The "draft" thing has been explained by legal people something like a dozen times. Every legal document is a 'draft' until it's signed, and they're always sent out as if the sender is expecting them to be signed. Should they stop using that term because people keep mishearing it? Yes. Were they trying to strongarm people into signing the bad draft? Probably. But man I'm sick of people hanging their entire argument on the word "Draft".
Ignoring the context of the original statement, that is correct. Kindof like when someone says Gravity is just a Theory.
I'll just post the quote here: "That was why our *early drafts* of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That *draft language* was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized."
This is not D draft, as in the legal term for creating a legal (or technical) document, this is d draft, as in an early example of an unfinished document that was intended to be revised later. Since this was not an "early draft" document, but a final version that was made without the intention of "acquiring feedback that could be considered before anything was finalized," You're asserting that what they really meant was the technical term "draft." We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
"Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It's not going away, and we're not going to charge you for it. Your homebrew is, and always will be, yours. We’ve always been excited to see your creations both on and off D&D Beyond!" Funny, free accounts such as mine can't add 3rd party homebrew to my homebrew collection unless I pay for a sub, or rebuild it given time and effort. I can certainly create and publish homebrew free for all to use if they wish, and expect nothing but a thankyou in return, but to hold that homebrew behind a paywall just feels [ what's the word ], Hypocritical.
Making your own homebrew is free, but accessing their library and search tools for other people's means you should probably be contributing to their hosting costs to maintain it.
Contributed $40 to select portions of core rules material shortly after account creation, so I covered my share of hosting cost. Still though, 3rd party site homebrew is behind a paywall and the statement " Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It's not going away, and we're not going to charge you for it. " is their words.
"Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It's not going away, and we're not going to charge you for it. Your homebrew is, and always will be, yours. We’ve always been excited to see your creations both on and off D&D Beyond!" Funny, free accounts such as mine can't add 3rd party homebrew to my homebrew collection unless I pay for a sub, or rebuild it given time and effort. I can certainly create and publish homebrew free for all to use if they wish, and expect nothing but a thankyou in return, but to hold that homebrew behind a paywall just feels [ what's the word ], Hypocritical.
Making your own homebrew is free, but accessing their library and search tools for other people's means you should probably be contributing to their hosting costs to maintain it.
Contributed $40 to select portions of core rules material shortly after account creation, so I covered my share of hosting cost. Still though, 3rd party site homebrew is behind a paywall and the statement " Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It's not going away, and we're not going to charge you for it. " is their words.
Context matters. They're talking about the (debunked) rumor that your ability to make your own homebrew would get paywalled.
Context matters. They're talking about the (debunked) rumor that your ability to make your own homebrew would get paywalled
Then a better phrase would have been, "Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It's not going away, and we're not going to charge you to create it." Then the context becomes crystal clear.
We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
I mean, if that's the hill you want to die on fine, but they were still correct to use that label.
No. No they were not. Draft (n.) is the proper word for any technical document that is unsigned. That, however is not what is indicated in the phases "early draft" and "draft language" as indicated above. They are homonyms and using them interchangeably is improper and deceptive. Like switching between the scientific and non-scientific of the word Theory. It is NOT correct to do so.
We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
I mean, if that's the hill you want to die on fine, but they were still correct to use that label.
No. No they were not. Draft (n.) is the proper word for any technical document that is unsigned. That, however is not what is indicated in the phases "early draft" and "draft language" as indicated above. They are homonyms and using them interchangeably is improper and deceptive. Like switching between the scientific and non-scientific of the word Theory. It is NOT correct to do so.
I think ill trust the actual lawyers in these forums over you who stated the information about the word draft in another thread
3) They do read our survey comments (DnD_Shorts already retracted this one)
4) They will not be charging people to homebrew.
Posting this thread to signal boost their comments, please feel free to link it (or the source tweets) wherever this misinformation continues to surface.
#1 Never going use their VTT Wizards has had failures and bad choices in the past digitally speaking they could offer a vtt for free and i still would not use it. Preferring to go with Maptools as I have coded my own framework. #2 the Line is No one at Wizards is working on it. the logical extrapolation is someone at Hasbro is researching/preparing to work on it or they are going to outsource it #3 My group is not making the jump to One D&D so whether they read our surveys or not matters little to me either way. #4 I am thinking very carefully about what i intend to share from my homebrew ideas.
Ah yes. This will surely be very, very reliable info. I mean, WOTC wouldn't lie to us, right?
If you refuse to believe anything they have to say then their forums are an odd place to inhabit.
They're in the process of deleting their account, as can be seen in their posts. You think they're planning on hanging around? This is what one calls a parting shot.
Regardless, the people in the forums aren't WotC but mostly DnD peers, so there's no reason why disliking WotC would preclude one from interacting a bit on the forums and while for you it's an endless torrent of people saying the same tired "I hate WotC", for them it is their first posts on these forums here after years of silently partaking in the hobby. And it's not very strange people are acting up, because WotC's actions were hurtful.
"DnD_Shorts already retracted this one" is a slight misrepresentation. Its more like they updated it to say their source clarified its only the OneDND feedback that the ignoring of written player feedback takes place (i mean, i understand why, 40k people typing 500 words a box. Its still scummy to straight up ignore it tho, as opposed to having a keyword/phrase finder or something comb through it to find common sentiments)
Not working on AI DMs? Hasbro would sh** a brick if that were true, thats a massive untapped market that they would want to be the forefront of. (I dont personally agree with the idea btw, being a DM myself, but we've been lied to before and i wouldnt put it past them).
The rest? We'll wait and see. Maybe those things weren't explicitly ""planned"".... but discussed? Absolutely it was, players are the "undermonitized" portion of the DnD fanbase after all 🙄
To all the [REDACTED]: We Understand That Rumors Are Just Rumors. Our outrage is warranted because if we give a single inch, they will take a mile. It doesnt matter whether they are or are not actively planning these things, they need to know that We Will Not Tolerate These Things
That is not the context in which they were using the term draft. They were using the term draft in a way which suggested that they were looking for feedback before a final version would be published. To give an example of another form of the word draft, when a writer writes a book or play there are oftentimes multiple drafts and early drafts may be completely different than the final form. At the very least there will be some differences. When you send out a document and expect someone to sign it giving only days to respond, then that is the version you have every intention of using.
Using a technical term in a communication meant for public discourse in a way that misleads the public as to your intent(such as by using the term "early draft" and language like "feedback" is clearly textbook gaslighting. The fact that they can mislead without "technically" lying just makes it worse.
TLDR: Most people aren't lawyers. Using legal lingo to mislead people is wrong. Doing a bad job of it is wrong and also costly.
While I may not trust WotC, what they have said makes more sense then 90% of the misinformation, lies, and cash grabs I have seen from the 3rd party side. Most people dont even seem know what an OGL even really is at this point. So while I have my torch and pitch fork ready should WotC "actually" do some thing wrong. The only one have have lost all faith in is the 3rd party creators *cough Companies*.
We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
I mean, if that's the hill you want to die on fine, but they were still correct to use that label.
No. No they were not. Draft (n.) is the proper word for any technical document that is unsigned. That, however is not what is indicated in the phases "early draft" and "draft language" as indicated above. They are homonyms and using them interchangeably is improper and deceptive. Like switching between the scientific and non-scientific of the word Theory. It is NOT correct to do so.
I think ill trust the actual lawyers in these forums over you who stated the information about the word draft in another thread
Ian Runkle is a lawyer and he says their continuing to use the term "draft" is very much lying:
I will trust that living breathing lawyer more than avatars on a forum claiming to be lawyers, particularly when they have spent days now dismissing any criticism of Wizards, no matter how valid.
I...wouldn't trust that "living breathing lawyer" over the others. One's in text format, the other in video. As far as I can see, I have about equal reason to believe either is a lawyer - their word that they are one.
Actually, that's not true. I can show that he is being less than sincere:
What Is a Draft Contract?
A draft contract is just an agreement that has not yet been finalized. The parties have not yet agreed on the exact terms and wording used in the draft.
That's what the OGL was. It was an agreement that had not been agreed to by all the parties, one that had been proposed by WotC. Were they trying to pressurise those people into accepting a crappy deal? Seems to be, and anyone who is pretending that WotC are angels are full of it. However, it was a draft. While I'd say certainly say that it was a poor word choice and had the wrong connotations for those not familiar with the esoteric vocabulary of contracts, it's not a lie. It's a lawyer forgetting to completely translate to everyday English.
As for the video itself...it reminds me of the kind of rants you have to endure when someone becomes vindictive. It was so full of spin and words being crammed down Kyle's throat that it was a surprise when he was actually referring to what was actually said in the email. It was ridiculous. The first section was enough to tell you how fast this was being spun - he spent several minutes...repeatedly pointing out that the email was from a company that was following a strategy? Like, they have MOs and processes and ways of doing things? I mean...really, Sherlock? The commentator was cynically trying to manipulate your view point. He was spinning it harder than either of WotC's announcements...and we all know that's saying something, right?
He then moved on from the fluff onto the meat of the announcement and again was shovelling words down Kyle's throat so fast it worried Einstein for a moment there. He's also being dishonest. Watch the segment about accessories for your owned content, for example. WotC, OGL or no, cannot stop you from making and selling dice. They cannot stop you from writing novels about your own worlds or characters and so forth. Even if they wanted to, they can't. This part of the announcement is just a reassurance that, to be honest, is just saying "you still have your rights and the OGL won't impinge on that". He spins it as WotC are going to sue you if you do write your own novels or you sell some dice. Like...think about it...how are they going to do that? Is every TTRPG going to go bust now, because no one is allowed to use d20s anymore? If that were even remotely possible, it would have been done by now. That's not how it works. They can stop you from using the ambersand logo (pretty sure it was never part of OGL anyway) on your products, they can (without the OGL giving you permission) stop you from setting your novel in Forgotten Realms et al and using their characters, but your own world? Your own characters? It would never get to court. It would be considered frivolous and they'd be getting into legal trouble themselves. They can't do it. But there's this alleged lawyer trying to persuade you that WotC is going to sue you.
Yeah.
Let's turn a fraction of the cynicism he would like you to have for WotC back towards him. He relies on views to get money. To get views, he needs to turn up your negative feelings, make you angry, rile you up so you keep watching and researching, sharing it. "WotC makes an announcement that they're trying to do better" doesn't generate views. "WotC is of the devil and this is how they're going to try and destroy" does. I've shown you two instances of where he's been dishonest with you in order to rile you up (there are more). Is it possible that he's quite willing to lie to you in order to get you to view his videos more and thereby generate money for him?
Is that really someone you want to listen to, rather than doing your own research and learning how these things work for yourself?
Look, I'm no WotC fan. I've spent more than one thread ranting about how WotC are not living up to expectations and how they've been treating us poorly. Any of the regulars could tell you that I'm not reticent to criticise them or call them out when I feel they're doing something wrong. The difference is that I'm also keen on sticking to the truth. I don't go on crusades to destroy them and salt their fields. Let's stick to the facts. And that "lawyer" doesn't.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Regardless, the people in the forums aren't WotC but mostly DnD peers
There is no reason to believe accounts who never posted on the forums before and maybe never even existed until recently, only to show up in the middle of a controversy to say "I'm cancelling my sub and never giving Hasbro any money ever again!", are anything but sock puppets
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The incessant posting in response to any criticism of Wizards might as well as be the respondents posting "I love Wizards more than I love the game itself."
Hello.
Do you remember why this whole thing started?
It was to save third-party publishers, creators and creatives, who operate in the D&D space and give us many hours of joyful gaming. The high-quality supplements released in Kickstarter and by third-party publishing houses are a boon to thousands of players.
Most of the people posting about this now are folks with three posts to their name, all three of them aimed at burning D&D to the ground. They're trying to ruin the third-party publishers and creatives the 1.1 document was aimed at just as surely as Wizards was. They treat us - players who want to keep playing D&D - as their enemies and attack us as viciously as they attack Wizards. Kinda like you did, right there.
None of us have ever said to stop criticizing Wizards. We all criticize Wizards. Some of us are trying to right the ship's course, while others are trying to light the ship on fire, ram it onto the reef, and execute the crew in a hobby-wide one-sided murder-suicide pact.
Pardon us if we get just a little tired of some fresh-faced newbie with three whole posts to their name popping out of the wordwork to shriek about GASLIGHTING this or LYING that every ninety seconds in every thread in GD and half the threads everywhere else. Frankly if I never hear the word "gaslighting" ever again on this forum it'll be about three days too soon.
Personally, I really wonder how many of those here ranting are Pathfinder players who simply never stopped hating TSR/WotC
Tons of Pathfinder players also play 5e, because a lot of their friends play(ed) 5e.
5e was also an excellent recommendation for new players who might feel intimidated by the apparent complexity of Pathfinder, and the wealth of choices it offered.
Most Pathfinder players were not particularly adversarial towards WotC/5e, prior to this debacle.
Which is the crux of the issue - WotC didn't really have adversaries or real competition prior to all this. All their "competitors" were tiny and insignificant by comparison - trying to crush them was an insanely brain dead move.
Because their is a massive overlap in 5e players and players of every other system.
I'm just going to say this, not rant, no insult. It's good to see Kyle Brink try to mollify an incensed crowd, it could mean, and it probably does mean, that a decent number of WotC employees actually care about the health of the game and the community. That is a good thing at the very least, however, even as he said so himself, the company dropped the ball big time and has destroyed decades worth of trust. But as we have already seen, the ones at the top do not care about the community, if they even know what it is they have that they are damaging. They have insulted their player base, their creators, their community as a whole. There are a lot of doomsayers out there too, of course there are, this is a hot topic in such a community. Personally I applaud Kobold Press and Paizo for saying and doing what they did.
Now... do I hate Hasbro... well I'm not currently a fan of them. Between the Magic 30th debacle and this, it's not looking good. I don't want to see my hobby "unlocked for recursive spending", but I don't want to see it die out either. Do I hate D&D, no. I started in 4e, which everyone but me and my friends hated, apparently, and learned Pathfinder 1e, 3.5, 2e, and 0e backwards. I learned 5e and I like the system. But I also don't like how openly political the game and the community has gotten and OneD&D looks to be more of the same. I cannot rightly remain subscribed to a service if what I like about the game will be gone in a year or two anyway. It was a bitter pill to swallow when my friends and I couldn't play 4e anymore because the DDi subscriptions obliterated the Compendium and I could no longer keep old versions of Firefox to use the character creators anymore. I'm not seeing this as much better going forward the way things are being handled. Worst of all, I'm not as creative as I used to be, I don't have as much fun with the game as I used to. This isn't helping. This SNAFU from the company and the fires of rage from the community, righteous or no, have served only to burn me out faster. Every time I look at OneD&D content I'm reminded how I shouldn't put too much effort in working on anything now because it will be obsolete in two years, worse if the OGL get changed too drastically.
I love D&D, but I'm tired. I think it's time to hang the hat for a while. If the game dies in the meantime, well I jumped ship I guess. If it doesn't and it's actually still here maybe that too is a good thing. I don't know. I want to see what Project Black Flag has to offer, I've looked into Pathfinder 2e, and I'm not as enthused about it as I was with 1e. At the end of the day, I still have my books... just not really the drive anymore. This community, this company, they've just taken that from me.
I feel like there’s conflated issues here, so gentle reminder:
”Obstacles to profit”
My exception here is corporate greed and disrespect. The OGL is merely an extension of that, it’s specific terms or method of presentation is getting a little lost in the weeds.
To the people who own D&D, the game we all love playing, you and I are nothing but obstacles to their profit.
Don’t forget that. It’s highly disrespectful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D is Now Trash
Goodbye
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ignoring the context of the original statement, that is correct. Kindof like when someone says Gravity is just a Theory.
I'll just post the quote here:
"That was why our *early drafts* of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That *draft language* was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized."
This is not D draft, as in the legal term for creating a legal (or technical) document, this is d draft, as in an early example of an unfinished document that was intended to be revised later. Since this was not an "early draft" document, but a final version that was made without the intention of "acquiring feedback that could be considered before anything was finalized," You're asserting that what they really meant was the technical term "draft." We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
Contributed $40 to select portions of core rules material shortly after account creation, so I covered my share of hosting cost. Still though, 3rd party site homebrew is behind a paywall and the statement " Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It's not going away, and we're not going to charge you for it. " is their words.
Context matters. They're talking about the (debunked) rumor that your ability to make your own homebrew would get paywalled.
I mean, if that's the hill you want to die on fine, but they were still correct to use that label.
No. No they were not.
Draft (n.) is the proper word for any technical document that is unsigned. That, however is not what is indicated in the phases "early draft" and "draft language" as indicated above. They are homonyms and using them interchangeably is improper and deceptive. Like switching between the scientific and non-scientific of the word Theory. It is NOT correct to do so.
I think ill trust the actual lawyers in these forums over you who stated the information about the word draft in another thread
#1 Never going use their VTT Wizards has had failures and bad choices in the past digitally speaking they could offer a vtt for free and i still would not use it. Preferring to go with Maptools as I have coded my own framework.
#2 the Line is No one at Wizards is working on it. the logical extrapolation is someone at Hasbro is researching/preparing to work on it or they are going to outsource it
#3 My group is not making the jump to One D&D so whether they read our surveys or not matters little to me either way.
#4 I am thinking very carefully about what i intend to share from my homebrew ideas.
If you refuse to believe anything they have to say then their forums are an odd place to inhabit.
They're in the process of deleting their account, as can be seen in their posts. You think they're planning on hanging around? This is what one calls a parting shot.
Regardless, the people in the forums aren't WotC but mostly DnD peers, so there's no reason why disliking WotC would preclude one from interacting a bit on the forums and while for you it's an endless torrent of people saying the same tired "I hate WotC", for them it is their first posts on these forums here after years of silently partaking in the hobby.
And it's not very strange people are acting up, because WotC's actions were hurtful.
Well you said it better than I could.
I get it that it's annoying for you too. I didn't mean to minimize your experience. I just wanted you to understand.
"DnD_Shorts already retracted this one" is a slight misrepresentation. Its more like they updated it to say their source clarified its only the OneDND feedback that the ignoring of written player feedback takes place (i mean, i understand why, 40k people typing 500 words a box. Its still scummy to straight up ignore it tho, as opposed to having a keyword/phrase finder or something comb through it to find common sentiments)
Not working on AI DMs? Hasbro would sh** a brick if that were true, thats a massive untapped market that they would want to be the forefront of. (I dont personally agree with the idea btw, being a DM myself, but we've been lied to before and i wouldnt put it past them).
The rest? We'll wait and see. Maybe those things weren't explicitly ""planned"".... but discussed? Absolutely it was, players are the "undermonitized" portion of the DnD fanbase after all 🙄
To all the [REDACTED]: We Understand That Rumors Are Just Rumors. Our outrage is warranted because if we give a single inch, they will take a mile. It doesnt matter whether they are or are not actively planning these things, they need to know that We Will Not Tolerate These Things
That is not the context in which they were using the term draft. They were using the term draft in a way which suggested that they were looking for feedback before a final version would be published.
To give an example of another form of the word draft, when a writer writes a book or play there are oftentimes multiple drafts and early drafts may be completely different than the final form. At the very least there will be some differences.
When you send out a document and expect someone to sign it giving only days to respond, then that is the version you have every intention of using.
Using a technical term in a communication meant for public discourse in a way that misleads the public as to your intent(such as by using the term "early draft" and language like "feedback" is clearly textbook gaslighting. The fact that they can mislead without "technically" lying just makes it worse.
TLDR: Most people aren't lawyers. Using legal lingo to mislead people is wrong. Doing a bad job of it is wrong and also costly.
While I may not trust WotC, what they have said makes more sense then 90% of the misinformation, lies, and cash grabs I have seen from the 3rd party side. Most people dont even seem know what an OGL even really is at this point. So while I have my torch and pitch fork ready should WotC "actually" do some thing wrong. The only one have have lost all faith in is the 3rd party creators *cough Companies*.
I...wouldn't trust that "living breathing lawyer" over the others. One's in text format, the other in video. As far as I can see, I have about equal reason to believe either is a lawyer - their word that they are one.
Actually, that's not true. I can show that he is being less than sincere:
That's what the OGL was. It was an agreement that had not been agreed to by all the parties, one that had been proposed by WotC. Were they trying to pressurise those people into accepting a crappy deal? Seems to be, and anyone who is pretending that WotC are angels are full of it. However, it was a draft. While I'd say certainly say that it was a poor word choice and had the wrong connotations for those not familiar with the esoteric vocabulary of contracts, it's not a lie. It's a lawyer forgetting to completely translate to everyday English.
As for the video itself...it reminds me of the kind of rants you have to endure when someone becomes vindictive. It was so full of spin and words being crammed down Kyle's throat that it was a surprise when he was actually referring to what was actually said in the email. It was ridiculous. The first section was enough to tell you how fast this was being spun - he spent several minutes...repeatedly pointing out that the email was from a company that was following a strategy? Like, they have MOs and processes and ways of doing things? I mean...really, Sherlock? The commentator was cynically trying to manipulate your view point. He was spinning it harder than either of WotC's announcements...and we all know that's saying something, right?
He then moved on from the fluff onto the meat of the announcement and again was shovelling words down Kyle's throat so fast it worried Einstein for a moment there. He's also being dishonest. Watch the segment about accessories for your owned content, for example. WotC, OGL or no, cannot stop you from making and selling dice. They cannot stop you from writing novels about your own worlds or characters and so forth. Even if they wanted to, they can't. This part of the announcement is just a reassurance that, to be honest, is just saying "you still have your rights and the OGL won't impinge on that". He spins it as WotC are going to sue you if you do write your own novels or you sell some dice. Like...think about it...how are they going to do that? Is every TTRPG going to go bust now, because no one is allowed to use d20s anymore? If that were even remotely possible, it would have been done by now. That's not how it works. They can stop you from using the ambersand logo (pretty sure it was never part of OGL anyway) on your products, they can (without the OGL giving you permission) stop you from setting your novel in Forgotten Realms et al and using their characters, but your own world? Your own characters? It would never get to court. It would be considered frivolous and they'd be getting into legal trouble themselves. They can't do it. But there's this alleged lawyer trying to persuade you that WotC is going to sue you.
Yeah.
Let's turn a fraction of the cynicism he would like you to have for WotC back towards him. He relies on views to get money. To get views, he needs to turn up your negative feelings, make you angry, rile you up so you keep watching and researching, sharing it. "WotC makes an announcement that they're trying to do better" doesn't generate views. "WotC is of the devil and this is how they're going to try and destroy" does. I've shown you two instances of where he's been dishonest with you in order to rile you up (there are more). Is it possible that he's quite willing to lie to you in order to get you to view his videos more and thereby generate money for him?
Is that really someone you want to listen to, rather than doing your own research and learning how these things work for yourself?
Look, I'm no WotC fan. I've spent more than one thread ranting about how WotC are not living up to expectations and how they've been treating us poorly. Any of the regulars could tell you that I'm not reticent to criticise them or call them out when I feel they're doing something wrong. The difference is that I'm also keen on sticking to the truth. I don't go on crusades to destroy them and salt their fields. Let's stick to the facts. And that "lawyer" doesn't.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There is no reason to believe accounts who never posted on the forums before and maybe never even existed until recently, only to show up in the middle of a controversy to say "I'm cancelling my sub and never giving Hasbro any money ever again!", are anything but sock puppets
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hello.
Do you remember why this whole thing started?
It was to save third-party publishers, creators and creatives, who operate in the D&D space and give us many hours of joyful gaming. The high-quality supplements released in Kickstarter and by third-party publishing houses are a boon to thousands of players.
Most of the people posting about this now are folks with three posts to their name, all three of them aimed at burning D&D to the ground. They're trying to ruin the third-party publishers and creatives the 1.1 document was aimed at just as surely as Wizards was. They treat us - players who want to keep playing D&D - as their enemies and attack us as viciously as they attack Wizards. Kinda like you did, right there.
None of us have ever said to stop criticizing Wizards. We all criticize Wizards. Some of us are trying to right the ship's course, while others are trying to light the ship on fire, ram it onto the reef, and execute the crew in a hobby-wide one-sided murder-suicide pact.
Pardon us if we get just a little tired of some fresh-faced newbie with three whole posts to their name popping out of the wordwork to shriek about GASLIGHTING this or LYING that every ninety seconds in every thread in GD and half the threads everywhere else. Frankly if I never hear the word "gaslighting" ever again on this forum it'll be about three days too soon.
Please do not contact or message me.
Tons of Pathfinder players also play 5e, because a lot of their friends play(ed) 5e.
5e was also an excellent recommendation for new players who might feel intimidated by the apparent complexity of Pathfinder, and the wealth of choices it offered.
Most Pathfinder players were not particularly adversarial towards WotC/5e, prior to this debacle.
Which is the crux of the issue - WotC didn't really have adversaries or real competition prior to all this. All their "competitors" were tiny and insignificant by comparison - trying to crush them was an insanely brain dead move.
Because their is a massive overlap in 5e players and players of every other system.
I'm just going to say this, not rant, no insult. It's good to see Kyle Brink try to mollify an incensed crowd, it could mean, and it probably does mean, that a decent number of WotC employees actually care about the health of the game and the community. That is a good thing at the very least, however, even as he said so himself, the company dropped the ball big time and has destroyed decades worth of trust. But as we have already seen, the ones at the top do not care about the community, if they even know what it is they have that they are damaging. They have insulted their player base, their creators, their community as a whole. There are a lot of doomsayers out there too, of course there are, this is a hot topic in such a community. Personally I applaud Kobold Press and Paizo for saying and doing what they did.
Now... do I hate Hasbro... well I'm not currently a fan of them. Between the Magic 30th debacle and this, it's not looking good. I don't want to see my hobby "unlocked for recursive spending", but I don't want to see it die out either. Do I hate D&D, no. I started in 4e, which everyone but me and my friends hated, apparently, and learned Pathfinder 1e, 3.5, 2e, and 0e backwards. I learned 5e and I like the system. But I also don't like how openly political the game and the community has gotten and OneD&D looks to be more of the same. I cannot rightly remain subscribed to a service if what I like about the game will be gone in a year or two anyway. It was a bitter pill to swallow when my friends and I couldn't play 4e anymore because the DDi subscriptions obliterated the Compendium and I could no longer keep old versions of Firefox to use the character creators anymore. I'm not seeing this as much better going forward the way things are being handled. Worst of all, I'm not as creative as I used to be, I don't have as much fun with the game as I used to. This isn't helping. This SNAFU from the company and the fires of rage from the community, righteous or no, have served only to burn me out faster. Every time I look at OneD&D content I'm reminded how I shouldn't put too much effort in working on anything now because it will be obsolete in two years, worse if the OGL get changed too drastically.
I love D&D, but I'm tired. I think it's time to hang the hat for a while. If the game dies in the meantime, well I jumped ship I guess. If it doesn't and it's actually still here maybe that too is a good thing. I don't know. I want to see what Project Black Flag has to offer, I've looked into Pathfinder 2e, and I'm not as enthused about it as I was with 1e. At the end of the day, I still have my books... just not really the drive anymore. This community, this company, they've just taken that from me.
I feel like there’s conflated issues here, so gentle reminder:
”Obstacles to profit”
My exception here is corporate greed and disrespect. The OGL is merely an extension of that, it’s specific terms or method of presentation is getting a little lost in the weeds.
To the people who own D&D, the game we all love playing, you and I are nothing but obstacles to their profit.
Don’t forget that. It’s highly disrespectful.
D&D is Now Trash
Goodbye