I don't get the ramifications of this, other than people with broken hearts because a company wants to make money.
Doesn't OGL affects companies or third party companies making stuff for players...I mean I can see why those folks would be upset but why players are so invested in hating that change?
(Not even being devil's advocate or anything, just asking)
There’s several things wrong, and although most of them are pretty bad on their own, it’s the totality of it that gets really egregious and speaks to an upper management that isn’t just “a company that wants to make money” but fundamentally not understanding the community.
One of the biggest ones is we have them attempting the legally dubious move of “de-authorizing” the OGL 1.0a which they have said for over 20 years that they could not do. (Even stating so in their own FAQ on it. Keep that in mind for a minute.) This has completely upended the majority of the industry and, no exaggeration, jeopardized the livelihoods of hundreds of people - all with originally only a week to react and decide what to do.
Then they wanted to push everyone to a new license that is SO bad and so massively one-sided that many, justifiably, believe it’s less about getting people to agree to it than it is to get people to negotiate custom licenses individually. There are many, many really bad terms in the new license that it’s hard to even list them all. Royalty rates 10x higher than might be standard for what’s being granted. Rights irrevocably to reuse all of your content without payment. Waiving the right to ever sue WotC. Agreeing to never disparage WotC. Financial reports of all your sales to WotC.
Worst of all is they can change the terms at any time to anything with only a 30 day notice.
However, they assure in comments and an apparent FAQ that they won’t abuse these terms and it’s not a big deal. But remember how much regard they give to FAQs? None. They have shown with their own behavior that no matter how clear their official explanation is, it can’t be trusted if it’s not clear in the legal text itself.
Top it off with nearly all of the creative team having started their careers at OGL publishers, there’s a strong element of “pulling the ladder up behind them” at play. Of course, it’s likely this all comes from execs who have been hired from Microsoft and other areas outside the RPG industry.
Oh, and almost forgot - they are also cutting off several VTTs and even ones with current licensing deals now have to worry how long WotC will honor that with their own VTT in development.
AND spend all this time saying nothing while publishers are having to reevaluate their entire business. Uncertainty just growing and growing, and it’s a complete mess.(And this isn’t even getting into their lies to try justifying it with talk of NFTs, or how the very person they had announce OneD&D is even telling them how bad it is and the most they can say “Be patient.”?)
In the span of a week, it has upended the entire industry and undermined trust they had built for years. Of course that is going to bleed over to the players who like many of these 3pp. No one 3pp is nearly the size of WotC, but many, many players like at least one 3pp as well as use one of the VTTs that might need to stop supporting 5e with only a week notice…
I'm wondering what's taking so long for WotC to get an answer out. It feels like the more they are waiting, the more other company's are preparing themselves to move away from D&D. My suggestion to them, copy paste v1.0a, add the word irrevocable to make it clear for everyone even though nobody really needs it since it is perpetual, but that is the only way that you'll get out of this mess...
Even if they did that, every 3PP would move forward with making ORC or whatever anyway. That ship has sailed. So they might as well flush 1.0a and replace it with something where they can at least profit.
If they remove the worst parts of 1.1 they will likely salvage some of their base. All of the competition are talking about making their own open TTRPG (with blackjack! and h--kers!) but it will be over a year before they can make and playtest something functional. D&D, with its actual game that exists, has a chance to reclaim some of the disaffected players and content creators if they break the silence.
Pathfinder is an actual game, that exists. Worse - for WotC - its freely available for play, and lives off the associated books and resources being nice enough that people want to buy them, despite the content being available legally, for free, on demand.
That means switching is going to be trivial for anyone who's upset, and spoiler alert, the only reason I've played 5E since PF2e came out is because other players were reluctant to try something new.
WotC just removed that obstacle for a whole lot of people.
I'm wondering what's taking so long for WotC to get an answer out. It feels like the more they are waiting, the more other company's are preparing themselves to move away from D&D. My suggestion to them, copy paste v1.0a, add the word irrevocable to make it clear for everyone even though nobody really needs it since it is perpetual, but that is the only way that you'll get out of this mess...
Even if they did that, every 3PP would move forward with making ORC or whatever anyway. That ship has sailed. So they might as well flush 1.0a and replace it with something where they can at least profit.
If they remove the worst parts of 1.1 they will likely salvage some of their base. All of the competition are talking about making their own open TTRPG (with blackjack! and h--kers!) but it will be over a year before they can make and playtest something functional. D&D, with its actual game that exists, has a chance to reclaim some of the disaffected players and content creators if they break the silence.
Pathfinder is an actual game, that exists. Worse - for WotC - its freely available for play, and lives off the associated books and resources being nice enough that people want to buy them, despite the content being available legally, for free, on demand.
That means switching is going to be trivial for anyone who's upset, and spoiler alert, the only reason I've played 5E since PF2e came out is because other players were reluctant to try something new.
WotC just removed that obstacle for a whole lot of people.
The current PF, based on OGL 1.0a, exists. The new one they're promising to make along with their new license doesn't (yet.)
There will definitely be an uptick in PF2 players because of this, but at the end of the day it's still PF2. Nothing wrong with that, but some people just don't like it (myself included.)
I don't get the ramifications of this, other than people with broken hearts because a company wants to make money.
Doesn't OGL affects companies or third party companies making stuff for players...I mean I can see why those folks would be upset but why players are so invested in hating that change?
(Not even being devil's advocate or anything, just asking)
There’s several things wrong, and although most of them are pretty bad on their own, it’s the totality of it that gets really egregious and speaks to an upper management that isn’t just “a company that wants to make money” but fundamentally not understanding the community.
One of the biggest ones is we have them attempting the legally dubious move of “de-authorizing” the OGL 1.0a which they have said for over 20 years that they could not do. (Even stating so in their own FAQ on it. Keep that in mind for a minute.) This has completely upended the majority of the industry and, no exaggeration, jeopardized the livelihoods of hundreds of people - all with originally only a week to react and decide what to do.
Then they wanted to push everyone to a new license that is SO bad and so massively one-sided that many, justifiably, believe it’s less about getting people to agree to it than it is to get people to negotiate custom licenses individually. There are many, many really bad terms in the new license that it’s hard to even list them all. Royalty rates 10x higher than might be standard for what’s being granted. Rights irrevocably to reuse all of your content without payment. Waiving the right to ever sue WotC. Agreeing to never disparage WotC. Financial reports of all your sales to WotC.
Worst of all is they can change the terms at any time to anything with only a 30 day notice.
However, they assure in comments and an apparent FAQ that they won’t abuse these terms and it’s not a big deal. But remember how much regard they give to FAQs? None. They have shown with their own behavior that no matter how clear their official explanation is, it can’t be trusted if it’s not clear in the legal text itself.
Top it off with nearly all of the creative team having started their careers at OGL publishers, there’s a strong element of “pulling the ladder up behind them” at play. Of course, it’s likely this all comes from execs who have been hired from Microsoft and other areas outside the RPG industry.
Oh, and almost forgot - they are also cutting off several VTTs and even ones with current licensing deals now have to worry how long WotC will honor that with their own VTT in development.
AND spend all this time saying nothing while publishers are having to reevaluate their entire business. Uncertainty just growing and growing, and it’s a complete mess.(And this isn’t even getting into their lies to try justifying it with talk of NFTs, or how the very person they had announce OneD&D is even telling them how bad it is and the most they can say “Be patient.”?)
In the span of a week, it has upended the entire industry and undermined trust they had built for years. Of course that is going to bleed over to the players who like many of these 3pp. No one 3pp is nearly the size of WotC, but many, many players like at least one 3pp as well as use one of the VTTs that might need to stop supporting 5e with only a week notice…
I don't get the ramifications of this, other than people with broken hearts because a company wants to make money.
Doesn't OGL affects companies or third party companies making stuff for players...I mean I can see why those folks would be upset but why players are so invested in hating that change?
(Not even being devil's advocate or anything, just asking)
There’s several things wrong, and although most of them are pretty bad on their own, it’s the totality of it that gets really egregious and speaks to an upper management that isn’t just “a company that wants to make money” but fundamentally not understanding the community.
One of the biggest ones is we have them attempting the legally dubious move of “de-authorizing” the OGL 1.0a which they have said for over 20 years that they could not do. (Even stating so in their own FAQ on it. Keep that in mind for a minute.) This has completely upended the majority of the industry and, no exaggeration, jeopardized the livelihoods of hundreds of people - all with originally only a week to react and decide what to do.
Then they wanted to push everyone to a new license that is SO bad and so massively one-sided that many, justifiably, believe it’s less about getting people to agree to it than it is to get people to negotiate custom licenses individually. There are many, many really bad terms in the new license that it’s hard to even list them all. Royalty rates 10x higher than might be standard for what’s being granted. Rights irrevocably to reuse all of your content without payment. Waiving the right to ever sue WotC. Agreeing to never disparage WotC. Financial reports of all your sales to WotC.
Worst of all is they can change the terms at any time to anything with only a 30 day notice.
However, they assure in comments and an apparent FAQ that they won’t abuse these terms and it’s not a big deal. But remember how much regard they give to FAQs? None. They have shown with their own behavior that no matter how clear their official explanation is, it can’t be trusted if it’s not clear in the legal text itself.
Top it off with nearly all of the creative team having started their careers at OGL publishers, there’s a strong element of “pulling the ladder up behind them” at play. Of course, it’s likely this all comes from execs who have been hired from Microsoft and other areas outside the RPG industry.
Oh, and almost forgot - they are also cutting off several VTTs and even ones with current licensing deals now have to worry how long WotC will honor that with their own VTT in development.
AND spend all this time saying nothing while publishers are having to reevaluate their entire business. Uncertainty just growing and growing, and it’s a complete mess.(And this isn’t even getting into their lies to try justifying it with talk of NFTs, or how the very person they had announce OneD&D is even telling them how bad it is and the most they can say “Be patient.”?)
In the span of a week, it has upended the entire industry and undermined trust they had built for years. Of course that is going to bleed over to the players who like many of these 3pp. No one 3pp is nearly the size of WotC, but many, many players like at least one 3pp as well as use one of the VTTs that might need to stop supporting 5e with only a week notice…
And on and on and on…
thanks, that does clarify a lot of what I wasn't getting.
I'm wondering what's taking so long for WotC to get an answer out. It feels like the more they are waiting, the more other company's are preparing themselves to move away from D&D. My suggestion to them, copy paste v1.0a, add the word irrevocable to make it clear for everyone even though nobody really needs it since it is perpetual, but that is the only way that you'll get out of this mess...
Even if they did that, every 3PP would move forward with making ORC or whatever anyway. That ship has sailed. So they might as well flush 1.0a and replace it with something where they can at least profit.
If they remove the worst parts of 1.1 they will likely salvage some of their base. All of the competition are talking about making their own open TTRPG (with blackjack! and h--kers!) but it will be over a year before they can make and playtest something functional. D&D, with its actual game that exists, has a chance to reclaim some of the disaffected players and content creators if they break the silence.
Pathfinder is an actual game, that exists. Worse - for WotC - its freely available for play, and lives off the associated books and resources being nice enough that people want to buy them, despite the content being available legally, for free, on demand.
That means switching is going to be trivial for anyone who's upset, and spoiler alert, the only reason I've played 5E since PF2e came out is because other players were reluctant to try something new.
WotC just removed that obstacle for a whole lot of people.
The current PF, based on OGL 1.0a, exists. The new one they're promising to make along with their new license doesn't (yet.)
There will definitely be an uptick in PF2 players because of this, but at the end of the day it's still PF2. Nothing wrong with that, but some people just don't like it (myself included.)
Just to clarify, they are not making a new Pathfinder. Future PF2 products will no longer be licensed under the OGL since Paizo believes they have deviated enough from the SRD that they no longer need it (much like the EFF and Cory Doctorow posts have said the OGL is unnecessary). Starfinder might or might not need an update to release itself from the OGL (no word either way on that), but Paizo believes PF2 is already there. So no PF3, just removing the OGL from PF2 and eventually releasing it under ORC.
They should replace the new executives as a sign of good faith as there completely clueless. That and reinstate the 1.0a with an addendum that it can not ever be revoked.
Maybe then they might have a chance of salvaging this debacle.
The current PF, based on OGL 1.0a, exists. The new one they're promising to make along with their new license doesn't (yet.)
There will definitely be an uptick in PF2 players because of this, but at the end of the day it's still PF2. Nothing wrong with that, but some people just don't like it (myself included.)
You may have misunderstood whats happening here. PF2 isn't going away, or being replaced. It isn't contingent on the OGL, it just used it to make life easier on third parties - it uses literally no content that isn't Paizo's IP. They're just switching the license from 1.0a, to no license, and then to ORC once it launches.
ORC is system agnostic, however, and other publishers are talking about new systems which will likely be published under it.
The key is, if people want an alternative to DnD right now, it exists. It costs no money to start, and they can access the rules from anywhere via the web. It is trivial for folks to walk away from DnD, if they're motivated to do it.
Just to clarify, they are not making a new Pathfinder. Future PF2 products will no longer be licensed under the OGL since Paizo believes they have deviated enough from the SRD that they no longer need it (much like the EFF and Cory Doctorow posts have said the OGL is unnecessary). Starfinder might or might not need an update to release itself from the OGL (no word either way on that), but Paizo believes PF2 is already there. So no PF3, just removing the OGL from PF2 and eventually releasing it under ORC.
Point. Well, we'll see if they're right about that, but either way, I'm not that interested in PF2.
Maybe I can get my Starfinder game going once it's under ORC though...
They should replace the new executives as a sign of good faith as there completely clueless. That and reinstate the 1.0a with an addendum that it can not ever be revoked.
Maybe then they might have a chance of salvaging this debacle.
Making 1.0a irrevocable is not going to stop ORC from being made at this point, so they might as well go ahead and revoke it honestly.
I don't get the ramifications of this, other than people with broken hearts because a company wants to make money.
Doesn't OGL affects companies or third party companies making stuff for players...I mean I can see why those folks would be upset but why players are so invested in hating that change?
(Not even being devil's advocate or anything, just asking)
It's anti-consumerist to go back on promises, especially ones in writing, that were designed to provide a safe, creative space for your product's audience, especially when that product relies on creativity and freedom to sustain itself. The only thing that trickles down in "trickle down economics" is excrement, and the harm done to the third-party and homebrew sections of the community will be felt by the rest when WotC can afford to charge more for less content, after they effectively shut down any competitor. The idea that because the move is designed to increase profit, it is somehow justified by a profit driven company is a lesson wrongfully taught to everyone from a young age. They don't "want to make money". They already make money, more money than any one of us will see in our lifetimes. They want to make ALL of the money, a concept that is poison to any economy in the long term, especially when the laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging get loosened and undone by politicians in the pockets of those wannabe monopolists. We've become largely numb to the idea of customer exploitation, to the point where some people will stand up in favour of it, as "just the way things are", but it isn't. Respect yours and others' consumer rights, fight back when they are being threatened, because they will (and have) be taken from you.
They should replace the new executives as a sign of good faith as there completely clueless. That and reinstate the 1.0a with an addendum that it can not ever be revoked.
Maybe then they might have a chance of salvaging this debacle.
Well they could beg Ryan Dancey to take over D&D with Carte Blanche ...
The problem is that it's hard to tell who is at fault without more knowledge behind the curtains..., my guess its the shareholder that pushed it down the D&D department's throat.... shareholders who had no knowledge of D&D (thanks Ryan Dancey for your interview) and just got greedy. The one thing they didn't understood is the D&D community stands against bullying and that's exactly what they ended doing...
For my part, i bought all the D&D books online and physical last cyber monday with a 1 year paid subscription as D&DBeyond was easy to use for players and we all enjoy the fantasy word of D&D...... but it is not impossible to switch eventually to something else as I already have 2 complete collection of 2 other big RPG. Stop buying the books of course and eventually cancel my subscription. On the other hand, it is going to hurt the 3rd party as there are enormous amount of contents that people worked on for D&D... so unless D&D does something big to buy back the community's trust... and i don't know what it could be....it feels like the 3rd party may end up as collateral damage....possibly having to spend time to re-publish for another open-source RPG....if D&D lose a big portion of their community...it still has to be seen how big the damage will be...
They should replace the new executives as a sign of good faith as there completely clueless. That and reinstate the 1.0a with an addendum that it can not ever be revoked.
Maybe then they might have a chance of salvaging this debacle.
The one thing they didn't understood is the D&D community stands against bullying and that's exactly what they ended doing...
They picked a fight with generations of nerds that had enough being picked on and now have power to fight back lol. Revenge of the nerds ttrpg version
Well now, that's made decisions a helluva lot easier, hasn't it?
Congratulations, WoTC/Hasbro....you took a community that was eager to buy just about everything you published and was consistently clamoring for more, and made a huge population of them decide that you didn't appreciate them nearly as much as they appreciated you. I'd purchased physical copies of just about everything, and then DID purchase electronic copies of all the rulebooks so that my players had access to it all during our game sessions....conservatively $750 - $1000 over the last 3 years. The players in this campaign alone have undoubtedly spent money of their own. DnDBeyond was such an integral part of our character management and gameplay that I would've likely kept it until such time as we stopped playing entirely. Well, you just accelerated that process. The word will be going to the players tonight, even as my wife drives into town to pick up about $150 worth of Pathfinder books: get ready folks, we'll be shifting systems.
You've made your own grave-shaped bed, WoTC/Hasbro.....I hope you enjoy lying in it!
Since a lot of people are now looking at Pathfinder, may I interest you in a free web-based character builder that uses the OGL 1.0a (and probably the ORC when Paizo releases it) to provide players with a easy way to build and save as many characters as they want?
Oh, that's right, I almost forgot the official Pathfinder Nexus site, where all the information from all the Pathfinder books is available to look up, using the OGL 1.0a (and moving to the ORC when available).
This may be tangential to the whole OGL discussion:
If WotC is concerned with the monetization of their IP, I don't understand why they think the OGL is the way to go. I have 2 words for how to make money successfully off an IP: GEORGE LUCAS.
Around Christmas time 2022, I tried to find some drinking glasses with D&D logos, monsters, etc on them. I searched the internet- Amazon, Etsy, Ebay. All I found was one with the "&" logo, and one set with "crit" & "fail" logos. The point is this: where are the lunchboxes? The bedsheets? The action figures? The SUCCESSFUL movie and TV franchises? Seems to me like there is ample opportunity for WotC to monetize this IP. But they have to actually invest some of their own capital into it first.
Maybe this new movie will be good, I don't know. Seeing as how it's up against John Wick 4, I'm not overly optimistic about its box office. But, I mean, JEEZ! C'MON WotC/Hasbro. You have a friggin GOLD MINE IP. They could have the next GoT show (or on the other hand, the next Rings of Power...). They could have another children's cartoon ala the 80s version. Then they could market plush toys, action figures, etc.
There are TONS of opportunities out there for monetization & profitability, beyond an exploitative VTT and OGL. But they all involve Hasbro/WotC risking their own money and producing entertainment and merchandise that are good and that people want.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts I've had on the matter. As far as the leaked version of the OGL, I think it's really stupid. It's too far. It has already begun to drive away the most vocal & loyal fans of D&D. If they want to know what their biggest obstacle to profits is, I'd recommend they buy a Mirror of Self Reflection +1.
This may be tangential to the whole OGL discussion:
If WotC is concerned with the monetization of their IP, I don't understand why they think the OGL is the way to go. I have 2 words for how to make money successfully off an IP: GEORGE LUCAS.
Around Christmas time 2022, I tried to find some drinking glasses with D&D logos, monsters, etc on them. I searched the internet- Amazon, Etsy, Ebay. All I found was one with the "&" logo, and one set with "crit" & "fail" logos. The point is this: where are the lunchboxes? The bedsheets? The action figures? The SUCCESSFUL movie and TV franchises? Seems to me like there is ample opportunity for WotC to monetize this IP. But they have to actually invest some of their own capital into it first.
Maybe this new movie will be good, I don't know. Seeing as how it's up against John Wick 4, I'm not overly optimistic about its box office. But, I mean, JEEZ! C'MON WotC/Hasbro. You have a friggin GOLD MINE IP. They could have the next GoT show (or on the other hand, the next Rings of Power...). They could have another children's cartoon ala the 80s version. Then they could market plush toys, action figures, etc.
There are TONS of opportunities out there for monetization & profitability, beyond an exploitative VTT and OGL. But they all involve Hasbro/WotC risking their own money and producing entertainment and merchandise that are good and that people want.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts I've had on the matter. As far as the leaked version of the OGL, I think it's really stupid. It's too far. It has already begun to drive away the most vocal & loyal fans of D&D. If they want to know what their biggest obstacle to profits is, I'd recommend they buy a Mirror of Self Reflection +1.
I am just going to spoon feed them something real easy that could have made them millions. They could have made a deal with 3rd party developers that they could sell their published works on DnD Beyond adding it to DnD beyond character sheets for 25% of the sales made on DnD beyond. It would have expanded their VTT and digital character sheet service, increased their profits AND made it where third party publishers had another means of distribution to increase the profits of third party publishers as well. It would change nothing about the OGL, but Wizards would get to monetize extra books and third party publishers would have had another means of distribution available to them. It would have been a win for ALL parties. Which was the point of the OGL.
The current PF, based on OGL 1.0a, exists. The new one they're promising to make along with their new license doesn't (yet.)
There will definitely be an uptick in PF2 players because of this, but at the end of the day it's still PF2. Nothing wrong with that, but some people just don't like it (myself included.)
You may have misunderstood whats happening here. PF2 isn't going away, or being replaced. It isn't contingent on the OGL, it just used it to make life easier on third parties - it uses literally no content that isn't Paizo's IP. They're just switching the license from 1.0a, to no license, and then to ORC once it launches.
ORC is system agnostic, however, and other publishers are talking about new systems which will likely be published under it.
The key is, if people want an alternative to DnD right now, it exists. It costs no money to start, and they can access the rules from anywhere via the web. It is trivial for folks to walk away from DnD, if they're motivated to do it.
I'm well aware of what is happening, and that Paizo believes PF2 doesn't use any of the 1.0a license they included in that book. They might even be totally right to think that. I just don't care; I tried PF2 and I have little to no interest in it, and I will continue to not do so even (especially) if they're able to port it over to ORC completely unchanged.
PF2 has some good ideas, don't get me wrong, but on the whole 5e is a superior system.
But thanks to PF2's promise of being open content "forever", even if I sustain enough cranial trauma to somehow want to give it another try, I'll be able to do so without paying a dime. If you can't see why that isn't a desirable business model for D&D, I'm not sure what to tell you.
To all those proudly displaying their love of licking the corporate boot heel, try to remember that just because they are rich doesn't mean the muck they step in is any cleaner or tastier.
If you plan on sticking with D&D during this exodus, please remember that the company will have neither the desire or the motivation to reward you for your loyalty. The "desirable business model" will, in fact, be to nickel and dime the loyalists even more, since they've already proven that they will defend and support their own exploitation.
To all those proudly displaying their love of licking the corporate boot heel, try to remember that just because they are rich doesn't mean the muck they step in is any cleaner or tastier.
If you plan on sticking with D&D during this exodus, please remember that the company will have neither the desire or the motivation to reward you for your loyalty. The "desirable business model" will, in fact, be to nickel and dime the loyalists even more, since they've already proven that they will defend and support their own exploitation.
Since you quoted the phrase I used, I assume you mean me.
I'm not "sticking" anywhere; I won't be buying any more products until we hear from them officially. Maybe being gainfully employed means I don't hold as much attachment to my $6 subscription as some (you should try it), so I'm willing to see what WotC's response to all this is before making a change to my account. But even if I cancel DDB tomorrow, it won't change my opinion of Pathfinder; I'll play it if enough of my IRL friends do, but I'm certainly not about to try convincing them to switch to what I see as an inferior game. I'll just take a break from tabletop entirely until this whole thing calms down. Plenty of other leisure activities out there.
To all those proudly displaying their love of licking the corporate boot heel, try to remember that just because they are rich doesn't mean the muck they step in is any cleaner or tastier.
If you plan on sticking with D&D during this exodus, please remember that the company will have neither the desire or the motivation to reward you for your loyalty. The "desirable business model" will, in fact, be to nickel and dime the loyalists even more, since they've already proven that they will defend and support their own exploitation.
Since you quoted the phrase I used, I assume you mean me.
I'm not "sticking" anywhere; I won't be buying any more products until we hear from them officially. Maybe being gainfully employed means I don't hold as much attachment to my $6 subscription as some (you should try it), so I'm willing to see what WotC's response to all this is before making a change to my account. But even if I cancel DDB tomorrow, it won't change my opinion of Pathfinder; I'll play it if enough of my IRL friends do, but I'm certainly not about to try convincing them to switch to what I see as an inferior game. I'll just take a break from tabletop entirely until this whole thing calms down. Plenty of other leisure activities out there.
Sorry for the confusion, I quoted you directly because it a good example of the kind of attitude that can backfire, even on those gainfully employed, such as yourself.
I'm sorry I unwittingly encouraged you to assume I was calling you out specifically, I honestly wasn't.
However, i do wish to offer my congratulations on the aforementioned gainful employment. I can see that such status means a great deal to you, as it would be an otherwise unusual include in a forum regarding anti-consumer practices, a topic with consequences that reach wide amongst many income classes, and becomes no more or less impactful based on the income of any one customer. I genuinely believe that achievements should be valued based on the value perceived by the "achievee", and so please accept my humble congratulations again. You should indeed be proud, not everyone is capable and/or willing to do what you are doing, or receive the associated rewards. Great job, my friend!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There’s several things wrong, and although most of them are pretty bad on their own, it’s the totality of it that gets really egregious and speaks to an upper management that isn’t just “a company that wants to make money” but fundamentally not understanding the community.
One of the biggest ones is we have them attempting the legally dubious move of “de-authorizing” the OGL 1.0a which they have said for over 20 years that they could not do. (Even stating so in their own FAQ on it. Keep that in mind for a minute.) This has completely upended the majority of the industry and, no exaggeration, jeopardized the livelihoods of hundreds of people - all with originally only a week to react and decide what to do.
Then they wanted to push everyone to a new license that is SO bad and so massively one-sided that many, justifiably, believe it’s less about getting people to agree to it than it is to get people to negotiate custom licenses individually. There are many, many really bad terms in the new license that it’s hard to even list them all. Royalty rates 10x higher than might be standard for what’s being granted. Rights irrevocably to reuse all of your content without payment. Waiving the right to ever sue WotC. Agreeing to never disparage WotC. Financial reports of all your sales to WotC.
Worst of all is they can change the terms at any time to anything with only a 30 day notice.
However, they assure in comments and an apparent FAQ that they won’t abuse these terms and it’s not a big deal. But remember how much regard they give to FAQs? None. They have shown with their own behavior that no matter how clear their official explanation is, it can’t be trusted if it’s not clear in the legal text itself.
Top it off with nearly all of the creative team having started their careers at OGL publishers, there’s a strong element of “pulling the ladder up behind them” at play. Of course, it’s likely this all comes from execs who have been hired from Microsoft and other areas outside the RPG industry.
Oh, and almost forgot - they are also cutting off several VTTs and even ones with current licensing deals now have to worry how long WotC will honor that with their own VTT in development.
AND spend all this time saying nothing while publishers are having to reevaluate their entire business. Uncertainty just growing and growing, and it’s a complete mess.(And this isn’t even getting into their lies to try justifying it with talk of NFTs, or how the very person they had announce OneD&D is even telling them how bad it is and the most they can say “Be patient.”?)
In the span of a week, it has upended the entire industry and undermined trust they had built for years. Of course that is going to bleed over to the players who like many of these 3pp. No one 3pp is nearly the size of WotC, but many, many players like at least one 3pp as well as use one of the VTTs that might need to stop supporting 5e with only a week notice…
And on and on and on…
Pathfinder is an actual game, that exists. Worse - for WotC - its freely available for play, and lives off the associated books and resources being nice enough that people want to buy them, despite the content being available legally, for free, on demand.
That means switching is going to be trivial for anyone who's upset, and spoiler alert, the only reason I've played 5E since PF2e came out is because other players were reluctant to try something new.
WotC just removed that obstacle for a whole lot of people.
The current PF, based on OGL 1.0a, exists. The new one they're promising to make along with their new license doesn't (yet.)
There will definitely be an uptick in PF2 players because of this, but at the end of the day it's still PF2. Nothing wrong with that, but some people just don't like it (myself included.)
edit: Sorry apparently forgot how to use this.
thanks, that does clarify a lot of what I wasn't getting.
Just to clarify, they are not making a new Pathfinder. Future PF2 products will no longer be licensed under the OGL since Paizo believes they have deviated enough from the SRD that they no longer need it (much like the EFF and Cory Doctorow posts have said the OGL is unnecessary). Starfinder might or might not need an update to release itself from the OGL (no word either way on that), but Paizo believes PF2 is already there. So no PF3, just removing the OGL from PF2 and eventually releasing it under ORC.
They should replace the new executives as a sign of good faith as there completely clueless. That and reinstate the 1.0a with an addendum that it can not ever be revoked.
Maybe then they might have a chance of salvaging this debacle.
You may have misunderstood whats happening here. PF2 isn't going away, or being replaced. It isn't contingent on the OGL, it just used it to make life easier on third parties - it uses literally no content that isn't Paizo's IP. They're just switching the license from 1.0a, to no license, and then to ORC once it launches.
ORC is system agnostic, however, and other publishers are talking about new systems which will likely be published under it.
The key is, if people want an alternative to DnD right now, it exists. It costs no money to start, and they can access the rules from anywhere via the web. It is trivial for folks to walk away from DnD, if they're motivated to do it.
Point. Well, we'll see if they're right about that, but either way, I'm not that interested in PF2.
Maybe I can get my Starfinder game going once it's under ORC though...
Making 1.0a irrevocable is not going to stop ORC from being made at this point, so they might as well go ahead and revoke it honestly.
^This is not hyperbole. They will do this, if they can.
It's anti-consumerist to go back on promises, especially ones in writing, that were designed to provide a safe, creative space for your product's audience, especially when that product relies on creativity and freedom to sustain itself. The only thing that trickles down in "trickle down economics" is excrement, and the harm done to the third-party and homebrew sections of the community will be felt by the rest when WotC can afford to charge more for less content, after they effectively shut down any competitor. The idea that because the move is designed to increase profit, it is somehow justified by a profit driven company is a lesson wrongfully taught to everyone from a young age. They don't "want to make money". They already make money, more money than any one of us will see in our lifetimes. They want to make ALL of the money, a concept that is poison to any economy in the long term, especially when the laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging get loosened and undone by politicians in the pockets of those wannabe monopolists. We've become largely numb to the idea of customer exploitation, to the point where some people will stand up in favour of it, as "just the way things are", but it isn't. Respect yours and others' consumer rights, fight back when they are being threatened, because they will (and have) be taken from you.
Well they could beg Ryan Dancey to take over D&D with Carte Blanche ...
The problem is that it's hard to tell who is at fault without more knowledge behind the curtains..., my guess its the shareholder that pushed it down the D&D department's throat.... shareholders who had no knowledge of D&D (thanks Ryan Dancey for your interview) and just got greedy. The one thing they didn't understood is the D&D community stands against bullying and that's exactly what they ended doing...
For my part, i bought all the D&D books online and physical last cyber monday with a 1 year paid subscription as D&DBeyond was easy to use for players and we all enjoy the fantasy word of D&D...... but it is not impossible to switch eventually to something else as I already have 2 complete collection of 2 other big RPG. Stop buying the books of course and eventually cancel my subscription. On the other hand, it is going to hurt the 3rd party as there are enormous amount of contents that people worked on for D&D... so unless D&D does something big to buy back the community's trust... and i don't know what it could be....it feels like the 3rd party may end up as collateral damage....possibly having to spend time to re-publish for another open-source RPG....if D&D lose a big portion of their community...it still has to be seen how big the damage will be...
They picked a fight with generations of nerds that had enough being picked on and now have power to fight back lol. Revenge of the nerds ttrpg version
Bless your cotton socks, my friend!
This may be tangential to the whole OGL discussion:
If WotC is concerned with the monetization of their IP, I don't understand why they think the OGL is the way to go. I have 2 words for how to make money successfully off an IP: GEORGE LUCAS.
Around Christmas time 2022, I tried to find some drinking glasses with D&D logos, monsters, etc on them. I searched the internet- Amazon, Etsy, Ebay. All I found was one with the "&" logo, and one set with "crit" & "fail" logos. The point is this: where are the lunchboxes? The bedsheets? The action figures? The SUCCESSFUL movie and TV franchises? Seems to me like there is ample opportunity for WotC to monetize this IP. But they have to actually invest some of their own capital into it first.
Maybe this new movie will be good, I don't know. Seeing as how it's up against John Wick 4, I'm not overly optimistic about its box office. But, I mean, JEEZ! C'MON WotC/Hasbro. You have a friggin GOLD MINE IP. They could have the next GoT show (or on the other hand, the next Rings of Power...). They could have another children's cartoon ala the 80s version. Then they could market plush toys, action figures, etc.
There are TONS of opportunities out there for monetization & profitability, beyond an exploitative VTT and OGL. But they all involve Hasbro/WotC risking their own money and producing entertainment and merchandise that are good and that people want.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts I've had on the matter. As far as the leaked version of the OGL, I think it's really stupid. It's too far. It has already begun to drive away the most vocal & loyal fans of D&D. If they want to know what their biggest obstacle to profits is, I'd recommend they buy a Mirror of Self Reflection +1.
I am just going to spoon feed them something real easy that could have made them millions. They could have made a deal with 3rd party developers that they could sell their published works on DnD Beyond adding it to DnD beyond character sheets for 25% of the sales made on DnD beyond. It would have expanded their VTT and digital character sheet service, increased their profits AND made it where third party publishers had another means of distribution to increase the profits of third party publishers as well. It would change nothing about the OGL, but Wizards would get to monetize extra books and third party publishers would have had another means of distribution available to them. It would have been a win for ALL parties. Which was the point of the OGL.
I'm well aware of what is happening, and that Paizo believes PF2 doesn't use any of the 1.0a license they included in that book. They might even be totally right to think that. I just don't care; I tried PF2 and I have little to no interest in it, and I will continue to not do so even (especially) if they're able to port it over to ORC completely unchanged.
PF2 has some good ideas, don't get me wrong, but on the whole 5e is a superior system.
But thanks to PF2's promise of being open content "forever", even if I sustain enough cranial trauma to somehow want to give it another try, I'll be able to do so without paying a dime. If you can't see why that isn't a desirable business model for D&D, I'm not sure what to tell you.
To all those proudly displaying their love of licking the corporate boot heel, try to remember that just because they are rich doesn't mean the muck they step in is any cleaner or tastier.
If you plan on sticking with D&D during this exodus, please remember that the company will have neither the desire or the motivation to reward you for your loyalty. The "desirable business model" will, in fact, be to nickel and dime the loyalists even more, since they've already proven that they will defend and support their own exploitation.
Since you quoted the phrase I used, I assume you mean me.
I'm not "sticking" anywhere; I won't be buying any more products until we hear from them officially. Maybe being gainfully employed means I don't hold as much attachment to my $6 subscription as some (you should try it), so I'm willing to see what WotC's response to all this is before making a change to my account. But even if I cancel DDB tomorrow, it won't change my opinion of Pathfinder; I'll play it if enough of my IRL friends do, but I'm certainly not about to try convincing them to switch to what I see as an inferior game. I'll just take a break from tabletop entirely until this whole thing calms down. Plenty of other leisure activities out there.
Sorry for the confusion, I quoted you directly because it a good example of the kind of attitude that can backfire, even on those gainfully employed, such as yourself.
I'm sorry I unwittingly encouraged you to assume I was calling you out specifically, I honestly wasn't.
However, i do wish to offer my congratulations on the aforementioned gainful employment. I can see that such status means a great deal to you, as it would be an otherwise unusual include in a forum regarding anti-consumer practices, a topic with consequences that reach wide amongst many income classes, and becomes no more or less impactful based on the income of any one customer. I genuinely believe that achievements should be valued based on the value perceived by the "achievee", and so please accept my humble congratulations again. You should indeed be proud, not everyone is capable and/or willing to do what you are doing, or receive the associated rewards. Great job, my friend!