

*hypothetical name.

I have absolutely no concrete evidence of this. But the walk back was so substantial, and the shift in tone about how things were handled so abrupt - attempted stealth to reasonably transparent and accepting of feedback - that I find hard to believe that it was the same people calling the shots. Like, releasing the rules under CC is from a completely different planet than the 1.1 draft.

Agreed, this seems likely to me. It is also one of the reasons I recommend being gracious in victory, here, and, if not extending the trust we might have before to WotC, at least showing that we're willing to put our money where our mouths are in terms of still being customers now that we got what we wanted.

My biggest remaining fear is that Carl* will pounce on any shortfall in cash flow to say, "See? It didn't matter that we gave in to those whiny consumers! They made demands, got what they wanted from Steve*'s weak-spined capitulation, and still are punishing us, but now with us in a weaker position. Put me back in charge, and I'll make sure we get our pound of flesh, the whiny brats be darned. If we're going to be screwed out of money we should have by those obstinate gamers, we may as well make sure they don't get free stuff from us on top of it!"

* hypothetical names

It's important to give positive as well as negative reinforcement. We can tell WotC that they're still on notice, and not all is forgiven, while still telling them that we are happy to be able to go back to buying 5e products and D&D-branded stuff...as long as they keep on this track of better behavior.

[Zuras]

Really, I think what we saw was a clash between two internal factions at Wizards. Somebody clearly wanted the restrictive license and royalties and all the rest, otherwise they wouldn't have written that up. My guess is that's the group behind OGL 1.1 and the first particularly awful apology.

But that went super sideways with the leak and the backlash. My suspicion is that gave some wiggle room to a second group not in favor of trying to forcefully create a walled garden. That got us the second apology, the 1.2 draft, and the survey. At this point neither group held power, and things were still in flux.

But the continued bad press (I heard a bit about this on NPR for crying out loud, and if NPR isn't giving your anti-racism line the time of day, that dog don't hunt) and continued fan outrage, with potential consequences for the movie really torpedoed the walled garden group.

So I think every time the retraction goes "we wanted X, you wanted Y, here's Y" we should probably read it as " Carl*, that dumbass, convinced corporate we could get away with this stupid idea and now I've had to spend two weeks dealing with this darn mess, just like I said would happen. Thanks Carl."

*hypothetical name.

I have absolutely no concrete evidence of this. But the walk back was so substantial, and the shift in tone about how things were handled so abrupt - attempted stealth to reasonably transparent and accepting of feedback - that I find hard to believe that it was the same people calling the shots. Like, releasing the rules under CC is from a completely different planet than the 1.1 draft.

This seems like the most sensible interpretation. It’s almost seems like the pro-open licensing group stepped in it when the issue first came up.

I can just imagine the walled-garden folks talking up their plans at a big meeting, only to have someone bring up the objection “last time we went with a restrictive license the player base forked, are we risking a Pathfinder redux?”

The response was then “this time our lawyers will make sure those meddling kids don’t interfere!” Hasbro then discovered that the meddling kids have even more PR clout and market power than they did a decade ago. It’s just such obviously dumb post-hoc justification.

If your product is at its most popular level of adoption ever, when you bring out a new version, it either needs to be mostly backwards compatible, obviously better, have greater mass appeal, or (ideally) all three.

If they were worried about VTT and electronic implementations in general, why on earth did they not keep the big restrictions on anybody else monetizing D&D like a video game specific to new 1D&D content and leave the existing OGL alone? It’s all so dumb.

The only way D&D Beyond is worth what they paid is if the execution of a VTT and other electronic play tools is more important than simply owning the IP rights. Their behavior here is just incoherent.

[Zombimode]

I'm not sure to what you're referring, here. Could you please elaborate?

The Reserve List is a list of Magic: The Gathering cards that Wizards of the Coast has promised never to reprint.
It is an agreement to "protect" the "value" of those cards and thus the "investment" of collectors.

So far WotC has abided to that agreement - at least by letter.
What that means in some cases is that some cards are traded with very high pricetags: cards for which there is a high demand but, thanks to the Reserve List, a fix and (very) limited supply.

Pretty much from the annoucement of the Reserve List many voices have been raised to abolish the Reserve List - since it makes entering certain formats prohibitively expensive.

It is pretty stupid to be honest since the trading value of a card is very much dependent on what other cards exist. A 3/3 creature for 1 mana sounds great - but if there is an otherwise identical creature that has 4/4 the old 3/3 creature will drop drastically in value.
And thats if you consider "protecting investements" as a worthwhile goal in the first place.

[Segev]

The Reserve List is a list of Magic: The Gathering cards that Wizards of the Coast has promised never to reprint.
It is an agreement to "protect" the "value" of those cards and thus the "investment" of collectors.

So far WotC has abided to that agreement - at least by letter.
What that means in some cases is that some cards are traded with very high pricetags: cards for which there is a high demand but, thanks to the Reserve List, a fix and (very) limited supply.

Pretty much from the annoucement of the Reserve List many voices have been raised to abolish the Reserve List - since it makes entering certain formats prohibitively expensive.

It is pretty stupid to be honest since the trading value of a card is very much dependent on what other cards exist. A 3/3 creature for 1 mana sounds great - but if there is an otherwise identical creature that has 4/4 the old 3/3 creature will drop drastically in value.
And thats if you consider "protecting investements" as a worthwhile goal in the first place.
Ah, so the controversy, if there is one, is over whether WotC broke their word by printing a "Green Smelf" that is a 4/4 for 2 mana, and is definitely not a reserve-list "Green Elf" that is a 4/4 for 2 mana?

[Psyren]

On the one hand, I can't imagine it'll be a particularly restrictive license as it's being negotiated/drafted by a consortium, and the respective interests of the parties should be keeping it honest[1]; otoh, I'm chuckling at the (potential) deviousness of WoTC in setting the bar at CC level to 'force' the hand of the consortium to broad license rights to ensure they are limited in the extent they can watch out for their own interests, at least, w/o WoTC being able to point to it as justification for them to launch a more restrictive license later.

For example, FDP and AUTM templates (just to name a few) are the result of similar consortium style negotiated terms, and widely considered fair and reasonable.

I'm gonna need you to dumb this down abooooout 2-3 degrees for me.


Really, I think what we saw was a clash between two internal factions at Wizards. Somebody clearly wanted the restrictive license and royalties and all the rest, otherwise they wouldn't have written that up. My guess is that's the group behind OGL 1.1 and the first particularly awful apology.

But that went super sideways with the leak and the backlash. My suspicion is that gave some wiggle room to a second group not in favor of trying to forcefully create a walled garden. That got us the second apology, the 1.2 draft, and the survey. At this point neither group held power, and things were still in flux.

But the continued bad press (I heard a bit about this on NPR for crying out loud, and if NPR isn't giving your anti-racism line the time of day, that dog don't hunt) and continued fan outrage, with potential consequences for the movie really torpedoed the walled garden group.

So I think every time the retraction goes "we wanted X, you wanted Y, here's Y" we should probably read it as " Carl*, that dumbass, convinced corporate we could get away with this stupid idea and now I've had to spend two weeks dealing with this darn mess, just like I said would happen. Thanks Carl."

*hypothetical name.

I have absolutely no concrete evidence of this. But the walk back was so substantial, and the shift in tone about how things were handled so abrupt - attempted stealth to reasonably transparent and accepting of feedback - that I find hard to believe that it was the same people calling the shots. Like, releasing the rules under CC is from a completely different planet than the 1.1 draft.

This is my guess as well.

I believe also that Kyle Brink is making plans to meet with some D&D youtubers/influencers to provide additional damage control insight into what went down and their longer-term goals.

[Brookshw]

I'm gonna need you to dumb this down abooooout 2-3 degrees for me.


Sure. (1) ORC is probably going to be very open, everyone's sitting at the table and gets a say, and the mutual reliance upon it incentivizes everyone to play fair.

(2) I'm snickering/tin foil hatting at the idea that WoTC pushed the CC license to prompt the ORC team to have to license at that level; if ORC doesn't, then WoTC can make themselves look better by comparison ('we're the good guys, we went CC, they're the bad guys, they went with a more restrictive license'), or point to a more restrictive ORC license as a reason for WoTC to also be restrictive in the future.

[Tanarii]

Ah, so the controversy, if there is one, is over whether WotC broke their word by printing a "Green Smelf" that is a 4/4 for 2 mana, and is definitely not a reserve-list "Green Elf" that is a 4/4 for 2 mana?

The controversy is that there is a faction that want the reserve list abolished so some pre-1996 very powerful cards can be reprinted and are available at lower price for the vintage tournament. Vs owners of those cards who want the value to stay high.

Google MTG Black Lotus and you'll see the kind of value at stake.

[Raven777]

The controversy is that there is a faction that want the reserve list abolished so some pre-1996 very powerful cards can be reprinted and are available at lower price for the vintage tournament. Vs owners of those cards who want the value to stay high.

Google MTG Black Lotus and you'll see the kind of value at stake.

Couldn't they reprint, say, a 'Black Lotus, 2023 Edition' with no issue while preserving the original edition's value? They could even use different artwork.

(I assume value is derived from the card being an original, not its power, the same way a Ford Model T is valuable because of its age, not because it's a thrill to drive.)

[skyth]

No. In the case of the Lotus, it's the power. Though rarity increases the cost a bit

[Zombimode]

Google MTG Black Lotus and you'll see the kind of value at stake.

Thing is, WotC doesn't need the Reserve List in order not to reprint cards. They can... just not do it. This is how it works for many other cards. Even without the Reserve List there won't be a reprint of Black Lotus as a big supply of this would warp the game around in any format it would be legal - including casual games. Same for Moxen and Ancestral Recall.
But reprinting the original dual lands in a way that doesn't effect tournament formats (like standard and modern)? There are good arguments for why this would be beneficial for the game.

[Zuras]

Couldn't they reprint, say, a 'Black Lotus, 2023 Edition' with no issue while preserving the original edition's value? They could even use different artwork.

(I assume value is derived from the card being an original, not its power, the same way a Ford Model T is valuable because of its age, not because it's a thrill to drive.)

It’s a bit of both. There is a distinct price difference between the Alpha and Beta limited edition versions and the unlimited white border version, but it’s hard to gauge what a reprint would do to prices. They could go up or down depending on whether the change increases demand (because of renewed interest in the Vintage format) more than supply increases.

It’s hard to know, but the expectation is that there would be a modest drop in value for the most collectible cards (near mint original printing) but a significant drop in the less collectible cards (heavily played or reprinted edition).

They recently reprinted Force of Will, a powerful and iconic card not on the reserved list, and its price dropped about 20% from a year ago. So a significant hit, but you’re not looking at a complete collapse in value.

[Tanarii]

Couldn't they reprint, say, a 'Black Lotus, 2023 Edition' with no issue while preserving the original edition's value? They could even use different artwork.

(I assume value is derived from the card being an original, not its power, the same way a Ford Model T is valuable because of its age, not because it's a thrill to drive.)The promise is not to reprint a functionally identical card. And I believe it mostly that the cards are all very powerful.


Thing is, WotC doesn't need the Reserve List in order not to reprint cards. They can... just not do it.
I Believe the reserve list was put in place because of some reprinting that caused a furor. In that way, I'd say it was supposed to be a reassurance, the same way OGL 1.0(a) was.

[False God]

Yes and no. I think they were definitely looking for an excuse to lay people off, but I also think that this was not ideal timing for Hasbro to do so, given the main short term impact to their profits is sourced from bad PR, which layoffs aren't going to help with. At best, it makes them look WEAK.

Agreed. Put together it looks more like a company desperate to make up falling revenue. Which is weird because as far as I'm aware the D&D side of WotC has been doing quite well (it's not MTG money, but still).

[Psyren]

Sure. (1) ORC is probably going to be very open, everyone's sitting at the table and gets a say, and the mutual reliance upon it incentivizes everyone to play fair.

(2) I'm snickering/tin foil hatting at the idea that WoTC pushed the CC license to prompt the ORC team to have to license at that level; if ORC doesn't, then WoTC can make themselves look better by comparison ('we're the good guys, we went CC, they're the bad guys, they went with a more restrictive license'), or point to a more restrictive ORC license as a reason for WoTC to also be restrictive in the future.

Gotcha, that makes sense and I agree. It's still a funny strategy in my mind - sure, if ORC is any more restrictive than CC then WotC can point and laugh somewhat, but that could easily backfire if they try and release the 1DnD SRD under anything more restrictive than CC themselves, possibly even OGL 1.0a. And before this fiasco I'd have said that if any company could have gotten away with having a more restrictive license than the CC/1,0a for their stuff it would be WotC - but the honey is out of the comb on that one.

All eyes on OneD&D now I suppose.

[Amidus Drexel]

The promise is not to reprint a functionally identical card.

And I believe it mostly that the cards are all very powerful.

I Believe the reserve list was put in place because of some reprinting that caused a furor. In that way, I'd say it was supposed to be a reassurance, the same way OGL 1.0(a) was.

The promise has been revised a few times, usually because WotC printed something that met the letter of the existing promise but not the spirit of it. This is followed by much wailing and gnashing of teeth from hardcore collectors, and a revised promised that bars whatever loophole WotC found.

Most of the reserved list cards are incredibly weak. It's just that a handful of them are strong enough to still see play in formats with all of the cards, like Legacy, Vintage, and Commander - those cards are very strong, but they're a minority of the reserved list as a whole. Not all of the reserved list is expensive either - I have one or two reserved list cards in my collection that I bought last year (at market price) for ~$5. They're not likely to be good in any competitive format; they're just cool to have and unlikely to ever get much cheaper.

Chronicles was a reprint set early in Magic's history that had a huge print run and tanked the value of a lot of cards. It's the set that prompted the original outrage, primarily from collectors who wanted to treat Magic cards like baseball cards.

[NichG]

Gotcha, that makes sense and I agree. It's still a funny strategy in my mind - sure, if ORC is any more restrictive than CC then WotC can point and laugh somewhat, but that could easily backfire if they try and release the 1DnD SRD under anything more restrictive than CC themselves, possibly even OGL 1.0a. And before this fiasco I'd have said that if any company could have gotten away with having a more restrictive license than the CC/1,0a for their stuff it would be WotC - but the honey is out of the comb on that one.

All eyes on OneD&D now I suppose.

I mean, I wasn't proposing that this would be intentional strategy on WotC's part.

More just that in general surprising big moves can have ripple effects that change how other actions around them look, even to the degree of turning their appearance 180 degrees. WotC putting out a really restrictive license makes someone else putting out a license that's like 'we can't pull your material if we don't like what you do with it, but we reserve the right to control whether you refer explicitly to our system or company name' seem like a move towards open-ness. But if you had CC stuff as a context, someone trying to move from that to a license saying 'actually you can't say Pathfinder unless we approve of your stuff' would seem like a move towards closed-ness.

More 'huh, potentially funny turn-around, everyone re-evaluate your actions because they might not look like you thought they would when they were forged in the fires of OGL 1.2' than 'Wizards is a galaxybrain playing 5d Xanatos chess'.

[Brookshw]

I mean, I wasn't proposing that this would be intentional strategy on WotC's part.

More just that in general surprising big moves can have ripple effects that change how other actions around them look, even to the degree of turning their appearance 180 degrees. WotC putting out a really restrictive license makes someone else putting out a license that's like 'we can't pull your material if we don't like what you do with it, but we reserve the right to control whether you refer explicitly to our system or company name' seem like a move towards open-ness. But if you had CC stuff as a context, someone trying to move from that to a license saying 'actually you can't say Pathfinder unless we approve of your stuff' would seem like a move towards closed-ness.

More 'huh, potentially funny turn-around, everyone re-evaluate your actions because they might not look like you thought they would when they were forged in the fires of OGL 1.2' than 'Wizards is a galaxybrain playing 5d Xanatos chess'.

/Shrug, it's a bit crackpot on my part, I acknowledge that the giant screaming 'damage control' alarm was likely the primary incentive behind WoTC's decisions, but the results naturally change the field as you commented re: ripple effects. As Psyren notes, all eyes will be on what accompanies 5.5.

[Beleriphon]

More 'huh, potentially funny turn-around, everyone re-evaluate your actions because they might not look like you thought they would when they were forged in the fires of OGL 1.2' than 'Wizards is a galaxybrain playing 5d Xanatos chess'.

This very much strikes me as the New Coke of RPG kerfuffles.

[Tanarii]

More just that in general surprising big moves can have ripple effects that change how other actions around them look, even to the degree of turning their appearance 180 degrees. WotC putting out a really restrictive license makes someone else putting out a license that's like 'we can't pull your material if we don't like what you do with it, but we reserve the right to control whether you refer explicitly to our system or company name' seem like a move towards open-ness. But if you had CC stuff as a context, someone trying to move from that to a license saying 'actually you can't say Pathfinder unless we approve of your stuff' would seem like a move towards closed-ness.
I'm not seeing that CC D&D SRD 5.1 is going to stop ORC license from being used for the gaming club's new shared content moving forward, where OGL was being used before. There is an advantage to a community opting to use an agreed upon open license instead of relying on CC.

The only folks that will likely opt for CC are those that want to make D&D 5e 3PP specifically. And even then, they'll probably just use ORC as an open license for their product overall, with the SRD 5.1 CC content included in the product as CC.

[Witty Username]

Ah, so the controversy, if there is one, is over whether WotC broke their word by printing a "Green Smelf" that is a 4/4 for 2 mana, and is definitely not a reserve-list "Green Elf" that is a 4/4 for 2 mana?

So, the controversy of the Reserved List is two fold, primarily:
Playability vs collecters value, the purpose of the Reserved list is to guarantee that the cards on it maintain and grow in monetary value. This is good for collectors that own the older magic cards, but bad for players that want to aquire the cards for gameplay uses, with the biggest formats affected being Vintage, Legacy and Commander as their card pools are all legitimate magic cards barring their respective ban lists. They trend towards very expensive formats for tournament play. Availability is also an issue as all the cards on the list are 20 years old or so at this point.
And
Is the formal contract binding vs revokable, the Reserved List is treated by Wotc as a legal contract between it and the mtg player base. There is some talk that revoking or changing the agreement as possibly inviting a class action suit from affected players if such came up. This is only part of the discussion though as most of the playerbase is unclear whether or not the Reserved List is legally binding in any effect. However, there is primary argument that the Reserved List is a promise of behavior on Wotc's part. The point of contention on this end is whether Wotc should be considered untrustworthy if the Reserved List was changed or revoked, even if such a move was to the benefit of the playerbase (No taxation without representation and all that). Most agree that revoking the list would be a PR hit, regardless of the reasons or effects of the move.

My, mildly humor, but rooted in some actual opinions, is that the OGL being unable to be deauthorized, means that the Reserved List is likely going to stand until the end of time.
My take on the possible back door conversation,
"Hey, the Reserved List has been a point of contention for awhile, should we revise it"
"Remember that debockle with the OGL"

[Jervis]

After having a few days to think about everything this OGL CC thing seems like it was a bit of a panic button. Around 90ish% of people in the survey said that they didn’t plan on using OGL 1.2 so they probably realized that they would need to give a lot more in terms of concessions to appease people. Issue was that the movie was right around the corner and they couldn’t risk media eyes being on #dndbegone when that released. Essentially it was poor handling of the planned changes to the OGL, along with the very poor decision to change it in the first place from a PR perspective, along with the choice to try and roll it out before the movie that backed them into a corner. Even just promising to keep OGL 1.0a would be risky in this situation because of the sheer amount of bloodlust in the community at the time, so they had to wave the white flag to make sure people would stop before the movie released.

Now they’re in a very… interesting position. ORC basically can’t be much more restrictive than CC now. I suspect it was always going to be pretty fair seeing how Paizo and it’s other members have a pretty good history of working with the community, but still. Problem is now WotC just backed themselves into a corner again for when dndone comes out. If 6E doesnt have a CC SRD then I suspect we’ll see a schism in the community that makes the 4E split look small by comparison. I already suspected that 5e was just kinda gonna take on a life if it’s own outside WotC control once 6E released up until now, but this makes it a lot more likely in my eyes. WotC has done the very odd thing of making 5e their biggest competitor going forward, something I suspect OGL 1.1 was specifically meant to stop.


-snip-

It’s times like this i’m glad to be a YGO player. Reprints of old cards are usually popular even among collectors because of the games rarity structure. Cards aren’t usually released twice in the same rarity, the usual either get demoted, meaning they get released in a lower rarity to make them cheaper for competitive play, or bumped, when a popular low rarity card is printed in a higher rarity with better foil and shiny cardboard. In either case people like it because the game gets cheaper for players and collectors get new shiny cards. Only people that really get hurt are people that hoard a lot of popular high rarity cards hoping for the price to spike more only for the card to get a rarity demotion. This can paradoxically lead to cards of a lower rarity being more expensive when a 10 year old rare card from a bad set suddenly becomes meta and spikes to 100$ only for its ultra rare reprint in the next set to be easier to find and thus less sought after. Wacky market

[BRC]

After having a few days to think about everything this OGL CC thing seems like it was a bit of a panic button. Around 90ish% of people in the survey said that they didn’t plan on using OGL 1.2 so they probably realized that they would need to give a lot more in terms of concessions to appease people. Issue was that the movie was right around the corner and they couldn’t risk media eyes being on #dndbegone when that released. Essentially it was poor handling of the planned changes to the OGL, along with the very poor decision to change it in the first place from a PR perspective, along with the choice to try and roll it out before the movie that backed them into a corner. Even just promising to keep OGL 1.0a would be risky in this situation because of the sheer amount of bloodlust in the community at the time, so they had to wave the white flag to make sure people would stop before the movie released.

Now they’re in a very… interesting position. ORC basically can’t be much more restrictive than CC now. I suspect it was always going to be pretty fair seeing how Paizo and it’s other members have a pretty good history of working with the community, but still. Problem is now WotC just backed themselves into a corner again for when dndone comes out. If 6E doesnt have a CC SRD then I suspect we’ll see a schism in the community that makes the 4E split look small by comparison. I already suspected that 5e was just kinda gonna take on a life if it’s own outside WotC control once 6E released up until now, but this makes it a lot more likely in my eyes. WotC has done the very odd thing of making 5e their biggest competitor going forward, something I suspect OGL 1.1 was specifically meant to stop.

Eh maybe.

A big part of this backlash was the attempt to change an existing agreement, pulling the rug out from under 3rd party publishers. This backlash was driven by moral outrage (It is WRONG for WOTC to try to do this when people have built livelyhoods on the OGL) rather than preference.

It's possible that having 6e under a more restrictive OGL would produce a split similar to 4e and pathfinder, but that would be a result of pure preference rather than moral outrage, with players preferring the open 5e-based system supported by 3rd parties to the more controlled 6e.

[EggKookoo]

A big part of this backlash was the attempt to change an existing agreement, pulling the rug out from under 3rd party publishers. This backlash was driven by moral outrage (It is WRONG for WOTC to try to do this when people have built livelyhoods on the OGL) rather than preference.

I agree, if 1D&D/5.5e/6e/whatever comes with its own OGL that's much more restrictive, but leaves 1.0 alone (CC aside), I don't see this same level of outrage. Just simply more of a prefer-not-to-participate kind of reaction. At worst if this new hypothetical OGL contains a "renounce 1.0" clause we might get some emotion, but it wouldn't be the same.

[NichG]

I agree, if 1D&D/5.5e/6e/whatever comes with its own OGL that's much more restrictive, but leaves 1.0 alone (CC aside), I don't see this same level of outrage. Just simply more of a prefer-not-to-participate kind of reaction. At worst if this new hypothetical OGL contains a "renounce 1.0" clause we might get some emotion, but it wouldn't be the same.

Even then, they gave people the SRD under CC, so forcing people to renounce 1.0 wouldn't stop people from publishing stuff based on older material. They'd have to say something like 'you can only have 1D&D product lines and nothing for other systems' for it to be nearly as bad.

At this point I'd bet that the strategy going forward is to turn 1D&D into a platform, where they choose which 3pp content to host and which not to host, and just use their ability to admit or deny people to the platform to get whatever kind of compliance they were trying to get using OGL1.2. It also fits the monetization view - charging royalties will be unpopular, but taking a percentage of on-platform sales that wouldn't exist anyhow without the platform is a lot easier to swallow. Plus the subscription model is more attractive from a business point of view than having to lure each customer back with each new publication.

[Segev]

I think their best bet, ignoring preference on system itself, for WotC going forward would be to release OneD&D's SRD under OGL 1.0(a) or under an OGL version that is like 1.0(a) but has specific clauses to grant unquestioned routes to achieving the things they felt 1.0(a) legitimately didn't address. I don't think they need to make a CC release of OneD&D. In fact, if I were them, I'd do a CC release of 3.5 at the same time as the OneD&D SRD is put on a version of the OGL. Make a precedent of having the "latest and greatest" D&D be on the OGL, and having older versions get released to CC.

Where I think the schism will come from, if they don't try to wall off OneD&D from third party producers, will be in if they make OneD&D fail to feel like an evolution of 3e/5e. 5e, for all that it is most certainly NOT backwards compatible with 3.5, feels like it's an evolution of it. I know there are 4e elements in there, too, but it doesn't feel like it's an evolution of 4e, more like it's learned a few tricks from 4e but gets its genes from 3e. At least, to me.

If OneD&D is more like being OneD&D : 5e :: 3.5 : 3.0... then I think they'll have little to no problem continuing it. Even if I don't like certain aspects, it'll probably not engender the split unless it's a LOT of things people don't like. And, by making sure OneD&D is on an OGL version that is at least as open as 1.0(a) (which, by virtue of 1.0(a) permitting use of any version of the OGL for any material released under any version of the OGL, it will be...assuming no shenanigans), I think that they'll find third party publishers moving with them to the latest and greatest edition, rather than staying back to support 5e.

5e would only get that if third parties could not publish for OneD&D in a way they found palatable, or if OneD&D were genuinely as big a break with D&D as 4e was perceived to be.

[Tanarii]

Given they released SRD 5 to CC, and they appear to have moved away from deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a), they're almost certainly not going to use any OGL for D&Done. It'll be a different license entirely, similar to the GSL, with its own separate version of an SRD-alike. Making it another iteration of the OGL would leave open questions of if the new SRD content could be used under OGL 1.0(a).

[Jervis]

Given they released SRD 5 to CC, and they appear to have moved away from deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a), they're almost certainly not going to use any OGL for D&Done. It'll be a different license entirely, similar to the GSL, with its own separate version of an SRD-alike. Making it another iteration of the OGL would leave open questions of if the new SRD content could be used under OGL 1.0(a).

I suspect they plan on having fan content hosted directly on the VTT. Modules, classes, feats, races, the whole nine yards. Probably with the option to sell them with WotC taking a cut.

[Segev]

Given they released SRD 5 to CC, and they appear to have moved away from deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a), they're almost certainly not going to use any OGL for D&Done. It'll be a different license entirely, similar to the GSL, with its own separate version of an SRD-alike. Making it another iteration of the OGL would leave open questions of if the new SRD content could be used under OGL 1.0(a).

Personally, I don't think it would leave the question open at all: released on any version of the OGL, 1.0(a) clearly states that it could be used under 1.0(a)'s license terms.

And I think they'll need to, because one of the two ways to trigger a fork where 5e is their biggest competitor for OneD&D is to make it harder for third parties to support OneD&D than it is for them to support 5e.

[Witty Username]

It’s times like this i’m glad to be a YGO player. Reprints of old cards are usually popular even among collectors because of the games rarity structure. Cards aren’t usually released twice in the same rarity, the usual either get demoted, meaning they get released in a lower rarity to make them cheaper for competitive play, or bumped, when a popular low rarity card is printed in a higher rarity with better foil and shiny cardboard. In either case people like it because the game gets cheaper for players and collectors get new shiny cards. Only people that really get hurt are people that hoard a lot of popular high rarity cards hoping for the price to spike more only for the card to get a rarity demotion. This can paradoxically lead to cards of a lower rarity being more expensive when a 10 year old rare card from a bad set suddenly becomes meta and spikes to 100$ only for its ultra rare reprint in the next set to be easier to find and thus less sought after. Wacky market

The same stuff is generally true for MTG, take a look at something like Birds of Paradise or Sol Ring, which are part of the first set but have been consistently reprinted. A recent printing of Sol ring is something like a dollar last I checked, and Birds closer to 5, but there old versions are in the hundreds or thousands. According to recent stuff, Apparently, Alpha birds is going for in the ballpark of $5000 right now. Oh and the recent printings have shot up, to about $7.

People who hoard cards to force the price up is the primary beneficiary of the Reserved List, which is why alot of the playbase would like a world without it.
--
So, as a quick autopsy of this kerfuffle, do we have any way of confirming what of the leaks over the course of this were accurate?
OGL 1.1 was confirmed by Wotc statement, Wotc not reading UA comments is provably false based on their feedback responses, but other than that I will admit to having completely lost the plot on most of this.

[Xihirli]

I agree, if 1D&D/5.5e/6e/whatever comes with its own OGL that's much more restrictive, but leaves 1.0 alone (CC aside), I don't see this same level of outrage. Just simply more of a prefer-not-to-participate kind of reaction. At worst if this new hypothetical OGL contains a "renounce 1.0" clause we might get some emotion, but it wouldn't be the same.

Yeah, 4e's GSL said "if you sign you can't use the OGL 1.0" but 1.1 said "if you DON'T sign you STILL can't use the OGL 1.0" and that's much worse.
The main reaction to that was just not making stuff for 4e.

[Jervis]

The same stuff is generally true for MTG, take a look at something like Birds of Paradise or Sol Ring, which are part of the first set but have been consistently reprinted. A recent printing of Sol ring is something like a dollar last I checked, and Birds closer to 5, but there old versions are in the hundreds or thousands. According to recent stuff, Apparently, Alpha birds is going for in the ballpark of $5000 right now. Oh and the recent printings have shot up, to about $7.

People who hoard cards to force the price up is the primary beneficiary of the Reserved List, which is why alot of the playbase would like a world without it.
--
So, as a quick autopsy of this kerfuffle, do we have any way of confirming what of the leaks over the course of this were accurate?
OGL 1.1 was confirmed by Wotc statement, Wotc not reading UA comments is provably false based on their feedback responses, but other than that I will admit to having completely lost the plot on most of this.

TLDR: The not reading responses thing was probably both true and false. You can use surveys primarily as a way to funnel criticism off social media while still checking metrics and pulling a random response or two from a especially unpopular feature to see why people dislike it. This could just be a case of hyperbole gone wild though. But they certainly aren’t reading most of them or really taking most of our feedback into account. As for the leaks I reference, i’m referring mostly to Linda Codega and DnD Short’s videos and articles on the subject. The leakers were verified with each other and the help of other insiders so they would need to be very dedicated and coordinated to put out such a elaborate fake. Not saying authoritatively that they are true just that I trust them. We don’t know who they are because journalistic ethics require that whistleblowers be protected but from what I’ve seen I trust them for the most part.

[catagent101]

So, as a quick autopsy of this kerfuffle, do we have any way of confirming what of the leaks over the course of this were accurate?
OGL 1.1 was confirmed by Wotc statement, Wotc not reading UA comments is provably false based on their feedback responses, but other than that I will admit to having completely lost the plot on most of this.

I think your best resource is looking at what Linda Codega (https://gizmodo.com/author/lcodega) has written on the subject as they've been the reliable source.

[Telok]

TLDR: The not reading responses thing was probably both true and false.

Profesionally, if I had to parse a million expected survey text boxes I'd set up a database then extract the top 25 ot 50 keywords, sort the responses (drop empty entries of course) by the number of keywords they contain, to get maybe 100 random responses each from the top & bottom fuzzy-distinct five percents of that keyword ordered response set. Probably do the same for each subsection of the survey and tag each response with its numeric survey data and overall scores, link to relevant user data if available.

That'd give you (ideally) under a thousand items to look at with a measure of how engaged the respondant is and how overall pos/neg their survey data was. Perhaps run the whole thing again with a "this is a registered account that's spent x money" filter or weighting to see how the cash cows are reacting in contrast to the anon noise makers.

[EggKookoo]

Profesionally, if I had to parse a million expected survey text boxes I'd set up a database then extract the top 25 ot 50 keywords, sort the responses (drop empty entries of course) by the number of keywords they contain, to get maybe 100 random responses each from the top & bottom fuzzy-distinct five percents of that keyword ordered response set. Probably do the same for each subsection of the survey and tag each response with its numeric survey data and overall scores, link to relevant user data if available.

That'd give you (ideally) under a thousand items to look at with a measure of how engaged the respondant is and how overall pos/neg their survey data was. Perhaps run the whole thing again with a "this is a registered account that's spent x money" filter or weighting to see how the cash cows are reacting in contrast to the anon noise makers.

Or, nowadays, take the pure data and hand it over to ChatGPT. "What's the general aggregate tone of responders?"

[Psyren]

My prediction is that WotC will back off of deauthorizing 1.0a until such time as they have a clear incident of abuse they can point to as justification for revisiting the topic. Lacking that this time around and relying purely on what-ifs and hypotheticals is what made their position (particularly its urgency) so weak to the community at large.

[Segev]

My prediction is that WotC will back off of deauthorizing 1.0a until such time as they have a clear incident of abuse they can point to as justification for revisiting the topic. Lacking that this time around and relying purely on what-ifs and hypotheticals is what made their position (particularly its urgency) so weak to the community at large.

Well, good to know what to watch for as a herald of them bringing up the fight again.

Do you think there will be a "third party" that is actually a bunch of WotC guys in Groucho glasses who deliberately put out something "offensive" under the OGL in order to precipitate it? Or do you think they honestly expect something that hasn't happened in 20 years to suddenly happen now?

Or will they start deeming things like "that race has a +2 to Int, and that other one a +2 to Str!" to be pearl-clutchingly offensive in the sense that it must be prevented from being published?

[Atranen]

My prediction is that WotC will back off of deauthorizing 1.0a until such time as they have a clear incident of abuse they can point to as justification for revisiting the topic. Lacking that this time around and relying purely on what-ifs and hypotheticals is what made their position (particularly its urgency) so weak to the community at large.


Do you think there will be a "third party" that is actually a bunch of WotC guys in Groucho glasses who deliberately put out something "offensive" under the OGL in order to precipitate it? Or do you think they honestly expect something that hasn't happened in 20 years to suddenly happen now?

It's hard to imagine something being so offensive *and* gaining so much traction under the OGL 1.0a, because that's pretty much just 3.5 now. If some big high profile offensive thing comes out, it will be under CC and their hands will be tied. But they'll have the deniability of "hey, you asked for this".

[Witty Username]

Do you think there will be a "third party" that is actually a bunch of WotC guys in Groucho glasses who deliberately put out something "offensive" under the OGL in order to precipitate it? Or do you think they honestly expect something that hasn't happened in 20 years to suddenly happen now?


Given some of the controversies around some of the OSR stuff like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, I could definitely see an actual third party putting out something we generally find suspect using the Creative Commons or OGL.

Most such things appear to be bad at gaining traction though so it is probably unlikely. It would have to be something like a Joanne situation, where an IP is popular, with a controversial creator, which then would need to get involved on D&D OGL or CC stuff. Or we just wouldn't hear about it via lack of traction.

As for Wotc doing something, I doubt that, they don't have the motive, resources, or capacity for long term planning that would be required for such.

[Psyren]

Do you think there will be a "third party" that is actually a bunch of WotC guys in Groucho glasses who deliberately put out something "offensive" under the OGL in order to precipitate it? Or do you think they honestly expect something that hasn't happened in 20 years to suddenly happen now?

For the former, all I can really say is that they'd have to be crazy to try something like that themselves and risk getting caught. Especially now when WotC insiders who might wish to blow the whistle have a clear and credible point of contact to do so (Linda Codega), similarly to how video games industry insiders have folks like Jason Schreier.

The latter however is fallacious - "it never happened before therefore it can't happen" adorns many a tombstone. Which is not to say that just because something might happen, that any and all measures to prevent it regardless of severity or efficacy are warranted.


Or will they start deeming things like "that race has a +2 to Int, and that other one a +2 to Str!" to be pearl-clutchingly offensive in the sense that it must be prevented from being published?

Given that the SRD they just irrevocably enshrined in Creative Commons contains these kinds of fixed ASIs, I'm not sure where this belief is coming from.

[Dr.Samurai]

My prediction is that WotC will back off of deauthorizing 1.0a until such time as they have a clear incident of abuse they can point to as justification for revisiting the topic. Lacking that this time around and relying purely on what-ifs and hypotheticals is what made their position (particularly its urgency) so weak to the community at large.
I suspect many people will still find the justification weak, as it is unlikely something actually and awfully offensive would be that popular and not mostly ignored by the community at large. Trying to determine and control the offensiveness of everything created under their license doesn't pass the smell test for many of us. And keep in mind that any example would likely die out in obscurity if not for the Streisand Effect and the very people offended by it making it go viral in their campaign to push a company to do something.

[Segev]

The latter however is fallacious - "it never happened before therefore it can't happen" adorns many a tombstone. Which is not to say that just because something might happen, that any and all measures to prevent it regardless of severity or efficacy are warranted.I didn't say "it can't happen." I said - or at least implied - that, because it hasn't happened in the last 20 years, it seems like a foolish thing to "bet" on happening any time soon.

"Yes, yes, this thing that has never happened before under the conditions that we are alleging we need to alter to prevent it will certainly happen very soon, now, so we can prove that we should have been allowed to make the changes we wanted to!" just seems like a bad gamble to make if you're not planning to somehow orchestrate it happening. (I am not making accusations, here, just pointing out that even if it remains possible, expecting it to happen all of a sudden at your convenience when it hasn't yet after years and years of the same conditions is a bad bet.)


Given that the SRD they just irrevocably enshrined in Creative Commons contains these kinds of fixed ASIs, I'm not sure where this belief is coming from.Fair enough. My question was more about having suddenly very puritanical standards (in how high the standards are, not necessarily WHAT the standards are) to gauge by. But no, I agree, it is unlikely they will, what with the CC being a thing you can publish under, now.

[Jervis]

For the former, all I can really say is that they'd have to be crazy to try something like that themselves and risk getting caught. Especially now when WotC insiders who might wish to blow the whistle have a clear and credible point of contact to do so (Linda Codega), similarly to how video games industry insiders have folks like Jason Schreier.

The latter however is fallacious - "it never happened before therefore it can't happen" adorns many a tombstone. Which is not to say that just because something might happen, that any and all measures to prevent it regardless of severity or efficacy are warranted.


Thing is I really don’t see any case where there could be a product that is somehow that offensive and that popular. I mean, without going into board inappropriate topics, realistically anything skuby that’s also popular is going to have the backing of a decent portion of the fanbase to get popular in the first place. I mean you might get something obscure come out of a Vietnamese basketweaving forum but that’s not going to get much traction outside of the target audience unless we get a Fatal situation where a popular person reviews it to laugh about it. Even baring that 5e’s SRD is CC now so that wouldn’t do anything. Best guess is that the 6E license will be a bit more sneaky in terms of what people can make. If I had to guess it’ll be just as lenient in terms of what you can make but only apply to PDFs while digital content geared towards VTTs has to be made for their digital fan content marketplace thing.

Side note though, my current theory on why the morality clause was in there in the first place outside of giving a justification for removing OGL 1.0a was to give wizards a tool to remove popular content that features subject matter that certain large and under developed over seas markets find distasteful. I can see a situation where a very popular 3pp makes a “we stand with X” post that’s popular here but offends a large overseas demographic that doesn’t care for X. If the government of said demographic gives WotC a ultimatum to keep selling there then it’s obvious what they would do.

I also want to point out that a morally or blanket termination clause could be put to use by a hypothetical multi-billionaire who, say, buys WotC because WotC did something that made him personally angry. He could then use anything they left in previous OGL versions that could terminate it to roll out any changes he wants. Boycotting like what people did with dndbegone would be a lot less effective in that situation since he could just cut staff to make up the difference in the short run and wouldn’t need to worry about keeping stockholders happy. Not that something like that could ever happen, that would be preposterous.


Well, good to know what to watch for as a herald of them bringing up the fight again.

Do you think there will be a "third party" that is actually a bunch of WotC guys in Groucho glasses who deliberately put out something "offensive" under the OGL in order to precipitate it? Or do you think they honestly expect something that hasn't happened in 20 years to suddenly happen now?

Or will they start deeming things like "that race has a +2 to Int, and that other one a +2 to Str!" to be pearl-clutchingly offensive in the sense that it must be prevented from being published?

Ironically since the SRD features fixed ASIs they could start issuing takedown notices for people using floating ASIs by default, which would be fairly absurd but funny I will admit. The lack of Vuman is fairly obvious and something people might need to get creative with.

I don’t see WotC using a false flag if only because they would need to either get the writing team to agree to make Adventures in the Skubverse 5e using a pseudonym or find a third party willing to write it for them and take the heat. Either way it’s a very likely to spring a leak at some point and blow up in their face. Buuuuuuut if someone makes makes a suspiciously well funded piece of 3pp 5e skub I would put on my tin foil cap.

[warty goblin]

If there's one lesson in this mess, it's that WoTC kinda suck at long term planning and information control. Doing some sort of false flag FATAL for 5E seems utterly beyond them.

If there's any other lesson, it's that at this point revoking the OGL is going to be about as effective as yelling at clouds. Any half-assed competent person who thinks their content *might* cause that reaction will just use the CC stuff. Anybody really competent at monetizing outrage and weaponizing their fan base will only use CC material but publish under OGL. That way they get all the publicity if WoTC does try to pull the OGL again, and can just switch at a moment's notice to CC, where they're untouchable. It's like TroLLing FoR PrOfiT 101; poke your target into lashing out ineffectually, do what you were going to do anyway, and reap the rewards of attention, sales, and lulz.

Which is why I can't see WoTC trying to pull the OGL again at this point. It's a lot of bother, will still piss a lot of people off, opens them up to lawsuits, and is just refighting a battle they already lost and now cannot meaningfully win. It's not even picking a fight with a guy making eyes at your girlfriend, it's picking a fight with him after he tied you into a pretzel, she dumped your sorry ass for him and he just proposed with a diamond the size of your face.

[johnbragg]

I suspect many people will still find the justification weak, as it is unlikely something actually and awfully offensive would be that popular and not mostly ignored by the community at large.

I don't think the empirical evidence out there supports that at all. There are plenty of examples of widely hated / disliked / disapproved Things with small but vocal and loyal fanbases, ready to do battle in comment sections and twitter and rating sites on behalf of their champions.

A few weeks ago, the normie world at large learned about a certain insanely awful dude and his online legions when the cops showed up and it hit the real big-boy newspapers. If you don't know what I'm talking about, lucky you.


Trying to determine and control the offensiveness of everything created under their license doesn't pass the smell test for many of us. And keep in mind that any example would likely die out in obscurity if not for the Streisand Effect and the very people offended by it making it go viral in their campaign to push a company to do something.

The Streisand Effect is now supplemented by rage-farmers of various stripes. "LOOK AT THIS TERRIBLE THING! Somebody do something about this thing! Look how awful it is!" Hate-clicks are just as monetizable as other clicks. Plenty of outside actors can now set off a Streisand Effect if they get lucky.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think the empirical evidence out there supports that at all.
Happy to look over any evidence suggesting that people are abusing the license in a way WotC was trying to prevent, and these abused examples are supported by the community at large and widespread and popular and WotC is helpless to sit back and watch as this hateful evil thing takes the world by storm.

For that to happen... THE COMMUNITY would have to be into that type of stuff at large. But it isn't.

There are plenty of examples of widely hated / disliked / disapproved Things with small but vocal and loyal fanbases, ready to do battle in comment sections and twitter and rating sites on behalf of their champions.
Sure, I'll just assume this for the sake of discussion. My comments:

1. So WotC made one of the dumbest moves in corporate history to fight... small vocal fanbases in internet comment sections. Color me skeptical.
2. Why should I care about small vocal groups of people in the comment sections? Like... I consider some of the discourse on this forum to be pretty toxic, backwards, and generally awful. But it's a small vocal minority. What are we going to do? Make sure everyone that says things we don't like can't speak?

A few weeks ago, the normie world at large learned about a certain insanely awful dude and his online legions when the cops showed up and it hit the real big-boy newspapers. If you don't know what I'm talking about, lucky you.
To my point, I don't know what you're talking about. Nor would I have known about NuTSR if not for this thread. Or Lamentations if not for this thread. Etc etc etc. I'm sure if I polled my gaming group right now, they wouldn't know either. And I'm almost just as confident that my gaming group back home would also be equally in the dark. But the people that take these things very seriously know all about them and are very willing to let everyone else know. So the very thing they champion against is the thing they spread.

The Streisand Effect is now supplemented by rage-farmers of various stripes. "LOOK AT THIS TERRIBLE THING! Somebody do something about this thing! Look how awful it is!" Hate-clicks are just as monetizable as other clicks. Plenty of outside actors can now set off a Streisand Effect if they get lucky.
Agreed. Meaning it's almost inevitable that the type of thing Psyren is referring to will occur. But that doesn't mean we have to care that it happens when it does happen. Like... it doesn't impact us. The changes to the OGL impact us because it impacts the greater community of content creators and third party publishers, and of course how we will eventually continue consuming D&D. But someone making some questionable material through the license that some handful of people play and know about has no bearing on my group whatsoever. Not until OTHER PEOPLE make it an issue for the rest of us.

[Lemmy]

Happy to look over any evidence suggesting that people are abusing the license in a way WotC was trying to prevent, and these abused examples are supported by the community at large and widespread and popular and WotC is helpless to sit back and watch as this hateful evil thing takes the world by storm.

For that to happen... THE COMMUNITY would have to be into that type of stuff at large. But it isn't.
Heh... If something so egregiously offensive and evil were that popular in the community, WotC themselves would produce that kind of material.

Anyone who thinks Hasbro/WotC (or any other giant corporation, really) actually cares about morality in any way other than "How will supporting these views impact our popularity and profits?" is very very naive.

[Psyren]

I suspect many people will still find the justification weak, as it is unlikely something actually and awfully offensive would be that popular and not mostly ignored by the community at large. Trying to determine and control the offensiveness of everything created under their license doesn't pass the smell test for many of us. And keep in mind that any example would likely die out in obscurity if not for the Streisand Effect and the very people offended by it making it go viral in their campaign to push a company to do something.

All I can say is I hope you're right, at least as far as something truly awful either never being created, or getting ignored if it does.


Thing is I really don’t see any case where there could be a product that is somehow that offensive and that popular. I mean, without going into board inappropriate topics, realistically anything skuby that’s also popular is going to have the backing of a decent portion of the fanbase to get popular in the first place. I mean you might get something obscure come out of a Vietnamese basketweaving forum but that’s not going to get much traction outside of the target audience unless we get a Fatal situation where a popular person reviews it to laugh about it.

Popularity isn't the issue here though, it's fame. Or more accurately, infamy. Something doesn't have to be accepted, or even acceptable, to cause engagement in the form of headlines, social media posts etc.

[Satinavian]

All I can say is I hope you're right, at least as far as something truly awful either never being created, or getting ignored if it does.If anything were ever to be widely shared and used, that would be proof of there not being a consensus deeming it truly awful.

And more practically, while i can remember a couple of truly awful RPG supplements/systems, i don't know a single one that was actually played as such widely. Do you ? Sure there were some what are seen differently now that they were back then, but that is just society changing. There are also many that are deemed inoffensive in the country they are published but hurt sensibilities in other countries. For example the US is known to be excessively prude in comparison to continental Europe and thus much stuff never gets an English translation.
We now have had 5 decades of commercial RPGs. If it has never been a problem, i don't see an urgent need to safeguard against these specific dangers now.

But none of that ever lets the ability to just destroy someone elses product for moral reason seem like a good idea. That is the kind of power that belongs to gouvernments, not private companies. Even less on a worldwide basis, which for most people means foreign companies with foreign value systems.

And we all remember the last time that WotC tried to pull something like this was BoEF. Which is comparatively tame. If that's the measure, a lot of perfectly fine products (non English) would be in danger. Well, of they used OGL in the first place.

[johnbragg]

Happy to look over any evidence suggesting that people are abusing the license in a way WotC was trying to prevent, and these abused examples are supported by the community at large and widespread and popular and WotC is helpless to sit back and watch as this hateful evil thing takes the world by storm.

For that to happen... THE COMMUNITY would have to be into that type of stuff at large. But it isn't.

Sure, I'll just assume this for the sake of discussion. My comments:

1. So WotC made one of the dumbest moves in corporate history to fight... small vocal fanbases in internet comment sections. Color me skeptical.
2. Why should I care about small vocal groups of people in the comment sections? Like... I consider some of the discourse on this forum to be pretty toxic, backwards, and generally awful. But it's a small vocal minority. What are we going to do? Make sure everyone that says things we don't like can't speak?

There is a track record of companies changing reacting to online firestorms from objectively tiny numbers of people. I don't think very many people found the green M&M overly sexual, and I don't think that very many people were really upset about the desexualization of the green M&M. But M&M Mars made both of those moves anyway, reacting to tempests in teapots.


To my point, I don't know what you're talking about. Nor would I have known about NuTSR if not for this thread. Or Lamentations if not for this thread. Etc etc etc. I'm sure if I polled my gaming group right now, they wouldn't know either. And I'm almost just as confident that my gaming group back home would also be equally in the dark. But the people that take these things very seriously know all about them and are very willing to let everyone else know. So the very thing they champion against is the thing they spread.

Agreed. Meaning it's almost inevitable that the type of thing Psyren is referring to will occur. But that doesn't mean we have to care that it happens when it does happen. Like... it doesn't impact us. The changes to the OGL impact us because it impacts the greater community of content creators and third party publishers, and of course how we will eventually continue consuming D&D. But someone making some questionable material through the license that some handful of people play and know about has no bearing on my group whatsoever. Not until OTHER PEOPLE make it an issue for the rest of us.

Well, I've been trying to wargame this from WOTC's side of the table, trying to figure out why they're doing what they're doing, based on both their statements and their actions. I don't think they're thinking vvery much about PAthfinder or the TTRPG community or Kobold PRess or Goodman Games. These are people who think of Transformers and GI Joe now primarily as movie franchises, not toy product lines.

And my best explanation is that corporate drones were trying to future-proof against getting the brand sucked into culture war controversies (tiny online firestorms), until they ran into a much bigger and much more economically relevant online firestorm--D&D Beyond subscriptions dropping and the fans of the "undermonetized brand" in revolt, at which point they reversed course. (Possibly with the balance of power within WOTC shifting, but that's pure speculation.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Heh... If something so egregiously offensive and evil were that popular in the community, WotC themselves would produce that kind of material. Yes. Follow the money. LotFP has been around for a number of years, and it seems to have stayed alive ... not sure how profitable it is, but I've checked their web site now and again and you can still order their stuff on DTRPG.

I don't think that very many people were really upset about the desexualization of the green M&M. I have no idea what this is about. Color me confused, but I guess it ain't easy being green.
These are people who think of Transformers and GI Joe now primarily as movie franchises, not toy product lines. And now D&D.

And my best explanation is that corporate drones were trying to future-proof against getting the brand sucked into culture war controversies Likely a part of it.

Until D&Done is actually released, I don't see there being much in the way of 3PP interest in the first place.

[Telok]

Yes. Follow the money. LotFP has been around for a number of years, and it seems to have stayed alive ... not sure how profitable it is, but I've checked their web site now and again and you can still order their stuff on DTRPG.

Eh, LoFP is just a D&D with pg-16 rated adventures and death metal album covers for art. It's only edgy or anything if you're only used to bloodless sanitized combat that never questions things like what it looks like or does to you when you stick your hand in an ooze that dissolves hardwood doors in 12 seconds. A historical mostly accurate rpg about playing ancient Roman senators in the first or second centuries would have more serious and mature stuff even if it was written in a dry tone and didn't include any pictures.

[KorvinStarmast]

A historical mostly accurate rpg about playing ancient Roman senators in the first or second centuries would have more serious and mature stuff even if it was written in a dry tone and didn't include any pictures. And they all have the back stab skill. :smallbiggrin:

[BRC]

Well, I've been trying to wargame this from WOTC's side of the table, trying to figure out why they're doing what they're doing, based on both their statements and their actions. I don't think they're thinking vvery much about PAthfinder or the TTRPG community or Kobold PRess or Goodman Games. These are people who think of Transformers and GI Joe now primarily as movie franchises, not toy product lines.

And my best explanation is that corporate drones were trying to future-proof against getting the brand sucked into culture war controversies (tiny online firestorms), until they ran into a much bigger and much more economically relevant online firestorm--D&D Beyond subscriptions dropping and the fans of the "undermonetized brand" in revolt, at which point they reversed course. (Possibly with the balance of power within WOTC shifting, but that's pure speculation.)

I think that a primary motivation came from a mismatch in perspective.

In a lot of ways, WOTC doesn't "Control" D&D in the way that, say, Blizzard controls World of Warcraft. WOTC sells D&D books, but each game of D&D, even if it's a module, owes much of it's experience to the work of the group you're in rather than WOTC. WOTC is not the provider of the experience, they're the provider of tools that enable the experience. They don't "Make D&D", they make the RULES for D&D.

It's the difference between renting a space in a big building, and buying some tools to build your own space.

This is, I think, core to the whole OGL 3rd party ecosystem. Each game is localized to the table, all the products are just tools that help the game. "Dungeons and Dragons" Does not Exist as a game in the same way that World of Warcraft, or even something like Settlers of Catan does. It is a system used to run countless games which are, by their very nature, unique.

So, I think a new group of executives came in from a videogame space, and I think they didn't quite "Get" this. They viewed D&D more akin to a highly moddable game like Minecraft or Roblox or something, and saw WOTC as the providers of that experience and owners of a single unified platform. WOTC's actions make a lot of sense if they saw themselves as the providers of a platform, rather than suppliers of tools. They get Royalties, because they provide the platform that enables the game, and because it's fundamentally Their Game, they have a right and responsibility to police the sort of content that exists on the platform, hence the clause about losing the license if they decide you violate their standards. All would be perfectly reasonable from the perspective of WOTC as the providers of the platform. If these publications are part of D&D, and they own D&D, then they get to control and profit off of D&D.


But that's now how TTRPGs work. If you encounter hateful players or an abusive GM in a game, you tell horror stories about these people, you don't blame WOTC for "Allowing" them to buy the books and run a game of D&D. If somebody uses the OGL to publish hateful content that can be included in a game of D&D, that's on them, not WOTC.


I can see it being a difficult concept to get your head around if you're used to thinking about franchises in terms of movies or video games. There isn't an industry quite like TTRPGs in this way where you can own the IP and sell the most essential products, but have only indirect responsibility over the actual experience.


I do think they had a concern about people blaming them for the content of 3rd party publishers, the same way owners of social media platforms get blamed for content on those platform, but for the reasons above I don't think they really had to worry about that. Ironically, their proposed Solution of giving themselves the right to boot publishers off the OGL would have caused more problems on that front. If people took offense to some 3rd party OGL content, WOTC would be seen as giving tacit approval until they took action.

[Oramac]

I've missed the last 30-ish pages of this, but I just wanted to pop in and drop an interview link for people who have time to listen.

3 Black Halflings interviewed Kyle Brink of WOTC (https://youtu.be/mPDc3DVHwKo).

There's a twitter thread out there with a synopsis that for the life of me, I can't find right now. I'll edit this with it if I can find it again.

[Sparky McDibben]

I've missed the last 30-ish pages of this, but I just wanted to pop in and drop an interview link for people who have time to listen.

3 Black Halflings interviewed Kyle Brink of WOTC (https://youtu.be/mPDc3DVHwKo).

There's a twitter thread out there with a synopsis that for the life of me, I can't find right now. I'll edit this with it if I can find it again.

This is hilarious. If they put the screws to this guy any more, the interview would be done at Home Depot.

[Psyren]

I dug through the transcript and pulled out each question and its timestamp for those who only want to hear about a specific topic.


(2:13) Why did management feel the need to change the OGL?
(4:19) OGL 1.1's reach stretched far beyond megacorps like Disney. Can you give us insight into the decision-making process behind the original leaked version?
(5:42) So you guys were developing the document for a year but lost sight of who it might affect?
(6:24) You didn't have anyone in place to oversee this before it was released?
(7:00) Can you comment on the rumors of closed-door meetings with large creators?
(8:42) Did anybody at Wizards later inform you of who was being spoken to and what was discussed?
(10:00) As someone on the outside it didn't feel quick at all, the initial response took over a week. If 1.2 was already being worked on why was there such a long delay?
(12:00) So why not have a smaller announcement during that time, "we're working on something" to try and calm the community? We had insider sources saying that you all were delaying to see if there would be a financial impact or if this would all blow over, were those true?
(13:01) It seemed like that was the case, from our perspective nothing changed until the DnDBeyond subscriptions began getting cancelled, surely that can't be coincidence.
(14:44) If you all were so worried about saying the wrong thing, who put out the "you won and so did we" statement and signed off on that?
(16:12) How did you feel when you read that / what did you think of it?
(16:55) Putting the phrasing aside, that statement also referred to the 1.1 leak as a "draft" and said WotC always intended to ask for community feedback. If it was really a draft, couldn't that have been stated immediately? Why did it have specific dates, places to sign etc?
(19:23) And the other part of that? If it was a draft why was that not stated immediately?
(21:00) Were there dissenting voices about OGL 1.1 prior to the leaks? Were those voices in WotC, outside, or both?
(22:48) Does that mean the dissenting voices are the minority in WotC?
(23:55) How are you giving them more of a voice going forward?
(24:45) So you're saying you have more authority to influence these decisions?
(25:39) Can you give more specifics on who was being met with and what those meetings were about?
(26:41) Is WotC's intention to add OneD&D content to the Creative Commons license now?
(28:01) Are there plans to introduce a new OGL that's specific to OneD&D?
(28:30) To be clear, there's no chance of OneD&D becoming a "closed system" where you say "everything 5e and earlier is covered by 1.0a, now we're making our own thing?"
(29:23) Now that the new OGL is no longer happening, what plans does WotC have to try and address the megacorp and morality issues mentioned before?
(30:57) The community had concerns that with a "morality clause:" of some kind, that could be turned against LGBT+ creators if leadership at WotC became more conservative. Is that still a possibility and if so, what protections are being put in place to prevent that from happening?
(33:15) Relying on the community is all well and good, but do you have plans to improve your reflection on these things internally before they're put out for the community? (Hadozee example.)
(35:35) If D&D has cultural consultants now, why were they not being used sooner?
(36:54) {Talk a little bit lot more about how the Hadozee thing slipped through the cracks}
(40:07) DnDShorts had insider information about how WotC isn't considered a safe work environment, particularly regarding Chris Cao. What are executives like you doing to help ensure a safe work environment?
(43:34) You mentioned that different teams can have different cultures, but aren't there overarching systems in place to prevent mistreatment?
(45:06) Could the failure to pick up on the Hadozee issue point to a lack of diversity within WotC itself? What are you all doing about that?
(47:02) Touching on Orion Black's statements from 2020, what is WotC doing to have more diversity in positions of leadership or power?
(50:08) One fear people have about OneD&D is that it's going to move to a primarily digital focus and the books will become secondary collector's items. Is that the case?
(52:30) How do D&D and WotC plan on rebuilding trust with the community?


If you're interested in a specific response let me know, or you can just jump to the timecode to hear for yourself. I'll largely be avoiding Hadozee and Orion Black stuff for obvious reasons.

[Jervis]

Man that interview is a industrial strength spin job on Brink’s part. 6 minutes in and he goes into saying that they weren’t influenced by the boycott and only dropped it because they cared for the community… after lying about OGL 1.1 being a draft, going complete radio silence, and trying to gaslight the community into thinking it was for our own good. I should also say that, according to leaks, this man is in fact the reason the new OGL was happening in the first place because he wants to push into VTT only territory.

[Lemmy]

Man that interview is a industrial strength spin job on Brink’s part. 6 minutes in and he goes into saying that they weren’t influenced by the boycott and only dropped it because they cared for the community…HAHAHAHAHA!!

The fact that he can say that with a straight face is both revolting and hilarious.

Aaah... Corporate America... It never fails to disappoint!

[Psyren]

Man that interview is a industrial strength spin job on Brink’s part. 6 minutes in and he goes into saying that they weren’t influenced by the boycott and only dropped it because they cared for the community… after lying about OGL 1.1 being a draft, going complete radio silence, and trying to gaslight the community into thinking it was for our own good. I should also say that, according to leaks, this man is in fact the reason the new OGL was happening in the first place because he wants to push into VTT only territory.

The guy allegedly pushing for VTT-only was Chris Cao, head of Digital, not Kyle.

[OldTrees1]

This is hilarious. If they put the screws to this guy any more, the interview would be done at Home Depot.

Respect to the interviewers, those were good questions firmly applied.

Mixed responses to Kyle Brink. Some of the answers clearly communicated "we do hear you". Other answers communicated "no significant new deception, but we avoid acknowledging past deception checks".


Ultimately my opinion was not changed by this interview. It could have improved/decreased it further but the mixed outcomes were a wash.

[Vahnavoi]

Given some of the controversies around some of the OSR stuff like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, I could definitely see an actual third party putting out something we generally find suspect using the Creative Commons or OGL.

LotFP has a Youtube channel where Raggi himself pretty much spells out why a morality clause would be a bad idea, especially given what's happened to his company. Trying to use LotFP's case to justify the existence of a morality clause would be completely backwards.

To wit:

1) The main controversy is about a specific author, Zak S. Specifically, about his private life and conduct on the internet. It's not about his gaming products. Things like Vornheim or Red & Pleasant Land were not just inoffensive, they received awards and popular votes for being good and innovative when published.
1a) While LotFP core rules use the OGL, I'm not sure anything Zak did does, and in any case, nobody anywhere was heaping blame on WotC or hating their products because LotFP used their gaming license. All accusations have been based on daring to associate with Zak S., zilch to do with any game content. None of this would be of any concern to WotC, if Zak S. hadn't also been involved in 5th edition consulting.
1b) Raggi was, of course, forced to issue a statement on the hubbub. This cost him some customers. A morality clause in a gaming license would force WotC, or anyone else trying to make such a license, to make such statements constantly, about things that aren't even directly related to their own products. A lot of pain, for little gain.

2) Some smaller controversies were... well, not sure what to call the deal with Blood in the Chocolate. Raggi explains it well on his video, but a short summary: the supplement, when published, actually won an award by popular vote. Then, several years later, someone raised a fuzz about how awful the supplement supposedly is. The author of the supplement agreed, effectively disowning their prior work. The obvious lesson being that how well received or not a thing is today, does not tell how well received it will be in the future. All a morality clause can do is put its supervisor on the line of fire for past decisions.
2a) WotC has, to some degree, already worked its own solution for this: they're more than happy to sell TSR's back catalog under a disclaimer saying something to the tune of "this work is a product of its own time and doesn't necessarily reflect any company values of today". WotC has, to my knowledge, gotten both more money and more respect for making old supplements more available, than they have gotten flak for selling something that might be "controversial" by today's standards.

3) All of the rest is people online complaining about games they don't play. Some people clearly get their jollies from mocking or playing offended at content that would be completely unremarkable on the cover of a Death Metal album or a Grindhouse horror movie. These people don't have a case beyond personal dislike and they have never been a concern for WotC, because WotC is not producing the same kind of content as LotFP. At most, appealing to these kind of people can only hurt WotC's own ability to produce content outside the mainstream they themselves define.
3a) As Raggi also notes, TSR also had a "code of ethics" for content creators (https://shaneplays.com/rpg-history-tsr-code-of-ethics-dd-comics-code-authority-rules/). People who actually worked with those guidelines have noted that they were a corporate fig leaf more than anything, only hypocritically enforced, and a lot of content that violated spirit of the code still did get published. They also note that accompanying re-branding of D&D as "family friendly" was what gave "edgy" competitors like Vampire a time in the limelight.
3b) Ironically, similar to Vampire, D&D not doing horror is part of the reason why LotFP had a niche in the first place. Doubly ironically, newest version of Vampire got buried because the publisher got scared by internet outrage.

So, definitely, there will be gaming content made in the future that will offend someone's sensibilities, somewhere. Worrying about what creative license those games will use, is beneath least concern.

[animorte]

(2:13) Why did management feel the need to change the OGL?
(4:19) OGL 1.1's reach stretched far beyond megacorps like Disney. Can you give us insight into the decision-making process behind the original leaked version?
(5:42) So you guys were developing the document for a year but lost sight of who it might affect?
(6:24) You didn't have anyone in place to oversee this before it was released?
(7:00) Can you comment on the rumors of closed-door meetings with large creators?
(8:42) Did anybody at Wizards later inform you of who was being spoken to and what was discussed?
(10:00) As someone on the outside it didn't feel quick at all, the initial response took over a week. If 1.2 was already being worked on why was there such a long delay?
(12:00) So why not have a smaller announcement during that time, "we're working on something" to try and calm the community? We had insider sources saying that you all were delaying to see if there would be a financial impact or if this would all blow over, were those true?
(13:01) It seemed like that was the case, from our perspective nothing changed until the DnDBeyond subscriptions began getting cancelled, surely that can't be coincidence.
(14:44) If you all were so worried about saying the wrong thing, who put out the "you won and so did we" statement and signed off on that?
(16:12) How did you feel when you read that / what did you think of it?
(16:55) Putting the phrasing aside, that statement also referred to the 1.1 leak as a "draft" and said WotC always intended to ask for community feedback. If it was really a draft, couldn't that have been stated immediately? Why did it have specific dates, places to sign etc?
(19:23) And the other part of that? If it was a draft why was that not stated immediately?
(21:00) Were there dissenting voices about OGL 1.1 prior to the leaks? Were those voices in WotC, outside, or both?
(22:48) Does that mean the dissenting voices are the minority in WotC?
(23:55) How are you giving them more of a voice going forward?
(24:45) So you're saying you have more authority to influence these decisions?
(25:39) Can you give more specifics on who was being met with and what those meetings were about?
(26:41) Is WotC's intention to add OneD&D content to the Creative Commons license now?
(28:01) Are there plans to introduce a new OGL that's specific to OneD&D?
(28:30) To be clear, there's no chance of OneD&D becoming a "closed system" where you say "everything 5e and earlier is covered by 1.0a, now we're making our own thing?"
(29:23) Now that the new OGL is no longer happening, what plans does WotC have to try and address the megacorp and morality issues mentioned before?
(30:57) The community had concerns that with a "morality clause:" of some kind, that could be turned against LGBT+ creators if leadership at WotC became more conservative. Is that still a possibility and if so, what protections are being put in place to prevent that from happening?
(33:15) Relying on the community is all well and good, but do you have plans to improve your reflection on these things internally before they're put out for the community? (Hadozee example.)
(35:35) If D&D has cultural consultants now, why were they not being used sooner?
(36:54) {Talk a little bit lot more about how the Hadozee thing slipped through the cracks}
(40:07) DnDShorts had insider information about how WotC isn't considered a safe work environment, particularly regarding Chris Cao. What are executives like you doing to help ensure a safe work environment?
(43:34) You mentioned that different teams can have different cultures, but aren't there overarching systems in place to prevent mistreatment?
(45:06) Could the failure to pick up on the Hadozee issue point to a lack of diversity within WotC itself? What are you all doing about that?
(47:02) Touching on Orion Black's statements from 2020, what is WotC doing to have more diversity in positions of leadership or power?
(50:08) One fear people have about OneD&D is that it's going to move to a primarily digital focus and the books will become secondary collector's items. Is that the case?
(52:30) How do D&D and WotC plan on rebuilding trust with the community?

It seems I have been outmatched. :smallbiggrin: Nicely done and appreciated.

They did well. I don't think any company is outright going to say, "yeah F you community. We tried to pull the wool right over your eyes." Admitting they were wrong takes enough of a step down that I find it acceptable. Of course, they wouldn't intentionally let someone be interviewed who couldn't maintain their composure.


So, definitely, there will be gaming content made in the future that will offend someone's sensibilities, somewhere. Worrying about what creative license those games will use, is beneath least concern.
And I have no doubt the community will respond accordingly.

[Oramac]

I dug through the transcript and pulled out each question and its timestamp for those who only want to hear about a specific topic.


(2:13) Why did management feel the need to change the OGL?
(4:19) OGL 1.1's reach stretched far beyond megacorps like Disney. Can you give us insight into the decision-making process behind the original leaked version?
(5:42) So you guys were developing the document for a year but lost sight of who it might affect?
(6:24) You didn't have anyone in place to oversee this before it was released?
(7:00) Can you comment on the rumors of closed-door meetings with large creators?
(8:42) Did anybody at Wizards later inform you of who was being spoken to and what was discussed?
(10:00) As someone on the outside it didn't feel quick at all, the initial response took over a week. If 1.2 was already being worked on why was there such a long delay?
(12:00) So why not have a smaller announcement during that time, "we're working on something" to try and calm the community? We had insider sources saying that you all were delaying to see if there would be a financial impact or if this would all blow over, were those true?
(13:01) It seemed like that was the case, from our perspective nothing changed until the DnDBeyond subscriptions began getting cancelled, surely that can't be coincidence.
(14:44) If you all were so worried about saying the wrong thing, who put out the "you won and so did we" statement and signed off on that?
(16:12) How did you feel when you read that / what did you think of it?
(16:55) Putting the phrasing aside, that statement also referred to the 1.1 leak as a "draft" and said WotC always intended to ask for community feedback. If it was really a draft, couldn't that have been stated immediately? Why did it have specific dates, places to sign etc?
(19:23) And the other part of that? If it was a draft why was that not stated immediately?
(21:00) Were there dissenting voices about OGL 1.1 prior to the leaks? Were those voices in WotC, outside, or both?
(22:48) Does that mean the dissenting voices are the minority in WotC?
(23:55) How are you giving them more of a voice going forward?
(24:45) So you're saying you have more authority to influence these decisions?
(25:39) Can you give more specifics on who was being met with and what those meetings were about?
(26:41) Is WotC's intention to add OneD&D content to the Creative Commons license now?
(28:01) Are there plans to introduce a new OGL that's specific to OneD&D?
(28:30) To be clear, there's no chance of OneD&D becoming a "closed system" where you say "everything 5e and earlier is covered by 1.0a, now we're making our own thing?"
(29:23) Now that the new OGL is no longer happening, what plans does WotC have to try and address the megacorp and morality issues mentioned before?
(30:57) The community had concerns that with a "morality clause:" of some kind, that could be turned against LGBT+ creators if leadership at WotC became more conservative. Is that still a possibility and if so, what protections are being put in place to prevent that from happening?
(33:15) Relying on the community is all well and good, but do you have plans to improve your reflection on these things internally before they're put out for the community? (Hadozee example.)
(35:35) If D&D has cultural consultants now, why were they not being used sooner?
(36:54) {Talk a little bit lot more about how the Hadozee thing slipped through the cracks}
(40:07) DnDShorts had insider information about how WotC isn't considered a safe work environment, particularly regarding Chris Cao. What are executives like you doing to help ensure a safe work environment?
(43:34) You mentioned that different teams can have different cultures, but aren't there overarching systems in place to prevent mistreatment?
(45:06) Could the failure to pick up on the Hadozee issue point to a lack of diversity within WotC itself? What are you all doing about that?
(47:02) Touching on Orion Black's statements from 2020, what is WotC doing to have more diversity in positions of leadership or power?
(50:08) One fear people have about OneD&D is that it's going to move to a primarily digital focus and the books will become secondary collector's items. Is that the case?
(52:30) How do D&D and WotC plan on rebuilding trust with the community?



It seems I have been outmatched. :smallbiggrin: Nicely done and appreciated.

Agreed. Thank you, Psyren. I guess I don't really need to post the synopsis thread now.


They did well. I don't think any company is outright going to say, "yeah F you community. We tried to pull the wool right over your eyes." Admitting they were wrong takes enough of a step down that I find it acceptable. Of course, they wouldn't intentionally let someone be interviewed who couldn't maintain their composure.

Overall I agree. It takes a lot for them to basically say "Yea, we ****ed up" and then give a definite (if vague) answer for how they plan to fix it.

It will still take a lot of time and effort for them to rebuild trust with the community, but from that Kyle said, I think they're on the right path to do it.

[Vahnavoi]

And I have no doubt the community will respond accordingly.

What about anything I wrote made you think that's a proper reply? Because it isn't. It's an empty platitude. In no case referred was it "the community" that responded. There is no such thing, it's always specific people taking offense and specific people reacting to it. More debatably, there isn't even "accordingly". Again, a lot of the offended responses are just people complaining about games they don't play.

[animorte]

What about anything I wrote made you think that's a proper reply? Because it isn't. It's an empty platitude. In no case referred was it "the community" that responded. There is no such thing, it's always specific people taking offense and specific people reacting to it. More debatably, there isn't even "accordingly". Again, a lot of the offended responses are just people complaining about games they don't play.

So, definitely, there will be gaming content made in the future that will offend someone's sensibilities, somewhere. Worrying about what creative license those games will use, is beneath least concern.
I was strictly responding to this part. This reminded me of... several different occurrences in which the community, through all forms of media, will discover someone offended by something and we see a great deal of backlash, often resulting in the company (in position of power) doing something about it to stay in good graces with the people.

When I refer to the community, I'm not trying to cover the majority of people relevant to something and how they feel. I'm referring to what is considered the "general consensus" because, whether they are in the majority or not, the loudest voices are those that are heard.

[Lemmy]

It's ironic that WotC tried to use equality and inclusivity as a smoke-screen to their {scrubbed} actions, and then, Brinks, on camera, says that people like him (refering to white men) "can't leave soon enough".

{Scrubbed}

[Psyren]

It's ironic that WotC tried to use equality and inclusivity as a smoke-screen to their {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} actions, and then, Brinks, on camera, says that people like him (refering to white men) "can't leave soon enough".

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I was waiting for this soundbyte to get here, and as predicted, it's taken completely out of context.

Short version - when he was talking about "the hobby" he was talking about the corporate leadership side of it (i.e. ranking WotC execs/leads), not D&D the game.

[Segev]

I was waiting for this soundbyte to get here, and as predicted, it's taken completely out of context.

Short version - when he was talking about "the hobby" he was talking about the corporate leadership side of it (i.e. ranking WotC execs/leads), not D&D the game.

Having just listened to the full quote, it could go either way on whether he meant players or "ranking WotC execs/leads." And, if he's referring to "execs/leads, he obviously doesn't believe that "guys like me can't leave soon enough," or he'd actually take the initiative and leave, being a "guy like him."

[Psyren]

Having just listened to the full quote, it could go either way on whether he meant players or "ranking WotC execs/leads." And, if he's referring to "execs/leads, he obviously doesn't believe that "guys like me can't leave soon enough," or he'd actually take the initiative and leave, being a "guy like him."

1) The question he was answering when this came up makes the context quite clear.

2) Quitting on the spot before your successor is ready is a lousy way to do succession planning or talent development of any kind, especially in a large corporation - and that's putting aside the fact that it wouldn't be his choice anyway, it would be the choice of his boss.

Also this relates pretty directly to the Orion Black stuff I said I wouldn't be talking about so I'll leave it there.

[Just to Browse]

IMO any possible discussion to be had about this particular answer from Brink is only going to be tangentially related to the topic of the thread. It would be better if that discussion branched off into its own thread. When the "discourse" there inevitably spirals out of control, it will be relegated to its own dedicated thread, and this one doesn't have to get locked.

[Witty Username]

LotFP has a Youtube channel where Raggi himself pretty much spells out why a morality clause would be a bad idea, especially given what's happened to his company. Trying to use LotFP's case to justify the existence of a morality clause would be completely backwards.

Sure, a morality clause being a bad idea or reliant on cooperate benevolence and therefore suspect on our end are definitely concerns.

I was more responding to the idea that nothing controversial will never come up, and nothing controversial has ever come up. I could definitely see it happen.

Would that make Wotc in the right, probably not. I personally find that the moral stuff is like alot of Wotc stuff, not necessarily malicious but reaks of incompetence.

Kinda like some of the stuff related to representation in MTG, which tends to come off to me as supportive, and tonedeaf. But that is a whole other topic that probably can't be given a proper discussion here.

[Devils_Advocate]

not necessarily malicious but reaks of incompetence.
They may be evil, but at least they're bad at it.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's ironic that WotC tried to use equality and inclusivity as a smoke-screen to their{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} actions, and then, Brinks, on camera, says that people like him (refering to white men) "can't leave soon enough".

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Case in point. Who is going to take anyone seriously that says something like that? Further, who is going to cede authority on what is "right and wrong" to someone that says something like that?

People like him can't leave soon enough? What a nonsensical, unscientific, unethical, immoral, inane, and banal platitude to make to... who? People that think only people that look a certain way should be making decisions about role-playing games?

It is an absolutely ABSURD time we live in. The pendulum can't swing back to sanity fast enough.

[Tanarii]

Respect to the interviewers, those were good questions firmly applied.The little I was willing to watch, I felt like he was getting a little soft-balled by someone that doesn't understand the way corporations work, so wasn't able to properly call him out on many of his claims.

Otoh I didn't watch the entire thing so it's possible I missed some of the hard hitting questions.


Ultimately my opinion was not changed by this interview. It could have improved/decreased it further but the mixed outcomes were a wash.My opinion of this Tasha-era management and design teams at WotC was unlikely to be changed anyway. I'm more interested in if they can save D&Done with the community or not. Because right now anger at WotC is still very strong. It's even affecting MtG. They must be hemorrhaging money right now. It's a golden opportunity to launch non-D&D campaigns.

Although personally I'd still like to run BECMI more than anything else. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

Kyle Brink did a second interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRVkrWvqKTQ), this time with the Mastering Dungeons channel. As before, I've pulled out questions and timestamps for those who don't want to sit through the whole thing.

There was some new information with this one that I'll go over after the spoiler.


(1:35) How did you get started with D&D?
(3:22) Do you have a favorite setting?
(3:57) Favorite 3rd-Party product?
(4:24) What was your role at WotC before becoming executive director of D&D? (Joined 2 years ago as an Operations Director)
(6:06) How many people are on the team and how are they organized?
(6:57) How do you help everyone come together on such a large team so that even new designers have a voice?
(8:41) For designers in the past who have left WotC frustrated, do you feel like the issues that contributed to that have been corrected / improved?
(10:24) Do you have equity/diversity targets so your team is representative of the playerbase?
(13:06) Who do you report to?
(13:41) Do you get to meet with the C-Suite and do they hear your concerns?
(13:53) Do you feel you have enough visibility into what WotC and Hasbro are planning at the corporate level, and do they have enough visibility into the D&D team?
(15:33) The design team feels separate from the digital side nowadays with DnDBeyond. Where is that line between the two teams drawn? What about the incorporation of what used to be a variety of content sources (website blogs, discord posts, twitter threads) into DnDBeyond?
(17:32) How much can the DnDBeyond team affect new products from the D&D Game Studio, and how are disconnects between the two resolved?
(19:18) Changing the OGL was a surprise to the community, was it also a surprise to your team?
(20:38) You mentioned this has been in the works for quite sometime, did no one speak up to warn about the kinds of things that might happen?
(21:50) What might a large company create with the OGL that WotC would have seen as a problem? Can you give an example?
(23:58) Were the royalties seen more as a growth cap for creators, or a deterrent for large companies?
(25:55) Are royalties now dead?
(26:59) Another concern was hateful content. The biggest examples of that recently have unfortunately been from WotC themselves, same with NFTs and Hasbro. What is the community failing to understand related to what WotC wanted to do with content protection?
(29:38) WotC shied away from content standards in the past, Adventurer’s League was going to have one and now it has none, what’s WotC’s strategy towards content protection going forward?
(31:12) Wanted to ask about Share-Alike; the OGL drafts that were shared didn’t seem to contain Share-Alike, and even the CC license WotC chose doesn’t have that. Was that intentional? Does WotC see Share-Alike as a problem?
(33:19) People want to understand the difference between WotC and Hasbro and the design team, and where the idea of revising the OGL began in earnest, was that at the Hasbro executive level, the WotC executive level, the design team level… where was that happening?
(34:48) There’s a feeling that if you speak up, it can come at personal cost. Is that something that is happening at WotC and what are you doing to change that?
(37:17) Did anyone sign the 1.1 Draft?
(38:10) What about feedback from third parties like Kobold Press? Why did they feel they weren’t being listened to or that their feedback wasn’t being acted on?
(39:32) 1.2 had a number of improvements but still tried to deauthorize 1.0a. Why was that?
(42:02) WotC has a reputation for being tough negotiators, do you think that’s been in WotC’s best interests?
(43:06) WotC asked for a 1.2 survey, then the plug was pulled on the OGL and we went all the way to Creative Commons, how was it that we got to that place?
(45:17) There were so many goals around royalties, protecting against large companies etc, are all those shelved until later? Is WotC willing to say “we will not deauthorize 1.0a?”
(47:02) 5.1 is in Creative Commons, that’s great, but we will see it get updated for OneD&D and things like the Artificer?
(48:15) Will you add the 3.5 SRD to CC?
(49:04) Concerning VTTs, will WotC continue to work with Roll20 and Foundry? Are they seen as partners or competitors?
(50:54) What about third-party content inside DnDBeyond and your VTT, will that be possible?
(52:15) Will the staff get to see the D&D movie early?
(52:33) Though the movie and tv show are coming - with Hasbro selling off eOne, and WotC scaling back on video games, will D&D meet its growth targets? Will too much emphasis be placed on the VTT to deliver something unprecedented?
(53:33) Has what has happened with the OGL affected the strategy for OneD&D?
(54:14) Will OneD&D be the final edition of D&D?
(55:52) The OneD&D playtest is behind schedule; Will the timeline shift for OneD&D past 2024?
(56:38) The feedback in the playtest videos seems to be considerably more positive than feedback from reviewers. Is there a disconnect there, and would an independent outside firm helping with survey design and measuring what people like and don’t like help resolve that? (Comparison to DnDNext playtest here as well.)
(59:47)What has WotC learned from this experience to prevent this from happening in future?


And here is some of the new stuff:

1) Ryan Dancey raised a concern (https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/ogl-co-creator-wrong-creative-commons-licence) a little while ago about the specific Creative Commons license WotC opted to use for SRD 5.1, because it lacks "share-alike." Kyle Brink touches on that topic directly at around 31:12 and states that they chose the one they chose intentionally, so that creators would have more control over their derivative works. I won't comment on the legalities of which one is better for what purpose, just pointing everyone to that part of the discussion.

2) We learned a bit more about their plans for 1.0a and OneD&D. When asked if 1.0a deauthorization was still on the table, from Kyle's perspective he doesn't see any point in doing so anymore, people will just stick with CC which is a stronger (and more trustworthy, for those who no longer trust WotC) license anyway. And the plan is indeed to eventually release the 3.5 SRD into CC as well, they just want to go through it with a fine-toothed comb first because they don't actually remember what's in it.

3) The concerns they had that led to new OGLs haven't gone away, but the strategy has changed dramatically. They're still worried about offensive content and very large corporations, but not so much so that they want to alienate their vibrant creator community over them. So the strategy now is to use the tools they have with Creative Commons where necessary (e.g. pulling attribution) and otherwise, largely rely on the community to help them police bad actors since the community has shown that we have a pretty large megaphone for such things. And obviously, the stuff that's outside the CC, i.e. their closed content, they can protect via legal means as before. And WotC will still be putting out a Content Policy to let people know what their standards are, even though it won't be legally enforceable the way 1.2 would have been.

4) No one signed the 1.1 draft; the intent was for it to be a click-through type of license when finally released. However, creators they met with were signing other things - like NDAs to see the draft language, or other deals, that he understands would lead people to believe they were signing the OGL itself. It's a moot point in any case as 1.1 is dead.

5) The 5e SRD will get updated in some way - either with brand new rules added, or with "bridging language" (e.g. a supplementary document that says "everywhere in 5.1 that you see "race", we're now using "species" instead.) Either way, whatever SRD OneD&D eventually gets will be compatible with 5.1. No definitive answer on the Artificer being added to the SRD. They do not view OneD&D as the "final edition" of D&D, rather they want D&D to be a game that feels familiar 20 years from now even if it doesn't play exactly the same 20 years from now.

6) The OneD&D Playtest was indeed impacted by all the goings-on, but they're still committed to a 2024 release. We should get more playtest information soon.




Otoh I didn't watch the entire thing so it's possible I missed some of the hard hitting questions.

My post upthread contains every question 3BH asked so you can see for yourself.

[Sparky McDibben]

Kyle Brink did a second interview

This one was more credulous than 3BH, certainly, with functionally zero pushback from Abadia as he ran it. Now, credit where it's due, Abadia got a bunch of info on how WotC's creative process works, and how the development team actually runs. But I think there were several opportunities to press Brink, both on the OGL and on 6th edition.

It was a missed opportunity to engage in...Brinks-manship. :smallcool:

(Yeah, I know that's not what brinksmanship actually is. But c'mon, how often am I going to be able to make that joke?)

[Psyren]

We got much more on the new edition in this one than the last one imo, such as confirmation that they won't be making a separate "closed license" for it, confirmation that they have no plans of shifting the 2024 release date, as well as confirmation that more playtest stuff was coming "real soon."

[Witty Username]

They may be evil, but at least they're bad at it.

Eh, more the opposite, based on some of Wotcs actions they seem to have good intentions, it is just hard to tell from malicious intent as it is sufficiently advanced incompetence. Like say, they probably thought the morality clause was a selling point to us, which would explain why it was abandoned so quickly.
Er, the hypothetical break down
- Royalties, probably seeing what they could get away with
- the closing loopholes for the digital and competition game stuff, probably the primary goal
- morality clause, non-goal, consideration for the community to be more accepting of the changes

The Royalties went first, because they were met with vitriol. Then the morality clause got ire, and since that was the selling point of the contract to us, Wotc panics and drops the whole idea. Even the move to the CC, not what people were asking for, and comes off as an almost comical overreaction.
"You like the OGL and want to keep it, how about we also give you a bunch more access and future proof it from us revoking it."
"Well, the OGL was fine, but that's cool, I guess"

[Saintheart]

This one was more credulous than 3BH, certainly, with functionally zero pushback from Abadia as he ran it. Now, credit where it's due, Abadia got a bunch of info on how WotC's creative process works, and how the development team actually runs. But I think there were several opportunities to press Brink, both on the OGL and on 6th edition.

It was a missed opportunity to engage in...Brinks-manship. :smallcool:

(Yeah, I know that's not what brinksmanship actually is. But c'mon, how often am I going to be able to make that joke?)

I know your pun has a good chance of pushing me to the brink.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Ryan Dancey raised a concern (https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/ogl-co-creator-wrong-creative-commons-licence) a little while ago about the specific Creative Commons license WotC opted to use for SRD 5.1, because it lacks "share-alike." Kyle Brink touches on that topic directly at around 31:12 and states that they chose the one they chose intentionally, so that creators would have more control over their derivative works. I won't comment on the legalities of which one is better for what purpose, just pointing everyone to that part of the discussion.

I'm actually baffled by Dancey's take here. CC-BY is the most common license used by existing publishers, because it creates a baseline that people can fork from. Once you've released under CC, the cow is out of the barn in terms of creating competition for yourself.

A Sharealike would be fully viral: if you release a book under it, anything which references the license in that book has to also be completely CC-SA. Which means that releasing any material under a sharealike allows anyone to use the entire text of their product--you can't just say "this part of the book is under Sharealike, this part is my stuff that you can't use". It's all or nothing.

[Tanarii]

, based on some of Wotcs actions they seem to have good intentions,
Unfortunately in the real world, actions and results are what matter, not intentions.*

This is something that executives are usually very good at understanding. For all their other flaws. But they're NOT the best at seeing what results certain actions will result in.

*Surprisingly more and more ttrpg morality systems have moved to get this truth back-to-front over time. Probably because it's something young idealists often get wrong.

[Amnestic]

Unfortunately in the real world, actions and results are what matter, not intentions.*

Intentions absolutely matter in "the real world" both on an interpersonal level and when dealing with legal matters. Yes, actions+results are also important, but to say intentions don't matter is just like...wrong.

If I throw a ball with the intention of playing a game with you and you get hurt, that's bad.
If I throw a ball the exact same way with the intention of hurting you and you get hurt, I would expect most people would agree that's worse, even if the end result ("you are hurt") is the same.

[Rynjin]

Intentions absolutely matter in "the real world" both on an interpersonal level and when dealing with legal matters. Yes, actions+results are also important, but to say intentions don't matter is just like...wrong.

If I throw a ball with the intention of playing a game with you and you get hurt, that's bad.
If I throw a ball the exact same way with the intention of hurting you and you get hurt, I would expect most people would agree that's worse, even if the end result ("you are hurt") is the same.

This only really work with low stakes actions.

If instead you throw the ball and someone dies, intent matters significantly less than the action. In both cases someone has died due to your carelessness and you bear responsibility for that.

The higher the stakes, the less intent comes into play as a mitigating factor. Incompetence and malice become nearly indistinguishable because the effects are devastating.

It doesn't particularly matter WHY Wizards/Hasbro decided to try and kill their competition. The fact of the matter is that they did it, openly. And they could try to do it again, because they are unlikely to have grown either less malicious or less incompetent.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Saintheart
I know your pun has a good chance of pushing me to the brink.

Does anyone remember the brinker-roo (https://aliens.fandom.com/wiki/Brinker-roo)?

[Psyren]

Eh, more the opposite, based on some of Wotcs actions they seem to have good intentions, it is just hard to tell from malicious intent as it is sufficiently advanced incompetence. Like say, they probably thought the morality clause was a selling point to us, which would explain why it was abandoned so quickly.
Er, the hypothetical break down
- Royalties, probably seeing what they could get away with
- the closing loopholes for the digital and competition game stuff, probably the primary goal
- morality clause, non-goal, consideration for the community to be more accepting of the changes

The Royalties went first, because they were met with vitriol. Then the morality clause got ire, and since that was the selling point of the contract to us, Wotc panics and drops the whole idea. Even the move to the CC, not what people were asking for, and comes off as an almost comical overreaction.
"You like the OGL and want to keep it, how about we also give you a bunch more access and future proof it from us revoking it."
"Well, the OGL was fine, but that's cool, I guess"

Yeah I'm going with Hanlon's Razor here too.

But while I was originally with you on judging it a "comical overreaction" - Kyle's interviews have led me to believe it was a more calculated, or at least thoughtful, move than sheer panic. Putting the SRDs in CC gets WotC out of the "OGL business" for good, and furthermore undermines the competition (now if "ORC" is even slightly more restrictive than CC, they can point and laugh), and lastly, it gives them a concrete way of saying they're standing with their community of creatives in a way they never had before. The more I hear him speak about it the more I see it as the most obvious move they could have made.


I'm actually baffled by Dancey's take here. CC-BY is the most common license used by existing publishers, because it creates a baseline that people can fork from. Once you've released under CC, the cow is out of the barn in terms of creating competition for yourself.

A Sharealike would be fully viral: if you release a book under it, anything which references the license in that book has to also be completely CC-SA. Which means that releasing any material under a sharealike allows anyone to use the entire text of their product--you can't just say "this part of the book is under Sharealike, this part is my stuff that you can't use". It's all or nothing.

Indeed, Kyle covered this in interview 2 as well. At this point I think Dancey is just being vindictive/clout-chasing.

[Amnestic]

This only really work with low stakes actions.

If instead you throw the ball and someone dies, intent matters significantly less than the action. In both cases someone has died due to your carelessness and you bear responsibility for that.

This is, again, incorrect. I could have used the example of throwing a ball and you died and the situation would have been the same. The legal ramifications ("responsibility") of an accidental vs. intentional killing are different, at least where I'm from. Intentions quite clearly matter here. Yes, if you take the stakes to an unreasonably high degree - beyond murder - I'm sure intentions matter less.

But we're talking about "the real world", no? No one was murdered here.



It doesn't particularly matter WHY Wizards/Hasbro decided to try and kill their competition. The fact of the matter is that they did it, openly. And they could try to do it again, because they are unlikely to have grown either less malicious or less incompetent.

I dunno, I totally think it does matter why a corpo does something alongside their actions, because it speaks to not only their current actions but also their future actions too.

If they did a bad thing because they were trying to do a good thing, they're less likely to do a bad thing again once the bad thing has been corrected.
If they did a bad thing because they were trying to a bad thing, that makes them quite likely to try to do the bad thing again, because they wanted to do a bad thing in the first place.

[Rynjin]

I dunno, I totally think it does matter why a corpo does something alongside their actions, because it speaks to not only their current actions but also their future actions too.

If they did a bad thing because they were trying to do a good thing, they're less likely to do a bad thing again once the bad thing has been corrected.
If they did a bad thing because they were trying to a bad thing, that makes them quite likely to try to do the bad thing again, because they wanted to do a bad thing in the first place.

It doesn't matter because you will never be able to verify. The corpo can say what it likes and mean the opposite.

If the dog goes berserk and mauls your leg, then acts normal afterward, you don't say "oh well, guess he really didn't mean it". You turn them over to animal control and have them put down.

If they're stupid enough to try it, why would you trust them to not still be ****ing morons?

If they're hostile enough to try it, why would you trust them to not still be hostile?

In either case, trust is lost. Intention is meaningless. "Oh well they didn't mean to..." So? True or not, they still tried to do it. And they could do it again. They might not...but you can never be sure.

[Psyren]

It doesn't particularly matter WHY Wizards/Hasbro decided to try and kill their competition. The fact of the matter is that they did it, openly. And they could try to do it again, because they are unlikely to have grown either less malicious or less incompetent.

It is likely (or at least can be), because the company is not a monolith. Kyle stated that one of the biggest factors that led to this morass was the fact that the creatives within the company, who are closest to the creatives outside it in the larger community, were not given a proper seat at the table for these kinds of decisions. And even that wasn't malice against them so much as a misguided "you D&D people keep your heads down and make the game, we'll handle the business stuff for you" when the reality is that they shouldn't have been separating the two. He has said openly twice now that that has changed, because the company has a new appreciation for how loud the community can get when threatened and how easily the pure business side of the house can screw up without them, and I believe him. Do I think they'll never make a mistake again, of course not - but this particular mistake is impossible to recur thanks to the CC, which is another big reason they chose it.

[Dr.Samurai]

This only really work with low stakes actions.

If instead you throw the ball and someone dies, intent matters significantly less than the action. In both cases someone has died due to your carelessness and you bear responsibility for that.

The higher the stakes, the less intent comes into play as a mitigating factor. Incompetence and malice become nearly indistinguishable because the effects are devastating.

It doesn't particularly matter WHY Wizards/Hasbro decided to try and kill their competition. The fact of the matter is that they did it, openly. And they could try to do it again, because they are unlikely to have grown either less malicious or less incompetent.
I tend to agree that the stakes impact the relevance of intent.

I think it went without saying that this move would not go over well for a lot of people, and we thought WotC was delusional for trying something like this. The fact that they didn't or couldn't see that, that they chose to ignore the people designing the game, and didn't think there'd be backlash, is big enough, for me at least, that it overshadows whatever their intent was. It was a colossal blunder, almost without a doubt motivated by the bottom line, and so it begs the question of "how far are we from the next misguided, blundering attempt?".

The fact that the design team is now in the loop doesn't change the fact that the exec team lacks foresight, good sense, an appreciation for the product they are stewarding and its consumers, etc etc etc. Those are all the same people, but now they are letting Design say some stuff at the table. Will that be enough? I hardly think that's a foregone conclusion.

[Psyren]

If you truly don't believe they can do any better then you're free to quit and wait for ORC. All I can say is I won't be, and that Kyle seems like a level-headed leader.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't say that. I'm saying it's the exact same people, but now they are letting Design have a seat at the table. That... doesn't guarantee anything in and of itself. It's not like Design is going to be running the show now. It will be the same misguided people as before, with some hindsight. Is that hindsight "Hey, we really need to consider the community at large when we make these decisions!" or "Hey, we really need to tamp down on leaks and figure out how to achieve this without all this blowback. We had no idea we could face a reaction like this."? I don't know. But I'm not going to extend a massive benefit of the doubt.

I think I'll stick with our track record on this matter over, you know, the people that were defending and justifying WotC's decisions every step of the way.

[Psyren]

I didn't say that. I'm saying it's the exact same people, but now they are letting Design have a seat at the table. That... doesn't guarantee anything in and of itself. It's not like Design is going to be running the show now. It will be the same misguided people as before, with some hindsight. Is that hindsight "Hey, we really need to consider the community at large when we make these decisions!" or "Hey, we really need to tamp down on leaks and figure out how to achieve this without all this blowback. We had no idea we could face a reaction like this."? I don't know. But I'm not going to extend a massive benefit of the doubt.

I think I'll stick with our track record on this matter over, you know, the people that were defending and justifying WotC's decisions every step of the way.

Assuming you mean me with that last part, I supported some and opposed others, before it mostly became a moot point. Nuance is difficult on the internet.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know your pun has a good chance of pushing me to the brink. At least he didn't publish the cliff notes of the interview.

And who knew that Sparky was an edge lord?

[Saintheart]

At least he didn't publish the cliff notes of the interview.

And who knew that Sparky was an edge lord?



This conversation is getting more abyss-mal with every post.

[Devils_Advocate]

There are many ways in which recent events could be characterized, so "Doing this means they're more likely to do something similar in the future" isn't very specific. Understanding the factors underlying these events seems like it might be helpful for more accurately guessing how future events might be similar.

Not that we can sanely trust a company spokesthing to give us a fully accurate and unbiased understanding of the relevant factors, but that's a different counterpoint from "Intentions don't matter". Personally, I'd recommend comparing this to stuff that WotC has done previously. A single incident on its own is not a long-term pattern of behavior.


Eh, more the opposite, based on some of Wotcs actions they seem to have good intentions, it is just hard to tell from malicious intent as it is sufficiently advanced incompetence. Like say, they probably thought the morality clause was a selling point to us, which would explain why it was abandoned so quickly.
Trying to undermine the creative freedoms of others is hostile towards those whose rights you're trying to undermine, even if you do it with popular support. That's a dubious thing to even be trying to do, so it doesn't really work to justify dubious means. Sure, it's crazy to expect corporation-critical people to trust your corporation not to abuse a position of control gained through an unethical power grab. But even in the bizarre hypothetical scenario where that expectation is somehow correct, that doesn't make your intentions good. Like, a bizarre hypothetical scenario in which a large group of pacifists becomes pro-murder isn't ipso facto one in which murder is the right thing to do, to give an analogy. Sure, if it actually happens, the odds are unusually good (https://xkcd.com/1170/), but that's because it's a bizarre hypothetical scenario that wouldn't happen except under exceptional circumstances!

[Tanarii]

Besides watching if WotC can save D&Done, the other thing I'm still excited about is the ORC license project, and the resulting games and products that come out of it. (The idea that WoTC's CC SRD release makes ORC not important is :smallamused:.)

Given the negative odor wotc has given D&D, we may not even see a 5e fork (using the CC released material) to pick up their market share loss at this point. The real question is if someone can capture enough of the market with a completely non-D&D-related product, most likely under ORC.

[Psyren]

Not that we can sanely trust a company spokesthing to give us a fully accurate and unbiased understanding of the relevant factors, but that's a different counterpoint from "Intentions don't matter". Personally, I'd recommend comparing this to stuff that WotC has done previously. A single incident on its own is not a long-term pattern of behavior.


The good news is we don't have to trust their speech when we can just judge their actions. Putting the SRD in Creative Commons is truly irrevocable in every sense of the word, as it's a license that has been tested in court and that WotC has zero control over. It also has fewer restrictions on creators than even 1.0a. And they intentionally chose the "non-viral" license too.


Besides watching if WotC can save D&Done, the other thing I'm still excited about is the ORC license project, and the resulting games and products that come out of it. (The idea that WoTC's CC SRD release makes ORC not important is :smallamused:.)

Given the negative odor wotc has given D&D, we may not even see a 5e fork (using the CC released material) to pick up their market share loss at this point. The real question is if someone can capture enough of the market with a completely non-D&D-related product, most likely under ORC.

Eh, sure they lost market share over this, but if Paizo or Kobold's goal is to get higher than second and third place respectively I wish them luck.

[JadedDM]

New interview just dropped:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-2yiFT2PU

[Psyren]

Timestamps from the Ginny Di interview:



(4:15) In general, what were WotC’s goals with updating the OGL?
(4:58) Has there been a history of hateful content made under the OGL so far, or is this something you were concerned would happen in the future?
(5:26) It sounds like you were concerned mostly about people being scammed (via NFTs) rather than the existence of NFTs in general.
(7:03) Is there a specific place, department or area that the push to update the OGL originated from, that you know of?
(7:54) Can you tell me what exactly does your role as executive produce of D&D entail?
(8:22) What part, if any, did you play in all of the proposed updates to the OGL?
(9:35) It’s interesting that you say that this has been in process for such a long time because I wanted to ask about why there was such a communication disconnect between the WotC team and the D&D Community - particularly the week of silence between the 1.1 leak and the first official response - which, for a lot of us, felt like it stretched on forever.
(11:29) Unfortunately I have to ask about this draft thing - WotC keeps using the word “draft” to refer to this leaked OGL 1.1 and that you were soliciting community feedback, but we’ve also heard these documents were being sent to creators to be signed as a legally binding contract. From the outside it looks as though Wizards is lying by calling it a draft, can you explain the discrepancy there?
(13:19) Do you mind telling me how the decision came about to put the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons?
(14:11) Since obviously a lot of trust and loyalty has been lost throughout this process, I’m curious what other material plans you have to rebuild that.
(15:33) Wizards has previously stated there will be an updated SRD for OneD&D. Can you confirm whether or not Wizards is committed to providing an Open Gaming License for OneD&D?
(16:06) A lot of people are asking about whether or not other things will be put into the Creative Commons, like previous editions of the SRD, any plans for that?
(17:13) So a lot of people enjoy playing D&D with analog systems, like pencil & paper, printed books, stuff like that - do you think those players have a place in D&D’s future, or do you think there’s a shift to digital that’s happening?
(17:47) So I know there are a lot of concerns just in general based on the world we live in about a shift to digital with a lot of microtransactions and things like that, is that a valid concern to have over DnDBeyond or the (Wizards) VTT?
(18:20) Can you tell me about Wizards of the Coast’s goals with regards to third-party VTTs?
(18:47) I think most people assume you see 3PVTTs as competitors due to the future of your own virtual tabletop being in competition with them.
(19:08) How much support do you think is planned for homebrew and third-party content?



My favorite parts of this one:

1) Confirmation that OneD&D SRD (if it gets a separate one) will also be CC.
2) Ginny Di looking directly to camera at the "WAS IT A DRAFT OR NOT???" crusaders once and for all (12:49).
3) They will keep making physical product for as long as people keep wanting to buy it.

[JadedDM]

3) They will keep making physical product for as long as people keep wanting to buy it.
They say they will keep making physical products. But as Ginny points out, if they are investing all of their time and money into virtual, then aren't they essentially driving the market there?

[Psyren]

They say they will keep making physical products. But as Ginny points out, if they are investing all of their time and money into virtual, then aren't they essentially driving the market there?

Waiting until the market already prefers digital to start investing in digital would be.... pretty foolish on their part.

[JadedDM]

That's only assuming the market will do that. Remember the videogame industry as been crowing for years now that 'single player is dead' and that 'online only is the future' and yet single-player games dominate and online games generally do not. It's not uncommon for corporations to push things on the people whether they want it or not, and WotC is no different.

Also, I wanted to add, I don't like your implication that Ginny was somehow taking a swipe at the people asking the draft question. Her commentary was far more nuanced than you are making it sound.


"I honestly don't know how much more we can do with this line of questioning. Unless one of the people or publishers who was sent the OGL 1.1 in January shares the actual language from the emails, this just feels like a dead end. Some people are going to believe Wizards is lying no matter what, some people are gonna trust what Kyle just said. Frankly I don't see this as a very productive rabbit hole to dive down. Draft or not, it had been in the works for a long time and it was a terrible license. In my opinion, it shouldn't have been sent out in that state for signing or for feedback."

[Dr.Samurai]

There are many ways in which recent events could be characterized, so "Doing this means they're more likely to do something similar in the future" isn't very specific. Understanding the factors underlying these events seems like it might be helpful for more accurately guessing how future events might be similar.

Not that we can sanely trust a company spokesthing to give us a fully accurate and unbiased understanding of the relevant factors, but that's a different counterpoint from "Intentions don't matter". Personally, I'd recommend comparing this to stuff that WotC has done previously. A single incident on its own is not a long-term pattern of behavior.
Intentions matter insofar as we can be reliably sure of them.

In this new interview just linked, Ginny Di isn't buying the party line that they keep trotting out, and I expect that most people paying attention to this feel the same way. Because it's a pretty fair and reasonable assumption of their intentions. The move on the OGL was for profit alone. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but given how much the 3rd party community and content creators have done to make the game as popular as it is now, it was interpreted as a naked and greedy betrayal. That's a pretty reasonable take. The reasons given of needing to protect the brand from hateful content and avoid NFTs also doesn't pass the smell test for a number of reasons. Pretty reasonable to squint your eyes at that too. Finally, the reaction to all the backlash is a primarily self-serving move, and we can't put a tremendous amount of stock into it to speculate on what they might do going forward. Yes, we can enjoy the fact that 5e is protected now. That's awesome. But it doesn't change what WotC wants to do, and what they tried to do, and how they tried to do it.

It also doesn't change that the people in charge not only didn't get what they want, but had to cede something to the community in order to regain trust. That's incredibly blunderous. As I said before, those people are still there and still in charge.

SO we can't be 100% sure of their intentions. Obviously they are saying that it was all good and we took it the wrong way and blew it out of proportion etc. But I certainly don't think they've done anything to warrant any benefit of the doubt. They've bought themselves time with the srd going to the cc. That's great news for a lot of people. But their motivation there, again, can be easily guessed at, given the movement that grew against them.


2) Ginny Di looking directly to camera at the "WAS IT A DRAFT OR NOT???" crusaders once and for all (12:49).
Crusaders lol.

So do you agree with her that it likely wasn't a draft or if it was it's still shameful that they were parading that around for feedback? Because you appear to be representing this like she dunked on people wondering if it was a draft, which was not the case (at least, not outside of your own head).

[Psyren]

That's only assuming the market will do that.

I think that's a safe assumption, especially if we get another pandemic or variant, but we're allowed to disagree on that.


Also, I wanted to add, I don't like your implication that Ginny was somehow taking a swipe at the people asking the draft question. Her commentary was far more nuanced than you are making it sound.



So do you agree with her that it likely wasn't a draft or if it was it's still shameful that they were parading that around for feedback? Because you appear to be representing this like she dunked on people wondering if it was a draft, which was not the case (at least, not outside of your own head).

I don't think it was a "dunk" or a "swipe." Rather, she's saying that people asking this question* aren't going to get a different answer no matter how many different ways they think of to rephrase it, so at this point you have to decide if it's a dealbreaker or not for you personally and then follow through on that.

*ad nauseam in my view

[EggKookoo]

Also, I wanted to add, I don't like your implication that Ginny was somehow taking a swipe at the people asking the draft question. Her commentary was far more nuanced than you are making it sound.

She literally concluded her statement by saying it didn't matter because it was a terrible decision either way. She was swiping at WotC, if anything.

[Atranen]

They say they will keep making physical products. But as Ginny points out, if they are investing all of their time and money into virtual, then aren't they essentially driving the market there?

I'll believe it when I see it. Signs point to more investment in digital, and that has to come at the expense of something. I doubt they'll pull all physical products. But I do expect to see online only, subscriber only, or subscriber first releases.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll believe it when I see it. Signs point to more investment in digital, and that has to come at the expense of something. I doubt they'll pull all physical products. But I do expect to see online only, subscriber only, or subscriber first releases.

They've definitely pioneered the online-only route with MtG cards. Heck, they've even done it with (small) D&D content releases (the Tortle package never was printed). Will they do it more? Possibly. But yeah, I agree that they'll prioritize/incentivize online purchases and work toward making physical releases the (much more lucrative) special collectors edition type. Or otherwise cut costs (trade paperback format not hardcover? Dunno).

[Psyren]

I'll believe it when I see it. Signs point to more investment in digital, and that has to come at the expense of something. I doubt they'll pull all physical products. But I do expect to see online only, subscriber only, or subscriber first releases.

But "digital first" benefits physical too. It's another avenue to catch errors, issue clarifications and errata, typeset etc. before things are enshrined in print. Even the Giant does it.


They've definitely pioneered the online-only route with MtG cards. Heck, they've even done it with (small) D&D content releases (the Tortle package never was printed). Will they do it more? Possibly. But yeah, I agree that they'll prioritize/incentivize online purchases and work toward making physical releases the (much more lucrative) special collectors edition type. Or otherwise cut costs (trade paperback format not hardcover? Dunno).

^ See, Tortle is a perfect example of why this strategy is good. Something that limited in scope would never have made economic sense to print physically. By the time it did, when they had a critical mass of content to make MPMM, 4 years had passed. I'd much rather have the digital-only small release sooner.

[Atranen]

But "digital first" benefits physical too. It's another avenue to catch errors, issue clarifications and errata, typeset etc. before things are enshrined in print. Even the Giant does it.

The fact that some benefits exist does not mean that the idea is on the whole a good thing. It will help with editing. But it will also mean folks who do not subscribe may be out of luck on the newest content.

The OOTS comics are a different sort of thing, as they started as a digital product that moved to print.

[Tanarii]

They've definitely pioneered the online-only route with MtG cards. Heck, they've even done it with (small) D&D content releases (the Tortle package never was printed). Will they do it more? Possibly. But yeah, I agree that they'll prioritize/incentivize online purchases and work toward making physical releases the (much more lucrative) special collectors edition type. Or otherwise cut costs (trade paperback format not hardcover? Dunno).
Which ignores the entire point of TTRPGs: no electronic devices needed. /grognardgrognard :smallamused:

Reminds me of when someone tried to bring the XCOM board game to a board game day, explaining how cool it was you used a tablet to something something. And it everyone looked at them like they were a crazy person. So we tried it. Sure enough, it entirely missed the point, making things more complicated to figure out and prep, and without adding anything that a normal board game could do.

[EggKookoo]

Which ignores the entire point of TTRPGs: no electronic devices needed. /grognardgrognard :smallamused:

I will say that digital tools can be very helpful in the right circumstances. It's very nice to be able to get a spell description at a click or tap. One of the things adding friction to our table transitioning from 5e to PF2e is the lack of that convenience.

It's not about running the game per se.

[Atranen]

New interview just dropped:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-2yiFT2PU

A fascinating statement around 11 minutes here, about why it took so long to respond to the leak. Paraphrased: "there were new issues online being raised minute by minute, and we realized we had to address them with OGL 1.2".

I'm very curious where they're looking for "issues being raised online". Is wizards monitoring any discussion boards regularly for feedback? My guess would have been no, but this implies otherwise.

[Sparky McDibben]

A fascinating statement around 11 minutes here, about why it took so long to respond to the leak. Paraphrased: "there were new issues online being raised minute by minute, and we realized we had to address them with OGL 1.2".

I'm very curious where they're looking for "issues being raised online". Is wizards monitoring any discussion boards regularly for feedback? My guess would have been no, but this implies otherwise.

Hilariously, this OGL effort had been underway for over two years and NOBODY thought to consider any of the points the community raised. JFC.

[Trafalgar]

So Bank of America noticed the OGL Controversy and has given an "Underperform" rating to Hasbro. From a Business Insider article:

"Mainly, Hasbro is attempting to squeeze out as much profit as possible from its Wizards products in the short-term without any thought as to the long-term durability of its brands. And the over monetization is irking customers, according to BofA.

"We remain especially cautious on Hasbro's Wizards segment given its over-monetization of Magic. Wizards recently tried a similar tactic with D&D-proposing changes to its licensing agreement which led to substantial pushback from the community including calls to boycott the D&D movie," BofA explained."

Full Article is here (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/hasbro-dilutes-magic-the-gathering-brand-stock-price-bank-america-2023-2).

[Dr.Samurai]

So Bank of America noticed the OGL Controversy and has given an "Underperform" rating to Hasbro. From a Business Insider article:

"Mainly, Hasbro is attempting to squeeze out as much profit as possible from its Wizards products in the short-term without any thought as to the long-term durability of its brands. And the over monetization is irking customers, according to BofA.

"We remain especially cautious on Hasbro's Wizards segment given its over-monetization of Magic. Wizards recently tried a similar tactic with D&D-proposing changes to its licensing agreement which led to substantial pushback from the community including calls to boycott the D&D movie," BofA explained."

Full Article is here (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/hasbro-dilutes-magic-the-gathering-brand-stock-price-bank-america-2023-2).
I am absolutely shocked at this interpretation of WotC's actions, and to see such anti-corporate sentiments from a bank, of all places.

[Trafalgar]

I am absolutely shocked at this interpretation of WotC's actions, and to see such anti-corporate sentiments from a bank, of all places.

Nothing anticorporate about it. Banks tend to prioritize long term profitability and dividends over short term capital gains. A brokerage company would prefer anything that pushes up the stock price. Though these days, the line between a brokerage company and a bank is blurry at best.

[Psyren]

Hilariously, this OGL effort had been underway for over two years and NOBODY thought to consider any of the points the community raised. JFC.

Kyle stated some people at the table did, but they weren't sufficiently empowered (and that they are now.)


A fascinating statement around 11 minutes here, about why it took so long to respond to the leak. Paraphrased: "there were new issues online being raised minute by minute, and we realized we had to address them with OGL 1.2".

I'm very curious where they're looking for "issues being raised online". Is wizards monitoring any discussion boards regularly for feedback? My guess would have been no, but this implies otherwise.

This shouldn't be surprising; they own and control a forum themselves (D&D Beyond.) They also monitor the official D&D Discord. And a slew of the angry tweets were @-ing the DnDBeyond, D&D, and Wizards of the Coast handles.

[Atranen]

This shouldn't be surprising; they own and control a forum themselves (D&D Beyond.) They also monitor the official D&D Discord. And a slew of the angry tweets were @-ing the DnDBeyond, D&D, and Wizards of the Coast handles.

I've often been told "no one from wizards reads your Twitter/discord/etc complaint", so it's nice to see otherwise.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nothing anticorporate about it. Banks tend to prioritize long term profitability and dividends over short term capital gains. A brokerage company would prefer anything that pushes up the stock price. Though these days, the line between a brokerage company and a bank is blurry at best.
100%

People that were shocked at WotC's actions and predicted their naked attempt at short term profit would be at the long term expense of the community and the brand were labeled as anti-corporate and not understanding how companies/corporations/boards work etc etc etc.

[Psyren]

I've often been told "no one from wizards reads your Twitter/discord/etc complaint", so it's nice to see otherwise.

I still can't imagine who would have thought that, but okay.


100%

People that were shocked at WotC's actions and predicted their naked attempt at short term profit would be at the long term expense of the community and the brand were labeled as anti-corporate and not understanding how companies/corporations/boards work etc etc etc.

They screwed the pooch here, no question. Had they started with 1.2 + higher royalty they might have actually succeeded at getting more if not most of what they wanted.

[Tanarii]

Looks like Kobold Press has caved in:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654138-Project-Black-Flag-playtest-has-begun!

This makes far more sense than developing their own game from the ground up ... but only after 5.1 SRD was released as CC. So clearly not what the fanfare was originally about, since the fanfare came long before anyone knew that was going to happen. So instead it looks like Kobold Press caving in to do the easy thing. Pretty solid win for WotC in the public relations game, their latest maneuver was successful.

[Atranen]

Looks like Kobold Press has caved in:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654138-Project-Black-Flag-playtest-has-begun!

This makes far more sense than developing their own game from the ground up ... but only after 5.1 SRD was released as CC. So clearly not what the fanfare was originally about, since the fanfare came long before anyone knew that was going to happen. So instead it looks like Kobold Press caving in to do the easy thing. Pretty solid win for WotC in the public relations game, their latest maneuver was successful.

This is my take on it as well. I'll still probably back the Black Flag offerings, but a 5e fork has less interest now than it might have; unless Wizards really screws up with OneD&D, I'll probably stick with it for most of my games for the sake of accessibility.

[Dalinar]

Looks like Kobold Press has caved in:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654138-Project-Black-Flag-playtest-has-begun!

This makes far more sense than developing their own game from the ground up ... but only after 5.1 SRD was released as CC. So clearly not what the fanfare was originally about, since the fanfare came long before anyone knew that was going to happen. So instead it looks like Kobold Press caving in to do the easy thing. Pretty solid win for WotC in the public relations game, their latest maneuver was successful.

I'm confused what you think the news is here. PBF was pretty clearly communicated to be 5e-compatible from the start. Likely the CC thing only made that decision easier long after it was already decided.

[Witty Username]

So Bank of America noticed the OGL Controversy and has given an "Underperform" rating to Hasbro. From a Business Insider article:


Bank of America would know alot about losing customers and antagonistic corporate action, wouldn't it.

[Tanarii]

I'm confused what you think the news is here. PBF was pretty clearly communicated to be 5e-compatible from the start. Likely the CC thing only made that decision easier long after it was already decided.
It was originally supposed to be published under Paizo ORC.

So now they've done a switcheroo after WotC released SRD as CC, and instead made a 5e knockoff.

Kobold's announcement that they wouldn't raise the white flag on Jan 30th was when they did raise the white flag, by announcing they were going to make it 5e compatible.

[Witty Username]

It was originally supposed to be published under Paizo ORC. Which means it could not possibly be 5e compatable, because that would have required using the OGL. The entire point was to not do that.

So now they've done a switcheroo after WotC released SRD as CC, and instead made a 5e knockoff.

Kobold's announcement that they wouldn't raise the white flag on Jan 30th was when they did raise the white flag, by announcing they were going to make it 5e compatible.

Seems like the better move in any event, ORC would have all the now problems of the OGL (possibly revokable and what have you) as potential issues in the future. The CC is more stable ground because of the future proofing, and will be more resilient to such nonsense.
Better product for purpose wins, at least for the moment.
--
The 8-D chess theory, was this a move by Wotc to cause controversy? Afterall, if the goal was to get Hasbro to agree to something, plan a leak with disinformation to create a backlash, then Wotc gets greenlit by Hasbro to do damage control, moves to a less restricive lisence which limits Hasbro's short term profit options but gets D&D a more competitive position and some growth potential in the long term.
It would require Wotc to have a single concious thought which dooms the entire theory, but it is interesting given the apparent results.

[Psyren]

I doubt this was all some elaborate plan. More likely the one guy who was yelling "Creative Commons!" in the corner for a decade finally got heard once everyone else was stunned into silence.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I doubt this was all some elaborate plan.

This.

It’s like the time my cat jumped onto the top of a large cardboard box—except the top flaps had all been folded down, leaving only empty space above an abyss. There was a moment of mad flailing in midair, and then my cat was splayed across the aperture, with each foot balanced precariously on the edge of a side panel.

It was an impressive recovery from near-disaster, and she came out on top, but definitely not the original plan.

[Brookshw]

Seems like the better move in any event, ORC would have all the now problems of the OGL (possibly revokable and what have you) as potential issues in the future. Not really, or, at least, necessarily, depends how the license is drafted. Kinda moot though.


Better product for purpose wins, at least for the moment.
Looks like the winner here is WoTC, they get to keep 3PP writing content for their game and the "All Roads Lead to D&D" market they wanted in the first place, we don't get any new approach to game design/mechanics (at least, that's what it looks like so far from the first Black Flag playtest materials).



It’s like the time my cat jumped onto the top of a large cardboard box—except the top flaps had all been folded down, leaving only empty space above an abyss. There was a moment of mad flailing in midair, and then my cat was splayed across the aperture, with each foot balanced precariously on the edge of a side panel.

I would watch that.

[Segev]

Looks like the winner here is WoTC, they get to keep 3PP writing content for their game and the "All Roads Lead to D&D" market they wanted in the first place, we don't get any new approach to game design/mechanics (at least, that's what it looks like so far from the first Black Flag playtest materials).

Pretty much. I think it's a good thing, personally, but for those who see the part I bolded as a downside, remember that nothing prevents anybody from trying these new approaches. The market fracturing over D&D killing itself would have made for some new opportunity to be "heard," but innovation has been ongoing with a lot of different kinds of games out there. FATE, PBtA, and other such things exist. I'm not a fan, personally, but they're definitely out there.

It is unlikely that PBF or anything in the ORC would be more innovative than PF2 was, though. This isn't a problem, either; D&D-ish games that try to focus mechanics differently and try new things with the fantasy RPG formula are still good. And there's still room for them.

I would argue that SAGA edition d20 STar Wars was pretty innovative, and I think we may see more things like that with the 5.1 SRD being on CC and thus even more accessible.

PBF itself will either be something that gets watered down to a D&D 5e clone with a few serial numbers filed off, or will be at least that innovative, too. And, being 5e compatible, it'll see more play than it would've if D&D crumbled and PBF and other projects sprang up to try to fill the void, simply due to being able to latch onto existing 5e games without interruption.

[Psyren]

Kobold is prominent enough that if they come up with a fun race or subclass or spell of some kind I'll have a decent shot of getting my DM to approve it in our 5e/1DnD game. I might even throw them a couple of dollars in appreciation.

[Brookshw]

Pretty much. I think it's a good thing, personally, but for those who see the part I bolded as a downside, remember that nothing prevents anybody from trying these new approaches.

While technically correct, the shift does change the incentives for 3PP to be releasing content using diverse mechanics, i.e., its one thing for a mass number of publishers to release content under a new system, that's immediate market visibility, its another for individual small publishers to go it alone. I suspect the shift in incentives will be actively discouraging for most, as will the lack of support in overcoming initial barriers to entry which otherwise could have been born by the..consortium?

But I'll still root for the small publisher who decides to make a go at it.

[MonochromeTiger]

The 8-D chess theory, was this a move by Wotc to cause controversy? Afterall, if the goal was to get Hasbro to agree to something, plan a leak with disinformation to create a backlash, then Wotc gets greenlit by Hasbro to do damage control, moves to a less restricive lisence which limits Hasbro's short term profit options but gets D&D a more competitive position and some growth potential in the long term.
It would require Wotc to have a single concious thought which dooms the entire theory, but it is interesting given the apparent results.

No offense but that really makes no sense, even trying to look at it from the perspective of the standard detached Marketing-Exec-Business-Bro. It's kind of on par with the comment from a while ago of "what if they did this so they could bash ORC and others for not also going Creative Commons?"

I mean for it to work you'd need somebody to seriously think through a chain of events consisting of:
Step 1: make decision about very important thing we've sworn up and down we'd never get rid of making everyone hate us.
Step 2: make inflammatory comment doubling down and trying to justify how people just don't get it.
Step 3: put somebody, specifically somebody on the digital side instead of in the part people are really concerned about, in the path of the oncoming bus of community outrage to do damage control.
Step 4: backpedal hard with the realization of "oh wait we make money either way and this gives us less accountability.
Step 5: retain the people we probably would've retained anyway and be beloved by all and/or point out that the safety net agreements that are being left in the hands of people actually obligated not to break them are more restrictive than our desperate backpedaling. Cue "who's the real monster here?"

Even as a purely theoretical situation trying to ascribe way more forethought to some hypothetical person in WotC/Hasbro it comes across as the kind of terribly written super genius nonsense you find in comics and anime where the only way it isn't completely self defeating garbage is if they read the script ahead of time and skipped to the part that says "you win so do whatever you want."

[Psyren]

No. A specific open license for TTRPGs will be far superior to CC, provided it is protected properly against abuse by a for-profit company being the sole holder / interpreter.

Honest question - why? It seems to me that CC licenses have the biggest advantage by far of any license, i.e. already having been tested in court (in multiple jurisdictions, no less.) At least, if either side is trying to base their livelihood on it and looking for comparative certainty.


The SRD release to CC was clearly a direct response to the announcement of the intended OpenRPG license. And they've achieved the goal, keeping at least one large and visible 3PP that had signed on to ORC and a new game instead continuing to make 5e content.

No argument here, that's a win for WotC. But I consider it a successful saving throw rather than a machination.

[thethird]

Honest question - why? It seems to me that CC licenses have the biggest advantage by far of any license, i.e. already having been tested in court (in multiple jurisdictions, no less.) At least, if either side is trying to base their livelihood on it and looking for comparative certainty.

In my honest (non-lawyer) opinion, there has been controversy over words in the SRD released under CC such as Beholder, or Strahd von Zarovick. That's because the CC license doesn't allow to differentiate what's CC and what isn't (everything is CC within a work if the work is CC). The OGL does that, pretty easily. That's a pro to the OGL (which is a license designed from the ground up to be used in the particular scenario at hand).

Another pro, there is a LOT more material licensed under OGL than under CC. If you want to create something OGL gives you more tools.

There is another pro (tied to the above), the OGL self replicates for what's OGL content. That means that down the line you have a clear understanding of how you can use it. With the chosen CC license, by intent and design, it doesn't self replicate. Which is perfectly fine, but it makes the organic 3pp situation in which one keeps adding to others work more complicated. So by publishing under the OGL you increase the tools available for everyone by design, publishing under CC doesn't have that.

Of course any publisher can pick any route they want. I see a strong merit on the OGL, which let's me keep fluff and crunch separate within one specific book and that gives me more toys to play with.

[NichG]

In my honest (non-lawyer) opinion, there has been controversy over words in the SRD released under CC such as Beholder, or Strahd von Zarovick. That's because the CC license doesn't allow to differentiate what's CC and what isn't (everything is CC within a work if the work is CC). The OGL does that, pretty easily. That's a pro to the OGL (which is a license designed from the ground up to be used in the particular scenario at hand).

Another pro, there is a LOT more material licensed under OGL than under CC. If you want to create something OGL gives you more tools.

There is another pro (tied to the above), the OGL self replicates for what's OGL content. That means that down the line you have a clear understanding of how you can use it. With the chosen CC license, by intent and design, it doesn't self replicate. Which is perfectly fine, but it makes the organic 3pp situation in which one keeps adding to others work more complicated. So by publishing under the OGL you increase the tools available for everyone by design, publishing under CC doesn't have that.

Of course any publisher can pick any route they want. I see a strong merit on the OGL, which let's me keep fluff and crunch separate within one specific book and that gives me more toys to play with.

But you can use CC material (at least, this CC version) in an OGL product if you wanted to, so it's not like you're stuck in a CC ecosystem by choosing to use CC stuff. And you could always make your own thing CC-SA if you want the infectious property...

[NichG]

That's not my understanding.

WotC put the SRD under CC-BY, not CC-SA.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not my understanding.


WotC put the SRD under CC-BY, not CC-SA.

NichG is correct--CC-BY is the most "open" of the CC licenses. You can take something that's CC-BY and include it in a proprietary (ie all rights reserved) product as long as you give proper attribution. So you can also include it in any less restrictive license that doesn't have stupidly-viral terms. You could not do that with CC-SA.

CC-BY is basically "do whatever the heck you want, as long as you include the attribution clause". Very much different than, say, the software AGPL license.

[thethird]

But you can use CC material (at least, this CC version) in an OGL product if you wanted to, so it's not like you're stuck in a CC ecosystem by choosing to use CC stuff. And you could always make your own thing CC-SA if you want the infectious property...

That's indeed correct. But that's not a demerit of the OGL (nor of the CC license). You can use material from both concurrently.

Still I was trying to point the merits of one on relation to the other.

[False God]

Pretty much. I think it's a good thing, personally, but for those who see the part I bolded as a downside, remember that nothing prevents anybody from trying these new approaches. The market fracturing over D&D killing itself would have made for some new opportunity to be "heard," but innovation has been ongoing with a lot of different kinds of games out there.

I'm really not sure how you can write the first sentence, and then follow it up with the second, aside from the usual neo-capitalist jingoism.

A market dominated with a singular product is exactly what prevents new approaches from being tried.

A diverse market with a selection of products and approaches is a much healthier market. It doesn't mean the market is fractured, it means people can choose chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan. Single-product-market dominance leads to purchaser apathy. If your choice is "McDonalds" or nothing then some buyers are going to choose nothing. And that number will increase the longer McDonalds and McDonalds-like are the only options available to them.

This is especially important to consider in a hobby where you don't have to re-buy the product. Once I've bought 5E, if there's no other games with notable products, player-bases and marketshare, then I'm done spending my money. The market should be diverse enough that you should have to make a real choice between buying 5E or WWWoD, or whatever and that once you've bought a product, you can go back and buy your second choice later.

Monopolies aren't healthy for markets. Regardless of if they are discrete monopolies where one company owns everything, or effective monopolies where everything is designed in the same mold of a singular product.

[Segev]

I'm really not sure how you can write the first sentence, and then follow it up with the second, aside from the usual neo-capitalist jingoism.

A market dominated with a singular product is exactly what prevents new approaches from being tried.

A diverse market with a selection of products and approaches is a much healthier market. It doesn't mean the market is fractured, it means people can choose chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan. Single-product-market dominance leads to purchaser apathy. If your choice is "McDonalds" or nothing then some buyers are going to choose nothing. And that number will increase the longer McDonalds and McDonalds-like are the only options available to them.

This is especially important to consider in a hobby where you don't have to re-buy the product. Once I've bought 5E, if there's no other games with notable products, player-bases and marketshare, then I'm done spending my money. The market should be diverse enough that you should have to make a real choice between buying 5E or WWWoD, or whatever and that once you've bought a product, you can go back and buy your second choice later.

Monopolies aren't healthy for markets. Regardless of if they are discrete monopolies where one company owns everything, or effective monopolies where everything is designed in the same mold of a singular product.

It isn't a monopoly. If it were, I'd agree with you that it's unhealthy. But a monopoly keeps competition from playing in the market.

"The market fracturing" may have been a bad choice of words; I was using "market" as a synonym for "the customer base," and they're not quite the same thing. The customer base fracturing - i.e. breaking apart as they look in different directions where they once were focused on the same thing - would mean that the next-biggest publishers out there would have a chance at snapping up the primary attention of the various customers who now are looking for something to replace D&D. But anybody who thinks that you can only play one game system, period, is going to be wrong.

Innovation still can occur. I doubt, honestly, that even if WotC had fallen completely and D&D had somehow been nuked from orbit to the point that nobody would ever play any D&D-stamped game again, that the successors that the fragmented customer base would turn to would be, by and large, the indies. They'd be the next-biggest. White Wolf, if they're still functioning on anything but life support and a dwindling playerbase, would make a new push with Exalted 3e, just like they did when 4e came out. Paizo and Kobold Press would make their D&D-alikes as attempts to grab the "well, I lost my D&D" customers. FATE would see a small boost, but I suspect FATE has already seen that boost, and wouldn't have seen much more. Substitute any other "unusual mechanics" game for FATE, as I will say the same for each of them, to the degree they're already popular relative to the others.

Does that clarify how I can say all the things in my quote?

I'm not sure where you get "neo-capitalist jingoism" from it. I am thoroughly capitalist in the old school sense. I also am a fan of D&D, and not a huge fan of the direction Paizo has taken PF2. So I'm glad that a product I like (5e) is still supported and likely to get more third party support in the future.

[EggKookoo]

It isn't a monopoly. If it were, I'd agree with you that it's unhealthy. But a monopoly keeps competition from playing in the market.

Indeed, the mere existence of the OGL over the past few decades, and how it's been so freely used by 3rd parties, suggests WotC is less a monopoly and weirdly more like a utility. At least in practical functioning.

And personally, as someone who has played TTRPGs for years and years and years, and only a tiny fraction of that playtime being D&D, I have trouble understanding the concept that there's only one option for people. Sure, D&D dominates the market, but it was never really that hard to find other games even before the convenience of Amazon came along.

[NichG]

As I understand it that doesn't make a difference.

Regardless, if mixing is allowed it'd certainly make it a damn sight harder to properly distinguish what in the product is covered by which license.

Not any moreso than normal. Like, if I mention Hamlet in an article I hold the copyright to, that doesn't mean I own Hamlet now, and its not particularly confusing to anyone about whether I own Hamlet. If I then license that article out under CC-BY, that doesn't mean that now anyone publishing a version of Hamlet has to credit me - only if they're using text from my article that wasn't in Hamlet. So if I release something under OGL that uses CC-BY material, everything that I wrote that can't be drawn from another source is under OGL, not CC-BY; but I have to respect the terms of CC-BY to use the CC-BY material (e.g. I have to acknowledge the bits that are from elsewhere and credit the one who wrote them).

[Psyren]

The Hasbro/WotC Earnings Call happened a little earlier this week, led by Hasbro CEO Chris Cox (intentionally misspelled to stay on the right side of the board filter) and Hasbro CFO Deb Thomas; they briefly addressed the business side of the OGL stuff. Motley Fool has the full transcript (https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/02/16/hasbro-has-q4-2022-earnings-call-transcript/) for those who like to be bored with financial analysis, but I pulled out these D&D-related tidbits folks here might find interesting:


Chris Cox -- Chief Executive Officer
..
Hasbro Pulse was our fastest-growing channel, increasing 70% on robust fan demand across premiere industry entertainment properties. D&D Beyond delivered user growth in excess of 20% since we acquired the service in May of 2022 and, as forecasted, was EPS accretive in Q4.
...
Our growth in Wizards was not without challenges. We navigated significant supply chain disruptions that, while resolved for 2023, compressed our set release schedules in 2022, particularly in Q4. We were too aggressive in some of our pricing assumptions, notably, our 30th anniversary edition of Magic, and pulled back on available supply, impacting Q4 results. Lastly, on D&D, we misfired on updating our Open Game License, a key vehicle for creators to share or commercialize their D&D-inspired content.

Our best practice is to work collaboratively with our community, gather feedback, and build experiences that inspire players and creators alike. It's how we make our games among the best in the industry. We have since course corrected and are delivering a strong outcome for the community in game.
...
...
Jason Haas -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst

Thank you. That's helpful. And then you mentioned that -- I think you described it as a "misfiring" on some of the proposed changes to OGL. Was there any sort of financial impact to that in the first quarter? I think that-I guess the controversy is kind of behind us at this point. But just curious if there's anything to look out for in 1Q.

Chris Cox -- Chief Executive Officer

Yeah, I mean, we had some -- we had some subscription cancellations, but they were comparatively minor in the totality of both the D&D P&L and the Wizards P&L. You know, of course, we take anything like that seriously. We're in contact with the people who canceled. And, you know, in general, what we're finding is a lot of them are very open to restarting their subscriptions.

D&D Beyond is a great platform. It's a really good value, and it's something that's been a good growth factor for us. You know, we find it -- we feel, you know, about eight months into owning the asset, it's been a really good purchase for us. It was EPS accretive within six months of joining the company, and we had over 20% user growth through the end of 2022.

And the revenue growth was roughly commensurate with the user growth as well. So, you know, I think D&D should be on pace for a healthy 2023 with everything we have going on.

Jason Haas -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst

Great. Thank you.

[KorvinStarmast]

...Hasbro CEO Chris Cox... EPS accretive I love it when he talks dirty financial like that. :smalltongue:

[Witty Username]

No offense

None taken, it was mostly an attempt at humor, I don't have blue text on my phone which limits my sarcasm options. That and its more a comment to my observation that people are very willing to read all sorts of stuff as malicious ploting on Wotc's part, when, at least based on my experience of the mtg stuff, incompetence is the only certainty.

The non-humor element is that it is plain weird to me that the end result is not some compromise with the original plan, but abandon entirely, and make a move in the opposite direction of the original plan. My best guess is they had competing plans caught up in committee or something.

[KorvinStarmast]

at least based on my experience of the mtg stuff, incompetence is the only certainty. The old adage 'don't assume malice when incompetence / stupidity is in play' seems to apply here.

My best guess is they had competing plans caught up in committee or something. The impression I get is that there were "inside WotC" persons very much against the path forward, and they were sources of some of the leaks. That's a risky move that might have cost someone a job, so I am guessing that this was a position that was very strongly felt.

[Beleriphon]

The old adage 'don't assume malice when incompetence / stupidity is in play' seems to apply here.
The impression I get is that there were "inside WotC" persons very much against the path forward, and they were sources of some of the leaks. That's a risky move that might have cost someone a job, so I am guessing that this was a position that was very strongly felt.

New Coke versus Coca-Cola comes to mind. "We are not that dumb and we are not that smart." - Donald Keough

[Oramac]

Just throwing another Kyle Brink interview out there. This time it was with Bob World Builder (https://youtu.be/smyRYVzB_jQ).

Overall, more of the same. But there was one really interesting tidbit near the end. Apparently they are aware that Dark Sun is incredibly popular, but it "is problematic" as far as publishing goes. Sounds like a perfect place for a 3PP to jump in.

[KorvinStarmast]

Apparently they are aware that Dark Sun is incredibly popular, but it "is problematic" as far as publishing goes. That term has gotten overused and abused to the point that I am getting tired of people using it as a throwaway.

[Oramac]

That term has gotten overused and abused to the point that I am getting tired of people using it as a throwaway.

Yea. I think at this point fans of Dark Sun are well aware of it's "problems" and probably don't care. Personally, I'd love to see it published, problems and all. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

[Brookshw]

Yea. I think at this point fans of Dark Sun are well aware of it's "problems" and probably don't care. Personally, I'd love to see it published, problems and all. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

I mean, it's a post apocalyptic s#@! hole, which was kinda the point, pretty much a setting where evil had won, that was kinda it's thing (and I loved it for it). Totally understand though no one's chomping at the bit to revive a setting steeped in genocide and slavery, they could take that out but it'd gut the setting in a lot of ways

[skyth]

See, I have no problem with Genocide and Slavery existing in a game world. D&D has a unique way of dealing with it - The alignment of people doing it is Evil. There's nothing wrong with a world where Evil has won and the adventurer's are there to try to make it better.

The issue exists when this sort of thing is not shown to be evil.

I mean, technically Ravenloft has kind of the same issues.

[Oramac]

See, I have no problem with Genocide and Slavery existing in a game world. D&D has a unique way of dealing with it - The alignment of people doing it is Evil. There's nothing wrong with a world where Evil has won and the adventurer's are there to try to make it better.

The issue exists when this sort of thing is not shown to be evil.

I mean, technically Ravenloft has kind of the same issues.

Agreed. Generally speaking, this is my issue with all of the "problems" put forth for any of the settings/races/species/whatever over the last few years. As the DM and/or adventure writer, it's my job to play the bad guys. Therefore, I must make the Bad Guys do Bad Things. Else why are the heroes even there?

These "problems", in my view, are not problems with the system. They are problems with the players (DM included) not properly communicating their expectations for a game. I truly believe a proper, official rule on hosting a Session Zero would do far more good in curtailing these problems than any amount of rewrites and publishing changes.

[Psyren]

That term has gotten overused and abused to the point that I am getting tired of people using it as a throwaway.

I'd say it's less a throwaway than it is a catch-all for all the myriad things he probably didn't want to bring up at the tail end of an unrelated interview.


See, I have no problem with Genocide and Slavery existing in a game world. D&D has a unique way of dealing with it - The alignment of people doing it is Evil. There's nothing wrong with a world where Evil has won and the adventurer's are there to try to make it better.

The issue exists when this sort of thing is not shown to be evil.

It's not that simple though. The "Evil" tag is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the publisher to officially sanction whatever content they want.


Sounds like a perfect place for a 3PP to jump in.

This is indeed the best solution. And hell, you might even get some of the most beloved creators for that IP if not any of the originals (who are still around.)

[EggKookoo]

It's not that simple though. The "Evil" tag is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the publisher to officially sanction whatever content they want.

You forgot the "for me" qualifier.

[skyth]

Labeling the behavior as evil is actually the opposite of sanctioning content. It's saying that there is something wrong with it.

Granted, one of the things that I wouldn't want included in an official (Or really, any) content is sexual assault, but that's because it can be triggering for people. And really, any gratuitous sexual thing would make me uncomfortable.

Stuff like torture could exist as long as it's not gratuitous - mentioning the torture is fine. Describing it in detail is not.

[Psyren]

Labeling the behavior as evil is actually the opposite of sanctioning content. It's saying that there is something wrong with it.


But not so wrong it kept them from publishing it and profiting from it, which I suspect is what he was getting at. Though only Kyle himself can definitively say what he meant by that.


You forgot the "for me" qualifier.

Where would I put that in a statement that had nothing to do with me?

[Oramac]

Stuff like torture could exist as long as it's not gratuitous - mentioning the torture is fine. Describing it in detail is not.

This. The description in [insert setting/adventure here] should make mention of whatever Evil Thing the Bad Guys are doing, and leave it up to each individual table to determine the level of detail they want to go into. My particular table actually quite enjoys anime level descriptions of blood and gore, but not all tables will.

This pretty much dovetails with my post above about the problem not being the system, but the people not properly and clearly setting goals, expectations, and limits before play begins.

[Segev]

If you cannot even discuss a topic while portraying it as being evil, then you are guaranteeing people will not know to avoid it in the future. "Those who do not learn from history" and all that.

[Brookshw]

If you cannot even discuss a topic while portraying it as being evil, then you are guaranteeing people will not know to avoid it in the future. "Those who do not learn from history" and all that.

Frankly this kinda high horse stuff seems just as bad/absurd as WoTC being cautious about their content. I can get why they are apprehensive even if I don't agree, there are plenty of kids who play this game and parents may not know the content of books they buy for them (or other adults who might buy them as gifts), and sticking "adult content" stickers on stuff is going to raise eyebrows, probably. But I don't get people thinking that 'certain concepts are bad' is a connection people won't make if you don't talk about them, people get murder is bad, I don't think there's any level of rocket science required to also get that murder on the scale of genocide is also bad, same with slavery.

[skyth]

I don't think there's any level of rocket science required to also get that murder on the scale of genocide is also bad, same with slavery.

History shows that there are people that disagree with that notion - And people that disagree with that notion are still around.

[Brookshw]

History shows that there are people that disagree with that notion - And people that disagree with that notion are still around.

Bet you one grimdarkloon that those people have heard the things are bad and are the way they are anyway.

[NichG]

It's not the 'hearing that the things are bad'. It's being able to understand and express why those things are bad, in a way that makes sense to you and holds even when under other pressures of expediency or hierarchies of import. As well as to understand when the same underlying issues take on new forms that aren't precisely like the old ones.

It might be accepted 'slavery is bad', but how about when someone has made someone else so dependent on them that they have no choice but to 'willingly' do what they say? If you have had a chance to develop a structure of thought about not just 'slavery is bad' but why slavery is bad, what slavery does to a society, to its people, etc, then you can think about stuff like 'wage slavery'. If you're just parroting moral lessons and there's a taboo around actually discussing the why of those things or exploring their consequences, you'll end up with something very brittle to just changing the apparent form of the thing.

Murder is bad, sure. How about soldiers killing 'the enemy'? What is a just war, an unjust war, and where should the lines be? How about when the nature of war changes?

[Brookshw]

snip

And you're proposing a game played by children is the place for that :smallconfused:

[skyth]

And you're proposing a game played by children is the place for that :smallconfused:

I don't see a problem with it. Critical thought is something that RPG's install in people as well and is generally seen as a good thing :)

Plus, most 'children' that play are teens. I'm an outlier in that I started playing earlier than that (Around 9 or 10). You don't want explicit content, but introduction to the ideas isn't a bad thing.

[NichG]

And you're proposing a game played by children is the place for that :smallconfused:

Absolutely. Fiction in general is a wonderful place for that because the direct consequences to real people are very sharply bounded.

If we really want to go down this road to the very young - those who haven't yet developed the mental capacity to realize that other people are people like them for example - then probably D&D shouldn't include any form of violence at all, or any form of people causing harm to others by action or inaction or systemic structure. If 'you're killing these orcs because they're threatening this village' is on the table, then we're already into spaces where the development of a moral sense should be taking place.

I'm not even sure I'd say that anyone incapable of moral reasoning should be DM-ing at all, regardless of the game. Because a DM does need to consider the needs of others at the table at a minimum.

[Brookshw]

I don't see a problem with it. Critical thought is something that RPG's install in people as well and is generally seen as a good thing :)

Plus, most 'children' that play are teens. I'm an outlier in that I started playing earlier than that (Around 9 or 10). You don't want explicit content, but introduction to the ideas isn't a bad thing.

/Shrug, there's a time and place for everything, and even though I'd like to see a DS relaunch, I completely understand why WoTC thinks this in neither. And I definitely reject moral authority assertions that people need to have exposure to understand these concepts are bad, people in general deserve a bit more credit than that.

Edit: not sure about the kid age thing, my kids started at 4, and my players kids game with us starting at around 8. No idea what the average starting age is.

[Psyren]

I don't see a problem with it. Critical thought is something that RPG's install in people as well and is generally seen as a good thing :)

Plus, most 'children' that play are teens. I'm an outlier in that I started playing earlier than that (Around 9 or 10). You don't want explicit content, but introduction to the ideas isn't a bad thing.


Absolutely. Fiction in general is a wonderful place for that because the direct consequences to real people are very sharply bounded.

If we really want to go down this road to the very young - those who haven't yet developed the mental capacity to realize that other people are people like them for example - then probably D&D shouldn't include any form of violence at all, or any form of people causing harm to others by action or inaction or systemic structure. If 'you're killing these orcs because they're threatening this village' is on the table, then we're already into spaces where the development of a moral sense should be taking place.

I'm not even sure I'd say that anyone incapable of moral reasoning should be DM-ing at all, regardless of the game. Because a DM does need to consider the needs of others at the table at a minimum.

Once they put it out there in an official capacity, they have no control over what groups (including age groups) try to use it or are exposed to it. It's really not that outlandish as decisions go.


Wouldn't that run smack into WotC owned IP?

That just means you can't use the OGL or CC for it. There is a third, completely legal option - DM's Guild.

[skyth]

Once they put it out there in an official capacity, they have no control over what groups (including age groups) try to use it or are exposed to it. It's really not that outlandish as decisions go.

And I still don't see what the issue is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That just means you can't use the OGL or CC for it. There is a third, completely legal option - DM's Guild.

DM's Guild is restricted to
a) setting neutral stuff
b) stuff using published WotC settings.

It's explicitly not allowed to make your own setting (especially not a version of what they own) on DM's Guild. At most you can add towns and NPCs to existing, already-published-for-5e settings, but you can't use any setting they haven't already published for 5e.

[NichG]

Once they put it out there in an official capacity, they have no control over what groups (including age groups) try to use it or are exposed to it. It's really not that outlandish as decisions go.

What I'm saying is, if you think that anything in D&D is appropriate for a given age group, I would argue so is something like Dark Sun. If on the other hand you think Dark Sun isn't appropriate for a given age group, you shouldn't be asking people in that age group to DM at all, much less expect them to be able to properly deal with things like 'the orcs are the bad guys so its okay to kill them'. I'd put the line on that age group as being roughly the age at which you'd start encountering things like Aesop's fables, so ~6 years old and up.

[Psyren]

And I still don't see what the issue is.

I got that.


DM's Guild is restricted to
a) setting neutral stuff
b) stuff using published WotC settings.

It's explicitly not allowed to make your own setting (especially not a version of what they own) on DM's Guild. At most you can add towns and NPCs to existing, already-published-for-5e settings, but you can't use any setting they haven't already published for 5e.

There's both Al-Qadim and Greyhawk 5e stuff on DM's Guild, and I don't remember them publishing any of that this edition.

[catagent101]

You cannot publish Dark Sun stuff using DMs Guild. (https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217029298-Content-and-Format-Questions)

[Brookshw]

What I'm saying is, if you think that anything in D&D is appropriate for a given age group, I would argue so is something like Dark Sun. If on the other hand you think Dark Sun isn't appropriate for a given age group, you shouldn't be asking people in that age group to DM at all, much less expect them to be able to properly deal with things like 'the orcs are the bad guys so its okay to kill them'. I'd put the line on that age group as being roughly the age at which you'd start encountering things like Aesop's fables, so ~6 years old and up.

Hmmm...

"Hey kids, lets play a game where we protect villagers, stop marauding monsters, and slay an evil dragon"

"Hey kids, lets play a game where most of the races were killed because they were unclean and couldn't be allowed to exist as a blight upon the world, where people are kept as slaves and regularly worked to death in horrible conditions, not to mention bred like animals to produce a new race that will predominantly be forced to fight to death for the amusement of the crowd, where the race that primarily lives in the only jungle is a bunch of cannibals, where homeless bands of wanderers mostly want to steal your stuff and will leave you to die if you can't keep up, and tens of thousands are sacrificed annually so their life force can be used by an uber tyrant. And all of this is generally "okay" wherever you go in the setting.

I mean....not really the same thing. I know which one I'd run for my kids. For a game with adults, hey, do what you want, I like Darksun, but can respect WoTC's concern and don't think its appropriate for all audiences. (not to mention, WoTC isn't the only company out there that filters what content it wants to make available, e.g., LEGO won't put out kits for modern tanks, attack helicopters or jets, etc.)

Also, the original argument is that we needed to keep genocide and slavery front and center so we don't forget about them, if someone has the moral development to recognize some of the nuance and complicated issues you've proposed, then I certainly don't see how they also need some kind of lesson that genocide and slavery are bad. Admittedly, that wasn't your argument, but the two positions aren't particularly cohesive.

[NichG]

Hmmm...

"Hey kids, lets play a game where we protect villagers, stop marauding monsters, and slay an evil dragon"

"Hey kids, lets play a game where most of the races were killed because they were unclean and couldn't be allowed to exist as a blight upon the world, where people are kept as slaves and regularly worked to death in horrible conditions, not to mention bred like animals to produce a new race that will predominantly be forced to fight to death for the amusement of the crowd, where the race that primarily lives in the only jungle is a bunch of cannibals, where homeless bands of wanderers mostly want to steal your stuff and will leave you to die if you can't keep up, and tens of thousands are sacrificed annually so their life force can be used by an uber tyrant. And all of this is generally "okay" wherever you go in the setting.

I mean....not really the same thing. I know which one I'd run for my kids. For a game with adults, hey, do what you want, I like Darksun, but can respect WoTC's concern and don't think its appropriate for all audiences. (not to mention, WoTC isn't the only company out there that filters what content it wants to make available, e.g., LEGO won't put out kits for modern tanks, attack helicopters or jets, etc.)

Also, the original argument is that we needed to keep genocide and slavery front and center so we don't forget about them, if someone has the moral development to recognize some of the nuance and complicated issues you've proposed, then I certainly don't see how they also need some kind of lesson that genocide and slavery are bad. Admittedly, that wasn't your argument, but the two positions aren't particularly cohesive.

I mean, I find the idea that teaching 6 year olds its okay to kill something sentient as long as its a bad guy is fine, but teaching them that a nation built around killing people just because of their race is a really terrible place to live is 'too mature' sort of grotesque.

[Brookshw]

I mean, I find the idea that teaching 6 year olds its okay to kill something sentient as long as its a bad guy is fine, but teaching them that a nation built around killing people just because of their race is a really terrible place to live is 'too mature' sort of grotesque.

Leaving aside the issues of self defense and justice which can accompany the former, I don't see how the latter is something that needs to, or should be, taught in a game, and can respect WoTC's concern about doing so[1]. And I certainly reject some purported moral authority or imperative that kids need to be taught such things in this context (also, since it came up, that creative and critical thinking needs to be supported by using this context, when there are countless others available). First and foremost, its a game, not a lecture hall. Not sure there's much else to discuss on this point.

[1] And they at least started drafting it at one point, way too many DS monsters ended up in SJ for it to be anything other than trying to salvage work they had already done imo, and I hear that DDB will refuse certain custom backgrounds from being shared that get close to DS backgrounds (I think the example I heard was something about a water merchant).

[NichG]

Leaving aside the issues of self defense and justice which can accompany the former, I don't see how the latter is something that needs to, or should be, taught in a game, and can respect WoTC's concern about doing so[1]. And I certainly reject some purported moral authority or imperative that kids need to be taught such things in this context (also, since it came up, that creative and critical thinking needs to be supported by using this context, when there are countless others available). First and foremost, its a game, not a lecture hall. Not sure there's much else to discuss on this point.


I mean, from my perspective, you should have both. The players can experience what it's like to be the righteous hero and the DM gets the experience being the persecuted criminal, then flip it around, then flip it some more, and people will develop their own empathy and moral sense by actively engaging in a large variety of scenarios in which they take on different roles. Let people play mul slaves in Dark Sun, then play templars, then play revolutionaries, then play the sorceror kings themselves.

But if you start saying 'we have to worry about what this game is teaching', then it looks really bad if the stuff you worry about is depicting genocide as bad but at the same time you say that a game where the players are encouraged to commit genocide against 'always evil' races slide as just fine, go ahead and have it!

My objection here is to the hypocrisy of that stance.