Official OGL Discussion Thread

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) We'll have to wait to see the new version to know for sure - but I'd be very surprised if you're unable to use it to publish 5e homebrew even if you want to ignore 1DnD completely.

2) The new version is highly unlikely to kill Paizo either, especially not with the royalty and licenseback pieces removed. (It's moot once they switch gears to ORC anyway.)

1. Their stated goals of not forking the userbase demand this to be true. If they didn't want to stop all 5e (and before) work, they'd have said as much, instead of intentionally and very deliberately avoiding that pointed question.

2. If they do actually disallow any further work without accepting the new license AND the new license has any kind of oversight, Paizo will, in my opinion, find it difficult to continue publishing anything for PF1e or PF2e (the latter only until they can expurgate the old license dependence entirely, the former is utterly dependent on it in core ways). Because "let my biggest competitor have full editorial oversight over my products and strip me of my license/business model at a whim" is not a sustainable position.

And if they have to spend 3-6 months developing a new license and scrubbing everything before they can publish anything new or even revised versions...yeah. That's bad news from a business perspective. At least IMO.

[Brookshw]

It's a bit shrewd when you think about it. They will almost certainly get some reactivations this way, maybe even a resub or two. If nothing else, it will provide the most staunch protesting creator voices some covering fire - "I reactivated my account so I can make all our voices heard! I did it for YOU!"

And, as I said during the UA survey topics, it will likely also protect their feedback process from being influenced by botnets, sockpuppets and the like. That's going to be 100x more imperative here, since this survey will relate directly to their business rather than just the game.

Absolutely fair points (well, I'm chuckling at the 'I did it for YOU' bit, but otherwise).

Kinda old ground I don't want to retread, but just to provide the counterpoints (and acknowledging in the circumstances WotC has all the more reason to use DDB), it does limit the scope of feedback they'll receive while, to an extent, artificially pump their active user numbers.

Anyway, just irks me, but not surprising or without defensible rationale.

[FrancisBean]

Really, all they need to do to regain a lot of that is to add the one magic word: irrevocable. Release 1.0(b) with that one modification and no others and I'd be willing to cut them a lot of slack on whatever they do going forward.

This doesn't address either of their stated core goals though.

Agreed. I didn't say it would address their concerns, I said that's what would regain my own trust.

[Tanarii]

Any indication they intend to deauthorize 1.0(a) means the revolt will continue. Because that means they can't be trusted to manage the Open license.

The only thing they can do to maybe prevent the inevitable market share loss and stock value loss they're going to be facing is to stop trying to do that. But even that is unlikely to stop the shift already underway by other publishers, and regain their already lost DMs and players as buyers of their products.

[Lord Raziere]

This is the thing for me. Given what WotC has already attempted to do, and Hasbro’s stated position that the brand is undermonitized, there is no reason to trust them and every reason to distrust them.

This pretty much.

None of this is a big shocker to me, they want to make all the money and can't be satisfied with only some of the money. Some corporate suit came in was like "only 1/6 of our customer base is buying stuff!? and we're allowing free stuff to be used by other companies!? we need to monetize this NOW!" not knowing how the ttrpg environment works and only looking at immediate gains with customers being an obstacle to getting those gains.

Don't trust WotC, they just want to bleed people dry.

[Segev]

From what I've been hearing and reading, there's zero need to "Deauthorize" v. 1.0(a) for a "morality clause."

This is hearsay, for me, though, so I could be wrong.

Regardless, I don't buy for a second that that's an actual concern. If the brand ID was so easily taken over by actual immoral and evil third party products, WotC would be all about catering to those immoralities because they'd see dollar signs there. They're using this as a cover.

There is no justifiable reason to try to "deauthorize" v. 1.0(a). It was never intended to be deauthorized, and its language doesn't support doing so. They're calling it "deauthorization," in fact, because they know they can't actually revoke the OGL, so they're trying to rewrite it so that it "technically" doesn't exist.

And it's a terrible business decision.

Any of their real and legitimate goals to monetize D&D better could be achieved without touching the ability to publish 3.0, 3.5, PF1, PF2, and 5e third party material exactly as they have been published for the last many years.

[Atranen]

Any indication they intend to deauthorize 1.0(a) means the revolt will continue. Because that means they can't be trusted to manage the Open license.

The only thing they can do to maybe prevent the inevitable market share loss and stock value loss they're going to be facing is to stop trying to do that. But even that is unlikely to stop the shift already underway by other publishers, and regain their already lost DMs and players as buyers of their products.

I think that damage is already done. Even if they walked back completely, I expect everyone would move to ORC going forward. If they wanted to regain my trust with respect to open gaming, they need to switch to ORC.

I'm certain they won't, and that's their right. And it's our right as customers to not support companies that treat us poorly.

[Brookshw]

Don't trust WotC, they just want to bleed people dry.

Admittedly I'm hard pressed to think of a for profit company, at least any major one, which couldn't be described the same way. Even when they seem to be acting 'nice', it's usually in a way that drives their bottom line.

[NichG]

Anything tabletop RPG related that I've written or will write, I think I'll just put a 'released into the public domain' on, even if I intend to sell it. I think that's probably the best way to communicate 'I really do want other people to be able to use this, without fear that I'll try to extract royalties, control usage, revoke rights, quibble the details, etc later on'.

[johnbragg]

I've been thinking about something in last week's non-apology statement.

"not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose."

Most commentators have read this as being complete lies, or as talking about Paizo and the other 3rd party publishers. I wonder if they're worried about much bigger fish--the trillion-dollar tech giants.

I don't think decisions at WOTC are being driven by TTRPG people. I think they're being driven by Hasbro/ Wall STreet people. We think about D&D as a game, they see it as a "brand." An undermonetized brand, but a brand.

I don't think the revenues of the entire non-WOTC TTRPG industry mean much at all to WOTC's grand strategy. I think they want to "monetize the brand", probably though some sort of pay-to-play, pay-to-win, recurring revenue type system.

Say Wizards is developing OneD&D and D&DBeyond as something more like a MMORPG than a discord chat. AI DMs, etc etc. Yes Pathfinder put out a video game. So what, there are tons of video games, only Pathfinder geeks and hardcore video gamers are going to even know about a Wrath of the Righteous CRPG.

But if Amazon or Facebook/Meta or Alphabet /Google or Microsoft /Activision rolls out a clone of whatever Wizards is trying to do with OneD&D and D&DBeyond, using the OGL, they have the resources to blow WOTC out of the water.

Of course, if they were so inclined, any of the trillion-dollar tech companies could just do that anyway, running some other game engine that isn't d20 based.

But if I'm WOTC, if I'm any billion-dollar company frankly, I'm worried about how the trillion-dollar tech giants might eat my lunch 5 years down the road.

[The Glyphstone]

At least according to the latest alleged/verified WotC leak, the survey is a smokescreen anyways:

https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/statu...06825198194708

[Snowbluff]

At least according to the latest alleged/verified WotC leak, the survey is a smokescreen anyways:

https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/statu...06825198194708

According to a former employee, the surveys are read.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At least according to the latest alleged/verified WotC leak, the survey is a smokescreen anyways:

https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/statu...06825198194708

I will note that there are fairly standard product-research reasons why the detailed feedback on similar surveys is mostly a smokescreen. That isn't something unusual, surprising, or malicious.

Tactically, that means that the only lever anyone has is the numerical rankings. Which basically means all questions should be answered with either minimum or maximum values--if there are any doubts about a question, if you're not entirely enthusiastic, tank the rating. Anything in the middle will just get averaged to a mess and ignored.

[Psyren]

1. Their stated goals of not forking the userbase demand this to be true. If they didn't want to stop all 5e (and before) work, they'd have said as much, instead of intentionally and very deliberately avoiding that pointed question.

I'm still confused by this - any new OGL/SRD would have to be compatible with 5e, because 1DnD itself is being designed to be compatible with 5e - but I'm content to drop it until we have actual draft language to mull over in a couple of days.

2. If they do actually disallow any further work without accepting the new license AND the new license has any kind of oversight, Paizo will, in my opinion, find it difficult to continue publishing anything for PF1e or PF2e (the latter only until they can expurgate the old license dependence entirely, the former is utterly dependent on it in core ways). Because "let my biggest competitor have full editorial oversight over my products and strip me of my license/business model at a whim" is not a sustainable position.

That's a fair point, but I don't think the positions are irreconcilable. Again, we'll need the draft to be sure, but they might end up being a lot more specific about the circumstances with which they can terminate someone's use of the license beyond "at a whim." That's probably feedback we can give in the survey. (Personally, I'm fine with WotC having the right to determine who doesn't get to use their license, but it's a point I'm willing to budge on.)

Regardless, it's likely to be a moot point anyway - Paizo is already committing to ditching any WotC license in the near future, at least for their core product (they might still decide to release some converted modules under 2.0 or something). I think they're a big enough name now within the RPG space to not need to come back to the OGL for exposure.

This pretty much.

None of this is a big shocker to me, they want to make all the money and can't be satisfied with only some of the money. Some corporate suit came in was like "only 1/6 of our customer base is buying stuff!? and we're allowing free stuff to be used by other companies!? we need to monetize this NOW!" not knowing how the ttrpg environment works and only looking at immediate gains with customers being an obstacle to getting those gains.

Don't trust WotC, they just want to bleed people dry.

If it were truly just "the ttrpg environment" I'd agree with you, this would be akin to blood from a stone. The problem is that 1.0a itself is shockingly vague in terms of how and where it can be used, and is already starting to be used outside of TTRPGs. Maybe only 1/6 of tabletop D&D players actually buy books, but a vastly higher percentage of the CRPG audience paid for those products. And the variety and profitability of D&D-adjacent experiences outside of sitting around a table and rolling dice are only going to grow, and in ways that the original framers couldn't possibly have foreseen 23 years ago.

According to a former employee, the surveys are read.

I agree completely with this response to DnD_Shorts. The vitriol out in those other communities is beginning to reach a fever pitch.

[Atranen]

I'm still confused by this - any new OGL/SRD would have to be compatible with 5e, because 1DnD itself is being designed to be compatible with 5e - but I'm content to drop it until we have actual draft language to mull over in a couple of days.

But even if OneD&D is compatible with 5e, they won't want people publishing for 5e under the OGL, they want them publishing for OneD&D under the new license. Their goal is for no one to be able to publish 5e or OneD&D compatible content without accepting the new license.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But even if OneD&D is compatible with 5e, they won't want people publishing for 5e under the OGL, they want them publishing for OneD&D under the new license. Their goal is for no one to be able to publish 5e or OneD&D compatible content without accepting the new license.

Exactly. And ideally, to not publish any new 5e material at all once OneD&D comes out.

And @Psyren--their claims of compatibility are...well...eyah. It's almost certainly going to be compatible in the way that versions of Xcode are compatible. Ie "everything's changed and moved around and a lot of things don't exist any more or do other radically different things." AKA not compatible.

You should not expect anything to work directly or to be able to smoothly play a 5e character in OneD&D or vice versa. You might be able to run a 5e module in a OneD&D game...if you convert monsters to the new versions.

Specifically, they absolutely don't want to end up with a forked playerbase like happened with 4e. Which is exactly why they want to force everyone to move to a new license and not publish anything new for 5e, because if they can, and OneD&D isn't absolutely perfect, then people will continue publishing 5e material and the forking is inevitable.

Edit: and PF1e is irreducibly coupled to the 3e SRD materials and cannot be relicensed without a complete rework. And they're still publishing (and republishing new editions of) PF1e material. A full revocation of the 1.0a SRD, coupled with an unacceptable 1.1/2.0 license, means that any further PF1e material (or revisions to existing material) is absolutely off the table. And there's going to need to be some work to transition PF2e away entirely (although it's closer), which (in this bad case) necessitate a hard stop on publishing any PF2e material until both the ORC is done AND they've completely scrubbed off the old material to their lawyers' satisfaction.

[Brookshw]

But even if OneD&D is compatible with 5e, they won't want people publishing for 5e under the OGL, they want them publishing for OneD&D under the new license. Their goal is for no one to be able to publish 5e or OneD&D compatible content without accepting the new license.

Easy, right? Make D&D1 only available under 2.0, make it an improvement in the same way 3.5e improved on 3.0e, everyone will be incentivized to switch, anyone who doesn't will be left behind and die from natural causes.

[Saintheart]

Hi. I’m Kyle Brink, the Executive Producer on D&D. It’s my team that makes the game we all play.

D&D has been a huge part of my life long before I worked at Wizards and will be for a long time after I’m done.

How do you do, fellow kids?

So they finally took some advice from their communications department and tried to put an actual human's face on the message, thinking that it'll make people softer and less likely to criticise a named NPC. And even better 'I PLaY ThE SaMe GAme YoU Do!'

Too bad this presumed person is also not taking personal responsibility for the writing, plan, and wording of OGL 1.1, so it looks and feels fake. And the rest of the message is in good old "We" speak, so most of the impact of having someone real's name at the top is lost.

Also, "and will be for a long time after I'm done." Low-key announcing a suggestion you're going to be fired or resign is funny as hell, but an odd thing to put in a 'we screwed up, please be quiet now' message.

My mission, and that of the entire D&D team, is to help bring everyone the creative joy and lifelong friendships that D&D has given us.

Marketing. They want you to think of them in association with your best gaming experiences, which were usually a result of the DM you had and the other players around the table. Not D&D.

These past days and weeks have been incredibly tough for everyone. As players, fans, and stewards of the game, we can’t–and we won’t–let things continue like this.

Still doing 'hello fellow kids', trying to pretend like they're part of the actual consumer community. Even if you and the guy at the game store both play Monopoly, his interests are not aligned to yours. And it's dishonest to try and suggest that they are. Especially coming from a massive corporation which has chosen to, at least momentarily, show one of its faces.

I am here today to talk about a path forward.

Did you write this thing assuming people would turn up to listen to it, or that it was going to be read? You aren't here, the website isn't a physical place for crying out loud.

First, though, let me start with an apology. We are sorry. We got it wrong.

Somebody's been reading the ENworld threads about how Patreon handled their great marketing boo-boo. Still fake and phony, because when "we" apologise, nobody does. Either apologise on behalf of the whole team, or apologise because you were personally responsible, or have everyone who wants to apologise signing the letter. "We ... are sorry. We ... got it wrong. We ... are Venom."

Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs.

Then why did you choose that language? Well, we don't have to explain our motives to you, fellow kids.

And it wasn't a "draft" OGL. Draft OGLs don't go to Kickstarter and end up with a discount on royalty rates through that platform, this is just lying.

Also, a core goal of restricting the OGL to TTRPGs is inconsistent with their Mission^TM to bring everyone creative joy and lifelong friendships.

Then we compounded things by being silent for too long. We hurt fans and creators, when more frequent and clear communications could have prevented so much of this.

And note the attempt to reframe the conversation: the problem wasn't an abysmally bad attempt to pull the legal rug out from underneath an entire creative industry, it was just a communication problem! We used two syllable words when we should've used 'ughs' and 'orc'! We didn't communicate every five minutes!

Starting now, we’re going to do this a better way: more open and transparent, with our entire community of creators. With the time to iterate, to get feedback, to improve.

'More' open and transparent. Not open and transparent. And this is designed to set you up so you'll accept an OGL 1.0b, c, d, e, f and onward ... it's not more restrictive, it's more iterative! And you got your chance to provide feedback! And we will improve it ... for us. Not you.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s how we do it for the game itself.

(Shudder)

So let’s do it that way for the OGL, too.

We’ll listen to you, and then we will share with you what we’ve heard, much like we do in our Unearthed Arcana and One D&D playtests. This will be a robust conversation before we release any future version of the OGL.

We will listen to your protests. We will tell you what you protested about. And then we will flat out tell you we're not changing anything.

Here’s what to expect.

Aside from continuing leaks from a few remaining patriots.

On or before Friday, January 20th, we’ll share new proposed OGL documentation for your review and feedback, much as we do with playtest materials.
After you review the proposed OGL, you will be able to fill out a quick survey–much like Unearthed Arcana playtest feedback surveys. It will ask you specific questions about the document and include open form fields to share any other feedback you have.
The survey will remain open for at least two weeks, and we’ll give you advance notice before it closes so that everyone who wants to participate can complete the survey. Then we will compile, analyze, react to, and present back what we heard from you.

Again: no promise to change anything in it based on feedback. Oh, I know: "you can't expect a corporation to agree to THAAT!" I think by definition we're not in expected territory any more, and any PR consultant they got to write this thing should've told them to say something along those lines.

Finally, you deserve some stability and clarity. We are committed to giving creators both input into, and room to prepare for, any update to the OGL.

We're changing it. Get used to it. We're not going to let you continue publishing new stuff for 5e and 3e that is better than the corporate gruel we turn out for DBox One.

Also, there’s a ton of stuff that isn’t going to be affected by an OGL update. So today, right now, we’ll lay out all the areas that this conversation won’t touch.

Let's lay out all the irrelevant stuff so your brain doesn't think about the relevant parts, fellow kids.

Any changes to the OGL will have no impact on at least these creative efforts:

Your video content. Whether you are a commentator, streamer, podcaster, liveplay cast member, or other video creator on platforms like YouTube and Twitch and TikTok, you have always been covered by the Wizards Fan Content Policy. The OGL doesn’t (and won’t) touch any of this.
Your accessories for your owned content. No changes to the OGL will affect your ability to sell minis, novels, apparel, dice, and other items related to your creations, characters, and worlds.
Non-published works, for instance contracted services. You use the OGL if you want to publish your works that reference fifth edition content through the SRD. That means commissioned work, paid DM services, consulting, and so on aren’t affected by the OGL.
VTT content. Any updates to the OGL will still allow any creator to publish content on VTTs and will still allow VTT publishers to use OGL content on their platform.
DMs Guild content. The content you release on DMs Guild is published under a Community Content Agreement with Dungeon Masters Guild. This is not changing.
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.

Past tense: published. But you won't be able to make any new adventures for 3e or 5e. "BuT yOU HAve A HUNdred YEArs WoRTH oF StUFF To RuN aND PLay." What if I don't want to run that stuff? Also, too bad if you're a 3PP publisher who uses the OGL for their own current systems that aren't clearly cases of delving into smelly cellars and killing big flappy lizard things with bad halitosis, and you kinda want to continue releasing your own products. Those publishers are now all dead, or at least under threat of being sued if Lizards is seriously going to run its "deauthorize the past" argument.

Your revenue. There will be no royalty or financial reporting requirements.

But five bucks says you'll still have to notify Lizards of your publications, so they get a chance to look at it without having to buy it off DriveThruRPG.

Your ownership of your content. You will continue to own your content with no license-back requirements.

You just won't own any future products.

That’s all from me for now. You will hear again from us on or before Friday as described above, and we look forward to the conversation.

EEssh. Could you make it sound like something other than a ransomware demand, fellas? Also, make up your mind: are we hearing from Mr Brink again on Friday, or is the great Royal We going to be addressing the peanut gallery once more?

[Rynjin]

If it were truly just "the ttrpg environment" I'd agree with you, this would be akin to blood from a stone. The problem is that 1.0a itself is shockingly vague in terms of how and where it can be used, and is already starting to be used outside of TTRPGs. Maybe only 1/6 of tabletop D&D players actually buy books, but a vastly higher percentage of the CRPG audience paid for those products. And the variety and profitability of D&D-adjacent experiences outside of sitting around a table and rolling dice are only going to grow, and in ways that the original framers couldn't possibly have foreseen 23 years ago.

I don't see this as a "problem". Not for the consumers anyway, and we're who matter. Wizards has zero right (legally or morally) to control "D&D-adjacent" experiences. They do not, and cannot own the basic gameplay concepts of a tabletop RPG.

[Atranen]

Easy, right? Make D&D1 only available under 2.0, make it an improvement in the same way 3.5e improved on 3.0e, everyone will be incentivized to switch, anyone who doesn't will be left behind and die from natural causes.

You would think. At least the response in this community suggests OneD&D will not be better received than 5e. With knowledge of the VTT, I wonder how many of their changes are to make VTT integration more simple, rather than for game design purposes.

[Lucas Yew]

Simply put, the current WotC and Ha$bro are just as bad morally as the old T$R. The company sizes arguably makes them MUCH worse and threatening, too...

[johnbragg]

Easy, right? Make D&D1 only available under 2.0, make it an improvement in the same way 3.5e improved on 3.0e, everyone will be incentivized to switch, anyone who doesn't will be left behind and die from natural causes.

I'm not sure that 3.5 was a dramatic improvement over 3.0. There was just so much goodwill after 3rd edition came out, that we were willing to buy whole new sets of books 3 years later. (And no botched marketing campaign insulting longtime players that hurt 4th edition).

Six months ago, I think we all figured we'd buy the OneD&D books sooner or later, without really expecting a massive improvement in anything, comparable to the d20 mechanic and universe of customization in 3rd edition or advantage, concentration spells, subclasses and the rest in 5th edition.

Now, there's very little inclination to just hand WOTC money out of loyalty

[Psyren]

You would think. At least the response in this community suggests OneD&D will not be better received than 5e.

I don't see the support for that conclusion. The survey results so far have shown the vast majority of proposed changes have been well-received, minus a few stragglers like the Crit Rule and the 1.0 Dragonborn/Ardling.

And heck, even if you're right and most communities end up preferring 5e, I expect they'll still be lifting 1DnD's good ideas for their 5e games for years to come, including things like feats at 1st level and the TWF changes.

I don't see this as a "problem". Not for the consumers anyway, and we're who matter. Wizards has zero right (legally or morally) to control "D&D-adjacent" experiences. They do not, and cannot own the basic gameplay concepts of a tabletop RPG.

I won't comment on what WotC's rights (legal or moral) might or might not be. But the simple fact is that 1.0a is just not as clear about what it covers and what it doesn't as it could be.

But even if OneD&D is compatible with 5e, they won't want people publishing for 5e under the OGL, they want them publishing for OneD&D under the new license. Their goal is for no one to be able to publish 5e or OneD&D compatible content without accepting the new license.

Right - so... do that?

I mean, back when it had the licenseback and other bad things I could understand that being a dealbreaker, but that's why they're improving it. And while we'll need the final wording to know for sure, I really don't see how you won't be able to use it to make 5e-compatible content, or even 3e for that matter. Once released, it will be an authorized version of the OGL, just like 1.0a is now.

[Snowbluff]

I agree completely with this response to DnD_Shorts. The vitriol out in those other communities is beginning to reach a fever pitch.

Well for what it's worth DnD_Shorts did retract the offending tweet and offer an explanation. I'm not sure what to say at this point. The 5 month old hoax post about 30 dollar DDB subs sounded super silly to post, but at the same time at least he's being transparent?

[Brookshw]

You would think. At least the response in this community suggests OneD&D will not be better received than 5e. With knowledge of the VTT, I wonder how many of their changes are to make VTT integration more simple, rather than for game design purposes.

I'm not so sure about that, a lot of people seemed pretty happy with certain design directions which started with Tasha's and have continued through the playtest material. I won't be surprised to see more Shinnies(TM) added as it continues.

I'm not sure that 3.5 was a dramatic improvement over 3.0. There was just so much goodwill after 3rd edition came out, that we were willing to buy whole new sets of books 3 years later. (And no botched marketing campaign insulting longtime players that hurt 4th edition).

Six months ago, I think we all figured we'd buy the OneD&D books sooner or later, without really expecting a massive improvement in anything, comparable to the d20 mechanic and universe of customization in 3rd edition or advantage, concentration spells, subclasses and the rest in 5th edition.

Now, there's very little inclination to just hand WOTC money out of loyalty

Dramatic? Maybe not, but enough of a difference there was stuff to be excited about. Offhand, I recall reading the Ranger and Monk updates and being glad they were improved upon; it doesn't need to be an avalanche, people will look at a light snowfall and say "that's pretty".

[ToranIronfinder]

If they try to deauthorize 1.0a, I will buy nothing until it is reinstated, as I think it creates problems for systems that did not borrow from DnD, though I think 3.x borrowed from those systems. What happens to something like anti-Paladin's Mini-six project, for example? The way the OGL has been used as a means of publishing their own OGC creates tremendous problems and it is frankly dishonest. That is a deal breaker when it comes to any WOTC TTRPG content that would be published in the future.

Most of the rest, we'll see. Provided that the terms various VTTs receive are comparable, fees are reasonable, etc, we'll see.

[Psyren]

Well for what it's worth DnD_Shorts did retract the offending tweet and offer an explanation. I'm not sure what to say at this point. The 5 month old hoax post about 30 dollar DDB subs sounded super silly to post, but at the same time at least he's being transparent?

It's irresponsible at best. And the misinformation already sparked its own thread here, which thankfully got locked before it could start to spiral.

[Brookshw]

It's irresponsible at best. And the misinformation already sparked its own thread here, which thankfully got locked before it could start to spiral.

Concur, considering counterinfo was relayed via Twitter, it not like it would have been hard to have at least attempted to get the other side's story, like, what you'd expect from a journalistic endeavor....

[Kane0]

Simply put, the current WotC and Ha$bro are just as bad morally as the old T$R. The company sizes arguably makes them MUCH worse and threatening, too...

Corporations do not operate under morals, because they aren't people. They operate under law, money, copyright, intellectual property and other things we can't discuss here.

Well for what it's worth DnD_Shorts did retract the offending tweet and offer an explanation. I'm not sure what to say at this point. The 5 month old hoax post about 30 dollar DDB subs sounded super silly to post, but at the same time at least he's being transparent?

Kudos to him for this sign of integrity.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'll echo something I said in the thread that got locked re "WotC doesn't read the surveys". Many of us are primed to believe bad news about WotC because we're angry right now. As with any situation, there are people willing and able to take advantage of that. So read everything with a grain of salt. I'm not in any way a fan of how WotC is handling this, but I'm not going to buy any allegations that come out hook line and sinker.

Of note, WotC had just come out and said they were going to treat the changes to the OGL as UA content, and get our feedback through surveys. Suddenly we get a leak that they don't read the surveys and don't care about our opinions.

As usual, tread carefully. Some of this stuff will be real. But seems to me some staffer at WotC wants us all to write the company off. Many people already have, and if you do, that's fine. Just make sure it's for real reasons.

EDIT: Not sure if this was shared but here's a twitter thread from DDB concerning misinformation.