They sustain themselves with my yearly subscription and purchase of every book. The fact is that the website has remained unchanged with zero features added in multiple years. How long is the encounter creator going to be in beta? Its been in beta for three-four years without any updates. This website is so much less than it could be. Maybe you're okay with that, maybe you're okay with Wizards treating you and all of us like coin purses to rob for every gold, silver, and copper, and maybe youre okay with them acting like we're all buffoons who will accept a corporate apology when they tried to strong arm 3rd party creators into handing over their money and content. Your money isn't going to dnd sustaining themselves, they've sold to Wizards they're a big corporation and anyone attached to this place sure isn't making a 100th of a percentage of those dice you're buying. So what ever, roll your dumb cool dice and tell yourself you're feeding anyone's mouth but the CEO who just tried stealing from everyone in the community.
Every new book brings changes by way of new feats, classes, subclasses, races, items, etc. They may not always be major changes, but they are changes. Plus network maintenance is an actual ongoing cost.
Yes! You get it! This is why we want them to actually spend their time fixing the site. Those changes you mentioned, they are not getting done. Tasha's still isn't implemented. I bought the product and they never finished making it work. But there are plenty of dice skins. So why would I complain? Should I expect that the product I bought is actually made to work?
They not only collected on my purchase of Tasha's but they had me subscribed at their highest tier. And still they couldn't make my product work. They are failing at core business while making shiny objects to entertain the immature kiddies who just want to see things blow up in the movies.
I've read a bunch of your posts now and I've given up on trying to explain things to you. We won't agree. There is a difference between having a lot of information and actually understanding that information enough to draw good conclusions based upon the data. You utterly fail at the analysis portion of thinking. I'm sorry that this comes out sounding insulting. That's not normally my way. But you seem to be trying to talk down to those who understand more than you do. It's annoying.
Otherwise, and even so, everyone is moving to the new Open RPG Creative License (ORC).
Wait, ORC stands for Open RPG Creative License? SERIOUSLY?? Listen, I have nothing against Paizo, but who in hell looks at "Open Roleplaying Game Creative License" and thinks "ah, yes, we shall call it ORC for that is the exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Otherwise, and even so, everyone is moving to the new Open RPG Creative License (ORC).
Wait, ORC stands for Open RPG Creative License? SERIOUSLY?? Listen, I have nothing against Paizo, but who in hell looks at "Open Roleplaying Game Creative License" and thinks "ah, yes, we shall call it ORC for that is the exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word."
No one said it was an "exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word". Who said it had to be??
Otherwise, and even so, everyone is moving to the new Open RPG Creative License (ORC).
Wait, ORC stands for Open RPG Creative License? SERIOUSLY?? Listen, I have nothing against Paizo, but who in hell looks at "Open Roleplaying Game Creative License" and thinks "ah, yes, we shall call it ORC for that is the exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word."
No one said it was an "exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word". Who said it had to be??
It's an acronym, or at least that's what it's supposed to be. There's a point at which an acronym becomes a bunch of letters somebody thought were funny.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
No, OGL 1.0a is fine. All they have to do is make it legally clear that it is perpetual and irrevocable.
Then, if Paizo, Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Chaousium, etc... Want to go ahead with the ORC, great. Some may even license products under one or another license as needed.
The community has no legitimacy to force WoTC to join ORC. What it does have is legitimacy to demand that they keep their word, and not deauthorize a license that had been promised to be "forever."
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Actually, I am.
The one we had worked very well, and nothing needed to be changed.
I know YOU are against changing it. But you aren't the community.
Neither are you!
Point of fact, I never claimed to be. You kind of did though.
The large consensus on twitter, reddit, and tumblr is that wotc keeps the OGL 1.0 or signs on to ORC.
On my gaming server it's been truthfully noted that WotC has managed to unite people with opposite politics who otherwise hate each other against them.
The large consensus on twitter, reddit, and tumblr is that wotc keeps the OGL 1.0 or signs on to ORC.
On my gaming server it's been truthfully noted that WotC has managed to unite people with opposite politics who otherwise hate each other against them.
Great job guys.
I've been amazed by this too!
People uniting, regardless of politics, is the best weapon against corporate overreach.
Otherwise, and even so, everyone is moving to the new Open RPG Creative License (ORC).
Wait, ORC stands for Open RPG Creative License? SERIOUSLY?? Listen, I have nothing against Paizo, but who in hell looks at "Open Roleplaying Game Creative License" and thinks "ah, yes, we shall call it ORC for that is the exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word."
No one said it was an "exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word". Who said it had to be??
It's an acronym, or at least that's what it's supposed to be. There's a point at which an acronym becomes a bunch of letters somebody thought were funny.
And. Did you have some point that you forgot to make?? Is the dumb name seriously the only thing you take away from this??
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.
Especially since the 'word' RPG has kind of become it's own word - it used to be more of just an acronym that most people didn't know, but with videogames and how they've popularized the genre altogether, virtually everyone knows what an rpg is and you really don't need to say the whole 'roleplaying game' anymore - frankly it's not much of a stretch to use rpg as a single letter in an acronym to me, especially when it makes for a more fun acroynm at the end of the day.
Especially since the 'word' RPG has kind of become it's own word - it used to be more of just an acronym that most people didn't know, but with videogames and how they've popularized the genre altogether, virtually everyone knows what an rpg is and you really don't need to say the whole 'roleplaying game' anymore - frankly it's not much of a stretch to use rpg as a single letter in an acronym to me, especially when it makes for a more fun acroynm at the end of the day.
Is that generational? I still call it the RPG hobby. I find TTRPG to be a rather unpleasant term. We used to differentiate a CRPG from a PnP RPG though.
Still, I do like the ORC term and one can call it an ORC License without it being an annoying tautology like people saying "PIN number"
You know, over the past few days I've been really saddened by the sheer volume and toxicity this subject has provoked on this forum and others. But then I cast my mind back a decade to being in the Bioware forums during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle. The main thread on the subject ended up at something like 1,465 pages (not posts......pages).
So whilst all this argument is very depressing....I've seen worse!
Especially since the 'word' RPG has kind of become it's own word - it used to be more of just an acronym that most people didn't know, but with videogames and how they've popularized the genre altogether, virtually everyone knows what an rpg is and you really don't need to say the whole 'roleplaying game' anymore - frankly it's not much of a stretch to use rpg as a single letter in an acronym to me, especially when it makes for a more fun acroynm at the end of the day.
Is that generational? I still call it the RPG hobby. I find TTRPG to be a rather unpleasant term. We used to differentiate a CRPG from a PnP RPG though.
Still, I do like the ORC term and one can call it an ORC License without it being an annoying tautology like people saying "PIN number"
But they can call it an ORC license, since L doesn't appear in the TLA ;-)
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
Personally, I'm excited for ORC, but I would really like OGL 1.0a to remain. There's 23 years of some really interesting Open Gaming Content from publishers other than WotC, some of whom are no longer in business. (And including the work of someone I knew personally who passed away several years ago.) If OGL 1.0a can remain intact, their work can be revitalized for future generations perpetually. If we give up on the OGL altogether, that is lost. I'm really looking forward to ORC and it is definitely on the right path to be the open license this industry truly needs, but, ideally, it'd be great if those 23 years of open content isn't lost.
(Dream world is a revised OGL 1.0b that is both irrevocable and makes its Open Gaming Content compatible open to ORC, but that's a dream.)
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Well, it's always hard to speak for a community. But let me venture that probably the only change the community will accept from OGL 1.0a is the clarification that it is an irrevocable and perpetual license.
Anything else will hurt WoTC because it will be a betrayal.
Making 1.0a irrevocable will hurt them too. It accomplishes none of the goals they laid out in either press release.
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
No, OGL 1.0a is fine. All they have to do is make it legally clear that it is perpetual and irrevocable.
Then, if Paizo, Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Chaousium, etc... Want to go ahead with the ORC, great.
"Want to?" They're going to go ahead with ORC anyway. Why wouldn't they? Conversely, why should WotC subsidize their efforts by leaving 1.0a alone?
If ORC takes off, great, WotC will use it too. And if it doesn't, more 3PP will have a reason to use OGL 2.0. In neither case is leaving 1.0a intact the better strategy.
I didn’t read through all the discussion, but I will agree that the changes in technology alone necessitated a change. I also agree that tapping into the revenue of companies using their IP is justified and that a company that is making excess of 750k should have never been using OGL. They should have either simply created generic content using the rule set, or negotiated a actual license, while I agree 25% of revenue is high, it may be deliberate to encourage those creators to work with a license.
I didn’t read through all the discussion, but I will agree that the changes in technology alone necessitated a change. I also agree that tapping into the revenue of companies using their IP is justified and that a company that is making excess of 750k should have never been using OGL. They should have either simply created generic content using the rule set, or negotiated a actual license, while I agree 25% of revenue is high, it may be deliberate to encourage those creators to work with a license.
There are no changes necessary. The original OGL is not the same as copyright or trademark enforcement. Wizards of the coast made 1 billion dollars in 2021 and is owned by hasbro. They have dozens of lawyers on retainer and have and will continue to defend their copyrights and trademarks. The OGL 1.0a does not need to be changed to allow Wizards to do something they have done successfully for 20 years. Please do a little research before taking a billion dollar company at the words that were designed in a boardroom meeting with advertisers and spin doctors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You canceled your subscription on 01/14/2023."
(1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game: Wrong. We are the stewards of the game. You print books.
(2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans: Wrong. The OGL exists to benefit Wizards. 3rd party Creators have made your game what it is today.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Kotath
Yes! You get it! This is why we want them to actually spend their time fixing the site. Those changes you mentioned, they are not getting done. Tasha's still isn't implemented. I bought the product and they never finished making it work. But there are plenty of dice skins. So why would I complain? Should I expect that the product I bought is actually made to work?
They not only collected on my purchase of Tasha's but they had me subscribed at their highest tier. And still they couldn't make my product work. They are failing at core business while making shiny objects to entertain the immature kiddies who just want to see things blow up in the movies.
PsyrenXY
I've read a bunch of your posts now and I've given up on trying to explain things to you. We won't agree. There is a difference between having a lot of information and actually understanding that information enough to draw good conclusions based upon the data. You utterly fail at the analysis portion of thinking. I'm sorry that this comes out sounding insulting. That's not normally my way. But you seem to be trying to talk down to those who understand more than you do. It's annoying.
Wait, ORC stands for Open RPG Creative License? SERIOUSLY?? Listen, I have nothing against Paizo, but who in hell looks at "Open Roleplaying Game Creative License" and thinks "ah, yes, we shall call it ORC for that is the exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word."
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No one said it was an "exact conglomerate of the first letter of each word". Who said it had to be??
It's an acronym, or at least that's what it's supposed to be. There's a point at which an acronym becomes a bunch of letters somebody thought were funny.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No, OGL 1.0a is fine. All they have to do is make it legally clear that it is perpetual and irrevocable.
Then, if Paizo, Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Chaousium, etc... Want to go ahead with the ORC, great. Some may even license products under one or another license as needed.
The community has no legitimacy to force WoTC to join ORC. What it does have is legitimacy to demand that they keep their word, and not deauthorize a license that had been promised to be "forever."
Neither are you!
Point of fact, I never claimed to be. You kind of did though.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
[WotC changed their policy so I changed my mind.]
I've been amazed by this too!
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
People uniting, regardless of politics, is the best weapon against corporate overreach.
And. Did you have some point that you forgot to make?? Is the dumb name seriously the only thing you take away from this??
Open RPG Creative License ORC License
Get it now?
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.
Especially since the 'word' RPG has kind of become it's own word - it used to be more of just an acronym that most people didn't know, but with videogames and how they've popularized the genre altogether, virtually everyone knows what an rpg is and you really don't need to say the whole 'roleplaying game' anymore - frankly it's not much of a stretch to use rpg as a single letter in an acronym to me, especially when it makes for a more fun acroynm at the end of the day.
Is that generational? I still call it the RPG hobby. I find TTRPG to be a rather unpleasant term. We used to differentiate a CRPG from a PnP RPG though.
Still, I do like the ORC term and one can call it an ORC License without it being an annoying tautology like people saying "PIN number"
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
You know, over the past few days I've been really saddened by the sheer volume and toxicity this subject has provoked on this forum and others. But then I cast my mind back a decade to being in the Bioware forums during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle. The main thread on the subject ended up at something like 1,465 pages (not posts......pages).
So whilst all this argument is very depressing....I've seen worse!
But they can call it an ORC license, since L doesn't appear in the TLA ;-)
Personally, I'm excited for ORC, but I would really like OGL 1.0a to remain. There's 23 years of some really interesting Open Gaming Content from publishers other than WotC, some of whom are no longer in business. (And including the work of someone I knew personally who passed away several years ago.) If OGL 1.0a can remain intact, their work can be revitalized for future generations perpetually. If we give up on the OGL altogether, that is lost. I'm really looking forward to ORC and it is definitely on the right path to be the open license this industry truly needs, but, ideally, it'd be great if those 23 years of open content isn't lost.
(Dream world is a revised OGL 1.0b that is both irrevocable and makes its Open Gaming Content compatible open to ORC, but that's a dream.)
Making 1.0a irrevocable will hurt them too. It accomplishes none of the goals they laid out in either press release.
"Want to?" They're going to go ahead with ORC anyway. Why wouldn't they? Conversely, why should WotC subsidize their efforts by leaving 1.0a alone?
If ORC takes off, great, WotC will use it too. And if it doesn't, more 3PP will have a reason to use OGL 2.0. In neither case is leaving 1.0a intact the better strategy.
I didn’t read through all the discussion, but I will agree that the changes in technology alone necessitated a change. I also agree that tapping into the revenue of companies using their IP is justified and that a company that is making excess of 750k should have never been using OGL. They should have either simply created generic content using the rule set, or negotiated a actual license, while I agree 25% of revenue is high, it may be deliberate to encourage those creators to work with a license.
There are no changes necessary. The original OGL is not the same as copyright or trademark enforcement. Wizards of the coast made 1 billion dollars in 2021 and is owned by hasbro. They have dozens of lawyers on retainer and have and will continue to defend their copyrights and trademarks. The OGL 1.0a does not need to be changed to allow Wizards to do something they have done successfully for 20 years. Please do a little research before taking a billion dollar company at the words that were designed in a boardroom meeting with advertisers and spin doctors.
"You canceled your subscription on 01/14/2023."
(1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game: Wrong. We are the stewards of the game. You print books.
(2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans: Wrong. The OGL exists to benefit Wizards. 3rd party Creators have made your game what it is today.