I'm torn. I love the ideas in the game design of One D&D, but hate the ideas from the business side of One D&D. WoTC has a great opportunity to make the classes more distinct, easier to learn, and have more choice in building the characters we want to play. They seem to be doing this in the design choices they're making. I love it.
On the business side, it seems that One D&D will be a major cash grab by Hasbro. The changes to the OGL (the document that allows third-party products to be made), the push towards D&D's own VTT, and the statements by Hasbro's CEO all make it appear that Hasbro doesn't care about the players, only their wallets. Of course, that's business, but business who put their product first tend to make a good product and make decent money. Businesses that put money first will make money, but they alienate their customer base until the customers either leave or grow to resent their dependency on the company.
My players and I have had a lot of positive reactions to some of the retooled classes that have been released in the 1D&D playtest, but I would really have to see what kind of support for dungeon masters they plan to release before I can say for certain. Challenge rating is a joke, Spelljammer relies on DMs to put in all the effort to find or come up with spaceship battle mechanics, and the recent release of races in Monsters of the Multiverse feels like a lot of the characteristics that made those character options interesting are being watered down to the point of feeling very homogenous (not to mention the fact that without some general guidelines on how different cultures view things, either the DM and player have to come up with those views themselves or the character just ends up acting like a spicy human).
The push toward increased monetization and the revisions to the OGL have me concerned that 1D&D will have more and more options for players (with add-ons that they can pay more for) in order to bring more people in but not enough effort put towards encounter design, balance changes, and story/location writing and description.
I'm excited for the next edition. It's been a lot of fun actually playtesting it. I like most (but not all) of the changes. I think most of the concerns over monetization are largely unfounded, but I understand why some people are afraid when things are unknown. If anything, my one complaint about 1DnD is that it's trying to be too backwards compatible. I think I might prefer if they had more freedom for a bigger overhaul. Nothing like 4e. Just a little more room to try new things.
Personally, I am excited about OneD&D. In particular, looking forward to seeing what they end up doing with feats--5e's lack of customization options is one of my biggest problems with the edition, and a more complex feat system could go a long way toward making character design more interesting.
I will say I think the fearmongering about monetization stems more from poor readings of what Wizards actually said, as amplified by the clickbait-prone mess that is gaming journalism and social media personalities who do not even pretend to follow journalistic ethics.
Let's look briefly at the two most commonly cited issues--the "under monetized" comment and the new OGL terms. The under monetized thing does sound pretty bad to a layperson - as if Wizards is trying to squeeze more money from their players. That is not exactly what they said, however. A more accurate translation would be that Wizards recognizes that the game has always been funded by DMs--the 20% of players who buy books and are more likely to buy things like licensed miniatures. That means 80% of their player base is "under monetized" (a corporate term for "not paying even though they could financially do so." Wizards, contrary to the assertions against them, clearly understood in their fire side chat some basic facts about the game, acknowledging that they did not want to grow the game by trying to squeeze more blood from the already taxed DMs, and instead saw an opportunity to make new things that might appeal to players. More options and more products of a wider range is hardly a bad thing--what will matter is how Wizards goes about doing that, and it simply is too early to tell and any doom sayer who says otherwise is fearmongering without data.
The changes to the OGL are also hardly surprising and reflect the current reality of the world we live in. For starters, there is the whole mess with grifter NFTs that Wizards wants to avoid--they certainly do not want someone taking OGL content and trying to profit in a way that is not conductive to the game, and the current OGL does not really cover that novel situation. More importantly, Wizards is very, very good at data collection--they have entire teams combing through surveys, product reviews, and sales to see what kinds of product folks like and want more of. For most of the game's history, that last data point--what kind of products sell well--have been controlled primarily by Wizards. But a rise in independent publishing, facilitated by the internet and things like Kickstarter has made it a lot easier for third-parties to make highly successful content using the OGL. Wizards does not capture those sales data--which means they are not getting the product data on what players like. The new OGL addresses that by getting Wizards more data on what kinds of products are being sold in large quantities by third-parties. That, in turn, provides Wizards better data so they can improve their official products. Again, not a bad thing per se and any freaking out about it is premature.
I'm excited, especially about the VTT. As someone who has wrestled with roll20, Foundry and Owlbear Rodeo, none of them have quite managed to hit that sweet spot of ease of use and functionality I've been looking for. If WotC manages to do that, I'll gladly buy some digital tokens and dice.
Regarding OneD&D, I love most of the rules changes so far. The Rogue needs a buff and the Jump Action needs to die in a fire, but most of the rest is great.
1. Any company can revoke any license for any reason, that's their prerogative.
2. If your business relies on anyone else's open source license, you shouldn't because they have leverage over your business.
3. Rules and procedures cannot be copyrighted, pictures, art and specifically copyrightable terms can license or not.
4. You can't be sued for anything you have published with a pre-existing OGL, but if you want to publish anything after the revocation, then you play by their terms or leave.
5. I wouldn't publish anything under the proposed OGL 1.1 license.
Given how I can still use 5e if I wanted, sure, let's see what else is to come. I don't have any strong opinions on the new stuff. Some new terminology you have to get used to.
Exhaustion rework is, hm, a bit boring? The old version fcks you hard, but the new is tame.
I do like the rework on Guidance because the old one was super boring, just an "always active" buff. Now you feel how it has an effect on the stuff that happens.
The refactoring of the feats is also nice because it shows a better progression over the old system. It was kinda lame that you picked your 2 to 3 feats early on and then only went for stat increases.
The business side of things is.."not good". But anyone who is surprised by it is naive. It's a big brand. A lot of money is involved. And it's a profit orientated corporation. That is the nature of things. In an ideal capitalistic world we would get some competition. Realistically it will continue to be a monopoly. Even the biggest competitors like Pathfinder, CoC have only a small share in the market.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nugz - Kobold Level 4 Bloodhunter/Order of the Mutant - Out there looking for snacks and evil monsters.
Ultrix Schwarzdorn - Human Level 6 Artificer/Armorer - Retired and works in his new shop.
Quercus Espenkiel - Gnome Level 9 Wizard/Order of Scribes - Turned into a book and sits on a shelf.
Artin - Fairy Level 4 Sorcerer/Wild Magic - Busy with annoying the townsfolk. Again.
Jabor - Fire Genasi - Level 4 Wizard/School of Evocation - The First Flame, The Last Chaos. Probably in jail, again.
With the reveals today about the new OGL, I'm very pessimistic now. I was cautiously optimistic earlier, but now no. The new rules have some great mechanics, such as the exhaustion rules, and some the new feats are nice, as well as new Dragonborn and Goliath. But there's also a lot of bad rules. The Aardling is abysmal both thematically and mechanically. (it's obvious furry bait and while I'm happy for people who like that, I won't allow it in my games) The expert UA was strange with nerfing rogue, making me rather pessimistic for the warrior UA.
So overall I'm neutral on rules quality, but the OGL changes totally pushes me away now
I'm excited for the new edition. So far, Wizards of the Coast seems to be listening to the feedback we are giving them, and I like the direction 1DD is heading in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
In regards to the newest leaks, I'm going to wait a few days before reacting. There seems to be a lot of panicking, but I'd prefer to hear from the people who would be most affected. If 1D&D is to be backwards compatible, and every indication so far is that it will be, then if people don't like 1D&D, they could still make stuff for 5th Edition and it would have the same effect.
With the reveals today about the new OGL, I'm very pessimistic now. I was cautiously optimistic earlier, but now no. The new rules have some great mechanics, such as the exhaustion rules, and some the new feats are nice, as well as new Dragonborn and Goliath. But there's also a lot of bad rules. The Aardling is abysmal both thematically and mechanically. (it's obvious furry bait and while I'm happy for people who like that, I won't allow it in my games) The expert UA was strange with nerfing rogue, making me rather pessimistic for the warrior UA.
So overall I'm neutral on rules quality, but the OGL changes totally pushes me away now
I presume you are talking about the "exclusive look" article published on Gizmodo? I read this article--the person who wrote the article is clearly not qualified to comment on the subject matter. There are a number of errors in the legal interpretation, the article is reviewing a draft (and therefore something with little-to-no actual weight), and which fundamentally does not understand what "authorized" means within the context of the OGL. I would not give this any other thought--this is yet another in a long line of gaming news sites hiring folks who are gamers first, journalists (maybe) second, and it showing in the quality of their work.
Until we have an actual, final document, anything alarmist is pretty much just that--being alarmist. Frankly, even once the document is out, you'll see lots of alarmist "reporting" of little actual value--this happens every time laypeople try to read legalize. Just look at how many months were spent of people whining about the new T&C for D&D Beyond after Wizards purchased it, despite the new terms being better for them than the Fandom terms--folks (like the person who wrote this article) see complex language and assume it must be a problem, and decide to go with their gut rather than, say, actually look up what things mean.
With the reveals today about the new OGL, I'm very pessimistic now. I was cautiously optimistic earlier, but now no. The new rules have some great mechanics, such as the exhaustion rules, and some the new feats are nice, as well as new Dragonborn and Goliath. But there's also a lot of bad rules. The Aardling is abysmal both thematically and mechanically. (it's obvious furry bait and while I'm happy for people who like that, I won't allow it in my games) The expert UA was strange with nerfing rogue, making me rather pessimistic for the warrior UA.
So overall I'm neutral on rules quality, but the OGL changes totally pushes me away now
I presume you are talking about the "exclusive look" article published on Gizmodo? I read this article--the person who wrote the article is clearly not qualified to comment on the subject matter. There are a number of errors in the legal interpretation, the article is reviewing a draft (and therefore something with little-to-no actual weight), and which fundamentally does not understand what "authorized" means within the context of the OGL. I would not give this any other thought--this is yet another in a long line of gaming news sites hiring folks who are gamers first, journalists (maybe) second, and it showing in the quality of their work.
Until we have an actual, final document, anything alarmist is pretty much just that--being alarmist. Frankly, even once the document is out, you'll see lots of alarmist "reporting" of little actual value--this happens every time laypeople try to read legalize. Just look at how many months were spent of people whining about the new T&C for D&D Beyond after Wizards purchased it, despite the new terms being better for them than the Fandom terms--folks (like the person who wrote this article) see complex language and assume it must be a problem, and decide to go with their gut rather than, say, actually look up what things mean.
That article explicitly states that lawyers were consulted before the article was released.
Once again, I invite you to actually read the thing you are talking about. You'll note that the way they presented the information was incredibly misleading. "the new language mayindicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void". In so adding that "may" language, they clearly left off the obvious "but there also is the issue of the perpetual license that was established by anyone who contracted under OGL 1.0 and, this being a draft, we do not know at what stage this draft is during the development, so it very easily might have changed." To the extent that was mentioned and language was presented that mght call that into question, that language was not provided contextually and the legal analysis on that portion was strikingly lacking.
Simply consulting with an attorney is not journalism.. Reporting one side of what your consultation said is not journalism. What would be journalism is if they said "they said this "may" be the case, but they also discussed other possibilities about what the language might mean, and we will not know for sure until there is something more final than a draft" What they produced is the kind of yellow journalism sites like Gizmodo are known for--something aimed at getting clicks and garnering outrage from folks who do not have the critical eye to realize that words like "may" very easily could be hiding the omission of important information.
Until I see something that doesn't drip with sensationalism and a throw-away line saying "we consulted with an attorney but can't be bothered to actually give you the non-sensationalist bits of that conversation", I am not going to be overly stressed about this and will happily wait for a more reliable source of information.
From what they've shown so far in One D&D, it looks great. I love almost all of the new features. I really hope they fix Challenge Rating.
Is there anything you don't like about One D&D? What's your overall opinion?
getting past the OGL disagreement, i'm still bothered by the 'dumbing down' of species and classes.
The ability to override basic starting features just makes them all feel like variant humans instead of starting as an Elf or Hobgoblin or such... too much of those species can be changed. Same goes with some class features (i think replacing starting spells or auto-generated level spells is just bad).
I do love the game and have for over 40 years. I do enjoy it but the uniqueness of the choices, and repercussion of choices, are vanishing.
Not getting into the all the failure points they created around ability scores and the demand for optimization because of it - crazy that a 4 level fighter with 13 strength has less of a chance to hit than a 5th level illusion wizard with a 14 strength while using a dagger or quarterstaff (or other simple weapons). Lower damage? sure but actual chance to hit? makes no sense.
I'm looking forward to the release of more UA's. I've liked a lot of what they have released and disliked some. So I am excited to see what is next, but I think it is still too early to make a definitive case to whether this will be a vast improvement or just a so-so lateral move.
As far as the OGL/monetization is concerned, I think it is still way, way, way, too early to draw any conclusions at this point. It's all speculation and can change in a heartbeat. They didn't want to say anything about the OGL until it was getting a lot of traffic on YouTube channels, etc., so they responded. Now there is new information out and I think we will hear from WotC again, but maybe not. I don't use any 3rd party products, but that doesn't mean I think the OGL changes are fine. It's just that we don't even know what the changes are. We should know more early this year so I will hold off on making any decisions about that.
So far, on this very very pro-wotc site, 53% of respondents say they are NOT looking forward to 6e. This may be a very small sample size, some 40 or so out of millions of players, but these are the most engaged. EN World has a poll where roughly 60 plus % of respondents said they would never pay for a sub.
A small anecdote that wotc should take note of. The 5e game I play in (also DM one) broke up early last night. 3 of us hung around to chat. ALL of us said we would never migrate to 6e. One said it was because of mechanical problems presented in the UA. The DM said he would never pay for a sub for a game (we play in person). I have my own reasons, but they include those as well. I wonder how many other tables are having the same conversations.
This is a valuable conversation to have with your group. But I just have to comment on the bolded. We still have a year or more before 6e, or whatever they call it, will be released. We've had only 3 UAs, and have already seen changes from one UA to another, like the Aardling and Dragonborn races, critical success/failure on D20 tests, etc. And there is a whole lot of UA to go, so kind of early in the game to be calling this an issue, in my opinion. But they can feel how they feel and that's fine.
So far, on this very very pro-wotc site, 53% of respondents say they are NOT looking forward to 6e. This may be a very small sample size, some 40 or so out of millions of players, but these are the most engaged. EN World has a poll where roughly 60 plus % of respondents said they would never pay for a sub.
A small anecdote that wotc should take note of. The 5e game I play in (also DM one) broke up early last night. 3 of us hung around to chat. ALL of us said we would never migrate to 6e. One said it was because of mechanical problems presented in the UA. The DM said he would never pay for a sub for a game (we play in person). I have my own reasons, but they include those as well. I wonder how many other tables are having the same conversations.
"I saw a post with a poll on DnDBeyond asking this and it made me curious enough to ask here where it might actually get some votes.
I am on the fence. I like most of what I have seen and would say that most of the changes have been positive, but there are a few exceptions (Looking at you "number of prepared spells"). However, I think it is far to soon to really say one way or the other. I am excited to see how things progress though.
Anyway... Are you looking forward to OneDnd?"
860 votes
314 (36.5%) Yes, I am looking forward to OneDnD in 2024.
296 (34.4%) I am not sure yet. It is too soon to tell.
214 (24.9%) No, I am not looking forward to OneDnD in 2024.
From what they've shown so far in One D&D, it looks great. I love almost all of the new features. I really hope they fix Challenge Rating.
Is there anything you don't like about One D&D? What's your overall opinion?
Running a (homebrew) hexcrawl open-world campaign called In Thrall of the Lost, inspired by BotW and Skyrim.
I'm torn. I love the ideas in the game design of One D&D, but hate the ideas from the business side of One D&D. WoTC has a great opportunity to make the classes more distinct, easier to learn, and have more choice in building the characters we want to play. They seem to be doing this in the design choices they're making. I love it.
On the business side, it seems that One D&D will be a major cash grab by Hasbro. The changes to the OGL (the document that allows third-party products to be made), the push towards D&D's own VTT, and the statements by Hasbro's CEO all make it appear that Hasbro doesn't care about the players, only their wallets. Of course, that's business, but business who put their product first tend to make a good product and make decent money. Businesses that put money first will make money, but they alienate their customer base until the customers either leave or grow to resent their dependency on the company.
https://sayeth.itch.io/
My players and I have had a lot of positive reactions to some of the retooled classes that have been released in the 1D&D playtest, but I would really have to see what kind of support for dungeon masters they plan to release before I can say for certain. Challenge rating is a joke, Spelljammer relies on DMs to put in all the effort to find or come up with spaceship battle mechanics, and the recent release of races in Monsters of the Multiverse feels like a lot of the characteristics that made those character options interesting are being watered down to the point of feeling very homogenous (not to mention the fact that without some general guidelines on how different cultures view things, either the DM and player have to come up with those views themselves or the character just ends up acting like a spicy human).
The push toward increased monetization and the revisions to the OGL have me concerned that 1D&D will have more and more options for players (with add-ons that they can pay more for) in order to bring more people in but not enough effort put towards encounter design, balance changes, and story/location writing and description.
I'm excited for the next edition. It's been a lot of fun actually playtesting it. I like most (but not all) of the changes. I think most of the concerns over monetization are largely unfounded, but I understand why some people are afraid when things are unknown. If anything, my one complaint about 1DnD is that it's trying to be too backwards compatible. I think I might prefer if they had more freedom for a bigger overhaul. Nothing like 4e. Just a little more room to try new things.
Personally, I am excited about OneD&D. In particular, looking forward to seeing what they end up doing with feats--5e's lack of customization options is one of my biggest problems with the edition, and a more complex feat system could go a long way toward making character design more interesting.
I will say I think the fearmongering about monetization stems more from poor readings of what Wizards actually said, as amplified by the clickbait-prone mess that is gaming journalism and social media personalities who do not even pretend to follow journalistic ethics.
Let's look briefly at the two most commonly cited issues--the "under monetized" comment and the new OGL terms. The under monetized thing does sound pretty bad to a layperson - as if Wizards is trying to squeeze more money from their players. That is not exactly what they said, however. A more accurate translation would be that Wizards recognizes that the game has always been funded by DMs--the 20% of players who buy books and are more likely to buy things like licensed miniatures. That means 80% of their player base is "under monetized" (a corporate term for "not paying even though they could financially do so." Wizards, contrary to the assertions against them, clearly understood in their fire side chat some basic facts about the game, acknowledging that they did not want to grow the game by trying to squeeze more blood from the already taxed DMs, and instead saw an opportunity to make new things that might appeal to players. More options and more products of a wider range is hardly a bad thing--what will matter is how Wizards goes about doing that, and it simply is too early to tell and any doom sayer who says otherwise is fearmongering without data.
The changes to the OGL are also hardly surprising and reflect the current reality of the world we live in. For starters, there is the whole mess with
grifterNFTs that Wizards wants to avoid--they certainly do not want someone taking OGL content and trying to profit in a way that is not conductive to the game, and the current OGL does not really cover that novel situation. More importantly, Wizards is very, very good at data collection--they have entire teams combing through surveys, product reviews, and sales to see what kinds of product folks like and want more of. For most of the game's history, that last data point--what kind of products sell well--have been controlled primarily by Wizards. But a rise in independent publishing, facilitated by the internet and things like Kickstarter has made it a lot easier for third-parties to make highly successful content using the OGL. Wizards does not capture those sales data--which means they are not getting the product data on what players like. The new OGL addresses that by getting Wizards more data on what kinds of products are being sold in large quantities by third-parties. That, in turn, provides Wizards better data so they can improve their official products. Again, not a bad thing per se and any freaking out about it is premature.Video gamey cash grab. No Thanks.
I'm excited, especially about the VTT. As someone who has wrestled with roll20, Foundry and Owlbear Rodeo, none of them have quite managed to hit that sweet spot of ease of use and functionality I've been looking for. If WotC manages to do that, I'll gladly buy some digital tokens and dice.
Regarding OneD&D, I love most of the rules changes so far. The Rogue needs a buff and the Jump Action needs to die in a fire, but most of the rest is great.
My opinion, I'm not a lawyer.
1. Any company can revoke any license for any reason, that's their prerogative.
2. If your business relies on anyone else's open source license, you shouldn't because they have leverage over your business.
3. Rules and procedures cannot be copyrighted, pictures, art and specifically copyrightable terms can license or not.
4. You can't be sued for anything you have published with a pre-existing OGL, but if you want to publish anything after the revocation, then you play by their terms or leave.
5. I wouldn't publish anything under the proposed OGL 1.1 license.
Given how I can still use 5e if I wanted, sure, let's see what else is to come. I don't have any strong opinions on the new stuff. Some new terminology you have to get used to.
Exhaustion rework is, hm, a bit boring? The old version fcks you hard, but the new is tame.
I do like the rework on Guidance because the old one was super boring, just an "always active" buff. Now you feel how it has an effect on the stuff that happens.
The refactoring of the feats is also nice because it shows a better progression over the old system. It was kinda lame that you picked your 2 to 3 feats early on and then only went for stat increases.
The business side of things is.."not good". But anyone who is surprised by it is naive. It's a big brand. A lot of money is involved. And it's a profit orientated corporation. That is the nature of things. In an ideal capitalistic world we would get some competition. Realistically it will continue to be a monopoly. Even the biggest competitors like Pathfinder, CoC have only a small share in the market.
Nugz - Kobold Level 4 Bloodhunter/Order of the Mutant - Out there looking for snacks and evil monsters.
Ultrix Schwarzdorn - Human Level 6 Artificer/Armorer - Retired and works in his new shop.
Quercus Espenkiel - Gnome Level 9 Wizard/Order of Scribes - Turned into a book and sits on a shelf.
Artin - Fairy Level 4 Sorcerer/Wild Magic - Busy with annoying the townsfolk. Again.
Jabor - Fire Genasi - Level 4 Wizard/School of Evocation - The First Flame, The Last Chaos. Probably in jail, again.
With the reveals today about the new OGL, I'm very pessimistic now. I was cautiously optimistic earlier, but now no.
The new rules have some great mechanics, such as the exhaustion rules, and some the new feats are nice, as well as new Dragonborn and Goliath. But there's also a lot of bad rules. The Aardling is abysmal both thematically and mechanically. (it's obvious furry bait and while I'm happy for people who like that, I won't allow it in my games) The expert UA was strange with nerfing rogue, making me rather pessimistic for the warrior UA.
So overall I'm neutral on rules quality, but the OGL changes totally pushes me away now
I'm excited for the new edition. So far, Wizards of the Coast seems to be listening to the feedback we are giving them, and I like the direction 1DD is heading in.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.In regards to the newest leaks, I'm going to wait a few days before reacting. There seems to be a lot of panicking, but I'd prefer to hear from the people who would be most affected. If 1D&D is to be backwards compatible, and every indication so far is that it will be, then if people don't like 1D&D, they could still make stuff for 5th Edition and it would have the same effect.
I presume you are talking about the "exclusive look" article published on Gizmodo? I read this article--the person who wrote the article is clearly not qualified to comment on the subject matter. There are a number of errors in the legal interpretation, the article is reviewing a draft (and therefore something with little-to-no actual weight), and which fundamentally does not understand what "authorized" means within the context of the OGL. I would not give this any other thought--this is yet another in a long line of gaming news sites hiring folks who are gamers first, journalists (maybe) second, and it showing in the quality of their work.
Until we have an actual, final document, anything alarmist is pretty much just that--being alarmist. Frankly, even once the document is out, you'll see lots of alarmist "reporting" of little actual value--this happens every time laypeople try to read legalize. Just look at how many months were spent of people whining about the new T&C for D&D Beyond after Wizards purchased it, despite the new terms being better for them than the Fandom terms--folks (like the person who wrote this article) see complex language and assume it must be a problem, and decide to go with their gut rather than, say, actually look up what things mean.
Once again, I invite you to actually read the thing you are talking about. You'll note that the way they presented the information was incredibly misleading. "the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void". In so adding that "may" language, they clearly left off the obvious "but there also is the issue of the perpetual license that was established by anyone who contracted under OGL 1.0 and, this being a draft, we do not know at what stage this draft is during the development, so it very easily might have changed." To the extent that was mentioned and language was presented that mght call that into question, that language was not provided contextually and the legal analysis on that portion was strikingly lacking.
Simply consulting with an attorney is not journalism.. Reporting one side of what your consultation said is not journalism. What would be journalism is if they said "they said this "may" be the case, but they also discussed other possibilities about what the language might mean, and we will not know for sure until there is something more final than a draft" What they produced is the kind of yellow journalism sites like Gizmodo are known for--something aimed at getting clicks and garnering outrage from folks who do not have the critical eye to realize that words like "may" very easily could be hiding the omission of important information.
Until I see something that doesn't drip with sensationalism and a throw-away line saying "we consulted with an attorney but can't be bothered to actually give you the non-sensationalist bits of that conversation", I am not going to be overly stressed about this and will happily wait for a more reliable source of information.
getting past the OGL disagreement, i'm still bothered by the 'dumbing down' of species and classes.
The ability to override basic starting features just makes them all feel like variant humans instead of starting as an Elf or Hobgoblin or such... too much of those species can be changed.
Same goes with some class features (i think replacing starting spells or auto-generated level spells is just bad).
I do love the game and have for over 40 years. I do enjoy it but the uniqueness of the choices, and repercussion of choices, are vanishing.
Not getting into the all the failure points they created around ability scores and the demand for optimization because of it - crazy that a 4 level fighter with 13 strength has less of a chance to hit than a 5th level illusion wizard with a 14 strength while using a dagger or quarterstaff (or other simple weapons). Lower damage? sure but actual chance to hit? makes no sense.
They lost me when they got rid of Half-Elves.
I'm looking forward to the release of more UA's. I've liked a lot of what they have released and disliked some. So I am excited to see what is next, but I think it is still too early to make a definitive case to whether this will be a vast improvement or just a so-so lateral move.
As far as the OGL/monetization is concerned, I think it is still way, way, way, too early to draw any conclusions at this point. It's all speculation and can change in a heartbeat. They didn't want to say anything about the OGL until it was getting a lot of traffic on YouTube channels, etc., so they responded. Now there is new information out and I think we will hear from WotC again, but maybe not. I don't use any 3rd party products, but that doesn't mean I think the OGL changes are fine. It's just that we don't even know what the changes are. We should know more early this year so I will hold off on making any decisions about that.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This is a valuable conversation to have with your group. But I just have to comment on the bolded. We still have a year or more before 6e, or whatever they call it, will be released. We've had only 3 UAs, and have already seen changes from one UA to another, like the Aardling and Dragonborn races, critical success/failure on D20 tests, etc. And there is a whole lot of UA to go, so kind of early in the game to be calling this an issue, in my opinion. But they can feel how they feel and that's fine.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I honestly need to see more with 6th before I weigh in but based on everything that I've seen and heard I'm less then enthused.
Link to Poll
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master