WotC's announcement of their "new OGL" is about centralizing control and cashing in on the big moneymakers of the #dnd hobby. But who will it really affect? And will it accomplish what Wizards thinks it will?
#dnd5e #onednd #ttrpg #osr #dnd
Good video.
Elsewhere I read some further analysis that pointed out that, by definition, anything that requires "accepting terms" and engaging in specified actions (reporting what you're producing) is NOT an open license, it's actually a contract and each time you decide to add a product you have an obligation to inform WotC of it... effectively signing a new contract each time (meaning they can change terms in between... this week it's $50k/750k, but next week to register a new product you must agree to the new terms of $40k/500k). The fact that they're calling it 1.1 already suggests a 1.2, 1.3, etc. will be forthcoming as they figure out the best way to squeeze.
They also pointed out that WotC intends to require online registration, i.e. it's a binding contract they can legally enforce if you fail to comply with their reporting and royalty requirements.
Similarly, the requirements being on revenue vs. profits means Hasbro is looking to base their fee structure on Gross rather than Net. You brought in $60k in sales, but spent $59k on production... you have to report it. Similarly, the royalties (the threshold for which is certain to be lowered over time) are on revenue... 10% of 750k is $75k... and if you spent $675k on bringing it to market, you own your entire net to Hasbro.
Of similar concern is that this contract requires a producer to include a "Creator Product badge" on any work and the conditions for those can be completely different from the OGL's requirements. For example, the Creator Product badge required for DM's Guild works requires you to surrender all rights to your work to WotC.
Would the OGL-associated Creator Product badge have the same requirements? Not necessarily, but it's Hasbro so I wouldn't put it past them. The fact they're already announcing explanatory videos, FAQs and a registration web portal along with "help available to creators to navigate the new process" suggests it's not intended to be anything like a genuine OGL and is instead binding contract they're mislabeling to diffuse criticism until various content creators are locked in.
My observation; if you're a content creator, don't walk away from DnDone... Run.
If someone is going to release content; sidestep the 1.1 Fiasco, and fall back on the 3.X or 5.0 compatible opportunities. They are, and will still be available. Don't sign up and step into the new 1.1 bear trap.
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.
Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 10:52:25 AM
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.
TSR never even remotely went this far off the deep end.
That was "you post it online - we own it" Palladium.
And "You work for us - we own everything you create, even at your home" White Wolf and Games Workshop.
Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2022, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 10:52:25 AM
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.
TSR never even remotely went this far off the deep end.
I'm not sure how to compare. TSR never came even close to anything remotely open license. Related behavior is how TSR sued Mayfair Games, New Infinities, GDW, and others for trying to publish similar or compatible material -- as well as many cease and desist notices that they sent out over the Internet at people creating material online.
Related video from an actual lawyer raising a lot of similar concerns;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=HgQ48eOsUC4
Some takeaways from it and the comments are;
A) if the DM's Guild is anything to go by "half" is what WotC considers fair for a royalty split from 3rd parties.
B) the fact they're talking to 3rd parties under NDAs and have had to put out this statement means they're aware of the pushback against what looks like is trying to do the 4e GSL under cover. That means now is absolutely the time to keep making noise to make it clear their efforts to lock down on things will hurt their bottom line.
C) the "creator product badges" are where they're likely going to be most "anti-OGL" by essentially saying "the OGL is still open" but then making the requirements for the badges to comply with the OGL1.1 extremely restrictive and onerous (ex. the current DM's Guild badge requires half the sales revenue and surrendering your rights to the material you created).
D) the reason for reporting what you're creating is independent of revenue reporting and indicates that WotC intends to restrict approval (likely through badge access) to only "approved content."
E) the "separate deal for non-static digital material" is likely to poison pill any alternate VTT while still allowing WotC to feign being reasonable... i.e. "we tried to reach an agreement with Foundry, but they wouldn't compromise with us and are locking their customers out of our content because of their greed."
F) "Folk vs. Official" will be a much more important divide than OSR vs. New School in terms of opposing WotC power grab.
I would expand upon this further by speculating on the following:
1. Not only does WOTC want to better control the third-party space, and force people to pay royalties, licensing fees, etc., they also want to create a "walled-garden" around their product using the new digital tool-set and "immersive virtual experience" (aka video game).
2. This walled-garden will not simply be a place people need to pay to enter, but a closely monitored digital world. Live game sessions with be monitored in real-time, or there will be some custodial control of the entire affair. If someone says something wrong, types something wrong, or plays in a way that is "unacceptable" to the people at WOTC, they will be banned from the platform. Not only will they be prevented from entering the digital world, their DCI card/membership will be suspended. Data-gathering and digital analytics will tie player's real names and identities to their online presence and DCI membership. You will have a literal D&D "social credit score"
3. The "revised" edition of 5e will be bat-shi* crazy --if we think things are loony now, just wait until this comes out. WOTC has an entire section on their website devoted to "Diversity and Inclusion", and vows to "do more"
I was at a seminar at a convention recently, and a member of the WOTC team (a woman) was saying how the company needed to "erase the cancer of whiteness from the hobby"
But beside the obvious reasons, why would WOTC be doing this?
Simple: there are tens of millions of potential D&D players in China. If WOTC is going to get those players into their digital world (and reap huge profits), they need to create a walled-garden that can be accessed by certain "officials" to make sure users aren't using the platform to spread anti-government sentiment. Piss off the CCP and get banned
But this is a corporation committing suicide--they are right on the edge of alienating most of their players, pissing everyone off, and forcing people out of the hobby. There is only so much people will take before moving to other games--and they already are. Which ones?
Free League. This company has produced a rules-lite, intuitive system and some amazing game worlds. I have been to a bunch of conventions in the last couple of years, and their events immediately sell-out, with people lining up to play things like Forbidden Lands, Vaesen, Aliens, and Blade Runner. Both the system and game worlds reach a wide audience (girls like games that don't require a 800 page ruleset and spreadsheets), and the production values are some of the best in the industry. I predict that Free League is going to take a whole lot of market share away from WOTC in the TTRPG space in the next 2-3 years.
Now that is *if* Free League doesn't screw up and get ideological / political. The makes of Mork Borg have already done some stupid shi*. So we will see
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
What are you reading??? This post and the comments are not about pro- or anti-capitalism. Capitalism isn't about supporting corporations. Capitalism is about allowing everyone to be free to compete. Bad businesses fail, good ones take their place. When governments start picking winners and losers that is not capitalism. When companies form cartels to control the market that is not capitalism. Criticizing bad or stupid companies is not anti-capitalist, though it can be part of that if you are so inclined.
You are like the guy with a hammer and everything is a nail... tedious.
Quote from: squirewaldo on December 24, 2022, 01:14:02 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
What are you reading??? This post and the comments are not about pro- or anti-capitalism. Capitalism isn't about supporting corporations. Capitalism is about allowing everyone to be free to compete. Bad businesses fail, good ones take their place. When governments start picking winners and losers that is not capitalism. When companies form cartels to control the market that is not capitalism. Criticizing bad or stupid companies is not anti-capitalist, though it can be part of that if you are so inclined.
You are like the guy with a hammer and everything is a nail... tedious.
Hasbro wants to make more money from a brand they own which isn't making nearly as much money per player as a lesser known brand of theirs and this makes them want to modify their approach. Pundit, and others here, are calling that a "moneygrab" which is exactly what socialists call any corporation trying to ordinarily make more money in the normal course of capitalism. It implies there is something unethical about a company trying to make more money from their customers. That's the "grab" part of "moneygrab."
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
and where did Pundit, or anyone else, say WOTC couldn't do what they wanted with their IP, or seek maximum profit?
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on December 24, 2022, 01:26:28 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
and where did Pundit, or anyone else, say WOTC couldn't do what they wanted with their IP, or seek maximum profit?
Oh no he's not saying they "can't" do it. He's implying it's "unethical" to do it. That's the "grab" part.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:28:21 PM
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on December 24, 2022, 01:26:28 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
and where did Pundit, or anyone else, say WOTC couldn't do what they wanted with their IP, or seek maximum profit?
Oh no he's not saying they "can't" do it. He's implying it's "unethical" to do it. That's the "grab" part.
maybe, but did you watch the video? It sounds like he is more focused on the control that WOTC seeks to exercise over third-party creators and individuals who play the game. That was certainly the point of my post
even back in the early 80s, TSR was pretty nasty and litigious towards people it viewed "infringed on their copyrights". This goes way beyond that
this whole strategy by WOTC might work, and lead to record revenues (especially if they crack the Chinese market, which I suspect is one of the primary objectives) but I think it is going to fail. Their product is largely directed towards middle-aged, left-leaning men (despite their claims of a diverse audience). The quality of their product has gone down considerably, especially when compared to offerings from other companies like Free League, Studio Agate, and Cubicle 7, and the huge corporate structure and mandates handcuff them from being innovative or even friendly towards their customers. Their public-relations efforts are some of the worst I've seen from any large company (hiring an ex-porn star to act as a brand ambassador, apologizing for the perceived racism in their own products, getting into public feuds with their employees, etc.)
my son is in high school, and no one in his school plays D&D. They think it is woke boomer bullshi*.
but we will see how this all pans out
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
This position is insane.
"I hate the new Rings of Power, they just want to make money with no respect for the IP", "Well, that's capitalism, you can't complain!"
"DMs Guild cuts are too high, I prefer using the OGL 1.0", "what would you expect! The poor sobs just want to make money! Are you a Marxist?".
There is no rule in capitalism prohibiting people to criticize companies. Companies are not sacred.
Maybe you can't criticize the CCP but at least we can still badmouth Hasbro and even Facebook or Google (at least for now...).
(as an aside, I think IP is anti-capitalist by nature, but your point sounds absurd even if I thought IP to be the most capitalist thing ever)
Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 24, 2022, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
This position is insane.
"I hate the new Rings of Power, they just want to make money with no respect for the IP", "Well, that's capitalism, you can't complain!"
Of course you can criticize the show. It's the "they just want to make money off the IP they own" part which is anti-capitalism. Yes. It's a show. By definition they want to make money off the IP they own. That is the entire point. Hundreds of people are employed around that one goal - to make money off that IP. To make that a focus (not the only focus, but a focus) of ones criticism is to add an anti-capitalist point to your criticism.
And it's OK to be anti-capitalist (I will disagree with you but that shouldn't stop you) but don't pretend it's something else. Don't then turn around and bash other anti-capitalists in topics which don't directly impact you as much but might impact them as much. Just own your anti-capitalism. Don't pretend to be pro-capitalist until it's a topic dear to you and then suddenly decry the profit motive because it's a topic you enjoy.
"My son is in high school, and no one in his school plays D&D. They think it is woke boomer bullshi*."
MerrillWeathermay, that right there is the post of the day.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 24, 2022, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
This position is insane.
"I hate the new Rings of Power, they just want to make money with no respect for the IP", "Well, that's capitalism, you can't complain!"
Of course you can criticize the show. It's the "they just want to make money off the IP they own" part which is anti-capitalism. Yes. It's a show. By definition they want to make money off the IP they own. That is the entire point. Hundreds of people are employed around that one goal - to make money off that IP. To make that a focus (not the only focus, but a focus) of ones criticism is to add an anti-capitalist point to your criticism.
And it's OK to be anti-capitalist (I will disagree with you but that shouldn't stop you) but don't pretend it's something else. Don't then turn around and bash other anti-capitalists in topics which don't directly impact you as much but might impact them as much. Just own your anti-capitalism. Don't pretend to be pro-capitalist until it's a topic dear to you and then suddenly decry the profit motive because it's a topic you enjoy.
Well, not sure that any of this applies to me, as I'm not strictly anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. I think capitalism is only a useful tool, if somewhat dangerous (I find socialism, OTOH, barbaric and genocidal). But that's another discussion, I think.
However, even defending capitalism, I could give you at least two good motives to complain about this:
- This is a "cash grab" because it favor short-term gain for long term loss, IMO.
- I am a small publisher (or just a consumer of, say, Kobold Press) that uses the OGL and I am concerned with my own financial interests when I feel Hasbro is trying to tighten their restrictions.
I don't like what WotC is doing.
That being said from a moral position it's reprehensible. From a business perspective it makes sense. So I find myself agreeing with Mistwell. They want to make money or get their royalties from those using their rules. I always found what Ryan Dancy did with the OGL somewhat good for the fans though screwing over Wotc.
I also see the hypocrisy on this site when it comes to company making profits. When it's the Woke losing it because companies make money and it's a subject we don't like. We mock them for hating Capitalism. Now if it's something we like suddenly Wotc is being " greedy " and treating the fans unfair.
Again I think it's a mistake on Wotc to do so yet I aKeats expected Wotc to do such a move. Even at the expense of the fans and to not care about losing some. The OGL allowed others to use Wotc rules to profit from them. While Wotc gets nothing in return and in the case of Paizo make their direct competitor.
I haven't really commented on this topic here yet, but it's a good thing I don't consider myself a capitalist and in fact used to consider myself a socialist till I joined the anti-SJW side of the culture war, or apparently I wouldn't be able to tell money grubbing, overreaching corporations to go fuck themselves. Not that I consider the poster bringing this up worthy of consideration or anything but a disingenuous troll without any real arguments or logical positions.
But, yeah...on behalf of everyone else, fuck these capitalist mega corps trying to milk other people's labor and to police their business and finances. Like, who tha fuck do these capitalist pigs think they are? I hope they get another 4e to the knee and get another Pathfinder situation on their hands.
A general comment on the current popularity of D&D, aside from question of the OGL.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on December 24, 2022, 01:41:49 PM
this whole strategy by WOTC might work, and lead to record revenues (especially if they crack the Chinese market, which I suspect is one of the primary objectives) but I think it is going to fail. Their product is largely directed towards middle-aged, left-leaning men (despite their claims of a diverse audience). The quality of their product has gone down considerably, especially when compared to offerings from other companies like Free League, Studio Agate, and Cubicle 7, and the huge corporate structure and mandates handcuff them from being innovative or even friendly towards their customers. Their public-relations efforts are some of the worst I've seen from any large company (hiring an ex-porn star to act as a brand ambassador, apologizing for the perceived racism in their own products, getting into public feuds with their employees, etc.)
my son is in high school, and no one in his school plays D&D. They think it is woke boomer bullshi*.
My son is just starting grad school. When he was in middle and high school in the early 2010s, almost no one in his schools were playing D&D - which was the norm for the 1990s and 2000s, from what I could see. However, since 5E was released in 2014, it seems to me that D&Ds popularity has been steadily growing.
My minister's teenage daughter plays it, and when I ran a game at my church retreat, I had 7 players sign up including my minister who was curious about the game his daughter played. I keep running into people who play it in many walks of life - from park rangers to waiters.
As far as I have seen, D&D is now as popular than it has ever been - on par with the peak of popularity it had around 1980. That's not saying that WotC hasn't had big missteps, but they seem to be doing some things right.
Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2022, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 10:52:25 AM
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.
TSR never even remotely went this far off the deep end.
That was "you post it online - we own it" Palladium.
And "You work for us - we own everything you create, even at your home" White Wolf and Games Workshop.
There was a time we all called it "T$R" and said it stood for "They Sue Regularly". Ironically, that was also when a non-gamer woman named Williams was in charge, as there is now.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 24, 2022, 08:15:55 PM
Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2022, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 10:52:25 AM
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.
TSR never even remotely went this far off the deep end.
That was "you post it online - we own it" Palladium.
And "You work for us - we own everything you create, even at your home" White Wolf and Games Workshop.
There was a time we all called it "T$R" and said it stood for "They Sue Regularly". Ironically, that was also when a non-gamer woman named Williams was in charge, as there is now.
Imagine if through some insane convoluted chain of events, it had been Roberta Williams, not Lorraine Williams, in charge.
I think there is some confusion about "woke" and "capitalism" here. They are not opposites.
Every company wants to make money, no matter how "woke". Disney wears rainbows on the US and remove gay characters when that will make more money in China. People (left and right) will wage foreign wars to make a profit. There is nothing moral about this, in fact it is often immoral.
Fighting for capitalism is a bit ludicrous, because capitalism can be used for good or evil.
Defending your freedom from taxation and persecution, defending your religion or civilization, is one thing, but worshipping capitalism for its own sake is just insane.
And the most destructive part of this idea is "let's make a quick profit now, and let the future be damned!". This is not capitalism working as intended, this is madness.
(I apologize for diverging that far from the actual subject. Also, merry Christmas folks!)
Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 25, 2022, 09:47:14 AM
And the most destructive part of this idea is "let's make a quick profit now, and let the future be damned!". This is not capitalism working as intended, this is madness.
This is US Corporate law which has defined fiduciary responsibility as doing everything possible to maximize short term profits even at the expense of long term viability.
Hasbro is getting hammered because it can't sustain the COVID sales surge and this nonsense with trying to monetize every last dime out of D&D is looking more like a desperation play. They NEED to keep the Covid sales bubble going or they're on the hook to their investors because the predatory capitalists lobbied the lawmakers for just this sort of thing to be the norm (because they'll take their profits, sell and leave thr gutted company holding the bag and do it again to the next company on their list).
It'll get even worse when the upcoming movie inevitably flops (because "offbrand Marvel movie with characters no one cares about while struggling to put food on the table" is a sure fire winner... Chris Pine playing Chris Pine is just icing on the shit cake) and the lure of a carrot is no longer that viable.
I dumped the OGL (I'll use a creative commons license instead) from my project entirely as I have sufficiently different mechanics that my only real concern was sharing some game terms and have since renamed many of those just in case. I think re-examining whether you actually NEED even the OGL1.0a might be worth it for other publishers as I think a desperate enough WotC might go after it and, as I have been reminded in the past, the validity of your claim is far less important than having the money to litigate.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but desperation brings out the stupids and big corpos have more than their share.
You guys are wrong because you're anti-woke, and woke people are de facto "socialists", which means that anti-woke people are de facto "capitalists". Which means that when a capitalist corporation is driving their company down a cliff in the name of making a quick buck in the short term at the expense of long-term viability, you have to drive down that cliff with them cheering all the way to the bottom. Because you're anti-woke, therefore "capitalists", which means that you should not be able to recognize blatant stupidity or one-sided, predatory contracts and business practices, or have a problem with them, and are supposed to defend them to the very end and never disagree with them or call them out.
This is ironclad logic that you can't refute, meaning that Hasbro/WotC is right and you should be cheering their business acumen. And if you disagree you're a hypocrite, unable to maintain a consistent position, which is to bend yourself like a pretzel to conform to some straw version of "capitalism", since you're anti-woke, and anti-woke means you're supposed to be pro-capitalist--ALWAYS, no matter the specific circumstances. ;)
Let me try to draw a fine line between "capitalism" and "free market". It is perfectly consistent with capitalism to be anti-monopoly.
The free market makes sense and perhaps works well for standardised widgets - substitutable goods with symmetry & transparency and other features that an economist can enumerate. The free market doesn't make sense for lots of other kinds of goods. For those markets, we (should) impose some form of regulation.
If I were trying to be objective and look at the "capitalism" question, the question I would ask about this is: "Are RPGs substitutable, so if WotC creates a walled garden people are free to seamlessly move to alternate gaming systems? Or is WotC effectively a monopoly, or some other kind of market-power-holder that deserves regulation?"
You can be pro-capitalist, but depending on where you come down on that question can consider the OneDnD license ethical or unethical.
Probably most relevant is the idea of a "platform" - the US and the EU are both moving to regulate Apple and Google app stores, and perhaps Steam. And for the past 30+ years the question of monopoly was usually framed as _consumer_ benefit, but once WotC is operating a DMsGuild/VTT "platform" there's also the lens of undue control over the market defined by that platform.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
We don't have "ordinary" capitalism in America; we have
monopoly capitalism. The whole point of "monopoly capitalism" is to have the government
outsource tyranny through the giant mega-corporations. This is at least partially facilitated through massive amounts of NWO bribe money, in the form of ESG investment capital. Hasbro receives ESG investment capital from ultra-destructive giant investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard. Don't you ever dare insinuate that there's anything
"ordinary" about this.
"It's just capitalism, man. What? Do you hate capitalism or something?" (herp, derp) ::)
During the lockdowns for the fake pandemic, we had armed jackboot police officer thugs in America deliberately shutting down small and privately-owned hardware stores that were right down the street from Lowe's Home Improvement (giant mega-corporate ESG-funded hardware stores),
which remained open. These small private hardware stores sold the same products as Lowe's, but they did not receive ESG investment capital like Lowe's does. It's not too hard to figure out what happened.
What I don't want is having all gamers consigned to a digital ghetto. That would be horrible. Thankfully, we have the original OGL....so only a complete
retard would ever use this new shit-flecked
closed license.
For the record, I am neither a capitalist nor am I a socialist. Either approach can be used as a life-destroying weapon or as a tool. Both capitalism and socialism are used as WEAPONS by the men who control ultra-giant monopolistic asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard,
which control Hasbro.And frankly, since we are now beginning to live in the age of "rolling blackouts", it behooves people to start finding ways of gaming without the incessant use of electronics. Hasbro has ZERO interest in maximizing the face-to-face gaming experience, and you certainly don't do that by staring at glowing pixelated images on a screen. Hasbro/WoTC has learned absolutely no useful lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, and that weakness can be used to compete with them....no matter how much fiat currency they have artificially injected into their company. However, it won't be Paizo who successfully learns and implements lessons from the board game industry into the tabletop RPG industry. Paizo is just too mentally stuck to truly innovate and then compete with Hasbro. For such a thing to happen, it would have to be facilitated by somebody else who doesn't actually loathe their customers (like Hasbro).
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on December 25, 2022, 06:42:30 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
We don't have "ordinary" capitalism in America; we have monopoly capitalism. The whole point of "monopoly capitalism" is to have the government outsource tyranny through the giant mega-corporations. This is at least partially facilitated through massive amounts of NWO bribe money, in the form of ESG investment capital. Hasbro receives ESG investment capital from ultra-destructive giant investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard. Don't you ever dare insinuate that there's anything "ordinary" about this.
"It's just capitalism, man. What? Do you hate capitalism or something?" (herp, derp) ::)
During the lockdowns for the fake pandemic, we had armed jackboot police officer thugs in America deliberately shutting down small and privately-owned hardware stores that were right down the street from Lowe's Home Improvement (giant mega-corporate ESG-funded hardware stores), which remained open. These small private hardware stores sold the same products as Lowe's, but they did not receive ESG investment capital like Lowe's does. It's not too hard to figure out what happened.
What I don't want is having all gamers consigned to a digital ghetto. That would be horrible. Thankfully, we have the original OGL....so only a complete retard would ever use this new shit-flecked closed license.
For the record, I am neither a capitalist nor am I a socialist. Either approach can be used as a life-destroying weapon or as a tool. Both capitalism and socialism are used as WEAPONS by the men who control ultra-giant monopolistic asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard, which control Hasbro.
And frankly, since we are now beginning to live in the age of "rolling blackouts", it behooves people to start finding ways of gaming without the incessant use of electronics. Hasbro has ZERO interest in maximizing the face-to-face gaming experience, and you certainly don't do that by staring at glowing pixelated images on a screen. Hasbro/WoTC has learned absolutely no useful lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, and that weakness can be used to compete with them....no matter how much fiat currency they have artificially injected into their company. However, it won't be Paizo who successfully learns and implements lessons from the board game industry into the tabletop RPG industry. Paizo is just too mentally stuck to truly innovate and then compete with Hasbro. For such a thing to happen, it would have to be facilitated by somebody else who doesn't actually loathe their customers (like Hasbro).
Greetings!
Very well said, Sacrificial Lamb. Spot on!
Oh. And also, I hope you are having a Merry Christmas!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
People, stop it! Mistwell spent several other threads on this topic defending WotC and claiming that the press releases didn't say what they clearly said. Now that his original line of argument is completely indefensible, he's changed his argument to this bogus capitalism straw man. It's a stupid argument on its face, and doesn't even deserve to be addressed. No one has argued that WotC can't do this. We've argued that this tactic will both fail to realize the financial results they hope, while the changes will hurt the consumer. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Its Mistwell screaming loudly to distract and confuse. He doesn't have the facts or law, so he's pounding the table. Ignore him and his bullshit distraction. It's a bad-faith attempt to distract; don't help him.
Quote from: SHARK on December 25, 2022, 08:28:12 PM
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on December 25, 2022, 06:42:30 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:05:10 PM
Here come all the "I'm not a socialist I just play one on message boards when it's about a capitalist RPG company doing ordinary capitalist things" people.
Which, in this case, includes Pundit. Whose position is much more towards the socialist/marxist end of the spectrum than it would be about a non-RPG topic. Corporation does things to make more money should not be a "money-grab = bad!" position for an actual capitalist.
But the whole anti-marxist thing was always for show.
WOTC will either make products and services people want to spend money on and will make more money, or they will not and will fail. That's ordinary capitalism.
If they make a VTT people want and like, people will buy it and if not they won't and it will fail to their competition.
If they make a rules system so popular and modable that other companies want to use and expand on and sell products from and report their income on and pay a royalty if it gets big then they will. If it's not to their liking enough those companies will instead write their own rules system or use a cheaper competing rules system.
This is all ordinary capitalism and not a "money-grab." The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a public company like Hasbro is to make money for their shareholders. This is the whole point and anyone bashing it all as a "moneygrab" is a socialist at heart who has just been hiding their socialism because it was about topics that didn't impact their interests. The moment it's something THEY like and use suddenly the socialism/marxist comes out and it's wankery about evil corporations trying to be "greedy" and "grab" people's money like it's friggen Scrooge McDuck.
We don't have "ordinary" capitalism in America; we have monopoly capitalism. The whole point of "monopoly capitalism" is to have the government outsource tyranny through the giant mega-corporations. This is at least partially facilitated through massive amounts of NWO bribe money, in the form of ESG investment capital. Hasbro receives ESG investment capital from ultra-destructive giant investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard. Don't you ever dare insinuate that there's anything "ordinary" about this.
"It's just capitalism, man. What? Do you hate capitalism or something?" (herp, derp) ::)
During the lockdowns for the fake pandemic, we had armed jackboot police officer thugs in America deliberately shutting down small and privately-owned hardware stores that were right down the street from Lowe's Home Improvement (giant mega-corporate ESG-funded hardware stores), which remained open. These small private hardware stores sold the same products as Lowe's, but they did not receive ESG investment capital like Lowe's does. It's not too hard to figure out what happened.
What I don't want is having all gamers consigned to a digital ghetto. That would be horrible. Thankfully, we have the original OGL....so only a complete retard would ever use this new shit-flecked closed license.
For the record, I am neither a capitalist nor am I a socialist. Either approach can be used as a life-destroying weapon or as a tool. Both capitalism and socialism are used as WEAPONS by the men who control ultra-giant monopolistic asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard, which control Hasbro.
And frankly, since we are now beginning to live in the age of "rolling blackouts", it behooves people to start finding ways of gaming without the incessant use of electronics. Hasbro has ZERO interest in maximizing the face-to-face gaming experience, and you certainly don't do that by staring at glowing pixelated images on a screen. Hasbro/WoTC has learned absolutely no useful lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, and that weakness can be used to compete with them....no matter how much fiat currency they have artificially injected into their company. However, it won't be Paizo who successfully learns and implements lessons from the board game industry into the tabletop RPG industry. Paizo is just too mentally stuck to truly innovate and then compete with Hasbro. For such a thing to happen, it would have to be facilitated by somebody else who doesn't actually loathe their customers (like Hasbro).
Greetings!
Very well said, Sacrificial Lamb. Spot on!
Oh. And also, I hope you are having a Merry Christmas!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thank you, my friend. Much obliged.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 25, 2022, 11:15:35 PM
People, stop it! Mistwell spent several other threads on this topic defending WotC and claiming that the press releases didn't say what they clearly said. Now that his original line of argument is completely indefensible, he's changed his argument to this bogus capitalism straw man. It's a stupid argument on its face, and doesn't even deserve to be addressed. No one has argued that WotC can't do this. We've argued that this tactic will both fail to realize the financial results they hope, while the changes will hurt the consumer. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Its Mistwell screaming loudly to distract and confuse. He doesn't have the facts or law, so he's pounding the table. Ignore him and his bullshit distraction. It's a bad-faith attempt to distract; don't help him.
Exactly. Corpos gonna corpo. The only question is whether you want to participate or not.
If you don't then you need to decide what options are best for you. My suggestion is that, even beyond sticking with the OGL1.0a, does your product even NEED the OGL at all?
I'd actually argue that the core OSR doesn't need it. Everyone is building towards the unstated standard of compatibility with TSR era D&D and the numbers are close enough that a B/X adventure could be run for an AD&D party or an AD&D adventure run for a B/X party. The individual product identities (specific settings, specific NPCs, etc.) are already covered by general copyright law and the compatibility with B/1e standard keeps everything else interoperable with no further license needed.
My feeling is that when WotC gets desperate (because this idea of theirs is going to flop*) they're going to come after the OGL; probably on the grounds you "have" to update to the latest license with the understanding that it wouldn't survive in court, but that few could afford to get it to that point. Better to not even have that as a point of contention and create the higher burden that trying to sue a straight competitor like Palladium or GURPS or Savage Worlds (vs. someone competing via a license, open or not, from the suing company).
* It's going to flop because ultimately it won't provide what true ttrpg players are seeking (face-to-face social connection with others... VTTs are mainly a substitute for those who can't be face-to-face) while, even with people from Microsoft involved, the VTT is never going to match the experience of a AAA multiplayer video game like WoW or ESO and so many others if they're hoping to keep the adventure content canned to maximize the microtransactions.
Basically, the freedom to create by the GM's basically IS the value of tabletop gaming. Rulebooks are just handy tools so a GM doesn't have to create all the rules from scratch each time; they're basically blueprints the GM uses as a foundation for them to create their own worlds.
No matter how WotC will try to push it, you can't monetize what a GM builds. At best they can supply raw materials to go along with the blueprints they supply. They can't force a carpenter to follow their blueprints to the letter. They can't charge a carpenter's kids for every swing they take on the swingset he built even if he used those plans. And if they seriously tried they'd be competing with actual professional theme parks in terms of value per dollar and don't stand a chance in that market.
So, yeah, DnDone is a desperation pipe dream and everyone should be making plans based on what desperate corpos typically do when their schemes collapse.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
My suggestion is that, even beyond sticking with the OGL1.0a, does your product even NEED the OGL at all?
I'd actually argue that the core OSR doesn't need it. Everyone is building towards the unstated standard of compatibility with TSR era D&D and the numbers are close enough that a B/X adventure could be run for an AD&D party or an AD&D adventure run for a B/X party. The individual product identities (specific settings, specific NPCs, etc.) are already covered by general copyright law and the compatibility with B/1e standard keeps everything else interoperable with no further license needed.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that retro-clones are vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit if they don't use the OGL.
However, any of the games with significant differences probably aren't. Many of the OSR products have less resemblance to the SRD than many pre-2002 RPGs that were similar to D&D but never sued. I was reading over Pundit's Arrows of Indra, for example, and as far as I can see, it uses almost nothing from the SRD, to the point where I don't see why it would cite that.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
Basically, the freedom to create by the GM's basically IS the value of tabletop gaming. Rulebooks are just handy tools so a GM doesn't have to create all the rules from scratch each time; they're basically blueprints the GM uses as a foundation for them to create their own worlds.
No matter how WotC will try to push it, you can't monetize what a GM builds. At best they can supply raw materials to go along with the blueprints they supply. They can't force a carpenter to follow their blueprints to the letter.
I think it's possible to monetize GMing by expanding the paid GM market. In most tabletop RPGs, it usually seems there are more players willing to play than GMs willing to run for free. That doesn't mean WotC would necessarily benefit - but it's possible they could get in on it, such as by making a service that hooks up GMs-for-pay to players. But others could easily create rival services.
In the end, freedom in truth wins, but there will be blood on the floor before then.
This is going to explode in their faces worse than 4th Edition did.
WOTC is practically unrecognizable these days. They've gone off the deep end. I kind of hope they lose market share over this. Not that they'd bother to reevaluate their overall strategy and position, unfortunately.
Also, I kind of feel like poorly thought out get rich quick schemes like this aren't really great for consumers, corporations, or the economy. And the competition and productivity they seem to seek to stifle is a core piece to real capitalism.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
* It's going to flop because ultimately it won't provide what true ttrpg players are seeking (face-to-face social connection with others... VTTs are mainly a substitute for those who can't be face-to-face) while, even with people from Microsoft involved, the VTT is never going to match the experience of a AAA multiplayer video game like WoW or ESO and so many others if they're hoping to keep the adventure content canned to maximize the microtransactions.
WotC doesn't cares what true ttrpg players want. They care for money. they are hoping enough people are out there that want to give it a try but have been unable to play (because they are jerks, or because of live to far from groups, fear of perceived starting costs, or fear of being branded a nerd of a newbie or whatever.) They provide a solution to all that for a small fee, and will sell you a bad-arse avatar for a little more, and if you don't want ads on screen it'll only be slightly more, and if you are a newbie maybe they'll sell you criticals on 19-20 instead of just 20. Maybe you can pay more to play in a game run by a 5-star DM or celebrity DM.
In the mean-time the desktop will continue as before with a new edition of books that blends the different ones into the core books and makes the wording a bit more woke and this will be 5.5e.
Having said all that... The big problem with computer game RPGs is that you only have the options the software folks though of ahead of time, or that they could squeeze into the code. TTRPG don't have this problem, and there is a reasonable chance the OneD&D will bridge this gap somewhat and might be a lot of fun. Especially if the Coastal Wizards have a number of ongoing games you can join. People are likely to clan up or have a group of friends join the same game to recapture some of that commeradery. It'll be different than TTRPG but it might not be as terrible as some have predicted.
There might also be a nice system for creative DMs to make a dungeon using the new virtual world. Yeah Wizards might take 50% or more of the profit but initially when they are short of adventures there might be a decent amount of money to make if you make a good one. I can see an entire new ecosystem if the virtual tools are easy enough to learn and use to create. Again not a replacement for TTRPG but something new that could be fun if they don't screw it up.s
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 27, 2022, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
* It's going to flop because ultimately it won't provide what true ttrpg players are seeking (face-to-face social connection with others... VTTs are mainly a substitute for those who can't be face-to-face) while, even with people from Microsoft involved, the VTT is never going to match the experience of a AAA multiplayer video game like WoW or ESO and so many others if they're hoping to keep the adventure content canned to maximize the microtransactions.
WotC doesn't cares what true ttrpg players want. They care for money. they are hoping enough people are out there that want to give it a try but have been unable to play (because they are jerks, or because of live to far from groups, fear of perceived starting costs, or fear of being branded a nerd of a newbie or whatever.) They provide a solution to all that for a small fee, and will sell you a bad-arse avatar for a little more, and if you don't want ads on screen it'll only be slightly more, and if you are a newbie maybe they'll sell you criticals on 19-20 instead of just 20. Maybe you can pay more to play in a game run by a 5-star DM or celebrity DM.
In the mean-time the desktop will continue as before with a new edition of books that blends the different ones into the core books and makes the wording a bit more woke and this will be 5.5e.
I'm not arguing what they're going to offer. I'm arguing it's going to flop because the market for what they're offering (that isn't better served by better products) isn't as big as they think it is.
Basically, a new physical books edition isn't going to get them the monetization they need because it's the same 20% of the users as they're complaining about now.
Anyone looking for primarily online play will find better graphics, smoother play and a larger community for less money with any of the AAA MMO's out there (many of which has a F2P level and have immense libraries of cosmetic options to make your character unique).
That basically leaves the slice of people who want a more personal/custom experience than an MMO can provide, but can't meet for face-to-face games... and it requires that enough of this pool of people to be DM's so everyone signed up has a "table" to play at. Either that or you're going to need a paid staff of roughly 10-20% of concurrent users to be GMs for the audience (i.e. if you have 2000 people online at the same time, you need at least 200-400 GMs to run games for them... that's a lot of paychecks if you don't have enough volunteers) and expecting $3-5/hour from customers to cover that would be a hard sell (because if you have to accept an AI GM you may as well go play that MMO with better graphics/smoother play).
In short, this whole structure looks like something someone utterly unfamiliar with how TTRPGs actually work would come up with. On paper it makes perfect sense... in practice it's just not gonna be workable.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 25, 2022, 11:15:35 PM
People, stop it! Mistwell spent several other threads on this topic defending WotC and claiming that the press releases didn't say what they clearly said. Now that his original line of argument is completely indefensible, he's changed his argument to this bogus capitalism straw man. It's a stupid argument on its face, and doesn't even deserve to be addressed. No one has argued that WotC can't do this. We've argued that this tactic will both fail to realize the financial results they hope, while the changes will hurt the consumer. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Its Mistwell screaming loudly to distract and confuse. He doesn't have the facts or law, so he's pounding the table. Ignore him and his bullshit distraction. It's a bad-faith attempt to distract; don't help him.
Agreed. I interacted with him on a few posts and I realize he is not a sincere or honest person. Having a discussion or debate with someone like that benefits no one. The only thing that remains is a curiosity concerning why he is trolling this group? Ultimately, I have other more interesting things to concern myself with. It is easy enough to just ignore him and people like him. I will leave the cause for his behavior to his therapist.
I don't think any of my products need to have the OGL on them. However, a lot of my publishers want to have it there.
A: 1.1 isn't an Open Gaming License. The new terms are an attempt to catch and shoot the OGL horses after they've escaped, multiplied, and thrived. "We're not making money off of OGL products!" is the thinking here.
B: Whomever is doing this doesn't realize the industry they're in. The recent trend by corporations has been to lock everything down—to control as much as possible—so they can coerce customers into giving them more money, just like Ma Bell used to. Printer cartridges, John Deere tractors, corporate FPS servers instead of open servers, charging annual licensing fees to use hardware present in the car, etc. This is very profitable, at the cost of making some percentage of your customers angry.
D&DOne is an attempt to establish this level of control over the TTRPG market, which is impossible. TTRPGs cannot be controlled that way.
WE ARE A HOBBY OF NOTEPADS, PENCILS, AND DICE. We don't need VTTs, we don't even really need rulebooks. We have a glut of games published now we can play, plus games going back to 1974, and can mix and match at our leisure.
C: They're apparently betting D&D can be controlled that way because of VTTs and if they succeed well enough, other companies will follow. They will all chase the dollars, that's how corruption works. It's contagious.
Better hope D&Done fails, because "ShadowrunOne", "PathfinderOne", "WorldOfDarknessOne", and others will all be next. Central servers and control will become the future.
D: Ryan Dancy future-proofed D&D against all kinds of shenanigans, including this, 22 years ago. Interested to see how Hasbro's coming anti-OGL lawsuits seeking to legally invalidate 1.0a will go.
(THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS AN INSULT NOT A PREDICTION, CUT ME SOME SLACK HERE. THOUGH I ALSO WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED.)
I predicted the same thing; that as an act of desperation WotC would try to go after the prior versions of the OGL in an effort to force everyone onto the new "owes us royalties" and "license grant dependent on content" FauxGL1.1.
I don't think it will succeed or they would have smashed Pathfinder back in '08, but Lawfare and judgeshopping have gotten more refined in the last decade and deep pockets have usually trumped being legally correct for awhile now.
I do think the more ways your system deviates from DnDone (and possibly prior versions of D&D in general) the better off you'll be (I think Palladium is an excellent example that you can still use d20 checks, saving throws and rolled damage while still being fundamentally different enough to be WotC-proof).
In my case I'm banking on different attributes with a different attribute scale (-1 to 5 at creation, improve to as high as 7 through leveling), different skills (or abilities as they're called in my system), different kinds (races), different character build structure, different magic systems, different action economy, different resource (edge, focus and reserves) and roll structure (players generally roll everything vs. static monster values) and going back to the original myths and legends or my own unique ideas in place of any D&D lore and writing the whole thing from scratch... then following that up with a different open license... as being sufficiently different to make any claims not worth pursuing (even if it will play a LOT like D&D at the table everything that gets you there is different).
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on December 28, 2022, 06:09:23 PM
A: 1.1 isn't an Open Gaming License. The new terms are an attempt to catch and shoot the OGL horses after they've escaped, multiplied, and thrived. "We're not making money off of OGL products!" is the thinking here.
B: Whomever is doing this doesn't realize the industry they're in. The recent trend by corporations has been to lock everything down—to control as much as possible—so they can coerce customers into giving them more money, just like Ma Bell used to. Printer cartridges, John Deere tractors, corporate FPS servers instead of open servers, charging annual licensing fees to use hardware present in the car, etc. This is very profitable, at the cost of making some percentage of your customers angry.
D&DOne is an attempt to establish this level of control over the TTRPG market, which is impossible. TTRPGs cannot be controlled that way.
WE ARE A HOBBY OF NOTEPADS, PENCILS, AND DICE. We don't need VTTs, we don't even really need rulebooks. We have a glut of games published now we can play, plus games going back to 1974, and can mix and match at our leisure.
C: They're apparently betting D&D can be controlled that way because of VTTs and if they succeed well enough, other companies will follow. They will all chase the dollars, that's how corruption works. It's contagious.
Better hope D&Done fails, because "ShadowrunOne", "PathfinderOne", "WhiteWolfOne", and others will all be next. Central servers and control will become the future.
Ryan Dancy future-proofed D&D against all kinds of shenanigans, including this, 22 years ago. Interested to see how Hasbro's coming anti-OGL lawsuits seeking to legally invalidate 1.0a will go.
(THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS AN INSULT NOT A PREDICTION, CUT ME SOME SLACK HERE. THOUGH I ALSO WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED.)
Well, there's a name I've not heard in a long time. Howdy, D.W.
But yeah, I fully expect Hasbro/WotC to do something stupid. Time will tell how badly it'll damage the hobby.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 28, 2022, 08:17:06 PM
Well, there's a name I've not heard in a long time. Howdy, D.W.
Hey! Thanks for rememberin'. :)
Quote from: jhkim on December 24, 2022, 01:11:02 AM
Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2022, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 10:52:25 AM
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.
TSR never even remotely went this far off the deep end.
I'm not sure how to compare. TSR never came even close to anything remotely open license. Related behavior is how TSR sued Mayfair Games, New Infinities, GDW, and others for trying to publish similar or compatible material -- as well as many cease and desist notices that they sent out over the Internet at people creating material online.
TSR in its litigation happy phase was during mostly the Loraine era. And some of the lawsuits were to spite Gygax. TSR bled themselves and other companies out just to spite the creator they stole the company from.
Quote from: jhkim on December 26, 2022, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
My suggestion is that, even beyond sticking with the OGL1.0a, does your product even NEED the OGL at all?
I'd actually argue that the core OSR doesn't need it. Everyone is building towards the unstated standard of compatibility with TSR era D&D and the numbers are close enough that a B/X adventure could be run for an AD&D party or an AD&D adventure run for a B/X party. The individual product identities (specific settings, specific NPCs, etc.) are already covered by general copyright law and the compatibility with B/1e standard keeps everything else interoperable with no further license needed.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that retro-clones are vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit if they don't use the OGL.
However, any of the games with significant differences probably aren't. Many of the OSR products have less resemblance to the SRD than many pre-2002 RPGs that were similar to D&D but never sued. I was reading over Pundit's Arrows of Indra, for example, and as far as I can see, it uses almost nothing from the SRD, to the point where I don't see why it would cite that.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
Basically, the freedom to create by the GM's basically IS the value of tabletop gaming. Rulebooks are just handy tools so a GM doesn't have to create all the rules from scratch each time; they're basically blueprints the GM uses as a foundation for them to create their own worlds.
No matter how WotC will try to push it, you can't monetize what a GM builds. At best they can supply raw materials to go along with the blueprints they supply. They can't force a carpenter to follow their blueprints to the letter.
I think it's possible to monetize GMing by expanding the paid GM market. In most tabletop RPGs, it usually seems there are more players willing to play than GMs willing to run for free. That doesn't mean WotC would necessarily benefit - but it's possible they could get in on it, such as by making a service that hooks up GMs-for-pay to players. But others could easily create rival services.
"WoTC's Money-Grab" sheds light on financial concerns within the context of a well-known entity. Faced with uncertainty about where to invest, the provided https://icoholder.com/blog/how-to-turn-bitcoin-into-usd/ on converting Bitcoin into USD is a timely addition. This dual perspective encourages a nuanced understanding of financial landscapes, helping me make informed decisions and navigate potential investment opportunities more confidently.
Very nice!