I'm just glad that WOTC has their ear turned toward the fans, and their nose to the ol' grindstone; doing their very best to provide their customers with the best RPG experience in the history of RPGs.  I'm sure that Dave and Gary wish WOTC the very best.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 13, 2023, 11:37:18 PM

QuoteFirst, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.

So they're going to ban WOTC from making any more D&D product? That's gonna be awkward.

Well they did hire a whore to promote D&D.

Quote from: jhkim on January 13, 2023, 08:53:14 PM

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 13, 2023, 08:39:53 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 13, 2023, 08:33:52 PM
The OGL v1.0a generated the D20 glut, where tons of people publishing for D&D and D&D-compatible systems. That drove increased interest and sales in D&D. WotC made money off the core book sales, and other companies got the riskier sales of modules and settings - which drove more core book sales.

This was Ryan Dancey's plan all along and how he was able to pitch the OGL in the first place.

Agreed. And from what I can tell, this plan has been highly successful. D&D has made a ton of money under the OGL v1.0a, the tabletop RPG market has grown overall, and D&D became even more dominant over other RPGs than ever.

Yeah, but the  new WOTC doesn't care about the game, they care about the IP and how to monetize it. This is about squishing competition that might try to monetize the D&D IP that was released through the SRDs. WOTC's Vegan Owlbear NFTs will lose value if Paizo puts out Vegan Owlbear NFTs. And other licensing things.

WOTC used to think that the IP part of D&D was the settings and the characters. But it's more than that, it's all the rules and tropes that go with it. Hell, owlbear is even in my browser's spellcheck

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 08:48:41 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 13, 2023, 08:46:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 07:09:06 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 13, 2023, 07:02:54 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 13, 2023, 06:54:27 PMHere's the thing. All WotC had to do was stop declaring new material as Open Content. The entire OneDnD/6e ruleset could have put behind a wall, with an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT license (the one they want the OGL to be) governing it's use. Who would have complained?

Except this would have resulted in the exact thing that happened with Pathfinder. Hasbro needs people to transition to One D&D and to do that they need to shut the door on future 5e content.

You may not like Hasbro's goal here, but it isn't stupid.

Like I already said: Pathfinder wouldn't exist IF WotC hadn't tried this same shit with 4e putting it behind the GSL and cutting off ALL the 3pp that had given it the definitive edge.

You need to learn your facts before forming an opinion.

According to Paizo, who you're free to disbelieve, they were already going to do their own 3e-offshoot the moment they read an early copy of 4e, before the OGL was shut down for 4e. They say it was the rules themselves, not the GSL, which caused them to make their own off-shoot game. And then when the GSL came out they patted themselves on the back and said see we would have been screwed anyway aren't we smart for making this decision earlier.

They said this when?

Lisa Stevens wrote a blog post on the topic once:

"When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for. Whether a license for 4E was forthcoming or not, we were going to create our own game system based on the 3.5 SRD: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. And we were already WAY behind schedule."

Quote from: FingerRod on January 13, 2023, 10:34:34 PM

Forbes is a leftist rag and a joke of a magazine in the investment industry.

LOL anyone can write for Forbes. YOU can write for Forbes if you really want to. It's not an "anything" rag. It shifted to a submission format years ago.

I think what really helped 5e rise, is now biting WoTC in the ass:

The youtube influencers. Videos on the topic reach into the hundred thousands, because its just a juicy topic for clicks. And they are also replying to the follow-up and dissecting its lies for more clicks. So yeah, thats a plus at least.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 08:48:41 PM
They said this when?

Lisa Stevens gave an extensive recount of Paizo's version of the history in her 10 year anniversary blogs in 2012 - https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5ld43?Paizo-Publishings-10th-Anniversary

edit: oops, Mistwell already answered.

Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2023, 06:49:29 PM

Quote from: rhialto on January 13, 2023, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2023, 04:17:16 PM
The new relaunch of Talislanta just got updated - they've cancelled the 5e version of the game. So only the traditional rules.

Good. We need more of this.

Link? 

You don't say...I didn't even know Tal Epic Edition was planned. Thanks!

Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 01:04:23 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 13, 2023, 11:37:18 PM

QuoteFirst, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.

So they're going to ban WOTC from making any more D&D product? That's gonna be awkward.

Well they did hire a whore to promote D&D.

Who then?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 10:46:44 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 13, 2023, 10:34:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 09:55:15 PM
Forbes is talking about the backlash. This MIGHT raise an eyebrow or two among WotC/Hasbro stock holders.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robwieland/2023/01/10/whats-happening-with-the-dungeons--dragons-open-gaming-license/?sh=57d1d592bde3

Forbes is a leftist rag and a joke of a magazine in the investment industry. The stock has done nothing but go up since all of this started. It is up 10% since the last time you retards misread their earnings report.

If any of this seems like it will hurt their long-term outlook THEN you will see their stock price move against them. Except for meme stock wanks, institutional investors move markets. And they don't read Forbes. They meet with companies directly. Strike that...companies go to meet THEM.

So yes, it might. But only if this has a sustained impact to their earnings, which won't be reported on for this period for another five months. Our first tip off will be if they modify their guidance in a few weeks. Given how small of a nut D&D is to them, and compared to the downward pressure already created by inflation and the economy, it won't.

Please retarded cunt, quote me saying ANYTHING about their earnings report, it doesn't have to be the last one either, you can go back farther than that, I dare you.

This is what distinguishes a shitlord (me) from a retarded cunt (you), I don't go around making assertions of other people I can't prove.

Eat a bag of digs you cunt.

A bag of dicks oh good one! So original and funny. I don't know how to recover from that!

The 'you retards' was the royal you, as in when people around here talk about stock price and the markets. It was also tongue in cheek. The last paragraph was saying you might be right but it would be a while before the impact is known.

Get laid or do some drugs, you need to loosen up. (Also tongue in cheek)

Replying directly to the OP, the answers are probably "yes and yes." Censoring D&D-related content and trying to head off another Pathfinder debacle were obvious motivations in the leaked document.

Some people seem to think they're lying about the purposes of the OGL 1.1. I don't think so, though I do think they're lying about the underlying motivations behind those purposes. The goals they laid out in this statement, as I see them, are:

1. Censor D&D content: Yeah, they definitely want to do that, probably for a number of reasons. I would guess that ESG scores, PR, and pure ideology of the publisher are all factors there.
2. Restrict the OGL to paper and pdf rpg products: They don't actually offer a reason for this, but as I posted elsewhere, I think this reveals a desire to monopolize on digital content in order to protect the microtransaction economy they're intending for OneD&D. Personally I think this was a major motivation behind all of the OGL 1.1.
3. Prevent other companies from using the OGL to make competing games. There's an obvious market motivation there, especially with the likely shitshow that the OneD&D rollout was going to be even without this scandal. However, this also folds back into the ESG and ideological motivations of point one. Censoring D&D is going to be meaningless if the consumers can just move on to less woke games. For the record, I think they've misunderstood the RPG hobby here, and no matter what they do with the OGL, this is a goal they're going to fail on.

The most noticeable thing in the statement here is that they have said they're walking back on the royalties, but conveniently omitted to mention the clauses in the leaked OGL 1.1 which gave them automatic control of others' intellectual property. This suggests to me that the IP control was the thing they cared more about. Again, I suspect the primary motivations were censorius, but there are market reasons as well. (If something gets published by a third party, and happens to break through into major popularity, they want the ability to republish it for their own profit.) Royalties were regarded as "icing on the cake". As others have said, Hasbro doesn't need the money. Either they were just being extra greedy, or they genuinely intended to kill the 3rd party publishing industry, but either way, that was the thing they thought they could most afford to give away in order to appease their audience.

Will it work? I suspect not. The royalties were a big sticking point, but the IP issues were a pretty big part of the controversy as well. Plus there's still the trust issue for publishers, who are going to be scrutinizing any revised version of the OGL much more closely after this.

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on January 14, 2023, 07:50:36 AM

Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 01:04:23 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 13, 2023, 11:37:18 PM

QuoteFirst, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.

So they're going to ban WOTC from making any more D&D product? That's gonna be awkward.

Well they did hire a whore to promote D&D.

Who then?

Satine Phoenix.  Look her and her hubby Jamison stone up for wonderful scammery on KS RPGs.

They are overjoyed they can push their delayed KS' back another year and blame it on the OGL.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 14, 2023, 01:16:10 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 13, 2023, 10:34:34 PM

Forbes is a leftist rag and a joke of a magazine in the investment industry.

LOL anyone can write for Forbes. YOU can write for Forbes if you really want to. It's not an "anything" rag. It shifted to a submission format years ago.

That... doesn't mean they don't curate the articles they publish.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 14, 2023, 10:32:34 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 14, 2023, 01:16:10 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 13, 2023, 10:34:34 PM

Forbes is a leftist rag and a joke of a magazine in the investment industry.

LOL anyone can write for Forbes. YOU can write for Forbes if you really want to. It's not an "anything" rag. It shifted to a submission format years ago.

That... doesn't mean they don't curate the articles they publish.

Curation is minimal as i personally know someone who writes for forbes and its a "300
Word content blurb" at most

Quote from: Mistwell on January 14, 2023, 01:16:10 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 13, 2023, 10:34:34 PM

Forbes is a leftist rag and a joke of a magazine in the investment industry.

LOL anyone can write for Forbes. YOU can write for Forbes if you really want to. It's not an "anything" rag. It shifted to a submission format years ago.

Bro, I thought you were a high-powered, cocaine off hookers' asses, attorney!      Nothing you said invalidated what I said. Are you suggesting nobody is filtering or selecting what is published?

I will take the compliment that I could write for a magazine, tho. My mother always told me I had an elegant nature to my prose.