"It was just a draft" (but we sent it to people to sign)
Based on the CNBC story, they were sending people a Wonderful Opportunity to get in ahead of the official deal, and get a better bargain. Which does indicate that the intent was pretty close to the leaked text, but is not technically incompatible with it being a draft.
That story also means they were trying to bully people into signing a bad deal because they wanted them to be afraid of this OGL being an even worse deal. That makes the fact that this was a draft even worse.
The problem I'm finding is that no other game feels really like DnD 5e. Because of the OGL, no one felt a need to create anything similar in theme and feel because DnD was already there and being played by millions. It made more sense to write for it than make something like it.
Pathfinder is not 5e and it's never been the kind of game I wanted to play. Even when it was DnD 3.5. I can get the same theme there, but the rules are a big turn off. Every other game that has come out is a clone of an older edition, or a different genre entirely, or tries to have enough of its own feel apart from DnD that it is it's own thing. Which is great, but it can't replace 5e in the same way.
I've played so many wonderful games over the years and will probably revisit some of them. Shadowrun is a great example. But if my group wants high fantasy adventure with easy but customizable rules, I don't have many options.
I'm not giving up mind you. I know that Kobold Press and others will probably get there eventually. I've signed up to help them playtest. I've already purchased some of the old school DnD clone books to support those games. I'm sure I'll be buying more in the coming months. But it's a shame that the OGL we all came to enjoy also made a desert of DnD 5e type of games. I guess it's time to wait for the future.
So you are saying you will wait for black flag? Also Pathfinder 2e is not crunchy at all honestly. The out of combat rules are all just as flexible as 5e and the in combat rules is basically the 3 action system other than that be as creative as you want. In fact, the 3 action system allows for more creativity. Pathfinder 2e has a lot of rules systems to make it easier to run, but as with all RPG's rule 0 still exists, and with Paizo annoucing their own ORC you can change it as you see fit. Basically the primary differences can be boiled down to 1. More customization options for characters and thus a broader amount of fantasy tropes available. 2. A more balanced game with actual tips for GM's and 3. The three action system. I really can't wait for people to do more than crack open the book and read a couple feats in 2e and give up.
Still ya, wizards just blew their own foot off. And I am both sad and happy about it. Sad because One DnD was looking pretty good, and happy because better systems are going to get more visibility with more players.
Yeah I'm curious what Kobold Press comes out with. I'm pretty skeptical about whether Pathfinder will be a good fit for my group. Based on my experiences with 3.5e, what my players like and don't like, and things I've read about it. I'm primarily a DM, so my players come first.
I've heard a lot of dissatisfaction over the 3 action turn from people saying that it leads to everyone standing still to get 3 attacks. Since it's usually optional even with penalties. And I just really personally prefer rules to be as elegant and unobtrusive as possible. I don't like tons of micromanaged abilities where a simple bonus and some creativity would have sufficed.
But that being said, I do respect your advice. So I'll give it a chance. The starter set is a good price. And the worst that can happen is I get some good ideas for other game out of it. So thank you. :)
Ya if you are standing still to get 3 attacks even with the big debuff in attack bonus your players will get rocked pretty quick by a good boss fight. The encounter building is spot on and a single enemy hard encounter is going to a monster that is a few levels above the party. This means the first attack is going to be about 50/50 the second is going to be less and at the third you are basically only hitting on a nat 20. It is a waste to attack 3 times. Literally anything is better. Demoralize (intimidate action) to try to put the fear condition on to lower AC and the enemy attack bonus and saves by 1 for one round or 2 for one round and 1 for one round on a critical success is better. Taking the attack action then Feint action (Deception skill check in combat) to try to get the flat footed condition for your second attack is better, Attacking twice and then either taking the stride or step action to move away so the boss has to waste an action moving back to you (AoO is not universal and most monsters don't have it, but stepping prevents it to begin with). Even better, first attack is a trip making the enemy flat footed if you succeed on your athletics check against their Reflex DC, then second attack against flat footed enemy makes the second attack a bit more likely to hit then move away. Enemy now has to spend 2 actions, one to stand and one to move to you. Even 2 attacks and then raising a shield action
This is just a small example of some of the combat options, but really you should never be just attacking three times and not moving around. It will get you killed as fights get harder.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions. And you don't have to build your character into a narrow focus. I will say imo it is very easy to build a mechanically bad character in PF2e.
But if you want to see some play examples refuting the 3 actions are the same argument The Rules Lawyer on youtube covers it and PF2E pretty heavily.
"It was just a draft" (but we sent it to people to sign)
Based on the CNBC story, they were sending people a Wonderful Opportunity to get in ahead of the official deal, and get a better bargain. Which does indicate that the intent was pretty close to the leaked text, but is not technically incompatible with it being a draft.
Its a draft in the sense that your first offer on purchasing a house is a draft in that you know the home owner if they go with your offer will be giving you a counter offer. But it was not a normal draft in the contract world. You do not put sign lines on drafts, and drafts will very explicitly say all over them DRAFT. If WOTC was some 5 man operation worth 10,000 I can see how maybe they meant it as a draft as they did not have a lawyer, but a corporation like WOTC/Hasbro would not screw it up like that.
Something I am curious about this thread is look at poll question 2. Would you adopt one D&D if it did not have a OGL, and its a resounding no. Now was that no based on that question alone or no based on the rumors floating around. Like me personally if 6e decided not to have a OGL I'd be okay with that, if it was a really good game I'd play it. They don't owe people their product like that. But with the revoke the 1.0 for past games crap, that is where I drew the line. And to then have a "OGL" but have it be incredibly abusive that was insulting. But if they had gone 4e GSL mode, I'd be like I think that is a bad choice but it is your product and if your game is good I'll play it. Most game companies do not have a OGL and I play them, so I'd treat one/6e the same way. But they went super shady instead of just not having one for 6e so then I say, no I wont play it.
Something I am curious about this thread is look at poll question 2. Would you adopt one D&D if it did not have a OGL, and its a resounding no. Now was that no based on that question alone or no based on the rumors floating around. Like me personally if 6e decided not to have a OGL I'd be okay with that, if it was a really good game I'd play it. They don't owe people their product like that. But with the revoke the 1.0 for past games crap, that is where I drew the line. And to then have a "OGL" but have it be incredibly abusive that was insulting. But if they had gone 4e GSL mode, I'd be like I think that is a bad choice but it is your product and if your game is good I'll play it. Most game companies do not have a OGL and I play them, so I'd treat one/6e the same way. But they went super shady instead of just not having one for 6e so then I say, no I wont play it.
The resounding No was well before the leaks happened.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@gamephantomdm on twitter twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
Something I am curious about this thread is look at poll question 2. Would you adopt one D&D if it did not have a OGL, and its a resounding no. Now was that no based on that question alone or no based on the rumors floating around. Like me personally if 6e decided not to have a OGL I'd be okay with that, if it was a really good game I'd play it. They don't owe people their product like that. But with the revoke the 1.0 for past games crap, that is where I drew the line. And to then have a "OGL" but have it be incredibly abusive that was insulting. But if they had gone 4e GSL mode, I'd be like I think that is a bad choice but it is your product and if your game is good I'll play it. Most game companies do not have a OGL and I play them, so I'd treat one/6e the same way. But they went super shady instead of just not having one for 6e so then I say, no I wont play it.
The resounding No was well before the leaks happened.
Sort of. The specifics were leaked later but youtubers were pushing a what they felt was a likely narrative that was pretty close to what we got. My point is, very few systems have a OGL, so what exactly was the plan I'm leaving D&D because they don't have a OGL to play shadowrun that doesn't have a OGL. So I wondered if there was more behind it than just no OGL.
Something I am curious about this thread is look at poll question 2. Would you adopt one D&D if it did not have a OGL, and its a resounding no. Now was that no based on that question alone or no based on the rumors floating around. Like me personally if 6e decided not to have a OGL I'd be okay with that, if it was a really good game I'd play it. They don't owe people their product like that. But with the revoke the 1.0 for past games crap, that is where I drew the line. And to then have a "OGL" but have it be incredibly abusive that was insulting. But if they had gone 4e GSL mode, I'd be like I think that is a bad choice but it is your product and if your game is good I'll play it. Most game companies do not have a OGL and I play them, so I'd treat one/6e the same way. But they went super shady instead of just not having one for 6e so then I say, no I wont play it.
The resounding No was well before the leaks happened.
Sort of. The specifics were leaked later but youtubers were pushing a what they felt was a likely narrative that was pretty close to what we got. My point is, very few systems have a OGL, so what exactly was the plan I'm leaving D&D because they don't have a OGL to play shadowrun that doesn't have a OGL. So I wondered if there was more behind it than just no OGL.
There's two aspects there to unpack. The OGL and the existence of many very successful creators and companies making their living off of the OGL. If D&D has never had and OGL no one would be complaining, but also probably 50% of the people here would not be here, they would be playing other TTRPGs anyway (with or without OGLs).
The OG question was about swapping to D&D One not about playing D&D at all. At the time speculation was there would be no OGL for Ond D&D but the 5e one would remain, so most people would simply prefer to keep playing 5e using content created by their favourite 3rd party publisher than move to One D&D that was not going to support those 3rd party publishers.
The reason now people are leaving D&D entirely is because the leaks and official statements indicate an intention by WotC to retcon & remove the OGL entirely thus people's favourite 3rd party creator won't simply be unable to release content for OneD&D but for D&D at all (and possibly be put out of business entitly), thus their fans will move with them to whatever game system those creators swap to, and find something else to fill the time until then.
Essentially, the miss calculation by WotC is thinking people love the mechanics of the game more than the flavour and stories told with it. Or that people care more about a soulless brand name than the 3rd party creators who's entire success is driven by their psychosocial pseudorelationships with their fans.
Another way to look at it is WotC used streamers and gamers to get prople interested in D&D. Those people that joined because of them didn't choose D&D because it was D&D, they didn't choose it because of it's mechanics - many, including myself had never played a TTRPG before - we chose it because we enjoyed those streamers, podcasters, and content creators. If CR had continued with Pathfinder instead of switching their fans would be playing Pathfinder. When the Dungeon Dudes played Monster of the Week it made me want to play that. All those people that they brought into the hobby are here because of them, not because of WotC or because of any particular game mechanics or brand logo.
And yes a good deal of the point of switching to another game system is to punish WotC for hurting content creators we care about. Watching the Dungeon Dudes read their prepared statements about the OGL and their future was heartbreaking. I will certainly suffer through learning a new game system and HBing it into something I like it order to enact a tiny bit of revenge for them.
Also there's a difference between no license whatsoever being in place or some other license that artificially restricts you and is made to be revocable being used - the latter part being the more important one. If I have a license that cannot be revoked or changed after the fact by one side of the deal, it offers creators a certain protection that all the energy that was put into their creative work cannot suddenly be redirected into a completely different agreement. This kind of protection is not in place with the new license that was leaked.
We must not forget that the OGL was made when there were many competing TTRPGs whose individual userbases were shrinking. While it is NOT possible to copyright game rules and the process how a game is played itself, you can hold copyright to artwork, lore and the like. The problem is that D&D rules are a mixture of all of those things, and determining where the boundary lies is hard and messy. So if someone back in the day created supplemental work for an existing TTRPG that was compatible, this could well have been completely legal, but came with the risk of being sued anyway by the original TTRPGs publisher. Then you would have to fight the legal battle to determined which parts could or could not be used.
What WotC did was a really smart move back then. They basically looked at the Open Source Software community and said "hey, what if we just took their approach and applied it to our game rules". So that is why the OGL was created. It was a way to manually and voluntarily draw the line of what can and cannot be used without having lengthy lawsuits involved. This is why the OGL differentiates between Open Game Content and Product Identity. One thing can be used and is there to ensure interoperability, and the other one is protected. Now even if a court case might have drawn a different line, you could still rely on the line that was manually drawn since both sides agreed to it.
Of course this licence needed to be made in a way so that it could not simply be revoked afterwards, otherwise no one would have used it since it was lacking protection of being screwed over once the other aide has profited from your creative work. So they made sure that it was made clear that the license was perpetual and royalty-free. Unfortunately the word "irrevocable" was not deemed to be necessary in legal language 23 years ago to make it clear to a reasonable reader that a licence cannot be revoked. This is one of the things WotC is trying to exploit at the moment.
Also there was the problem of the possibility of legal stuff changing over the years, so it was made sure to create the option for updates in the licence, without screwing anyone over. Again, if any one entity could simply retroactively change the terms, no one would have used the license. So what thet did is they put a paragraph in there that allowed you to use any version of the license if you published stuff relying on Open Game Content, even if an update had been released. However, that created the problem that there were still drafts of the license floating around, and no one should be able to simply change the license and use those changed terms with someone elses content as well. To prevent this the word authorized was put in there - the idea being that only versions of the OGL that have at some point been used by WotC to published stuff could be used for Open Game Content.
Now this is the thing that WotC tries to exploit here. They're trying to claim that they can simply "unauthorized" a prior license, allowing them to force you into terms that have been changed and preventing you from publishing stuff only using old Open Game Content. This is clearly against the licenses intent and will probably it hold up in court, but it puts the community back in the position where you need to be afraid of being sued by WotC if you publish 5e stuff. So basically they're trying to bully everyone into using the new license without offering incentives such as a better game. They're afraid that otherwise the same thing that happened with 4e would happen and everyone would just stay with the older edition released under OGL.
What Hasbro/WotC fail to see is that the only reason D&D regained its popularity in the first place was the ability to create supplemental content for it without having to defend yourself in front of a court every time. This is how D&D survived the 90s decline and the early 2000s. However, as much as Hasbro wants it to the value of D&D does not simply lie within the ruleset or the trademark itself, but within the community of people using it. You cannot simply expect a system that thrived on network externalities in the first place, to continue working if you take those externalities away. D&D as a whole has profited immensely from all the third party creative work within the D&D bubble. If you take the incentive to create away, then all you do is harm yourself, the game and the community.
And this is why the outrage is so great - Hasbro wants people to keep creating for them but wants all the credit at the same time.
The OGL 1.0(a) was an invitation for people to come and offer up their creative energy without the risk of being sued for using common game rules. The new license is nothing but a legal document that allows you to sign away the rights for your creative work, without any protection that does not rely on trusting Hasbro/WotC whatsoever.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions. And you don't have to build your character into a narrow focus. I will say imo it is very easy to build a mechanically bad character in PF2e.
But if you want to see some play examples refuting the 3 actions are the same argument The Rules Lawyer on youtube covers it and PF2E pretty heavily.
I am glad you mentioned Rules Lawyer on that one because he also refuted the idea that the actions become repetitive if you build your character a certain way in that same video. I will also say that, from what I have heard, that it is nearly impossible to build a mechanically bad MARTIAL character. Spell casters are notoriously difficult to build at low level both because casters are a little weaker than most are used to AND because spells are so different and less straight forward. So while the consensus is that as long as you have the primary stat of a martial at 18 you will be fine casters are much more difficult to pin down.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions. And you don't have to build your character into a narrow focus. I will say imo it is very easy to build a mechanically bad character in PF2e.
But if you want to see some play examples refuting the 3 actions are the same argument The Rules Lawyer on youtube covers it and PF2E pretty heavily.
I am glad you mentioned Rules Lawyer on that one because he also refuted the idea that the actions become repetitive if you build your character a certain way in that same video. I will also say that, from what I have heard, that it is nearly impossible to build a mechanically bad MARTIAL character. Spell casters are notoriously difficult to build at low level both because casters are a little weaker than most are used to AND because spells are so different and less straight forward. So while the consensus is that as long as you have the primary stat of a martial at 18 you will be fine casters are much more difficult to pin down.
Yeah I saw his video on refuting the 3 actions are the same. I was not convinced. But, others may be.
Master Tier account canceled!WoTC just became the villain of their own stories and turning this ship around will require enormous effort. I've never really boycotted anything in my life, but this one hit close to something that I love because of the community it involves (not because of the game itself). I am guilty of supporting corporate greed of all types (Google, Amazon, even Microsoft), but I guess this is where I draw the line. TTRPGs are special because of the people they involve and the moments they create. This is not a video game that serves as a distraction from reality, it is a community-based game that brings people together to tell stories and create lasting memories. If WoTC and Hasbro execs are too blinded by greed to understand that then they will inevitably drive D&D back into oblivion where it once was the last time someone tried to horde the IP. A single company can not deliver the creative force that a game like this needs all by itself no matter how much money they throw at it.
Hasbro, if you want to make this work, fire your video game execs and find someone creative who understands this business and how it works. Otherwise good luck with your investors. By the way, I also just sold off all my stock in your company.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions. And you don't have to build your character into a narrow focus. I will say imo it is very easy to build a mechanically bad character in PF2e.
But if you want to see some play examples refuting the 3 actions are the same argument The Rules Lawyer on youtube covers it and PF2E pretty heavily.
I am glad you mentioned Rules Lawyer on that one because he also refuted the idea that the actions become repetitive if you build your character a certain way in that same video. I will also say that, from what I have heard, that it is nearly impossible to build a mechanically bad MARTIAL character. Spell casters are notoriously difficult to build at low level both because casters are a little weaker than most are used to AND because spells are so different and less straight forward. So while the consensus is that as long as you have the primary stat of a martial at 18 you will be fine casters are much more difficult to pin down.
Yeah I saw his video on refuting the 3 actions are the same. I was not convinced. But, others may be.
I have felt the best way to refute or not on that is to try it yourself. No one knows until you try it.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions. And you don't have to build your character into a narrow focus. I will say imo it is very easy to build a mechanically bad character in PF2e.
But if you want to see some play examples refuting the 3 actions are the same argument The Rules Lawyer on youtube covers it and PF2E pretty heavily.
I am glad you mentioned Rules Lawyer on that one because he also refuted the idea that the actions become repetitive if you build your character a certain way in that same video. I will also say that, from what I have heard, that it is nearly impossible to build a mechanically bad MARTIAL character. Spell casters are notoriously difficult to build at low level both because casters are a little weaker than most are used to AND because spells are so different and less straight forward. So while the consensus is that as long as you have the primary stat of a martial at 18 you will be fine casters are much more difficult to pin down.
Yeah I saw his video on refuting the 3 actions are the same. I was not convinced. But, others may be.
I have felt the best way to refute or not on that is to try it yourself. No one knows until you try it.
Agreed, for our table lets say its not refuted. Others with play styles similar to his and his tables it probably will be. Maybe if PF2e became our main game we'd change as we got more comfortable with it. But at our level of play a rut with your 3 actions was the norm.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions.
4th edition tended towards standard combos.
It's hard to avoid being repetitive unless you either give people a vast number of choices, such that you can do micro decision making, or you introduce a random element of availability -- for example, you could do a card game with maneuver cards, meaning your ideal combo might just not be possible with the cards you have in hand at the moment.
The amazing graphics of the WotC VTT is actually worrying me a lot. Games with graphics like that are $60 a pop with tons of additional monetization so that you're paying closer to $120. To support the servers to run those graphics at scale I would not be surprised in the WotC VTT is a $15 per player per month subscription, and crashes all the time b/c WotC doesn't have the experience in this domain to accurately predict demand / use of the VTT. Not to mention 99% of users will be locked into purchasing premade map, minature etc... from WotC rather than drawing / uploading your own. I personally am not interested in playing combats against the same 120 monsters, on the same 20-30 maps over and over again for $15/month.
Yes the above is entirely speculation and maybe the VTT will be awesome, free, and have a full suite of creator tools and integrated 3rd party market place for an endless supply of free pregenerated maps. But given WotC's history with digital products and the complexity of the development it would require, and the current leaks, I see little reason to be hopeful.
Wow... even my cynical guess was a 50% underestimate of what WotC is planning for subscription fees. Also I'm shocked they are considering an AI-DM even I didn't think they would go that far into turning their VTT into just a MMO videogame....
I doubt they will have an AI DM working any time soon. However an AI DM's Assistant would be fascinating, tracking things and the like while the actual DM is still in control. I wouldn't pay $30 a month per player for it, for sure, but I would love to play around with such a tool.
But an AI DM in general has so many assumptions. Could it track from session to session into a proper campaign? Would it have to be in fixed campaign worlds? Is this just 'Adventurers League' in disguise?
I doubt they will have an AI DM working any time soon.
All depends on what you mean by 'AI DM'. Something that can run combat encounters is totally within the reach of current AI (dirty secret: making a smart combat AI isn't really a priority for cRPGs, because players don't actually want to be outsmarted by a video game).
Honestly I think the biggest draw or use of an AI DM is not going to be groups running with an AI DM. Its going to be people who currently spend free time just rolling up characters. With an AI DM they can open up a scenario and test the character in situations.
Alternatively it might just be a random game you log in que in and groups of 4-5 strangers play a scenario.
Both are new ways to interact with D&D that I don't think would involve replacing you with your friends and one of you is the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That story also means they were trying to bully people into signing a bad deal because they wanted them to be afraid of this OGL being an even worse deal. That makes the fact that this was a draft even worse.
Ya if you are standing still to get 3 attacks even with the big debuff in attack bonus your players will get rocked pretty quick by a good boss fight. The encounter building is spot on and a single enemy hard encounter is going to a monster that is a few levels above the party. This means the first attack is going to be about 50/50 the second is going to be less and at the third you are basically only hitting on a nat 20. It is a waste to attack 3 times. Literally anything is better. Demoralize (intimidate action) to try to put the fear condition on to lower AC and the enemy attack bonus and saves by 1 for one round or 2 for one round and 1 for one round on a critical success is better. Taking the attack action then Feint action (Deception skill check in combat) to try to get the flat footed condition for your second attack is better, Attacking twice and then either taking the stride or step action to move away so the boss has to waste an action moving back to you (AoO is not universal and most monsters don't have it, but stepping prevents it to begin with). Even better, first attack is a trip making the enemy flat footed if you succeed on your athletics check against their Reflex DC, then second attack against flat footed enemy makes the second attack a bit more likely to hit then move away. Enemy now has to spend 2 actions, one to stand and one to move to you. Even 2 attacks and then raising a shield action
This is just a small example of some of the combat options, but really you should never be just attacking three times and not moving around. It will get you killed as fights get harder.
I'll say in PF2e while its not 3 attacks the 3 actions you take can very easily become repetitive. There will likely be a set of options that are 90% of the time the best choice due to your build. But I am not sure that is much different than any edition of D&D and the martial classes, maybe not 4th we never got high enough level in 4e to see much variety in actions. And you don't have to build your character into a narrow focus. I will say imo it is very easy to build a mechanically bad character in PF2e.
But if you want to see some play examples refuting the 3 actions are the same argument The Rules Lawyer on youtube covers it and PF2E pretty heavily.
Its a draft in the sense that your first offer on purchasing a house is a draft in that you know the home owner if they go with your offer will be giving you a counter offer. But it was not a normal draft in the contract world. You do not put sign lines on drafts, and drafts will very explicitly say all over them DRAFT. If WOTC was some 5 man operation worth 10,000 I can see how maybe they meant it as a draft as they did not have a lawyer, but a corporation like WOTC/Hasbro would not screw it up like that.
Something I am curious about this thread is look at poll question 2. Would you adopt one D&D if it did not have a OGL, and its a resounding no. Now was that no based on that question alone or no based on the rumors floating around. Like me personally if 6e decided not to have a OGL I'd be okay with that, if it was a really good game I'd play it. They don't owe people their product like that. But with the revoke the 1.0 for past games crap, that is where I drew the line. And to then have a "OGL" but have it be incredibly abusive that was insulting. But if they had gone 4e GSL mode, I'd be like I think that is a bad choice but it is your product and if your game is good I'll play it. Most game companies do not have a OGL and I play them, so I'd treat one/6e the same way. But they went super shady instead of just not having one for 6e so then I say, no I wont play it.
The resounding No was well before the leaks happened.
@gamephantomdm on twitter
twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D
Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
Sort of. The specifics were leaked later but youtubers were pushing a what they felt was a likely narrative that was pretty close to what we got. My point is, very few systems have a OGL, so what exactly was the plan I'm leaving D&D because they don't have a OGL to play shadowrun that doesn't have a OGL. So I wondered if there was more behind it than just no OGL.
There's two aspects there to unpack. The OGL and the existence of many very successful creators and companies making their living off of the OGL. If D&D has never had and OGL no one would be complaining, but also probably 50% of the people here would not be here, they would be playing other TTRPGs anyway (with or without OGLs).
The OG question was about swapping to D&D One not about playing D&D at all. At the time speculation was there would be no OGL for Ond D&D but the 5e one would remain, so most people would simply prefer to keep playing 5e using content created by their favourite 3rd party publisher than move to One D&D that was not going to support those 3rd party publishers.
The reason now people are leaving D&D entirely is because the leaks and official statements indicate an intention by WotC to retcon & remove the OGL entirely thus people's favourite 3rd party creator won't simply be unable to release content for OneD&D but for D&D at all (and possibly be put out of business entitly), thus their fans will move with them to whatever game system those creators swap to, and find something else to fill the time until then.
Essentially, the miss calculation by WotC is thinking people love the mechanics of the game more than the flavour and stories told with it. Or that people care more about a soulless brand name than the 3rd party creators who's entire success is driven by their psychosocial pseudorelationships with their fans.
Another way to look at it is WotC used streamers and gamers to get prople interested in D&D. Those people that joined because of them didn't choose D&D because it was D&D, they didn't choose it because of it's mechanics - many, including myself had never played a TTRPG before - we chose it because we enjoyed those streamers, podcasters, and content creators. If CR had continued with Pathfinder instead of switching their fans would be playing Pathfinder. When the Dungeon Dudes played Monster of the Week it made me want to play that. All those people that they brought into the hobby are here because of them, not because of WotC or because of any particular game mechanics or brand logo.
And yes a good deal of the point of switching to another game system is to punish WotC for hurting content creators we care about. Watching the Dungeon Dudes read their prepared statements about the OGL and their future was heartbreaking. I will certainly suffer through learning a new game system and HBing it into something I like it order to enact a tiny bit of revenge for them.
Also there's a difference between no license whatsoever being in place or some other license that artificially restricts you and is made to be revocable being used - the latter part being the more important one. If I have a license that cannot be revoked or changed after the fact by one side of the deal, it offers creators a certain protection that all the energy that was put into their creative work cannot suddenly be redirected into a completely different agreement. This kind of protection is not in place with the new license that was leaked.
We must not forget that the OGL was made when there were many competing TTRPGs whose individual userbases were shrinking. While it is NOT possible to copyright game rules and the process how a game is played itself, you can hold copyright to artwork, lore and the like. The problem is that D&D rules are a mixture of all of those things, and determining where the boundary lies is hard and messy. So if someone back in the day created supplemental work for an existing TTRPG that was compatible, this could well have been completely legal, but came with the risk of being sued anyway by the original TTRPGs publisher. Then you would have to fight the legal battle to determined which parts could or could not be used.
What WotC did was a really smart move back then. They basically looked at the Open Source Software community and said "hey, what if we just took their approach and applied it to our game rules". So that is why the OGL was created. It was a way to manually and voluntarily draw the line of what can and cannot be used without having lengthy lawsuits involved. This is why the OGL differentiates between Open Game Content and Product Identity. One thing can be used and is there to ensure interoperability, and the other one is protected. Now even if a court case might have drawn a different line, you could still rely on the line that was manually drawn since both sides agreed to it.
Of course this licence needed to be made in a way so that it could not simply be revoked afterwards, otherwise no one would have used it since it was lacking protection of being screwed over once the other aide has profited from your creative work. So they made sure that it was made clear that the license was perpetual and royalty-free. Unfortunately the word "irrevocable" was not deemed to be necessary in legal language 23 years ago to make it clear to a reasonable reader that a licence cannot be revoked. This is one of the things WotC is trying to exploit at the moment.
Also there was the problem of the possibility of legal stuff changing over the years, so it was made sure to create the option for updates in the licence, without screwing anyone over. Again, if any one entity could simply retroactively change the terms, no one would have used the license. So what thet did is they put a paragraph in there that allowed you to use any version of the license if you published stuff relying on Open Game Content, even if an update had been released. However, that created the problem that there were still drafts of the license floating around, and no one should be able to simply change the license and use those changed terms with someone elses content as well. To prevent this the word authorized was put in there - the idea being that only versions of the OGL that have at some point been used by WotC to published stuff could be used for Open Game Content.
Now this is the thing that WotC tries to exploit here. They're trying to claim that they can simply "unauthorized" a prior license, allowing them to force you into terms that have been changed and preventing you from publishing stuff only using old Open Game Content. This is clearly against the licenses intent and will probably it hold up in court, but it puts the community back in the position where you need to be afraid of being sued by WotC if you publish 5e stuff. So basically they're trying to bully everyone into using the new license without offering incentives such as a better game. They're afraid that otherwise the same thing that happened with 4e would happen and everyone would just stay with the older edition released under OGL.
What Hasbro/WotC fail to see is that the only reason D&D regained its popularity in the first place was the ability to create supplemental content for it without having to defend yourself in front of a court every time. This is how D&D survived the 90s decline and the early 2000s. However, as much as Hasbro wants it to the value of D&D does not simply lie within the ruleset or the trademark itself, but within the community of people using it. You cannot simply expect a system that thrived on network externalities in the first place, to continue working if you take those externalities away. D&D as a whole has profited immensely from all the third party creative work within the D&D bubble. If you take the incentive to create away, then all you do is harm yourself, the game and the community.
And this is why the outrage is so great - Hasbro wants people to keep creating for them but wants all the credit at the same time.
The OGL 1.0(a) was an invitation for people to come and offer up their creative energy without the risk of being sued for using common game rules. The new license is nothing but a legal document that allows you to sign away the rights for your creative work, without any protection that does not rely on trusting Hasbro/WotC whatsoever.
I am glad you mentioned Rules Lawyer on that one because he also refuted the idea that the actions become repetitive if you build your character a certain way in that same video. I will also say that, from what I have heard, that it is nearly impossible to build a mechanically bad MARTIAL character. Spell casters are notoriously difficult to build at low level both because casters are a little weaker than most are used to AND because spells are so different and less straight forward. So while the consensus is that as long as you have the primary stat of a martial at 18 you will be fine casters are much more difficult to pin down.
Yeah I saw his video on refuting the 3 actions are the same. I was not convinced. But, others may be.
Master Tier account canceled! WoTC just became the villain of their own stories and turning this ship around will require enormous effort. I've never really boycotted anything in my life, but this one hit close to something that I love because of the community it involves (not because of the game itself). I am guilty of supporting corporate greed of all types (Google, Amazon, even Microsoft), but I guess this is where I draw the line. TTRPGs are special because of the people they involve and the moments they create. This is not a video game that serves as a distraction from reality, it is a community-based game that brings people together to tell stories and create lasting memories. If WoTC and Hasbro execs are too blinded by greed to understand that then they will inevitably drive D&D back into oblivion where it once was the last time someone tried to horde the IP. A single company can not deliver the creative force that a game like this needs all by itself no matter how much money they throw at it.
Hasbro, if you want to make this work, fire your video game execs and find someone creative who understands this business and how it works. Otherwise good luck with your investors. By the way, I also just sold off all my stock in your company.
I have felt the best way to refute or not on that is to try it yourself. No one knows until you try it.
Agreed, for our table lets say its not refuted. Others with play styles similar to his and his tables it probably will be. Maybe if PF2e became our main game we'd change as we got more comfortable with it. But at our level of play a rut with your 3 actions was the norm.
4th edition tended towards standard combos.
It's hard to avoid being repetitive unless you either give people a vast number of choices, such that you can do micro decision making, or you introduce a random element of availability -- for example, you could do a card game with maneuver cards, meaning your ideal combo might just not be possible with the cards you have in hand at the moment.
Wow... even my cynical guess was a 50% underestimate of what WotC is planning for subscription fees. Also I'm shocked they are considering an AI-DM even I didn't think they would go that far into turning their VTT into just a MMO videogame....
I doubt they will have an AI DM working any time soon. However an AI DM's Assistant would be fascinating, tracking things and the like while the actual DM is still in control. I wouldn't pay $30 a month per player for it, for sure, but I would love to play around with such a tool.
But an AI DM in general has so many assumptions. Could it track from session to session into a proper campaign? Would it have to be in fixed campaign worlds? Is this just 'Adventurers League' in disguise?
All depends on what you mean by 'AI DM'. Something that can run combat encounters is totally within the reach of current AI (dirty secret: making a smart combat AI isn't really a priority for cRPGs, because players don't actually want to be outsmarted by a video game).
Honestly I think the biggest draw or use of an AI DM is not going to be groups running with an AI DM. Its going to be people who currently spend free time just rolling up characters. With an AI DM they can open up a scenario and test the character in situations.
Alternatively it might just be a random game you log in que in and groups of 4-5 strangers play a scenario.
Both are new ways to interact with D&D that I don't think would involve replacing you with your friends and one of you is the DM.