After reading Foundry's brilliant write up on the subject, it's clear that the new OGL is still a poison pill, just wrapped in shinier paper.
We can infer from this that the goal of WotC is still to deauthorise OGL 1.0a. That's what this whole thing is about - they want to recreate legal gray space and become very litigious to try and chill the industry to create their 9 hells of monetisated VTT.
Ofc, but they are offering new levels of roleplaying with totally free modules, beside the VTT itselfe. Why destroying It instead of bringing a better experience and let the customers decide?
It they touch Foundry, thousands of people will leave DnD and join Paizo, ORC, etc. There will be a MASSIVE exodus.
But they're also another company we deal with, some of us even quite like their service. So their bias doesn't really make their opinions irrelevant. If they are worried about WotC's business moves then their opinion bias or not is worth taking into consideration.
But they're also another company we deal with, some of us even quite like their service. So their bias doesn't really make their opinions irrelevant. If they are worried about WotC's business moves then their opinion bias or not is worth taking into consideration.
Into consideration yes, as gospel no. I’ve read it; it is for the most part a reasonable critique. But the desire to keep 1.0a is entirely self serving for them, because 1.0a does not and is not capable of addressing the VTT space, which gives them freedom that does not exist in practically any other market. Of course they want the status quo to remain
I haven't been "shilling" for WotC. I just don't think people should act so irrationally (such as boycotting a movie that has literally nothing to do with the OGL)
Obviously companies can't be trusted. They're for-profit. No shit.
All I'm saying is that WotC ****ed up with the leak, and now they're trying to clear things up. And that you shouldn't praise some random, biased article as gospel. Nor should you present said article as objective truth, then decide it's an opinion when someone calls it out as biased.
You can say it's biased, but could you elucidate the benefits that ogl 1.2 has over ogl 1.0a and how the community at large would benefit from the removal of 1.0a?
I've had a D&D Beyond account for years and played every D&D edition but lightly fourth edition because I didn't like it.
This OGL stuff had me cancel my D&D beyond subscription. I bought every rule book that isn't an adventure module up to spelljammer some of them form multiple sources. I won't be supporting a company that goes back on what was always said for it's reason for the OGL lies about why it's deauthorizing and that attacks it's own customers. We're looking around other systems.
I'm the kind of customer a company should be taking care of but instead other systems are being examined so the money can go elsewhere. This is dumb. Groups consist of often 5 players and it only takes one that refuses to play the system. When they happens the group looks to compromise for what he will play and another system is used. 6th edition won't survive their OGL revisions and lies.
Foundry and third parties VTTs are the direct target of the VTT policy, so their opinion and bias matters the most far more than anybody else's to begin with. Listen to what they have to say, instead of the community itself or WotC. The fact that they are a third party VTT is exactly WHY their bias is the most important one to listen to and take heed of.
For example, Foundry doesn't have a recent history of trying to secretly strongarm through an update to an extremely popular license that guts said license, hoping to leverage a short window to respond to force much smaller companies to agree before they can consider it - a plan foiled only by leaked documentation and community outcry. Followed by lieing to the community and gaslighting them, THEN followed by multiple communications are better, but still ultimately pretty misleading.
By comparison to all that, I'd trust Foundry with my life and the life of my family - presumption of self interest aside.
By comparison to all that, I'd trust Foundry with my life and the life of my family - presumption of self interest aside.
Yikes
Its not a literal statement, its a metaphor to call out the gulf in reliability between for profit, small, private Foundry and for profit, publicly owned Hasbro.
Given the recent actions of Hasbro, there's no rational reason to take anything they say at face value. Foundry hasn't done anything to warrant more than healthy skepticism.
Into consideration yes, as gospel no. I’ve read it; it is for the most part a reasonable critique. But the desire to keep 1.0a is entirely self serving for them, because 1.0a does not and is not capable of addressing the VTT space, which gives them freedom that does not exist in practically any other market. Of course they want the status quo to remain
What new freedom do VTTs get over all other media? What am I missing that VTTs need to be addressed?
Into consideration yes, as gospel no. I’ve read it; it is for the most part a reasonable critique. But the desire to keep 1.0a is entirely self serving for them, because 1.0a does not and is not capable of addressing the VTT space, which gives them freedom that does not exist in practically any other market. Of course they want the status quo to remain
What new freedom do VTTs get over all other media? What am I missing that VTTs need to be addressed?
Please dont say animations lol
VTTs themselves are fine, but how many features can you add before they just become a video game? And the OGL is not meant to subsidize video games. If you want to make a D&D video game, that's fine, put on your big boy pants and go get a custom license like Interplay and Larian did.
The boundary is in the role the computer plays. Supports a DM = VTT. Replaces a DM = Video Game.
I agree with the bold but not the latter part. NWN Custom was a video game with functionality that supported the DM without replacing them. The line is not quite so clear-cut.
After reading Foundry's brilliant write up on the subject, it's clear that the new OGL is still a poison pill, just wrapped in shinier paper.
We can infer from this that the goal of WotC is still to deauthorise OGL 1.0a. That's what this whole thing is about - they want to recreate legal gray space and become very litigious to try and chill the industry to create their 9 hells of monetisated VTT.
https://routerlogin.uno/ https://192168ll.link/
As other posts have said - keep your eyes on the prize!
Foundry is biased. Just mentioning.
[REDACTED]
Ofc, but they are offering new levels of roleplaying with totally free modules, beside the VTT itselfe. Why destroying It instead of bringing a better experience and let the customers decide?
It they touch Foundry, thousands of people will leave DnD and join Paizo, ORC, etc. There will be a MASSIVE exodus.
I mean sure-
But they're also another company we deal with, some of us even quite like their service. So their bias doesn't really make their opinions irrelevant. If they are worried about WotC's business moves then their opinion bias or not is worth taking into consideration.
Into consideration yes, as gospel no. I’ve read it; it is for the most part a reasonable critique. But the desire to keep 1.0a is entirely self serving for them, because 1.0a does not and is not capable of addressing the VTT space, which gives them freedom that does not exist in practically any other market. Of course they want the status quo to remain
>Find biased article presenting itself as objective fact
>Someone mentions it's biased
>Article is suddenly now an opinion
Sure
[REDACTED]
And of course, you're misinterpreting me.
I haven't been "shilling" for WotC. I just don't think people should act so irrationally (such as boycotting a movie that has literally nothing to do with the OGL)
Obviously companies can't be trusted. They're for-profit. No shit.
All I'm saying is that WotC ****ed up with the leak, and now they're trying to clear things up. And that you shouldn't praise some random, biased article as gospel. Nor should you present said article as objective truth, then decide it's an opinion when someone calls it out as biased.
[REDACTED]
You can say it's biased, but could you elucidate the benefits that ogl 1.2 has over ogl 1.0a and how the community at large would benefit from the removal of 1.0a?
I've had a D&D Beyond account for years and played every D&D edition but lightly fourth edition because I didn't like it.
This OGL stuff had me cancel my D&D beyond subscription. I bought every rule book that isn't an adventure module up to spelljammer some of them form multiple sources. I won't be supporting a company that goes back on what was always said for it's reason for the OGL lies about why it's deauthorizing and that attacks it's own customers. We're looking around other systems.
I'm the kind of customer a company should be taking care of but instead other systems are being examined so the money can go elsewhere. This is dumb. Groups consist of often 5 players and it only takes one that refuses to play the system. When they happens the group looks to compromise for what he will play and another system is used. 6th edition won't survive their OGL revisions and lies.
Foundry and third parties VTTs are the direct target of the VTT policy, so their opinion and bias matters the most far more than anybody else's to begin with. Listen to what they have to say, instead of the community itself or WotC. The fact that they are a third party VTT is exactly WHY their bias is the most important one to listen to and take heed of.
Not all companies are equally untrustworthy.
For example, Foundry doesn't have a recent history of trying to secretly strongarm through an update to an extremely popular license that guts said license, hoping to leverage a short window to respond to force much smaller companies to agree before they can consider it - a plan foiled only by leaked documentation and community outcry. Followed by lieing to the community and gaslighting them, THEN followed by multiple communications are better, but still ultimately pretty misleading.
By comparison to all that, I'd trust Foundry with my life and the life of my family - presumption of self interest aside.
Its not a literal statement, its a metaphor to call out the gulf in reliability between for profit, small, private Foundry and for profit, publicly owned Hasbro.
Given the recent actions of Hasbro, there's no rational reason to take anything they say at face value. Foundry hasn't done anything to warrant more than healthy skepticism.
A poison pill implies that there's something subtle. There's no real subtlety about their desire to deauthorize 1.0a.
What new freedom do VTTs get over all other media? What am I missing that VTTs need to be addressed?
Please dont say animations lol
VTTs themselves are fine, but how many features can you add before they just become a video game? And the OGL is not meant to subsidize video games. If you want to make a D&D video game, that's fine, put on your big boy pants and go get a custom license like Interplay and Larian did.
Easy. Bells and whistles do not make a vtt a video game. An AI DM does.
The boundary is in the role the comouter plays. Supports a DM = VTT. Replaces a DM = Video Game.
I agree with the bold but not the latter part. NWN Custom was a video game with functionality that supported the DM without replacing them. The line is not quite so clear-cut.
Unless that can be legally defined somewhere, this definition is meaningless. Video game can be whatever the contract parties agree it to be.