Prediction: (this is pure speculation so may be proven entirely wrong - I hope so! - it is just my guess based on the leaks and knowledge of various type of computer gaming)
1) There will be procedurally built combat encounters - select a random map and a random set of monsters by CR - where the monsters are run by an AI-DM that can either be 1 vs 1 or the AI will randomly select existing characters in the DnDBeyond database or from a set of default characters - basically the "quick build guide characters" - to be your teammates. The AI will run everything except your character. These will be free-to-play or behind a low-tier subscription paywall and will be filled with microtransactions to buy boosts, extra attempts per day, purchasing magic items, etc...
2) There will be monthly human built scenarios with some text-prompts, a new custom map, and 1-2 combat encounters. They will be designed such that they can be run by an AI with multiple-choice options for how to approach non-combat challenges using skills, and have a matching PDF for running them with your friends. These will be highest-tier subscription rewards.
3) #1 will be extended to a player vs player arena probably not immediately on release but assuming #1 is popular and the microtransaction cash if flowing, it seems an obvious natural progression to PvP with a pay-to-win structure.
4) The VTT will require at least the DM to have a mid-tier subscription, and likely a low-tier subscription for players. Adventure modules will be released with all VTT maps exclusive to the DndBeyond VTT. Unrestricted maps and monster tokens will be available as microtransaction extras.
5) The scenarios from #2 will be repackaged into full book releases every 12 months or so for purchase by non-subscribers. These will become the primary source of new Adventure modules.
The explanation I saw quoted from "Laeral" is that they typed AL DM meaning Adventurers League DM but due to a keyboarding error the L was lower case so it looked like this: Al DM . That's actually believable, given the state of AI at this point - an AI DM would be pretty ambitious.
Honestly, AL-DM would be harder to implement than AI-DM unless they just meant that AL-DMs would get a special deal on subscriptions. But an interesting model from a business standpoint (not sure about from a player/DM stand point) would be for them to set up an Uber / AirBnB type DM system - DMs can post offerings and fees, players can search them to find one they want to try and pay them, and WotC gets a cut of the profits. I think there is a website like this already somewhere? I personally wouldn't be interested, but I could see players in remote areas or small towns liking something like that.
Honestly, AL-DM would be harder to implement than AI-DM unless they just meant that AL-DMs would get a special deal on subscriptions.
Um... AL-DM is just someone who DMs adventurer's league, it's already implemented. They could certainly do things to try and encourage people to DM, but that's a separate issue.
Honestly, AL-DM would be harder to implement than AI-DM unless they just meant that AL-DMs would get a special deal on subscriptions.
Um... AL-DM is just someone who DMs adventurer's league, it's already implemented. They could certainly do things to try and encourage people to DM, but that's a separate issue.
The issue which would likely make it harder than AI DMs is scale. If you promise AL DMs for the $30 tier you'd end up needing way more AL DMs than exist and likely would ever exist.
I agree this was a much better statement. It would be nice to see an interview with someone that could actually go through what they were thinking and clear they air. Because there are lots of allegations of deception and hearing the other side of the story would be helpful or knowing that people who engaged in or directed a deceptive strategy are held accountable.
I agree this was a much better statement. It would be nice to see an interview with someone that could actually go through what they were thinking and clear they air. Because there are lots of allegations of deception and hearing the other side of the story would be helpful or knowing that people who engaged in or directed a deceptive strategy are held accountable.
The main issue with it imo is they gave a list of sort of false concessions. They could in the next couple days slap out basically almost the same exact 1.1 as before and it would fit what they put in that statement. The "your revenue" section is about the only one I don't see a weasel word method of using 1.1 or close to it. It is a step, it was at least put in a professional and polite tone. But until the 20th when they release the next version we really don't know their plan. I get using broad terms to keep options open for the 20th, so I am not going to doom and gloom it yet.
As I said it is something and a positive step. How positive we will have to wait and see.
The main issue with it imo is they gave a list of sort of false concessions. They could in the next couple days slap out basically almost the same exact 1.1 as before and it would fit what they put in that statement.
Yeah, but "we bought two days of calm" is not super-useful to WotC. I expect them to release something they think a reasonably large portion of the community will find acceptable (not perfect... but adequate). They could, of course, totally misjudge the community -- the original 1.1 certainly did -- but two days isn't exactly a long time to wait and see.
The main issue with it imo is they gave a list of sort of false concessions. They could in the next couple days slap out basically almost the same exact 1.1 as before and it would fit what they put in that statement.
Yeah, but "we bought two days of calm" is not super-useful to WotC. I expect them to release something they think a reasonably large portion of the community will find acceptable (not perfect... but adequate). They could, of course, totally misjudge the community -- the original 1.1 certainly did -- but two days isn't exactly a long time to wait and see.
Agreed, which is why I am not going to doom and gloom it.
I agree this one is much better than the others. However, while I want to be hopeful that whomever was pushing the predatory license has got the message from #DnDBegone it's hard to know for sure. This blog post is rather similar to what Treantmonk told them they should write as an apology post so it's hard to judge if it is genuine or just a better spin doctor telling us what we want to hear. I'll reserve judgement until they release the new version of the license but they haven't won me back yet.
Yeah, I don't really think it's wise to just blindly accept this new message they put out.
The new message should be understood as "we're willing to negotiate". That doesn't mean you should accept their second offer, or even that they're serious about negotiating, but it should be interpreted as a positive sign.
I agree this was a much better statement. It would be nice to see an interview with someone that could actually go through what they were thinking and clear they air. Because there are lots of allegations of deception and hearing the other side of the story would be helpful or knowing that people who engaged in or directed a deceptive strategy are held accountable.
The main issue with it imo is they gave a list of sort of false concessions. They could in the next couple days slap out basically almost the same exact 1.1 as before and it would fit what they put in that statement. The "your revenue" section is about the only one I don't see a weasel word method of using 1.1 or close to it. It is a step, it was at least put in a professional and polite tone. But until the 20th when they release the next version we really don't know their plan. I get using broad terms to keep options open for the 20th, so I am not going to doom and gloom it yet.
As I said it is something and a positive step. How positive we will have to wait and see.
Well no royalties is one of the concessions. That at this point is on paper and said will not happen. That's a concession. The removal of the "license-back" language which is what spurred the thought that they were going to steal content. If there last statement is to be believed that was not the intent of the language but they have not committed to it not being in the new OGL. This second one is the biggest I think that created a lot of issue with the content creators. They have committed to removing the registration requirement and reporting of money. So there are quite a few things that people didn't like about the 1.1 version that they have in this statement committed to removing. So unless they plan on ignoring the feedback (which this statement suggests they are not) those most objected to positions won't be in the OGL and what they offer instead will be the subject of review.
It’s start playing games.com and I’m a full time GM there, have been for 2 years. It’s actually pretty cool. We have a great community of nearly 1000 GMs running every TTRPG you’ve heard of and some you haven’t. I run 8 campaigns per week there at $25 per seat and have 70 solid detailed reviews, which helps give people the confidence that they’re going to get good value for their money and time.
I agree this was a much better statement. It would be nice to see an interview with someone that could actually go through what they were thinking and clear they air. Because there are lots of allegations of deception and hearing the other side of the story would be helpful or knowing that people who engaged in or directed a deceptive strategy are held accountable.
The main issue with it imo is they gave a list of sort of false concessions. They could in the next couple days slap out basically almost the same exact 1.1 as before and it would fit what they put in that statement. The "your revenue" section is about the only one I don't see a weasel word method of using 1.1 or close to it. It is a step, it was at least put in a professional and polite tone. But until the 20th when they release the next version we really don't know their plan. I get using broad terms to keep options open for the 20th, so I am not going to doom and gloom it yet.
As I said it is something and a positive step. How positive we will have to wait and see.
Well no royalties is one of the concessions. That at this point is on paper and said will not happen. That's a concession. The removal of the "license-back" language which is what spurred the thought that they were going to steal content. If there last statement is to be believed that was not the intent of the language but they have not committed to it not being in the new OGL. This second one is the biggest I think that created a lot of issue with the content creators. They have committed to removing the registration requirement and reporting of money. So there are quite a few things that people didn't like about the 1.1 version that they have in this statement committed to removing. So unless they plan on ignoring the feedback (which this statement suggests they are not) those most objected to positions won't be in the OGL and what they offer instead will be the subject of review.
It was an issue for people who obsess over the RAW of a game without being able to parse a legal contract; which is what a license is. For crying out loud, it's in YouTube's user agreement. Every single person on that platform who made a video decrying it was intentionally holding that information back from their audience. Even Linda Codega, who has the byline on all of the recent Gizmodo articles, thinks it's legal boilerplate. And that was after they consulted lawyers; before going to print.
And, to be clear, the leaked 1.1 was a draft. I know people are saying it wasn't, but it was. Entire sections and subsections were copy-pasted from OGL: Noncommerical to OGL: Commerical, and that might sound normal. Except there were sections added, so some sections got shifted further down. Citations and links to different sections and subsections didn't match up. So if that wasn't a draft, it was incompetently distributed for review and signing. And that's just embarrassing. Worst case, people are now learning that not everyone who finishes law school is smart. The law is generally predictable, but sometimes it comes down to who makes the more persuasive argument. And that might happen if 1.0a is revoked; I expect that, if it happens, to be challenged in court. And if there was incompetency, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. But I also don't think Hasbro got to where it was by having ineffectual counsel, so my money is on draft document.
Which brings me to another people that people on social media keep laughing at: this actually was a win-win. Even the leaked draft said they were open to feedback and revisions. That was not meant to be a final document. And guess what? They received feedback and changing their tune. Because a flat out rejection of D&D is always the worst-case scenario. Anything which avoids that is a good thing. I know some people are drawing a hard line and want 1.0a to be revised to be irrevocable. And if that's their non-negotiable, they're lost. They don't get to participate in the discussion, because they're not here to negotiate. They're here to dictate terms, and what they fail to understand is they don't get to. Because the holder of the IP is someone else. It's like saying, "I want to use your lawn whenever I want." It's bull hockey.
Having said all that, royalties going away isn't a big concession. They were never going to make much money off any such arrangement, so it was always a cherry on top. And registering products in advance, as well as reporting profits if they cross a sales threshold, can be a good thing. It means WotC knows what sells. They'd have their finger on the pulse of the community; knowing not only what they want but which creatives to keep an eye on. That makes recruiting talent for future projects easier, which is a win for everyone. The addition of Eberron was the result of a contest where fans submitted their homebrew settings and lore. This can just be another way there, and the leaked draft 1.1 implied it was possible.
I agree this one is much better than the others. However, while I want to be hopeful that whomever was pushing the predatory license has got the message from #DnDBegone it's hard to know for sure. This blog post is rather similar to what Treantmonk told them they should write as an apology post so it's hard to judge if it is genuine or just a better spin doctor telling us what we want to hear. I'll reserve judgement until they release the new version of the license but they haven't won me back yet.
Yeah, I don't really think it's wise to just blindly accept this new message they put out.
If some of what he's saying in that video is true, that's pretty big when it comes to how we're supposed to view these surveys going forward.
I'm leery of sources says type articles in general and don't want to buy into this just because the OGL stuff was bad. Initially I was willing to wait and see on the OGL stuff, but as they didn't respond and more and more people started confirming the same leak I was willing to believe it. So far on this its just him with this leak. Some of the videos implies they at least review some of the comments. Whether it is just super negative bubble choice ones, or maybe someone skims and sees if there is a common comment thread, or they actually read as much as they can, who knows but 0 reading seems a stretch given how they responded to the previous surveys.
Prediction: (this is pure speculation so may be proven entirely wrong - I hope so! - it is just my guess based on the leaks and knowledge of various type of computer gaming)
1) There will be procedurally built combat encounters - select a random map and a random set of monsters by CR - where the monsters are run by an AI-DM that can either be 1 vs 1 or the AI will randomly select existing characters in the DnDBeyond database or from a set of default characters - basically the "quick build guide characters" - to be your teammates. The AI will run everything except your character. These will be free-to-play or behind a low-tier subscription paywall and will be filled with microtransactions to buy boosts, extra attempts per day, purchasing magic items, etc...
2) There will be monthly human built scenarios with some text-prompts, a new custom map, and 1-2 combat encounters. They will be designed such that they can be run by an AI with multiple-choice options for how to approach non-combat challenges using skills, and have a matching PDF for running them with your friends. These will be highest-tier subscription rewards.
3) #1 will be extended to a player vs player arena probably not immediately on release but assuming #1 is popular and the microtransaction cash if flowing, it seems an obvious natural progression to PvP with a pay-to-win structure.
4) The VTT will require at least the DM to have a mid-tier subscription, and likely a low-tier subscription for players. Adventure modules will be released with all VTT maps exclusive to the DndBeyond VTT. Unrestricted maps and monster tokens will be available as microtransaction extras.
5) The scenarios from #2 will be repackaged into full book releases every 12 months or so for purchase by non-subscribers. These will become the primary source of new Adventure modules.
The explanation I saw quoted from "Laeral" is that they typed AL DM meaning Adventurers League DM but due to a keyboarding error the L was lower case so it looked like this: Al DM . That's actually believable, given the state of AI at this point - an AI DM would be pretty ambitious.
Honestly, AL-DM would be harder to implement than AI-DM unless they just meant that AL-DMs would get a special deal on subscriptions. But an interesting model from a business standpoint (not sure about from a player/DM stand point) would be for them to set up an Uber / AirBnB type DM system - DMs can post offerings and fees, players can search them to find one they want to try and pay them, and WotC gets a cut of the profits. I think there is a website like this already somewhere? I personally wouldn't be interested, but I could see players in remote areas or small towns liking something like that.
Um... AL-DM is just someone who DMs adventurer's league, it's already implemented. They could certainly do things to try and encourage people to DM, but that's a separate issue.
The issue which would likely make it harder than AI DMs is scale. If you promise AL DMs for the $30 tier you'd end up needing way more AL DMs than exist and likely would ever exist.
They have made a new statement on this. Whether people care at this point or not is up to them but it is something and a positive step imo.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
I agree this was a much better statement. It would be nice to see an interview with someone that could actually go through what they were thinking and clear they air. Because there are lots of allegations of deception and hearing the other side of the story would be helpful or knowing that people who engaged in or directed a deceptive strategy are held accountable.
The main issue with it imo is they gave a list of sort of false concessions. They could in the next couple days slap out basically almost the same exact 1.1 as before and it would fit what they put in that statement. The "your revenue" section is about the only one I don't see a weasel word method of using 1.1 or close to it. It is a step, it was at least put in a professional and polite tone. But until the 20th when they release the next version we really don't know their plan. I get using broad terms to keep options open for the 20th, so I am not going to doom and gloom it yet.
As I said it is something and a positive step. How positive we will have to wait and see.
Yeah, but "we bought two days of calm" is not super-useful to WotC. I expect them to release something they think a reasonably large portion of the community will find acceptable (not perfect... but adequate). They could, of course, totally misjudge the community -- the original 1.1 certainly did -- but two days isn't exactly a long time to wait and see.
Agreed, which is why I am not going to doom and gloom it.
I agree this one is much better than the others. However, while I want to be hopeful that whomever was pushing the predatory license has got the message from #DnDBegone it's hard to know for sure. This blog post is rather similar to what Treantmonk told them they should write as an apology post so it's hard to judge if it is genuine or just a better spin doctor telling us what we want to hear. I'll reserve judgement until they release the new version of the license but they haven't won me back yet.
The new message should be understood as "we're willing to negotiate". That doesn't mean you should accept their second offer, or even that they're serious about negotiating, but it should be interpreted as a positive sign.
Well no royalties is one of the concessions. That at this point is on paper and said will not happen. That's a concession. The removal of the "license-back" language which is what spurred the thought that they were going to steal content. If there last statement is to be believed that was not the intent of the language but they have not committed to it not being in the new OGL. This second one is the biggest I think that created a lot of issue with the content creators. They have committed to removing the registration requirement and reporting of money. So there are quite a few things that people didn't like about the 1.1 version that they have in this statement committed to removing. So unless they plan on ignoring the feedback (which this statement suggests they are not) those most objected to positions won't be in the OGL and what they offer instead will be the subject of review.
It’s start playing games.com and I’m a full time GM there, have been for 2 years. It’s actually pretty cool. We have a great community of nearly 1000 GMs running every TTRPG you’ve heard of and some you haven’t. I run 8 campaigns per week there at $25 per seat and have 70 solid detailed reviews, which helps give people the confidence that they’re going to get good value for their money and time.
It was an issue for people who obsess over the RAW of a game without being able to parse a legal contract; which is what a license is. For crying out loud, it's in YouTube's user agreement. Every single person on that platform who made a video decrying it was intentionally holding that information back from their audience. Even Linda Codega, who has the byline on all of the recent Gizmodo articles, thinks it's legal boilerplate. And that was after they consulted lawyers; before going to print.
And, to be clear, the leaked 1.1 was a draft. I know people are saying it wasn't, but it was. Entire sections and subsections were copy-pasted from OGL: Noncommerical to OGL: Commerical, and that might sound normal. Except there were sections added, so some sections got shifted further down. Citations and links to different sections and subsections didn't match up. So if that wasn't a draft, it was incompetently distributed for review and signing. And that's just embarrassing. Worst case, people are now learning that not everyone who finishes law school is smart. The law is generally predictable, but sometimes it comes down to who makes the more persuasive argument. And that might happen if 1.0a is revoked; I expect that, if it happens, to be challenged in court. And if there was incompetency, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. But I also don't think Hasbro got to where it was by having ineffectual counsel, so my money is on draft document.
Which brings me to another people that people on social media keep laughing at: this actually was a win-win. Even the leaked draft said they were open to feedback and revisions. That was not meant to be a final document. And guess what? They received feedback and changing their tune. Because a flat out rejection of D&D is always the worst-case scenario. Anything which avoids that is a good thing. I know some people are drawing a hard line and want 1.0a to be revised to be irrevocable. And if that's their non-negotiable, they're lost. They don't get to participate in the discussion, because they're not here to negotiate. They're here to dictate terms, and what they fail to understand is they don't get to. Because the holder of the IP is someone else. It's like saying, "I want to use your lawn whenever I want." It's bull hockey.
Having said all that, royalties going away isn't a big concession. They were never going to make much money off any such arrangement, so it was always a cherry on top. And registering products in advance, as well as reporting profits if they cross a sales threshold, can be a good thing. It means WotC knows what sells. They'd have their finger on the pulse of the community; knowing not only what they want but which creatives to keep an eye on. That makes recruiting talent for future projects easier, which is a win for everyone. The addition of Eberron was the result of a contest where fans submitted their homebrew settings and lore. This can just be another way there, and the leaked draft 1.1 implied it was possible.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest
I'm leery of sources says type articles in general and don't want to buy into this just because the OGL stuff was bad. Initially I was willing to wait and see on the OGL stuff, but as they didn't respond and more and more people started confirming the same leak I was willing to believe it. So far on this its just him with this leak. Some of the videos implies they at least review some of the comments. Whether it is just super negative bubble choice ones, or maybe someone skims and sees if there is a common comment thread, or they actually read as much as they can, who knows but 0 reading seems a stretch given how they responded to the previous surveys.
I'm so burnt out on this I could barely get past the first paragraph.