Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
The problem is still here, with their stated goals: "...in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs". (emphasis mine)
Inclusivity alone wouldn't be nearly enough to make this happen; they don't want competition. They don't want Pathfinder 2e (or another TTRPG) to gain any market share this time around. I believe that's the main reason they started this mess in the first place, and I guarantee the supposedly open conversation won't go anywhere near this subject.
They may have learned a lesson about the benefits other content creators are bringing them, and that's great. They're still going to try to monopolize the space, because Corporate minds really don't think about the long term.
The update's still too little, too late. Leave the license alone - better yet, make it even stronger to prevent misguided decisions in the future.
Hopefully it's not just a "We're sorry you were offended" but is also followed up with sincerity :-)
LOL that get's me every time!
Something to keep in mind about this survey: It's individual feedback. This is a classic tactic to try and exploit the differences of people's opinions and understanding of the situation.
If a anti-consumer tactic is something that a majority of people don't include in the feedback- either because: They don't care about that specific thing/ agree with Wizards about that specific thing; They don't understant the importance of that specific topic, and don't realise the impact it would have; Aren't specifically asked about it in the feedback, and don't think to highlight it in additional feedback boxes - They're going to implement that tactic, on the basis that "only a few people complained about it" or "opinions were mixed, so we went with our judgement".
I hate to go all Union on everyone, but our best move is to gather, lay out, and promote access to a single source that both documents and explains all of the anti-consumer decisions WotC were trying to make, which everyone can reference when they fill out the feedback.
As I mentioned, I know some people will not agree with everything, and think "I'm not going to negatively review this because I think WotC are in the right to do it". I implore those of you with such ideals that, while they are as valid as anyone's ideals, this is not a ideological situation. This is a conflict of business between a service/product provider and their customers. The right move, as customers, is to fight for the best deal, e.i. the most value at the lowest cost. It's not a question of greed or underhandedness, it is a question of survival, as the provider is, unquestionably, trying to sell you the least value at the highest cost. You cannot give a business, especially a Billion Dollar Corporation, an inch in the spirit of being "fair" or "generous" in regards to your own ideals, because in the eyes of Hasbro, what is "unfair" is that you haven't given them all your money yet, and what is "generous" is that you get anything from them at all for your money. Protect yourself, which protects other consumers.
If you really believe that, say, WotC NEEDS to charge royalties from 3rd Party companies, then they would simply do it. If they need to, they couldn't afford not to, no matter what feedback they get. However, if they don't need to, and are just being greedy, then they'll back off if effectively challenged. When money gets put in the pockets of those at the top, it is ALWAYS those at the bottom who end up paying for it, and I mean that in terms of business transactions, not just in wealth distribution. If Hasbro demand royalties, the 3rd party companies will put up their prices to offset the cost. If they do that, Hasbro will feel justified in putting up their own costs, to match the market: We pay more for the same content. If you don't care because you can afford it, well that's fantastic that you can afford it, I imagine your games are great with access to more books and accessories, I'm pleasantly jealous! But you should still care, because... Think of it like this: Just because you have a 150 HP, doesn't mean the bandit didn't stab you for 4 damage. Sure, it's nothing to you, but it's the principle, right? It's the insult.
I dunno, I'm tired, and I think I might have lost the thread of this comment at some point. I just honestly believe that if this community continues to pull together as a positive force (something I would never have guessed would happen, after years of seeing similar things getting forgotten about by divided audiences in other industries) that we can prevent this hobby, which is honestly my favourite, from becoming something that no longer provides the amazing experiences I, and I'm sure many of us, deeply treasure.
Just something I think we should all stop an consider. WotC's management like most corporate leaders are narcissists and you need to understand clearly what an apology is and is not in the eyes of a narcissist: (I have modified the text from psychcentral.com).
"When truth presents itself, the wise person see the light, takes it in, and makes adjustments. The fool tries to adjust the truth so he does not have to adjust to it." ~ Henry Cloud #ORC #OpenDND
Kyle, please Sir... stop the lies...
Peace be with you friend.
None of which is terribly relevant, because we have clear benchmarks for whether behavior has improved: the released document. If it's just as bad as before, they're gaslighting us; if it's improved, they might be engaged in good faith negotiation. The whole point of enforceable contracts is to make it less important whether the person you're negotiating with is actually honest and trustworthy.
I wonder if they pay as little attention to this forum as they do their surveys--which includes the new survey they'll "use to gather community feedback on the new OGL changes:"
It's enough that I'm already regretting purchasing so many books in the DNDBeyond marketplace. I'm not a particularly price-sensitive consumer; I have a decent income, and games are really the only hobby I spend money on, so I spend a fair amount of money on them. I've spent $330 on marketplace items, in addition to the subscription cost, and that's mainly just to share them with my players. So in effect, my average monthly expenditure on DNDBeyond has already been closer to $30 than to $5.99. And honestly, I can even imagine paying a $30/mo subscription fee for a more feature-rich game manager—i.e., one that includes a full suite of campaign management tools and a VTT. However, even I don't like the idea of paying $30/mo for a glorified character sheet manager. And I really don't like the idea that I'll have to decide between paying five times what I currently pay in subscription fees or losing the ability to share the library I've already spent hundreds of dollars on.
That feels extortionate—and, like many consumers, I'm willing to make some mathematically irrational choices when I feel badly treated. E.g., I once payed a termination fee to get out of a contract with a phone company after they deceptively increased charges on a 'bundle' plan, even though the cost of the termination fee plus the cost of new service with a different company was more expensive than waiting until the plan with the existing company expired to switch. I was willing to pay more overall in order to pay less to the company that I was mad at. And right now, I'm pricing out the prospect of switching to a new toolset and possibly a new system. I don't like the idea of having to start my collection over with a new vendor, but it's getting more appealing all the time.
Note they still seem adamant that there will be NO NEW CONTENT released under OGL 1.0a.
As soon as they publish that, I hope thousands, like me, produce and publish content under OGL 1.0a because OGL 1.0a is FORVER!
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
FYI, DnD_Shorts retracted that earlier tweet. He was wrong, they do read the surveys.
I don't believe it for a second.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
So you believed him when he tweeted it, but not when he deleted the tweet and apologized? How... consistent.
Posted it elsewhere but this is the place it belongs...
Well, I am pretty sure they are misdirecting on number 2. Nobody is working on AI DMs.
I suspect they have subbed it out but you can look at an earlier post of mine why I think they are. In addition, they chose the Unreal engine for the VTT for a reason. It’s expensive for a commercial company to use it but has one nice feature most folks do not know about… Here is the link. https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.1/en-US/behavior-trees-in-unreal-engine/
Here are the first two sentences…Behavior Trees assets in Unreal Engine 5 (Unreal Engine) can be used to create artificial intelligence (AI) for non-player characters in your projects. While the Behavior Tree asset is used to execute branches containing logic, to determine which branches should be executed, the Behavior Tree relies on another asset called a Blackboard which serves as the "brain" for a Behavior Tree.
There is more but you get the point. If Congress had asked the military if any military soldiers were working on the stuff I mentioned in my earlier post they could have truthfully said NO because it had been contracted out to a civilian company with no soldiers it…
That’s how Hasbro puts out statements…
Fixed a spot where I put in yes instead of NO
Fixed be to been
There's no way they've got an AI program advanced enough to run a D&D session or campaign. If they had programming that advanced, they'd be farming it out to the government and other businesses for millions, not using it for a hobby game.
I believe everyone has their own idea of what they think an AI would do. There is everyone's different expectations and there is what is possible that HASBRO is shooting for and what they will wind up with.
I do not believe any computer will ever achieve what a human DM can do.
That being said, the people giving the orders (Hasbro senior management), in my opinion, have never played D&D, have certainly never been a DM and likely think it must be similar to Monopoly since people sit around a table most of the time in both. I suspect they have no idea what a VTT is supposed to do either. I would bet they think it's just another video conference meeting.
I am serious. Listen or watch some of the recorded board and shareholder meetings for Hasbro. Never underestimate the stupidity of someone who has been in power unchallenged and does not know the area they are making decisions on without listening to advice. This is Hasbro. Look up what happened to MTG and their Marvell and GI Joe decisions.
I think WOTC is shooting for something like Baldur's Gate 3 when it is in Turn Mode, but thinking they can run it out of a web browser like they do their Character sheet on their new VTT.
I think they will fail.
That does not stop them from trying and that's what I think this whole mess is about. People at the top, not understanding the conquences of what they are ordering WOTC to do, to make sure theirs has no rivals when their VTT came out.
edit computer, not company
Dear Hasbro,
First, no, I won't address these posts to Kyle. He's merely going to be the *scapegoat* I warned about in my previous post. Yeah, he may be an exec for WotC, and he may have indeed loved the game prior to joining your company. Hell, he may still love the game and play, I don't know, I don't know a damn thing about him. However, I do know when a goat is being staked to the ground and I, for one, will continue to go after the hunter, not the goat.
Secondly, not an f'ing DRAFT! You keep saying this, and we all know better at this point. Own it! It is what it is, and at this point continuing to try to downplay what you brought on is only making things worse.
I will say this, though, thanks for at least apologizing, kind of, it's a start; not a good one and not nearly good enough, but a start all the same.
To my fellow community members,
I'm an old gamer. I use that term deliberately as that was the term that the video game community (which I am one as well) borrowed from us ttrpg'ers. When we met our fellow nerds, we'd simply ask, "Do you game," and we would know what anyone in the community meant by that. So, I'm an old gamer, I've also been an executive, and let me advise you of a couple of things up front that I will guarantee will happen moving forward:
First, Hasbro WILL change the OGL. If they claim so it's more inclusive, to prevent hate, etc., laugh in their faces. They can do that with minor changes to 1.0(a),
And secondly, as for the surveys that they put out, I will be crystal clear on this. These surveys will be put to us by a company that admittedly views us as an obstacle to their profits. They are not, nor will they ever be, out ally. They don't understand what D&D is. They don't understand that they don't actually own D&D. Oh, they can point to this document or that document and say that they do own it, but let me ask you this to prove my point, how many people played a module put out by TSR or WotC exactly as written? How many people follow only the rules as written? I would bet that it's a very, very small number of us. So, how can they own YOUR game when they didn't write or publish the game you actually play? Sure, they own the name, legally, they own a handful of monsters, items, etc. that a lot of us use for our game, but they have never once, nor can they ever own YOUR game, don't let them try.
I got off topic, but back to my original point about the surveys. NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NULL of the questions will give us, the actual owners of the game, any real power to say what will and won't go into the OGL. They'll throw us a bone here and there about things they don't care about and have no real impact on the new OGL. But, most of the questions they will pose will be presented in a multiple choice format that begins with a question that would be analogous to "Would you rather?" When it's all done and said they will proudly march out, stating here's the new OGL "the community" agreed to. If there is any problems with it, take it up with "the community" as they voted for it and we simply followed their wishes. Oh, you don't think it's the communities fault, oh, well take it up with Kyle, it was his decision, we Hasbro, had nothing to do with it.
And now I will close by addressing Hasbro again,
I will not be returning to D&D Beyond until and unless the requirements that I laid out in a previous message are met. I will not return if there isn't binding language prohibiting the change of 1.0(a) is introduced. You, as is your right, can introduce new OGLs. You can, by all means, attempt (and maybe succeed) in changing previous OGLs. You own the framework of the game, and this is well within your rights to do or attempt to do. However, there is a fatal flaw baked into this whole framework, that the past few weeks have proven to you, or should have: WE CAN AND WILL REJECT IT! Oh, then I can't create and publish for D&D you say? First, yes I can, I just have to avoid stepping on anything that is trademarked by you IF AND ONLY IF I want to share it with the community at large. Second, how many games are there that are D&D in all but name? Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Middle Earth Roleplaying, and that's just three to name off the top of my head and discount the veritable smorgasbord of high fantasy role playing games on the market. Hell, I could easily turn the Talisman board game into an RPG.... oh, wait, that's already been done.
Hasbro, you are unable to succeed in this. How much has your stock fallen already? How many subs have been cancelled? How many of us do you actually think you can win back? You tried to fix something that wasn't broken. You thought you could approach D&D as if it was a video game. You thought this would blow over. You thought we would simply sit down and take it. What you thought was wrong. You are dealing with a community that brought YOU in, not one that you built. We existed and shared our work with each other long before WotC bought TSR. We are (or were) the outcasts of normal society, the nerds and geeks that didn't fit in. We are all highly intelligent and for almost 50 years, we have been parsing the rules of D&D, bending and twisting them to our favor until they screamed in protest. And where we couldn't, we flat out ignored the rules and replaced them with our own. You picked a fight that you will always fail to attain your goals. In truth, it would've been better if the OGL wasn't ever put out, then this whole controversy wouldn't have arisen. But as my mom used to say, you can't unring a bell. But to paraphrase Gandalf from LotR, "YOU SHALL NOT TAKE!" You can't have what you've already given us back. It's ours now, and we are the ones that will continue to fight you every step of the way. If you force it, which is well within your rights, then we will find something else (many of us already have).
Ah yes, the classic "the execs are completely out of touch idiots who don't even bother to check in with reality before they commit do a decision" bit. While I'm sure it's not completely unheard of, I rather doubt it exists on the scale you're trying to present here. Execs have to answer to the board and shareholders; you can't just give a project group, division, company or whatever a vague wishlist, say "make it so", and then just leave it to succeed or run itself into the ground. They have to answer for the decisions they make, and what kind of progress is being made. Even on the off-chance someone managed to get a ridiculous project like this started, it wouldn't take long for someone to call them on the carpet over this and see that it's a tilting at the windmills project and can it. Now, I could see them trying to put together some kind of "virtual DM screen" suite of features to help people run a campaign, but that's a whole other ball game and could ultimately be a positive. This "they're gonna run the company into the ground chasing AI" bit just comes across as a strawman "this is why you shouldn't like WotC" argument.