So I'm gonna surprise all the people who think I'm a corporate apologist or a secret Wizards shill by saying I actually think the Foundry post had a lot of good points worth considering. It also brought them up CORRECTLY - in a calm and rational manner discussing arguments over the specific wording and what it means in the 1.2 document. There's a lot of value to be had in reading that post and using it as a springboard for one's own feedback, or even discussing it sensibly here in the forums. Not that anyone is being sensible about any of this shit, but man it'd be nice, wouldn't it?
Nevertheless. Foundry makes a lot of good points, but also yes - remember that they're a for-profit business trying to scoop the maximum amount of profitable space out of the new document. By all means, pay close attention to their feedback, a lot of it's really good! But just like how Paizo is not paying for their ORC out of the kindness of their hearts, Foundry has a vested interest in seeing Wizards' own business flounder and fail. Just something to keep in mind when taking in information. Honestly, that goes as a general Rule For Life - whatever news you're reading, remember that somebody's paying to put it in front of you and they're doing it for a reason.
Keep in mind that Foundry's business is synergistic with DnD's - they have an interest in DnD doing well, and in DnD players using their product. That means that they want DnD to do well, and are financially vested in assisting it in doing well, so long as the success of both is intertwined. Foundry also provides a valuable feature for DnD players that DnD Beyond is unlikely to ever offer, in how its product is (if I understand correctly) locally owned and hosted.
So while Foundry isn't unbiased, they also have an interest in helping DnD succeed - they don't want to throw DnD under the bus here.
"This system is offered and may be used under the terms of the Open Gaming License v1.0a and its accompanying Systems Reference Document 5.1 (SRD5).
This system provides character sheet support for Actors and Items, mechanical support for dice and rules necessary to play games of 5th Edition, and compendium content for Monsters, Heroes, Items, Spells, Class Features, Monster Features, and more!"
They are claiming that WotC are obligated to provide the SRD free for all eternity, which seems to include all spell descriptions, class and class ability descriptions, etc. What, exactly, is not included?
Now if the Foundry site is misleading and you have to buy everything via D&D Beyond for use in Foundry, fair enough, but it sure doesn't read that way.
And you seem to be complaining in there about having to buy the digital copies when you already own the physical. How is that different from buying copies in two, say, different languages? Or buying one copy for home and one for your gaming club, so your home copy stays safer from damage?
Foundry sell a VTT - this VTT can be used for any game system.
There is no additional charge to use the DND5E system which is available on that platform, along with many other game systems which are also free (the VTT implements the mechanics, but only has textual content if an appropriate license is available from the publisher, such as OGL).
Wait, why do Foundry have a vested interest in seeing DnD fail again?
Also, you really shouldn't keep hammering the point that everyone arguing the opposite side to you needs to be super rational and polite, when you yourself are not engaging in the discussion in a rational and polite manner. It's super hypocritical.
Hey Kotath, for me personally, the move to Foundry encouraged me to invest in materials on DNDBeyond more than ever. In fact, if I stayed strictly in person Table top, I would probably wouldn't own a third of what I do.
If my group used Roll20, I might have spent money on the source materials there, or Fantasy Grounds, or wherever. But! The core rules of DND are the only things available on Foundry - they don't even have a store to buy through foundry (like roll20 or fantasyground would) and I'm fine with that, because I can import my DNDBeyond purchased material into my Foundry player and game.
I don't know how much of a cut WOTC gives up to sell a player manual on roll20 vs DNDbeyond, but I'm sure it's not the full value.
It seems to me that the recent moves are meant to monopolize the space, but only now that they want to make a VTT themselves. There's no pressure to improve your product when no one else can make one either.
Foundry doesn't have a vested interest in D&D failing, but they do have an interest in an official VTT from WotC failing. If it's a good product, then people will use it for convenience alone.
But that's why an anticompetitive VTT policy doesn't really make sense to me. WotC won't need it to succeed.
Also - does anyone know why Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have contracts with WotC, and Foundry doesn't? I've heard that Foundry reached out to WotC but just never heard back- but then I've never really known Hasbro to leave money on the table.
Foundry is also a for profit company, with its own PR department. Why the assumption that everything they say is innocent and not the least bit self serving?
So is Wizards of the Coast - but you're going to blindly trust them that the OGL they're trying to get us to shift over to isn't the least bit self serving?
Come on, if you're going to be this blithely jaded at least apply the sentiment equally.
Maybe instead of just immediately posting a snarky response, you could, idk, click the link, read it, use your brain and come up with your own opinion on whether or not it's a self serving stance? After all we have to assume that you think you're smart enough to tell, so why don't you read it Kotath and tell us; is their stance self serving?
Now, the moral thing to do, if they still want to make potentially as much money without ruining their reputation in the process, is build the best damn VTT that has ever existed and let the product speak for itself. Then you still get the upper end of the figures quoted, and you've earned it, not tried to litigate your way to it.
THIS - I wish that Wizards, instead of pulling what they've done, instead tried to focus their energy on building the best damn VTT out there. With all the bells and whistles that it could potentially have, any user would be able to see it as far superior and would put more of their support (and potentially money) towards WotC.
'What? It has subscription free dynamic lighting? Official support for 5E content? No extra price for paying for monsters for the VTT when you have the Monster Manual on D&D Beyond? And the animations look sick? SIGN ME UP - I'm leaving Roll20/Foundry/Owlbear Rodeo etc!!!!' - Every person ideally
This is what Wizards could have done. Imagine the headaches (and revenue) that would have saved them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Now, the moral thing to do, if they still want to make potentially as much money without ruining their reputation in the process, is build the best damn VTT that has ever existed and let the product speak for itself. Then you still get the upper end of the figures quoted, and you've earned it, not tried to litigate your way to it.
THIS - I wish that Wizards, instead of pulling what they've done, instead tried to focus their energy on building the best damn VTT out there. With all the bells and whistles that it could potentially have, any user would be able to see it as far superior and would put more of their support (and potentially money) towards WotC.
'What? It has subscription free dynamic lighting? Official support for 5E content? No extra price for paying for monsters for the VTT when you have the Monster Manual on D&D Beyond? And the animations look sick? SIGN ME UP - I'm leaving Roll20/Foundry/Owlbear Rodeo etc!!!!' - Every person ideally
This is what Wizards could have done. Imagine the headaches (and revenue) that would have saved them.
Lawyers aren't cheap but they're a hell of a lot cheaper and more reliable than trying to make a great product. Why do something difficult and expensive when you can do something cheaper and easier? Where Hasbro once expanded its thought process beyond simplistic and draconic views of IP now it wants to be just like The Big Boys. The worst part is, it's going to work.
Now, the moral thing to do, if they still want to make potentially as much money without ruining their reputation in the process, is build the best damn VTT that has ever existed and let the product speak for itself. Then you still get the upper end of the figures quoted, and you've earned it, not tried to litigate your way to it.
THIS - I wish that Wizards, instead of pulling what they've done, instead tried to focus their energy on building the best damn VTT out there. With all the bells and whistles that it could potentially have, any user would be able to see it as far superior and would put more of their support (and potentially money) towards WotC.
'What? It has subscription free dynamic lighting? Official support for 5E content? No extra price for paying for monsters for the VTT when you have the Monster Manual on D&D Beyond? And the animations look sick? SIGN ME UP - I'm leaving Roll20/Foundry/Owlbear Rodeo etc!!!!' - Every person ideally
This is what Wizards could have done. Imagine the headaches (and revenue) that would have saved them.
Lawyers aren't cheap but they're a hell of a lot cheaper and more reliable than trying to make a great product. Why do something difficult and expensive when you can do something cheaper and easier?
Easy, that's because......
Yeah I got nothing :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
They are claiming that WotC are obligated to provide the SRD free for all eternity, which seems to include all spell descriptions, class and class ability descriptions, etc. What, exactly, is not included?
...
And you seem to be complaining in there about having to buy the digital copies when you already own the physical. How is that different from buying copies in two, say, different languages? Or buying one copy for home and one for your gaming club, so your home copy stays safer from damage?
"They are claiming that WotC are obligated to provide the SRD free for all eternity, which seems to include all spell descriptions, class and class ability descriptions, etc. What, exactly, is not included?"
Incorrect. It's not all spell descriptions, class and class ability descriptions, but rather, all spell descriptions, class, and class ability descriptions in the SRD covered by OGL 1.0a.
"What, exactly, is not included?"
Content not included in the SRD. The SRD is not everything in D&D. It's a small subset.
Further, regarding this: "They are claiming that WotC are obligated to provide the SRD free for all eternity,"
No, they are not claiming this.
Wizards claimed this years ago. The authors of the OGL and WotC themselves made it very clear that anything put under the OGL was always under the OGL that it was released under.
This doesn't mean they can't create a new license and release a new SRD under that new license. But it does mean they can't revoke the old license.
You'd have to explain why WotC is wrong about their license.
"And you seem to be complaining in there about having to buy the digital copies when you already own the physical."
They aren't complaining. That demonstrates how this has increased revenue for WotC. This makes moot your line of questioning. I'll answer the question though.
"How is that different from buying copies in two, say, different languages? Or buying one copy for home and one for your gaming club, so your home copy stays safer from damage?"
I'm in the same boat. I've purchased stuff on D&DBeyond as well as bought the hard copy. I've been happy to do that. How is it different? No one is complaining about this. They are talking about it, but they understand that a physical book and a digital copy that is easy to parse, search, and import are two distinct products, and we accept that we are paying for more than just the pure content. But it's still different enough. It's not like buying the same book twice, because one is in a different format. It's more than just the same thing twice. In fact, it's NOT the same thing twice.
Regardless, no one is complaining about this.
Further, that you read that as complaining makes me question your seriousness in this discussion. Either you don't understand the topic well enough to make an informed decision, or you are trolling for Hasbro.
And an agreement made 20 years ago a year after acquisition when the game really was flailing, which says 'WotC will give stuff' and those accepting it are not obligated to do anything whatsoever in return seems more than a little one sided.
They didn't have to release the 5e SRD under OGL 1.0a (or publish an SRD at all). They chose to. 4e was under a different license entirely.
Edit: Also, if WotC is not making any money off of Foundry now, which seems to be what Foundry are claiming on their website by way of their references to 1.0, how would you moving make any difference to the status quo for WotC?
They're not making money off of Foundry because of their own choices.
Foundry has approached WotC for years trying to them to license their content on Foundry, but according to Foundry (which to be fair may not be true, though I don't see any reasons for the to lie over this).
Even if it was because of their own choices, you are insisting they should be damned for eternity over them.
And Foundry's incentive for lying is pretty obvious. As long as people believe them, they are the poor picked on underdog. Facts be damned. Given the position they seem to be taking, that they can sell everything WotC produces, themselves, free, under the 1.0, why in blazes would they ever have contacted WotC regarding working out something worse for them than that? How do you get a better deal than 'free?'
Just for fun…
Let’s open a gaming store. Let’s provide tables and battle mats for our customers. Let’s photocopy some character sheets and game aids like initiative tracker.
Does Wizards of the Coast get a cut of our sweet sweet snack bar money? Is it our fault wizards refused to supply us with their books to sell for them?
Now Wizards wants to open a Walmart style gaming store. They want to say I can’t provide a good battle at, and we probably shouldn’t wash the tables regularly or they will sue. Plus, they will call the cops on us if we step out of line, but if they do, we should shut up and enjoy it.
Foundry is also a for profit company, with its own PR department. Why the assumption that everything they say is innocent and not the least bit self serving?
Ugh. Did you have to go for the ad hominem right off the bat here? Nothing you just said has any validity. Did you read the article? Can you formulate an argument in response to the substance rather than launch an attack the speaker?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
They were just pointing out that nothing you said mattered. It's just tin foil hat stuff. That's all. If you have legitimate arguments to make, make them.
Foundry is also a for profit company, with its own PR department. Why the assumption that everything they say is innocent and not the least bit self serving?
Ugh. Did you have to go for the ad hominem right off the bat here? Nothing you just said has any validity. Did you read the article? Can you formulate an argument in response to the substance rather than launch an attack the speaker?
So they are not a for profit company? They are some sort of not-for-profit? Citation needed.
If saying 'they are also a for profit company' is ad hominem, isn't the same being said of Hasbro also ad hominem?
The source of an argument has no bearing on it's validity or merit. To argue as if it does is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. This means your statement is invalid and irrelevant. That's logic 101.
To make a valid argument, try reading the article in question as if you don't know its source, and then tell us what's wrong with it based on what it says.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
The source of an argument has no bearing on it's validity or merit. To argue as if it does is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. This means your statement is invalid and irrelevant. That's logic 101.
To make a valid argument, try reading the article in question as if you don't know its source, and then tell us what's wrong with it based on what it says.
You have that backwards. IF the source of the argument is not relevant THEN it is a logical fallacy. It is not a true statement that the source of the argument is NEVER relevant. Pointing out a financial incentive to bend the truth is a pretty classic example. Right up there with "he'll go to jail if he says anything else" or "he did have that gun pointed at his head at the time he said it." Very relevant.
Foundry doesn't have a vested interest in D&D failing, but they do have an interest in an official VTT from WotC failing. If it's a good product, then people will use it for convenience alone.
But that's why an anticompetitive VTT policy doesn't really make sense to me. WotC won't need it to succeed.
Also - does anyone know why Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have contracts with WotC, and Foundry doesn't? I've heard that Foundry reached out to WotC but just never heard back- but then I've never really known Hasbro to leave money on the table.
The planned VTT from WOTC is a 3D system. Foundry VTT is a 2D system.
The WOTC 3D VTT will almost certainly require you to purchase their pre-built 3D rooms and scenery, whereas Foundry VTT can be used for ANY of your games (not just D&D).
It is possible that the license cost for D&D was too high for the Foundry VTT, which is a small company.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Keep in mind that Foundry's business is synergistic with DnD's - they have an interest in DnD doing well, and in DnD players using their product. That means that they want DnD to do well, and are financially vested in assisting it in doing well, so long as the success of both is intertwined. Foundry also provides a valuable feature for DnD players that DnD Beyond is unlikely to ever offer, in how its product is (if I understand correctly) locally owned and hosted.
So while Foundry isn't unbiased, they also have an interest in helping DnD succeed - they don't want to throw DnD under the bus here.
Foundry sell a VTT - this VTT can be used for any game system.
There is no additional charge to use the DND5E system which is available on that platform, along with many other game systems which are also free (the VTT implements the mechanics, but only has textual content if an appropriate license is available from the publisher, such as OGL).
Wait, why do Foundry have a vested interest in seeing DnD fail again?
Also, you really shouldn't keep hammering the point that everyone arguing the opposite side to you needs to be super rational and polite, when you yourself are not engaging in the discussion in a rational and polite manner. It's super hypocritical.
What? A corporation that has a vested financial stake in attacking it's commercial rival is attacking its commercial rival?
You don't say!
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.
Dude, you gotta kill your autocorrect. I was NOT READY for the image this conjured in my head.
Hey Kotath, for me personally, the move to Foundry encouraged me to invest in materials on DNDBeyond more than ever. In fact, if I stayed strictly in person Table top, I would probably wouldn't own a third of what I do.
If my group used Roll20, I might have spent money on the source materials there, or Fantasy Grounds, or wherever. But! The core rules of DND are the only things available on Foundry - they don't even have a store to buy through foundry (like roll20 or fantasyground would) and I'm fine with that, because I can import my DNDBeyond purchased material into my Foundry player and game.
I don't know how much of a cut WOTC gives up to sell a player manual on roll20 vs DNDbeyond, but I'm sure it's not the full value.
It seems to me that the recent moves are meant to monopolize the space, but only now that they want to make a VTT themselves. There's no pressure to improve your product when no one else can make one either.
Foundry doesn't have a vested interest in D&D failing, but they do have an interest in an official VTT from WotC failing. If it's a good product, then people will use it for convenience alone.
But that's why an anticompetitive VTT policy doesn't really make sense to me. WotC won't need it to succeed.
Also - does anyone know why Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have contracts with WotC, and Foundry doesn't? I've heard that Foundry reached out to WotC but just never heard back- but then I've never really known Hasbro to leave money on the table.
So is Wizards of the Coast - but you're going to blindly trust them that the OGL they're trying to get us to shift over to isn't the least bit self serving?
Come on, if you're going to be this blithely jaded at least apply the sentiment equally.
Maybe instead of just immediately posting a snarky response, you could, idk, click the link, read it, use your brain and come up with your own opinion on whether or not it's a self serving stance? After all we have to assume that you think you're smart enough to tell, so why don't you read it Kotath and tell us; is their stance self serving?
THIS - I wish that Wizards, instead of pulling what they've done, instead tried to focus their energy on building the best damn VTT out there. With all the bells and whistles that it could potentially have, any user would be able to see it as far superior and would put more of their support (and potentially money) towards WotC.
'What? It has subscription free dynamic lighting? Official support for 5E content? No extra price for paying for monsters for the VTT when you have the Monster Manual on D&D Beyond? And the animations look sick? SIGN ME UP - I'm leaving Roll20/Foundry/Owlbear Rodeo etc!!!!' - Every person ideally
This is what Wizards could have done. Imagine the headaches (and revenue) that would have saved them.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Lawyers aren't cheap but they're a hell of a lot cheaper and more reliable than trying to make a great product. Why do something difficult and expensive when you can do something cheaper and easier? Where Hasbro once expanded its thought process beyond simplistic and draconic views of IP now it wants to be just like The Big Boys. The worst part is, it's going to work.
Easy, that's because......
Yeah I got nothing :P
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Hasbro is trying to squeeze something out of nothing. They are offering us nothing in exchange for a massive downgrade to what we had. Do better.
"They are claiming that WotC are obligated to provide the SRD free for all eternity, which seems to include all spell descriptions, class and class ability descriptions, etc. What, exactly, is not included?"
Incorrect. It's not all spell descriptions, class and class ability descriptions, but rather, all spell descriptions, class, and class ability descriptions in the SRD covered by OGL 1.0a.
"What, exactly, is not included?"
Content not included in the SRD. The SRD is not everything in D&D. It's a small subset.
Further, regarding this: "They are claiming that WotC are obligated to provide the SRD free for all eternity,"
No, they are not claiming this.
Wizards claimed this years ago. The authors of the OGL and WotC themselves made it very clear that anything put under the OGL was always under the OGL that it was released under.
This doesn't mean they can't create a new license and release a new SRD under that new license. But it does mean they can't revoke the old license.
You'd have to explain why WotC is wrong about their license.
"And you seem to be complaining in there about having to buy the digital copies when you already own the physical."
They aren't complaining. That demonstrates how this has increased revenue for WotC. This makes moot your line of questioning. I'll answer the question though.
"How is that different from buying copies in two, say, different languages? Or buying one copy for home and one for your gaming club, so your home copy stays safer from damage?"
I'm in the same boat. I've purchased stuff on D&DBeyond as well as bought the hard copy. I've been happy to do that. How is it different? No one is complaining about this. They are talking about it, but they understand that a physical book and a digital copy that is easy to parse, search, and import are two distinct products, and we accept that we are paying for more than just the pure content. But it's still different enough. It's not like buying the same book twice, because one is in a different format. It's more than just the same thing twice. In fact, it's NOT the same thing twice.
Regardless, no one is complaining about this.
Further, that you read that as complaining makes me question your seriousness in this discussion. Either you don't understand the topic well enough to make an informed decision, or you are trolling for Hasbro.
If you want to know what's in the SRD, read it for yourself: http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf
They didn't have to release the 5e SRD under OGL 1.0a (or publish an SRD at all). They chose to. 4e was under a different license entirely.
this is not what they are doing at all
Ugh. Did you have to go for the ad hominem right off the bat here? Nothing you just said has any validity. Did you read the article? Can you formulate an argument in response to the substance rather than launch an attack the speaker?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieThey were just pointing out that nothing you said mattered. It's just tin foil hat stuff. That's all. If you have legitimate arguments to make, make them.
The source of an argument has no bearing on it's validity or merit. To argue as if it does is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. This means your statement is invalid and irrelevant. That's logic 101.
To make a valid argument, try reading the article in question as if you don't know its source, and then tell us what's wrong with it based on what it says.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieYou have that backwards. IF the source of the argument is not relevant THEN it is a logical fallacy. It is not a true statement that the source of the argument is NEVER relevant. Pointing out a financial incentive to bend the truth is a pretty classic example. Right up there with "he'll go to jail if he says anything else" or "he did have that gun pointed at his head at the time he said it." Very relevant.
The planned VTT from WOTC is a 3D system. Foundry VTT is a 2D system.
The WOTC 3D VTT will almost certainly require you to purchase their pre-built 3D rooms and scenery, whereas Foundry VTT can be used for ANY of your games (not just D&D).
It is possible that the license cost for D&D was too high for the Foundry VTT, which is a small company.