I'm guessing definitely some Hasbro executive who really didn't understand at all what they were deciding made a sweeping decision and then insisted it had to be that way; I can't imagine anyone at Wizards being so detached from D&D and the gaming community at large that they thought this would go over well.
The fact that it got leaked, and then they bum rushed a bunch of mid-to-high level creators and gave them a teeny tiny window to sign it or be noncompliant makes me think that they were 1. entirely aware that it isn't actually legally binding UNLESS they can get someone to sign it, thus forcing them to use the -new- OGL and it's draconian rules, and 2. doing it entirely because they want to make more money, because they think that they're going to be able to just steal the money from these lower level creators and everything's going to continue going same as before.
Anyone with half a brain and 2 hours of tabletop experience would tell you that's not how this is gonna shake out lol.
I'm assuming that one or more suits who don't play TTRPGs just saw data about money on the table, and when told by underlings about the community reaction likely said something along the lines of "Do you think I give a F&^# what a bunch of nerds think? Get the F&^# out my office and bring me my F*&$ing coffee, Janice."
I imagine these people are the traditional "jocks" who bullied us in school, and only care about their next Mercedes or vacation to Aruba.
Just as an FYI, in Seattle, we vacation in Hawaii. Aruba is too far. 😁
I think it's less "Hasbro vs WOTC" and more "Creatives vs Corporate."
Cynthia Williams, it seems safe to say, has never played any edition of D&D, and is likely either unaware or has only cursory knowledge of what happened when WOTC introduced 4E and a new, more restrictive gaming license.
I have to believe Mearls, Perkins, Crawford, et al, are very aware of it and very aware of how third party creators have been - ahem - CRITICAL to the enormous success of 5E. None of those guys are saints or above doing things for a paycheck, but I have a very hard time believing the draconian changes to the OGL were their idea or was something they pushed for.
And even if that visible trio is for the new restrictive license, I have to believe most rank and file WOTC designers and contributors who work on D&D haven't been clamoring for a new agreement that alienates and infuriates the fan base.
Again, on the (seemingly reasonable) assumption the leaked draft was real, this has executive/corporate greed and shortsightedness all over it. This does not feel like a move that would be made by anyone with a deep understanding of the game, its fans, and the performance and reception of the previous three (3, 3.5, and 4) editions.
Don't get mad at the individual writers and artists. This is a company decision. And if that's hasbro or WotC it doesn't really matter. The actual people behind D&D may as well stay on. It's job security. I would stick too.
I know you weren't implying we should get mad at the actual workers, but if it's a suit, what does it matter if it's a Hasbro or WotC person?
Job security and Wizards of the Coast have never gone exactly hand in hand.
The Whole QGL issue is just a fight between companies. The 1.0A OGL is no longer a benefit to DnD, and is only giving rise to parasitic competition that will eventually kill it. And based on the document that was finally released it was clearly written/altered to cause all this drama. So till I see a REAL 1.1 OGL I will honestly believe this was all an act to harm and blackmail WotC.
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
The Whole QGL issue is just a fight between companies. The 1.0A OGL is no longer a benefit to DnD, and is only giving rise to parasitic competition that will eventually kill it. And based on the document that was finally released it was clearly written/altered to cause all this drama. So till I see a REAL 1.1 OGL I will honestly believe this was all an act to harm and blackmail WotC.
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
I wish I could have your optimism regarding the leadership over at WotC but I'm afraid the hour is later then you think Xukuri; Perkins pimped Spelljammer for weeks despite it being utterly half baked as a product.
There are good 3rd party products and creators and there are bad 3rd party products and creators, just as there's a sometimes frustrating range of quality in WotC products. I was really excited about the AAW's Guide to Spelunking and definitely hyped it on this board ... but was disappointed with the actual book which padded itself with 10% of the content devoted to Momentum mechanics, and very "big font, lots of white space" lay out. It was enough of a mixed bag that I've since avoided AAW. Sorry.
Folks should also realize there's considerable revolving door between folks who do work for WotC and other 3rd party presses, there's a couple of former DDB writers who have done work for WotC and combine probably have experience with the so called "top 20" 3rd parties. It seems a lot of folks who want to be mad at this don't appreciate that fact of the actual community. At least at the level of the creatives, at least in terms of the people who actually make game products, there's no need to call out people in those roles in this matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The Whole QGL issue is just a fight between companies. The 1.0A OGL is no longer a benefit to DnD, and is only giving rise to parasitic competition that will eventually kill it. And based on the document that was finally released it was clearly written/altered to cause all this drama. So till I see a REAL 1.1 OGL I will honestly believe this was all an act to harm and blackmail WotC.
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
I agree that 3PP books have been great for D&D. But the current OGL is facilitating a lot more than that - millions of dollars of video games, a sea of virtual tabletops, subsidizing direct competitors, and even (possibly) brand new things like the NFTs they mentioned in the press release, or VR experiences, or other technologies we can't even fathom today. The folks who framed it back in 2000 couldn't have possibly anticipated all that; even if they fully intended it to be used in all those ways and more, the current holders of the IP trying to update it to keep pace with the times is reasonable.
That's not to say the leaked terms are reasonable, but the desire to replace the older OGL with a more up-to-date one is.
The Whole QGL issue is just a fight between companies. The 1.0A OGL is no longer a benefit to DnD, and is only giving rise to parasitic competition that will eventually kill it. And based on the document that was finally released it was clearly written/altered to cause all this drama. So till I see a REAL 1.1 OGL I will honestly believe this was all an act to harm and blackmail WotC.
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
I agree that 3PP books have been great for D&D. But the current OGL is facilitating a lot more than that - millions of dollars of video games, a sea of virtual tabletops, subsidizing direct competitors, and even (possibly) brand new things like the NFTs they mentioned in the press release, or VR experiences, or other technologies we can't even fathom today. The folks who framed it back in 2000 couldn't have possibly anticipated all that; even if they fully intended it to be used in all those ways and more, the current holders of the IP trying to update it to keep pace with the times is reasonable.
That's not to say the leaked terms are reasonable, but the desire to replace the older OGL with a more up-to-date one is.
The current OGL definitely was intended that you could use it to make software and games. The original FAQ saw to that.
I see nothing wrong with allowing third party publishers making things inspired by the OGL that aren't books or PDFs. NFTs are stupid, but they were stupid when Hasbro did them too. People will spend their money on all kinds of stupid things, much of the non-gaming D&D seems like a massive waste of money to me.
Solasta is a fantastic game, in many ways it's better than the rather poor BG3 (BG3 looks better but it's much less interesting and fun). But buying Solasta didn't stop me buying BG3, I just wish I hadn't brought it.
There are good 3rd party products and creators and there are bad 3rd party products and creators, just as there's a sometimes frustrating range of quality in WotC products. I was really excited about the AAW's Guide to Spelunking and definitely hyped it on this board ... but was disappointed with the actual book which padded itself with 10% of the content devoted to Momentum mechanics, and very "big font, lots of white space" lay out. It was enough of a mixed bag that I've since avoided AAW. Sorry.
Folks should also realize there's considerable revolving door between folks who do work for WotC and other 3rd party presses, there's a couple of former DDB writers who have done work for WotC and combine probably have experience with the so called "top 20" 3rd parties. It seems a lot of folks who want to be mad at this don't appreciate that fact of the actual community. At least at the level of the creatives, at least in terms of the people who actually make game products, there's no need to call out people in those roles in this matter.
Interesting. The only product I've ever bought from AAW Games is Rise of the Drow and I absolutely love it. The physical book itself is spectacular IMO. Though I do not buy things until I've read enough reviews. Well, reviews that I can tell aren't *paid* reviews. Trust means something. (eyes WotC out of the corner of my eye)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Ghost of Saltmarsh definitely doesn't meet my approval of a *good* adventure. I mean there were a couple that were okay, but others that were painful to get through. Since there was no sixth level adventure (yes, Yawning Portal, I know) I homebrewed a drop-in adventure. It was so much of an improvement, I continued creating drop-in adventures rather than going back to the Saltmarsh included adventures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Whether it's the CEO or the Executive Vice President that's to blame, the simple fact is that it will be all of us - the common masses - who will be made to suffer.
The Whole QGL issue is just a fight between companies. The 1.0A OGL is no longer a benefit to DnD, and is only giving rise to parasitic competition that will eventually kill it. And based on the document that was finally released it was clearly written/altered to cause all this drama. So till I see a REAL 1.1 OGL I will honestly believe this was all an act to harm and blackmail WotC.
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
I agree that 3PP books have been great for D&D. But the current OGL is facilitating a lot more than that - millions of dollars of video games, a sea of virtual tabletops, subsidizing direct competitors, and even (possibly) brand new things like the NFTs they mentioned in the press release, or VR experiences, or other technologies we can't even fathom today. The folks who framed it back in 2000 couldn't have possibly anticipated all that; even if they fully intended it to be used in all those ways and more, the current holders of the IP trying to update it to keep pace with the times is reasonable.
That's not to say the leaked terms are reasonable, but the desire to replace the older OGL with a more up-to-date one is.
The current OGL definitely was intended that you could use it to make software and games. The original FAQ saw to that.
I see nothing wrong with allowing third party publishers making things inspired by the OGL that aren't books or PDFs. NFTs are stupid, but they were stupid when Hasbro did them too. People will spend their money on all kinds of stupid things, much of the non-gaming D&D seems like a massive waste of money to me.
Solasta is a fantastic game, in many ways it's better than the rather poor BG3 (BG3 looks better but it's much less interesting and fun). But buying Solasta didn't stop me buying BG3, I just wish I hadn't brought it.
The problem is that if it's not a book or PDF, combing through it to make sure it truly only uses open content and no product identity becomes a lot harder. If a dozen people each make 40-hour-long CRPGs* using the OGL, would WotC really want their legal team playing through all of them start to finish to verify that they stayed within bounds? Much easier to restrict what you can make with the open license to its intended purpose (growing the tabletop game through supplemental material), and have anyone who wants to make anything else come to you for a much more specific/tailored agreement.
And sure, that wasn't as big a deal back in 2000, but 20+ years later it's likely to become more frequent.
*Keep in mind that 40 hours is very short for a roleplaying video game
I wish I could have your optimism regarding the leadership over at WotC but I'm afraid the hour is later then you think Xukuri; Perkins pimped Spelljammer for weeks despite it being utterly half baked as a product.
To me, there's a difference in turning out less-than-ideal products due to corporate pressure and market expectations and aggressively screwing over an entire industry.
Again, I could be wrong! Maybe Perkins et al are absolutely fine with this extreme tightening of the license. I can't think most of the actual rank-and-file creatives are, though.
There are good 3rd party products and creators and there are bad 3rd party products and creators, just as there's a sometimes frustrating range of quality in WotC products. I was really excited about the AAW's Guide to Spelunking and definitely hyped it on this board ... but was disappointed with the actual book which padded itself with 10% of the content devoted to Momentum mechanics, and very "big font, lots of white space" lay out. It was enough of a mixed bag that I've since avoided AAW. Sorry.
Folks should also realize there's considerable revolving door between folks who do work for WotC and other 3rd party presses, there's a couple of former DDB writers who have done work for WotC and combine probably have experience with the so called "top 20" 3rd parties. It seems a lot of folks who want to be mad at this don't appreciate that fact of the actual community. At least at the level of the creatives, at least in terms of the people who actually make game products, there's no need to call out people in those roles in this matter.
Interesting. The only product I've ever bought from AAW Games is Rise of the Drow and I absolutely love it. The physical book itself is spectacular IMO. Though I do not buy things until I've read enough reviews. Well, reviews that I can tell aren't *paid* reviews. Trust means something. (eyes WotC out of the corner of my eye)
AAW's rep is largely its Drow products. I want to say the Survivalist guide might be their only non Drow centric (but definitely Drow adjacent) product. And given their reputation in Underdark spaces, it seemed a good bet for a KS. There's things I like about, the cover is great. I actually prefer the font size, WotC standard fonts are actually a bit hard for me to read in certain lighting even with my glasses, and the art within it was good, but given the amount of white space in the over all book and 10% of the book's content there to introduce a momentum mechanic that I don't recall being one of the games selling points or stretch goals just rubbed me wrong. First impressions mean something especially with the number of producers out there I don't really have a reason to go back. I was a kickstarter for it, largely out of AD&D Dungeoneers Survival Guide and author association nostalgia (the parts that are adapted from it are great). But yeah after that experience, my KS support tends toward more proven track records from creators I have experience with.
But also some folks preferred 3rd party content doesn't mean it's objectively the best 3rd party content. The ENNIES clubhouse aside, I don't really think there's such a thing as "the" best third party content. It's one of the reasons I think WotC's effort to capture (if that's what's going on here) the third party audience is more a self inflicted PITA than a benefit to their product development. Generally speaking, WotC is good at producing homogenized D&D. It makes some efforts in other genres, but I think it's best books are frankly the generic source books that can be used to inspire a bunch of different ways of playing. The 3rd party press exists more to appeal to specific niches supporting ways of playing outside the WotC baseline. To use the expression of a fraction as a metaphor D&D is the denominator, 3rd party is a range of numerators both rational and irrational. To try to "manage" all that stuff above the denominator line seems such a hassle while also maintaining the denominator itself. This is something I think some of the bolder 3rd party presses may find out. They've been doing great work in the numerator space but to have to provide a baseline as well ... I don't think there's going to be a lot of 1/1 triumphs in that endeavor. And that's not getting into the fact that if things go the worst case, the whole scene splits multiple ways (I don't think the community is fully aware of that, otherwise they'd be out there with us "you know, there are other games" bros, to put myself in a category).
The Whole QGL issue is just a fight between companies. The 1.0A OGL is no longer a benefit to DnD, and is only giving rise to parasitic competition that will eventually kill it. And based on the document that was finally released it was clearly written/altered to cause all this drama. So till I see a REAL 1.1 OGL I will honestly believe this was all an act to harm and blackmail WotC.
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
I agree that 3PP books have been great for D&D. But the current OGL is facilitating a lot more than that - millions of dollars of video games, a sea of virtual tabletops, subsidizing direct competitors, and even (possibly) brand new things like the NFTs they mentioned in the press release, or VR experiences, or other technologies we can't even fathom today. The folks who framed it back in 2000 couldn't have possibly anticipated all that; even if they fully intended it to be used in all those ways and more, the current holders of the IP trying to update it to keep pace with the times is reasonable.
That's not to say the leaked terms are reasonable, but the desire to replace the older OGL with a more up-to-date one is.
No that is not reasonable. Not even remotely.
If they want to creat a new version of the OGL for 6e, they're welcome to. That's reasonable.
They can make it as draconian as they please. While not reasonable, that's at least well within their rights.
What's unacceptable and unreasonable is trying to destroy the existing OGL. It was released and licensed in perpetuity. That means forever.
That cat is out of the bag and they don't get to put it back in again.
Quite frankly it is crazy they're even trying. The OGL only applies to 3rd and 5th edition. If 6e is so great they shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just as an FYI, in Seattle, we vacation in Hawaii. Aruba is too far. 😁
Nobody is preventing you from making homebrew.
[REDACTED]
I think it's less "Hasbro vs WOTC" and more "Creatives vs Corporate."
Cynthia Williams, it seems safe to say, has never played any edition of D&D, and is likely either unaware or has only cursory knowledge of what happened when WOTC introduced 4E and a new, more restrictive gaming license.
I have to believe Mearls, Perkins, Crawford, et al, are very aware of it and very aware of how third party creators have been - ahem - CRITICAL to the enormous success of 5E. None of those guys are saints or above doing things for a paycheck, but I have a very hard time believing the draconian changes to the OGL were their idea or was something they pushed for.
And even if that visible trio is for the new restrictive license, I have to believe most rank and file WOTC designers and contributors who work on D&D haven't been clamoring for a new agreement that alienates and infuriates the fan base.
Again, on the (seemingly reasonable) assumption the leaked draft was real, this has executive/corporate greed and shortsightedness all over it. This does not feel like a move that would be made by anyone with a deep understanding of the game, its fans, and the performance and reception of the previous three (3, 3.5, and 4) editions.
Job security and Wizards of the Coast have never gone exactly hand in hand.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
There's nothing parasitical about third party publishers, and they've only ever threatened D&D when D&D did something stupid (4th edition and the GSL) which lead to Pathfinder.
The best RPG products are put out by third party publishers, WotC have made very few classic adventures themselves that weren't a re-release. Last one I can think of was probably Red Hand of Doom. The accessories, at least in fifth edition have been mostly lacklustre compared to the amazing things that third party publishers have published. I mean, AAW's Survivalists Guide to Spelunking is amazing and useful to anyone in any system. Nothing WotC has published in Fifth Edition fills that gap.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Descent into Avernus
Mad Mage
Dragon Heist
Witchlight
Frostmaiden
Curse of Strahd
Out of the Abyss
Saltmarsh
[REDACTED]
I wish I could have your optimism regarding the leadership over at WotC but I'm afraid the hour is later then you think Xukuri; Perkins pimped Spelljammer for weeks despite it being utterly half baked as a product.
There are good 3rd party products and creators and there are bad 3rd party products and creators, just as there's a sometimes frustrating range of quality in WotC products. I was really excited about the AAW's Guide to Spelunking and definitely hyped it on this board ... but was disappointed with the actual book which padded itself with 10% of the content devoted to Momentum mechanics, and very "big font, lots of white space" lay out. It was enough of a mixed bag that I've since avoided AAW. Sorry.
Folks should also realize there's considerable revolving door between folks who do work for WotC and other 3rd party presses, there's a couple of former DDB writers who have done work for WotC and combine probably have experience with the so called "top 20" 3rd parties. It seems a lot of folks who want to be mad at this don't appreciate that fact of the actual community. At least at the level of the creatives, at least in terms of the people who actually make game products, there's no need to call out people in those roles in this matter.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree that 3PP books have been great for D&D. But the current OGL is facilitating a lot more than that - millions of dollars of video games, a sea of virtual tabletops, subsidizing direct competitors, and even (possibly) brand new things like the NFTs they mentioned in the press release, or VR experiences, or other technologies we can't even fathom today. The folks who framed it back in 2000 couldn't have possibly anticipated all that; even if they fully intended it to be used in all those ways and more, the current holders of the IP trying to update it to keep pace with the times is reasonable.
That's not to say the leaked terms are reasonable, but the desire to replace the older OGL with a more up-to-date one is.
Mostly they were remakes of older adventures.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
The current OGL definitely was intended that you could use it to make software and games. The original FAQ saw to that.
I see nothing wrong with allowing third party publishers making things inspired by the OGL that aren't books or PDFs. NFTs are stupid, but they were stupid when Hasbro did them too. People will spend their money on all kinds of stupid things, much of the non-gaming D&D seems like a massive waste of money to me.
Solasta is a fantastic game, in many ways it's better than the rather poor BG3 (BG3 looks better but it's much less interesting and fun). But buying Solasta didn't stop me buying BG3, I just wish I hadn't brought it.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Interesting. The only product I've ever bought from AAW Games is Rise of the Drow and I absolutely love it. The physical book itself is spectacular IMO. Though I do not buy things until I've read enough reviews. Well, reviews that I can tell aren't *paid* reviews. Trust means something. (eyes WotC out of the corner of my eye)
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Ghost of Saltmarsh definitely doesn't meet my approval of a *good* adventure. I mean there were a couple that were okay, but others that were painful to get through. Since there was no sixth level adventure (yes, Yawning Portal, I know) I homebrewed a drop-in adventure. It was so much of an improvement, I continued creating drop-in adventures rather than going back to the Saltmarsh included adventures.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Whether it's the CEO or the Executive Vice President that's to blame, the simple fact is that it will be all of us - the common masses - who will be made to suffer.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
The problem is that if it's not a book or PDF, combing through it to make sure it truly only uses open content and no product identity becomes a lot harder. If a dozen people each make 40-hour-long CRPGs* using the OGL, would WotC really want their legal team playing through all of them start to finish to verify that they stayed within bounds? Much easier to restrict what you can make with the open license to its intended purpose (growing the tabletop game through supplemental material), and have anyone who wants to make anything else come to you for a much more specific/tailored agreement.
And sure, that wasn't as big a deal back in 2000, but 20+ years later it's likely to become more frequent.
*Keep in mind that 40 hours is very short for a roleplaying video game
?????
No??????
I literally just provided a list of (highly well-recieved) original adventures WotC has published in recent years
[REDACTED]
To me, there's a difference in turning out less-than-ideal products due to corporate pressure and market expectations and aggressively screwing over an entire industry.
Again, I could be wrong! Maybe Perkins et al are absolutely fine with this extreme tightening of the license. I can't think most of the actual rank-and-file creatives are, though.
AAW's rep is largely its Drow products. I want to say the Survivalist guide might be their only non Drow centric (but definitely Drow adjacent) product. And given their reputation in Underdark spaces, it seemed a good bet for a KS. There's things I like about, the cover is great. I actually prefer the font size, WotC standard fonts are actually a bit hard for me to read in certain lighting even with my glasses, and the art within it was good, but given the amount of white space in the over all book and 10% of the book's content there to introduce a momentum mechanic that I don't recall being one of the games selling points or stretch goals just rubbed me wrong. First impressions mean something especially with the number of producers out there I don't really have a reason to go back. I was a kickstarter for it, largely out of AD&D Dungeoneers Survival Guide and author association nostalgia (the parts that are adapted from it are great). But yeah after that experience, my KS support tends toward more proven track records from creators I have experience with.
But also some folks preferred 3rd party content doesn't mean it's objectively the best 3rd party content. The ENNIES clubhouse aside, I don't really think there's such a thing as "the" best third party content. It's one of the reasons I think WotC's effort to capture (if that's what's going on here) the third party audience is more a self inflicted PITA than a benefit to their product development. Generally speaking, WotC is good at producing homogenized D&D. It makes some efforts in other genres, but I think it's best books are frankly the generic source books that can be used to inspire a bunch of different ways of playing. The 3rd party press exists more to appeal to specific niches supporting ways of playing outside the WotC baseline. To use the expression of a fraction as a metaphor D&D is the denominator, 3rd party is a range of numerators both rational and irrational. To try to "manage" all that stuff above the denominator line seems such a hassle while also maintaining the denominator itself. This is something I think some of the bolder 3rd party presses may find out. They've been doing great work in the numerator space but to have to provide a baseline as well ... I don't think there's going to be a lot of 1/1 triumphs in that endeavor. And that's not getting into the fact that if things go the worst case, the whole scene splits multiple ways (I don't think the community is fully aware of that, otherwise they'd be out there with us "you know, there are other games" bros, to put myself in a category).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No that is not reasonable. Not even remotely.
If they want to creat a new version of the OGL for 6e, they're welcome to. That's reasonable.
They can make it as draconian as they please. While not reasonable, that's at least well within their rights.
What's unacceptable and unreasonable is trying to destroy the existing OGL. It was released and licensed in perpetuity. That means forever.
That cat is out of the bag and they don't get to put it back in again.
Quite frankly it is crazy they're even trying. The OGL only applies to 3rd and 5th edition. If 6e is so great they shouldn't have anything to worry about.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I understand trying to prevent nfts, but the other stuff is so unreasonable I'm going to probably stop playing unless it changes
the biggest screwup since the screw was invented