Well, I finally got around to submitting what was potentially my last 1DnD survey. I wasn't very enthusiastic about it this time around. It's a shame. I really enjoyed our discussions. It's been nice hearing all of your points of view. I'm not sure how much more I'll have to say here. But I wish you all the very best going forward. Much love everyone.
I would be sad if you were to leave these discussions entirely, as your comments have been insightful and have done a great deal to shepherd the discourse in a positive direction. I think the OGL controversy has diminished everyone's enthusiasm for helping WotC develop the new version of the game, but hopefully the signs that the company may be backing down on that issue due to the outcry will allow us to get back to looking forward to the next edition.
I too would be very sad to see you leave, Steg. You have been an invaluable and insightful community member, and I enjoy hearing everything you have to say. If the OGL is what is concerning you, then I would like to say that the new version isn’t bad at all + basically all of the terms that people disliked seems to have been dropped.
But I digress, we will miss you here on the forums. I wish I could put my feelings into words in a more powerful way, but you were one of (if not the) smartest and kindest members here, and I wish you luck in life and whatever hobby you will play. These forums and D&D will always be here for you, and I hope you carry with you the sense of kindness and happiness you have given to others.
Sincerely,
Bard
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I too would be very sad to see you leave, Steg. You have been an invaluable and insightful community member, and I enjoy hearing everything you have to say. If the OGL is what is concerning you, then I would like to say that the new version isn’t bad at all + basically all of the terms that people disliked seems to have been dropped.
But I digress, we will miss you here on the forums. I wish I could put my feelings into words in a more powerful way, but you were one of (if not the) smartest and kindest members here, and I wish you luck in life and whatever hobby you will play. These forums and D&D will always be here for you, and I hope you carry with you the sense of kindness and happiness you have given to others.
Sincerely,
Bard
The biggest problem with the OGL is still there. They are going to de-authorize OGL 1.0a for all future projects not just One DnD projects. If Wizards can change the deal at any time there is nothing stopping them from trying to sneak the same crappy things back in again. As long as they can change it on a whim no amount of "we heard you we aren't going to do that... FOR NOW..." is going to mean a darn thing.
Also what you might not be accounting for is that regardless of what WoTC does, the fact that any of the more nefarious stuff in the leaked OGL 1.1 (which is OGL 2.0 now apparently) document was even something anyone in that company might have been considering (let alone implement) has been enough to sow distrust of WoTC amongst the parts of the D&D community actually paying attention to this issue, namely content creators and really invested DMs. And generally speaking, trust is a hard thing to earn back once it's lost.
Fair enough. But other corporations aren't necessarily going to be any better than Wizards.
If Wizards can change the deal at any time there is nothing stopping them from trying to sneak the same crappy things back in again. As long as they can change it on a whim no amount of "we heard you we aren't going to do that... FOR NOW..." is going to mean a darn thing.
Where did they say that they would have a clause like that? Even if they did, do you seriously think they would use it to reintroduce the clauses that people hated after they saw how badly the community reacted to them?
Ugh. This thread is getting off-topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Also what you might not be accounting for is that regardless of what WoTC does, the fact that any of the more nefarious stuff in the leaked OGL 1.1 (which is OGL 2.0 now apparently) document was even something anyone in that company might have been considering (let alone implement) has been enough to sow distrust of WoTC amongst the parts of the D&D community actually paying attention to this issue, namely content creators and really invested DMs. And generally speaking, trust is a hard thing to earn back once it's lost.
Fair enough. But other corporations aren't necessarily going to be any better than Wizards.
If Wizards can change the deal at any time there is nothing stopping them from trying to sneak the same crappy things back in again. As long as they can change it on a whim no amount of "we heard you we aren't going to do that... FOR NOW..." is going to mean a darn thing.
Where did they say that they would have a clause like that? Even if they did, do you seriously think they would use it to reintroduce the clauses that people hated after they saw how badly the community reacted to them?
Ugh. This thread is getting off-topic.
Correct it says "CURRENT ALREADY RELEASED content under 1.0a will always remain unaffected" which was Always the case even under the leaked 1.1 you cant revoke a used liscense from already used, once it released it is released. But by saying CURRENT ALREADY RELEASED CONTENT. It heavily implies that FUTURE content will NOT be able to use 1.0a for 5e, or 3.5 or anything, and if they can change the deal with 1.0a then they can change the deal whenever they want, however they want with the next OGL. The threat of change is bad enough because that means 3 party publishers can never feel secure about their future business.
They didn't change the most important part. They are de-authorizing 1.0a for FUTURE content, and if they can change that deal that can change any. It was bad this time, I would hate to see how much worse future greed tries to make it a couple years down the road.
Even if they did, do you seriously think they would use it to reintroduce the clauses that people hated after they saw how badly the community reacted to them?
Oh, absolutely. I have no doubt that if a corporation wants something, and their 'profit sources' object to it, that they will back off temporarily wait for memories to fade and then re-introduce it piecemeal, slowly, with slightly different wording. This is an extremely common occurrence, especially in the video game industry that WotC/Hasbro is intent on emulating as per that investor meeting. The initial backlash from microtransactions, loot boxes and the like only lasted a relatively short time, and the various publishing companies' crocodile teared apologies allowed them to retain their profit sources. They simply slowed their roll-out and reworded things, allowing things to become normalized before moving on to the next exploitive monetization. "It's not gambling, it's Surprise Mechanics!"
I would be sad if you were to leave these discussions entirely, as your comments have been insightful and have done a great deal to shepherd the discourse in a positive direction. I think the OGL controversy has diminished everyone's enthusiasm for helping WotC develop the new version of the game, but hopefully the signs that the company may be backing down on that issue due to the outcry will allow us to get back to looking forward to the next edition.
I too would be very sad to see you leave, Steg. You have been an invaluable and insightful community member, and I enjoy hearing everything you have to say. If the OGL is what is concerning you, then I would like to say that the new version isn’t bad at all + basically all of the terms that people disliked seems to have been dropped.
But I digress, we will miss you here on the forums. I wish I could put my feelings into words in a more powerful way, but you were one of (if not the) smartest and kindest members here, and I wish you luck in life and whatever hobby you will play. These forums and D&D will always be here for you, and I hope you carry with you the sense of kindness and happiness you have given to others.
Sincerely,
Bard
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The biggest problem with the OGL is still there. They are going to de-authorize OGL 1.0a for all future projects not just One DnD projects. If Wizards can change the deal at any time there is nothing stopping them from trying to sneak the same crappy things back in again. As long as they can change it on a whim no amount of "we heard you we aren't going to do that... FOR NOW..." is going to mean a darn thing.
Fair enough. But other corporations aren't necessarily going to be any better than Wizards.
This is false. The article explicitly stated that "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."
Where did they say that they would have a clause like that? Even if they did, do you seriously think they would use it to reintroduce the clauses that people hated after they saw how badly the community reacted to them?
Ugh. This thread is getting off-topic.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Correct it says "CURRENT ALREADY RELEASED content under 1.0a will always remain unaffected" which was Always the case even under the leaked 1.1 you cant revoke a used liscense from already used, once it released it is released. But by saying CURRENT ALREADY RELEASED CONTENT. It heavily implies that FUTURE content will NOT be able to use 1.0a for 5e, or 3.5 or anything, and if they can change the deal with 1.0a then they can change the deal whenever they want, however they want with the next OGL. The threat of change is bad enough because that means 3 party publishers can never feel secure about their future business.
They didn't change the most important part. They are de-authorizing 1.0a for FUTURE content, and if they can change that deal that can change any. It was bad this time, I would hate to see how much worse future greed tries to make it a couple years down the road.
Oh, absolutely. I have no doubt that if a corporation wants something, and their 'profit sources' object to it, that they will back off temporarily wait for memories to fade and then re-introduce it piecemeal, slowly, with slightly different wording. This is an extremely common occurrence, especially in the video game industry that WotC/Hasbro is intent on emulating as per that investor meeting. The initial backlash from microtransactions, loot boxes and the like only lasted a relatively short time, and the various publishing companies' crocodile teared apologies allowed them to retain their profit sources. They simply slowed their roll-out and reworded things, allowing things to become normalized before moving on to the next exploitive monetization. "It's not gambling, it's Surprise Mechanics!"
Shame that literally every thread about 1DD devolves to arguments about the OGL. The thread isn't even about the OGL.
[REDACTED]