Christmas come early for the OSR?
Quote from: Microsoft Suits think this is good for them: on December 21, 2022, 02:45:34 PM
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d
OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D
DND Beyond Staff
by DND Beyond Staff
D&D NEWS D&D BEYOND STUDIO BLOG
We love the interest and passion the community has for D&D. We love D&D, too. So, when we see the D&D community concerned by rumors and misunderstandings, we want to clear the air and share the facts with you, even if it's a bit earlier than our original plan. You all matter to us, and we want to provide transparency on how D&D will continue supporting third-party creators.
So, here are the facts:
1. Will One D&D include an SRD/be covered by an OGL?
Yes. First, we're designing One D&D with fifth edition backwards compatibility, so all existing creator content that is compatible with fifth edition will also be compatible with One D&D. Second, we will update the SRD for One D&D as we complete its development—development that is informed by the results of playtests that we're conducting with hundreds of thousands of D&D players now.
2. Will the OGL terms change?
Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.
The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community's independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property.
So, what's changing?
First, we're making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn't. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn't cover it.
Will this affect the D&D content and services players use today? It shouldn't. The top VTT platforms already have custom agreements with Wizards to do what they do. D&D merchandise, like minis and novels, were never intended to be part of the OGL and OGL 1.1 won't change that. Creators wishing to leverage D&D for those forms of expression will need, as they always have needed, custom agreements between us.
Second, we're updating the OGL to offer different terms to creators who choose to make free, share-alike content and creators who want to sell their products.
What does this mean for you as a creator? If you're making share-alike content, very little is going to change from what you're already used to.
If you're making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you'll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you're offering for sale:
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We'll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
For the fewer than 20 creators worldwide who make more than $750,000 in income in a year, we will add a royalty starting in 2024. So, even for the creators making significant money selling D&D supplements and games, no royalties will be due for 2023 and all revenue below $750,000 in future years will be royalty-free.
Bottom line: The OGL is not going away. You will still be able to create new D&D content, publish it anywhere, and game with your friends and followers in all the ways that make this game and community so great. The thousands of creators publishing across Kickstarter, DMsGuild, and more are a critical part of the D&D experience, and we will continue to support and encourage them to do that through One D&D and beyond.
Share alike content? Haven't come across that bit of corporate speak before. Can anyone enlighten?
A royalty from big money OGL creators? LOL Wut!?
It seems that VTT 1.1 content will be exclusively on the OneVTT. Roll20 and others will be cutoff from porting over official DnDone content. But that was expected, and now basically confirmed.
I will speculate that in the not-a-new edition OneDnD that they will change/add some very specific game terminology/content of some kind that would make it difficult to use the previous 1.0a OGL to make content for DnDone.
So, on first glance...
Things are already looking up!
*EDIT*
On twitter, RPGSite member Alexander Macris points out something interesting:
Quote
Videos and video games are no longer covered under the OGL. In theory, WOTC is asserting that its copyright can block Actual Plays of its games, just as Nintendo has asserted. That's a big deal. It also puts at risk a lot of indie games.
But read his full spiel - He has some really good points:
https://twitter.com/archon/status/1605664204505042945
The news has gone from good to great!
I do not at first glance, see anything stated there that threatens the future of the print media and PDF file OSR?
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 21, 2022, 05:22:24 PM
I do not at first glance, see anything stated the that threatens the future of the print media and PDF file OSR?
WotC can do nothing about previous versions of the OGL. The OSR isn't threatened in any way.
This is all about tightening the noose around DnDone and the OneVTT...
Share alike means the created content shares the same restrictions, or lack of, as the original content.
So if I created a Creative Commons product and requested attribution, share alike content you created would also ask for attribution.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 05:12:06 PMFirst, we're making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn't. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.
Does this limitation to static electronic files mean that the OGL will no longer cover adventure files made for VTTs? Including Roll20?
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 21, 2022, 06:35:32 PM
...
Does this limitation to static electronic files mean that the OGL will no longer cover adventure files made for VTTs? Including Roll20?
I believe that the intent is so that all DnDone 1.1 OGL VTT content is only available Exclusively on the OneVTT.
I don't think that they care about legacy 1.0a OGL VTT stuff. They are assuming a lot of people will just move to the new hotness.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 21, 2022, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 05:12:06 PMFirst, we're making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn't. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.
Does this limitation to static electronic files mean that the OGL will no longer cover adventure files made for VTTs? Including Roll20?
Probably.
However, the existence of OGL 1.1 doesn't actually cancel OGL 1.0 which exists in perpetuity. Any 5e VTT material can continue to be made under it.
The only thing this will do is gate the new D&Done content so no one else can use it without WotC having a say/cut. The sharealike is their way of ensuring nothing added to a product that includes 1.0 material can be used as an end around the 1.1 license.
Basically, they know the 4E GSL blew up in their faces, but they still want it and are hoping that calling it OGL 1.1 will fool enough people (including getting other non-5e systems on the OGL to use the 1.1 because they don't realize they don't have to switch).
Corpos gonna corpo.
I'm glad I jumped ship before this. Now it is OSR all the way!
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-proposed-ogl-11-is-not-open-license.html
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2022, 06:58:00 PM
However, the existence of OGL 1.1 doesn't actually cancel OGL 1.0 which exists in perpetuity. Any 5e VTT material can continue to be made under it.
The only thing this will do is gate the new D&Done content so no one else can use it without WotC having a say/cut. The sharealike is their way of ensuring nothing added to a product that includes 1.0 material can be used as an end around the 1.1 license.
Right. All the existing OGL 1.0 material is still legal, and people can continue to develop and release stuff under the OGL 1.0.
Any restrictions will only apply to new D&Done material that is released under the OGL 1.1. Assuming that the report is accurate, they're not trying to have any say/cut over tabletop RPG publications -- but they are trying to cut off electronic/VTT use of the new D&DOne material.
This is pretty amazing to me. They seem determined to tank the goodwill they had developed with 5e.
I would guess most publishers will stick with the 1.0 OGL and the 5e SRD rather than abide by these rules on reporting income etc.
It's a very odd announcement. All stick and no carrot? Normally corporations lead with the hype and bury the bad news in the small print. There is no reason at all to sign up to 1.1 based on their statement. One can only hope (for their sake) that there is some seriously good stuff buried in the new SRD, otherwise this whole thing will be stillborn. Perhaps restricting the DTRPG community programme to the new licence, but that would mean pulling ALL of the existing material on the platform (unless completely re-written for 1.1).
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 05:25:40 PM
WotC can do nothing about previous versions of the OGL. The OSR isn't threatened in any way.
Not legally, but they can make threatening noises and try to intimidate people.
"D&D merchandise, like minis and novels, were
never intended to be part of the OGL and OGL 1.1 won't change that. Creators wishing to leverage D&D for those forms of expression will need,
as they always have needed, custom agreements between us"
The OGL 1.0 of course has no such restriction, you can make what you want. The 3e SRD includes descriptive text eg
Black dragon are sometimes known as skull dragons because of their skeletal faces. Adding to the skeletal impression is the gradual deterioration of the hide around the base of the horn and the cheekbones. This deterioration increases with age and does not harm the dragon. On hatching, a black dragon's scales are thin, small, and glossy. As the dragon ages, they become larger, thicker, and duller, helping it camouflage itself in swamps and marshes. https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon - AFAICS there's nothing in the OGL 1.0 stopping you making a miniature or videogame using this description.
Quote from: Vile Traveller on December 22, 2022, 07:19:19 AM
It's a very odd announcement. All stick and no carrot? Normally corporations lead with the hype and bury the bad news in the small print. There is no reason at all to sign up to 1.1 based on their statement. One can only hope (for their sake) that there is some seriously good stuff buried in the new SRD, otherwise this whole thing will be stillborn. Perhaps restricting the DTRPG community programme to the new licence, but that would mean pulling ALL of the existing material on the platform (unless completely re-written for 1.1).
My hunch is that they're trying to pull one over on the less informed that updating to the latest license will be mandatory.
Too many developers from Micro- "you WILL update and restart your PC now" -soft will have that effect I suspect. The idea that someone could continue to use Win7/OGL1.0a and there's nothing they can do to stop them likely makes them seethe; particularly given that the extant 3.x and 5e SRDs actually give 3rd parties all they actually need to make their own options independent of whatever shovelware their new mechanics will turn out to be.
One observation I do have is that, based on their past claims of "backwards compatibility" when pushing a new system (promised it with 3-4 and 4-5... never delivered), I fully expect the 6e material to be incompatible in practice to a degree that the only way to produce material for 6e will be to use their not-an-OGL GSL 1.1.
Of particular note, it will be harder to make a straight 5e retroclone as many of the desirable subclasses and options never got put into the 5e SRD (whereas pretty much everything from the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM, Psionics, Deities & Demigods and Unearthed Arcana was in its SRD), just a bare minimum needed for 3rd party content.
Nor do they have distributable digital versions of the full 5e core rules. Basically, once they stop selling physical copies, 5e will become harder and harder to find legitimately... by design. The new fake OGL is just another tool in trying to reclaim what the original OGL "stole" from them.*
* my observation is that, without the OGL allowing for the wave of third-party support, including other competitors sidelining their own systems to make it, that D&D never would have reclaimed its "most popular RPG" crown to the degree it did in the first place.
This seems amazingly stupid even for WotC.
It definitely puts games like Solasta: Crown of the Magister under the hammer, if I'm reading it right. Hell, it could even touch off a legal spat between WotC and Critical Role depending on interpretation and if WotC gets too pushy.
Funny Macris mentions Nintendo, because this looks like RCA suing Nintendo over Donkey Kong all over again.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 22, 2022, 09:24:10 AM
This seems amazingly stupid, even for WotC.
Microsoft Executives Gaining Control of D&D, was always going to lead to this.
Jesus what a hilarious reaction this message board provides over every bit of D&D news these days. Literally less than 20 companies impacted by this (and no royalty number stated so even they could see little impact) and it's immediately "OMG the sky is falling it's all over man!" from this board.
I mean, you could literally sum up 90% of posts on this message board about WOTC or Hasbro or 5e or OneDND with one sentence these days, "Old man who hasn't played modern D&D in years sees news about modern D&D as sure sign of doom for modern D&D and further justification for him not playing it."
WOTC could be handing out free hookers and blow and that would still be the reaction I suspect.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2022, 02:15:51 PM
Jesus what a hilarious reaction this message board provides over every bit of D&D news these days. Literally less than 20 companies impacted by this (and no royalty number stated so even they could see little impact) and it's immediately "OMG the sky is falling it's all over man!" from this board.
I mean, you could literally sum up 90% of posts on this message board about WOTC or Hasbro or 5e or OneDND with one sentence these days, "Old man who hasn't played modern D&D in years sees news about modern D&D as sure sign of doom for modern D&D and further justification for him not playing it."
WOTC could be handing out free hookers and blow and that would still be the reaction I suspect.
Greetings!
You are really surprised, Mistwell? Where have you been? Our forum here has been pretty much highly critical of WOTC for quite awhile now. Even the people here that *LIKE 5E*--such as myself--have also been dismayed and critical of WOTC's policies, trends, and game books also for a long time.
And honestly, WOTC keeps on going from bad to worse. Every couple of months, every new book, they open their mouths and write or create something new that is absolutely fucked up and stupid. Or they release an interview or commentary with Developer A that shows they are wallowing in more terrible Woke BS. The *Stupid Train* just doesn't stop with WOTC anymore. This whole "One D&D" is just more BS as well.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on December 22, 2022, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2022, 02:15:51 PM
Jesus what a hilarious reaction this message board provides over every bit of D&D news these days. Literally less than 20 companies impacted by this (and no royalty number stated so even they could see little impact) and it's immediately "OMG the sky is falling it's all over man!" from this board.
I mean, you could literally sum up 90% of posts on this message board about WOTC or Hasbro or 5e or OneDND with one sentence these days, "Old man who hasn't played modern D&D in years sees news about modern D&D as sure sign of doom for modern D&D and further justification for him not playing it."
WOTC could be handing out free hookers and blow and that would still be the reaction I suspect.
Greetings!
You are really surprised, Mistwell? Where have you been? Our forum here has been pretty much highly critical of WOTC for quite awhile now. Even the people here that *LIKE 5E*--such as myself--have also been dismayed and critical of WOTC's policies, trends, and game books also for a long time.
And honestly, WOTC keeps on going from bad to worse. Every couple of months, every new book, they open their mouths and write or create something new that is absolutely fucked up and stupid. Or they release an interview or commentary with Developer A that shows they are wallowing in more terrible Woke BS. The *Stupid Train* just doesn't stop with WOTC anymore. This whole "One D&D" is just more BS as well.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I am not surprised man, it's just tiresome. It's just D&D. Ultimately the rules system matters less than the group you're playing with. Nobody is being nefarious - it's just people playing D&D with slightly different flavors. All this nonsense about politics is meaningless for most players. They're still just drinking Mountain Dew and beer and eating pizza and pretzels and Cheetos and cracking jokes around a table playing a fun game with friends. And they're doing that with OSR games and 5e and PF and all the other variants on the same theme.
Aaannnd like clockwork...
Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2022, 02:15:51 PM
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/youre-making-a-rvjwfd.jpg)
Ok so if you think it's something, and so far it just looks like pretty ordinary capitalism to me, then you tell me specifically what the problem is? I mean for all the bitching about woke this and woke that, nothing in this recent release about the OGL has anything to do with that topic. So come on, Mr. "I'm anti-Marxist except when it comes to stuff I want" tell me exactly what's wrong with this OGL announcement that doesn't make you sound like a socialist stooge.
One D&D? One is the loneliest number.
Uh oh, here he goes again...
Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2022, 05:50:19 PM
...
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MEMRt-lfwv0/hqdefault.jpg)
Well, will you look at that...
Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2022, 07:11:25 PM
(https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8club.com-vbulletin/250x301/image_5bf1f77a1e0520e4de3800624557ce5fbe060bd2.jpeg)
Quote from: jhkim on December 22, 2022, 02:43:16 AMAll the existing OGL 1.0 material is still legal, and people can continue to develop and release stuff under the OGL 1.0.
One thing I've wondered for years is why doesn't WotC put an expiration date on the OGL? It would have been a pretty trivial addition. And I don't think anyone in 2001 would have cared if the OGL expired on Jan 1, 2015. Most of the 3e-compatible companies had already gone out of business by then.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 23, 2022, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 22, 2022, 02:43:16 AMAll the existing OGL 1.0 material is still legal, and people can continue to develop and release stuff under the OGL 1.0.
One thing I've wondered for years is why doesn't WotC put an expiration date on the OGL? It would have been a pretty trivial addition. And I don't think anyone in 2001 would have cared if the OGL expired on Jan 1, 2015. Most of the 3e-compatible companies had already gone out of business by then.
Because Ryan Dancy wanted to be sure there would never again be a situation like the waning days of TSR where the availability of D&D could be threatened by an owner just sitting on the IP.
Every headache WotC has had in trying to monopolize D&D comes down to Dancy's deliberate efforts to ensure they couldn't actually do so and sliding it in basically under their noses.
I'm certain Dancy's name is a curse word in the halls of WotC/Hasbro.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2022, 11:08:24 AMI'm certain Dancy's name is a curse word in the halls of WotC/Hasbro.
This makes dancey feel like some roug-ish vigilante. Something you would make a movie about.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2022, 11:08:24 AM
Because Ryan Dancy wanted to be sure there would never again be a situation like the waning days of TSR where the availability of D&D could be threatened by an owner just sitting on the IP.
Every headache WotC has had in trying to monopolize D&D comes down to Dancy's deliberate efforts to ensure they couldn't actually do so and sliding it in basically under their noses.
I'm certain Dancy's name is a curse word in the halls of WotC/Hasbro.
But in 2016, they released the 5e SRD under the 1.0 version of the OGL instead of making a newer, time limited OGL version. So you can't blame Ryan Dancy for that. And this is even after WotC knew that the OGL could make trouble for them with things like Pathfinder.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 23, 2022, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2022, 11:08:24 AM
Because Ryan Dancy wanted to be sure there would never again be a situation like the waning days of TSR where the availability of D&D could be threatened by an owner just sitting on the IP.
Every headache WotC has had in trying to monopolize D&D comes down to Dancy's deliberate efforts to ensure they couldn't actually do so and sliding it in basically under their noses.
I'm certain Dancy's name is a curse word in the halls of WotC/Hasbro.
But in 2016, they released the 5e SRD under the 1.0 version of the OGL instead of making a newer, time limited OGL version. So you can't blame Ryan Dancy for that. And this is even after WotC knew that the OGL could make trouble for them with things like Pathfinder.
In 2016 they were still recovering from the PR hit of the disastrous 4E GSL and were damnably close to being shelved by Hasbro. They needed every bit of positive PR (we learned our lesson) they could muster back in 2016. Going with another version of the GSL would have just seen people stick with Pathfinder.
There's a reason they're trying to call their enforceable contract the "OGL 1.1" even though its nothing of the sort by any standard open content organizations would recognize... because they know calling it something that doesn't suggest a continuance of the OGL would go over just as badly as the GSL did.
OGL 1.1 is named like its a Congressional bill... i.e. its actually meant to accomplish the opposite of what it was named for.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 23, 2022, 01:37:22 PMBut in 2016, they released the 5e SRD under the 1.0 version of the OGL instead of making a newer, time limited OGL version. [...] And this is even after WotC knew that the OGL could make trouble for them with things like Pathfinder.
The OGL made Pathfinder possible, but it didn't make Pathfinder - the GSL did. And "OGL" 1.1 looks quite a lot like a GSL...
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 23, 2022, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 23, 2022, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 22, 2022, 02:43:16 AMAll the existing OGL 1.0 material is still legal, and people can continue to develop and release stuff under the OGL 1.0.
One thing I've wondered for years is why doesn't WotC put an expiration date on the OGL? It would have been a pretty trivial addition. And I don't think anyone in 2001 would have cared if the OGL expired on Jan 1, 2015. Most of the 3e-compatible companies had already gone out of business by then.
Because Ryan Dancy wanted to be sure there would never again be a situation like the waning days of TSR where the availability of D&D could be threatened by an owner just sitting on the IP.
Every headache WotC has had in trying to monopolize D&D comes down to Dancy's deliberate efforts to ensure they couldn't actually do so and sliding it in basically under their noses.
I'm certain Dancy's name is a curse word in the halls of WotC/Hasbro.
I don't interpret Ryan Dancey as being a humanitarian trying to undermine the business. I think he genuinely felt that the OGL would be a financial boon to WotC, just as many software companies have benefited from open-source software. And I still think it might be true.
The idea was that it would undermine other rival RPGs. By making publishing for D&D easy, it would get a ton of people focused on publishing D&D-compatible material that would make the brand stronger. Third party companies would create the riskier and lower-margin products like adventures, settings, and alternate genres. But that material being available would make DMs and player happier and boost play. And WotC would reap the benefit of sales for their core product.
A key requirement for the OGL v1.0 is hidden in paragraph 7. It is that by using the OGL, you agree not to use anyone else's trademarks. But legally, it is acceptable to use other company's trademarks in a non-deceptive manner. So I can market a charging cord that works with Apple iPhone, and say that on the package. This keeps OGL development in silos that can't indicate compatibility with another trademark.
At the time in 1999, WotC felt that the threat wasn't other D&D compatible systems. Based on prior history, they thought the threat was newer games like World of Darkness, GURPS, and possibly other games that would come after. Because of their market lead and brand recognition, they thought that other D&D-like games were not a threat. The mess with Pathfinder came because they handled 4E and Dragon magazine very badly, rather than being an inherent problem with the OGL.
Today, D&D has even more of a stranglehold on RPGs as a whole than ever. And I think that's thanks to the OGL 1.0. Even now, I don't think WotC considers the OSR or any other tabletop RPG systems to be their main threat. Their main enemy is video games and other entertainment.
Quote from: jhkim on December 23, 2022, 03:01:35 PM
I don't interpret Ryan Dancey as being a humanitarian trying to undermine the business. I think he genuinely felt that the OGL would be a financial boon to WotC, just as many software companies have benefited from open-source software. And I still think it might be true.
The idea was that it would undermine other rival RPGs. By making publishing for D&D easy, it would get a ton of people focused on publishing D&D-compatible material that would make the brand stronger. Third party companies would create the riskier and lower-margin products like adventures, settings, and alternate genres. But that material being available would make DMs and player happier and boost play. And WotC would reap the benefit of sales for their core product.
A key requirement for the OGL v1.0 is hidden in paragraph 7. It is that by using the OGL, you agree not to use anyone else's trademarks. But legally, it is acceptable to use other company's trademarks in a non-deceptive manner. So I can market a charging cord that works with Apple iPhone, and say that on the package. This keeps OGL development in silos that can't indicate compatibility with another trademark.
At the time in 1999, WotC felt that the threat wasn't other D&D compatible systems. Based on prior history, they thought the threat was newer games like World of Darkness, GURPS, and possibly other games that would come after. Because of their market lead and brand recognition, they thought that other D&D-like games were not a threat. The mess with Pathfinder came because they handled 4E and Dragon magazine very badly, rather than being an inherent problem with the OGL.
Today, D&D has even more of a stranglehold on RPGs as a whole than ever. And I think that's thanks to the OGL 1.0. Even now, I don't think WotC considers the OSR or any other tabletop RPG systems to be their main threat. Their main enemy is video games and other entertainment.
Complete agreement.
Dancy has said in interviews that "Different gaming systems divide gaming groups." - The intention of the OGL was always to bring settings, and alternate genres under the D&D/d20 umbrella; keeping gamers within the WotC/D&D sphere of influence.
In my opinion; When WotC even half gets it right, the OGL serves to drive the RPG industry to supporting D&D in some fashion. Just look at the number of games/settings that have gotten the "5e Treatment" in recent years.
My 2c.
"Let's see what happens", IMO, is a perfect recipe to being unable to do anything later. And there is little I can do except complain - but I think the time to complain is now.
The 750k threshold is enough to hurt some successful Kickstarter and companies that make better products than WoTC, like Kobold Press, IMO. I am an "average person" in this regard and this might affect me.
Also, consider inflation. It might become a bigger problem sooner than we think.
Someone else mentioned a 50k limit but I can't find the source. Many creators could raise more than that with a good KS. And now maybe they have to hire accountants and lawyers instead of more artists and writers.
As a small publisher, I do not feel as confident in 1.1. I published 5e stuff after the SRD and I don't think I'd publish under 1.1 because the license isn't as open (nor would I use GSL or GMs guild). I'm a bit afraid that the new rules might be interpreted in my disfavor somehow. And, if there is a 1.1, what is stopping them from doing 1.2 anytime soon?
Also, I'm not that interested in 5e anymore for various reasons. Not that WotC cares, but anyway...
Maybe I'm a bit of a radical on the subject - I am a fan Lessig's writing and I think everything should be Creative Commons, and also happen to think that all forms of IP benefit Disney much more than they benefits artists or consumers.
1.1 OGL? It's a Trap!!!
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 23, 2022, 05:40:56 PM
1.1 OGL? It's a Trap!!!
Speaking as someone who considers their system significantly diverged to not even need any version of the OGL (it will have an open license for 3pp, just not the WotC one), I agree it's a trap.
Worth remembering in all this is, despite having to backtrack, the 4E plan with a closed GSL, VTT and online management tools is EXACTLY what the heads of Hasbro/WotC wanted D&D to become.
5e was a saving throw, but not what they really wanted... and now they're trying again, just being sneakier about it... calling what is, in truth, an enforceable contract "OGL 1.1" when every announced change serves to make it less open.
Basically, 6e is going to be 4E2.0, just gussied up with weasel wording after getting smacked by doing it openly.
Mentioned something interesting in that he makes a few modules for 5e under his patreon and felt he would have to go with the 1.1 to be able to continue as before. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the same situation.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 06:49:21 PM
I don't think that they care about legacy 1.0a OGL VTT stuff. They are assuming a lot of people will just move to the new hotness.
So they've already forgotten 4e.
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 27, 2022, 09:27:56 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 06:49:21 PM
I don't think that they care about legacy 1.0a OGL VTT stuff. They are assuming a lot of people will just move to the new hotness.
So they've already forgotten 4e.
No, but they're hoping we have.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 27, 2022, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 27, 2022, 09:27:56 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 06:49:21 PM
I don't think that they care about legacy 1.0a OGL VTT stuff. They are assuming a lot of people will just move to the new hotness.
So they've already forgotten 4e.
No, but they're hoping we have.
Might not be as bad a bet as we think (and I say this as someone who
likes 4E): It's been over a decade since the last 4E product, and a lot of their fanbase now probably doesn't know any form of D&D but 5E and Pathfinder.
That makes me think. I found a 4E srd but I wasn't sure if it was legit or not (not on Wizards site).
Anyway, if not, they should release it now. That is assuming they aren't going to blend that war gamey stuff into the 6E virtual table-top.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 27, 2022, 10:13:10 AM
Might not be as bad a bet as we think (and I say this as someone who likes 4E): It's been over a decade since the last 4E product, and a lot of their fanbase now probably doesn't know any form of D&D but 5E and Pathfinder.
Only knowing 5e is good.
If they know PF, the PF crowd will probably start discussing recruiting from disaffected 5e players like they did disaffected 3e players, in which case they'll learn the history.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 27, 2022, 10:18:10 AM
That makes me think. I found a 4E srd but I wasn't sure if it was legit or not (not on Wizards site).
Anyway, if not, they should release it now. That is assuming they aren't going to blend that war gamey stuff into the 6E virtual table-top.
There is an attempt at a 4e clone/SRD on GitHub. If that's the one you saw, it isn't official.
There had to be one to go with the GSL, but I don't know if it was every public.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 23, 2022, 04:46:40 PM
My 2c.
"Let's see what happens", IMO, is a perfect recipe to being unable to do anything later. And there is little I can do except complain - but I think the time to complain is now.
...
I don't want anyone to "complain".
Mock, laugh, and point fingers, sure.
But try and actually get WotC's attention and let them know there might be issues?
Fuck no.
Let them do this.
This will be the best thing that has happened to the hobby in over ten years.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 26, 2022, 08:29:21 PM
BOB World Builder Mentioned something interesting in that he makes a few modules for 5e under his patreon and felt he would have to go with the 1.1 to be able to continue as before. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the same situation.
Yup. And WotC knows it.
The 5e ecosystem has gotten so big that WotC really has the whip hand now.
PF2 is too focused a game to attract enough fans for a 4e/PF1 repeat. And no other company is in a position to to what Baizuo did.
As far as WotC is concerned they have no potential competition to pull their card when they write this big fat check for the OneVTT.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 27, 2022, 10:13:10 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 27, 2022, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 27, 2022, 09:27:56 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 06:49:21 PM
I don't think that they care about legacy 1.0a OGL VTT stuff. They are assuming a lot of people will just move to the new hotness.
So they've already forgotten 4e.
No, but they're hoping we have.
Might not be as bad a bet as we think (and I say this as someone who likes 4E): It's been over a decade since the last 4E product, and a lot of their fanbase now probably doesn't know any form of D&D but 5E and Pathfinder.
^This^
Most of the new fans have no idea of the 4e shenanigans. Why shouldn't WotC bank on that?
In defense of WotC's arrogance; when they treated the old fans like
total poo with the 4e PR roll-out, and made an edition of the game that no one was asking for - alienating the majority of the player base in the process: The overwhelming majority of them came flooding back with the release of 5e. Most D&D fans couldn't wait to once again bow down and lick the hand that feeds.
What was the real lesson learned by WotC in the 4e debacle?
That they can utterly shit on their own fanbase, and so long as they are able to switch gears to something more palatable if it goes sideways - all will be forgiven...
Quote from: Jaeger on December 27, 2022, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 27, 2022, 10:13:10 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 27, 2022, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 27, 2022, 09:27:56 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2022, 06:49:21 PM
I don't think that they care about legacy 1.0a OGL VTT stuff. They are assuming a lot of people will just move to the new hotness.
So they've already forgotten 4e.
No, but they're hoping we have.
Might not be as bad a bet as we think (and I say this as someone who likes 4E): It's been over a decade since the last 4E product, and a lot of their fanbase now probably doesn't know any form of D&D but 5E and Pathfinder.
^This^
Most of the new fans have no idea of the 4e shenanigans. Why shouldn't WotC bank on that?
In defense of WotC's arrogance; when they treated the old fans like total poo with the 4e PR roll-out, and made an edition of the game that no one was asking for - alienating the majority of the player base in the process: The overwhelming majority of them came flooding back with the release of 5e. Most D&D fans couldn't wait to once again bow down and lick the hand that feeds.
What was the real lesson learned by WotC in the 4e debacle?
That they can utterly shit on their own fanbase, and so long as they are able to switch gears to something more palatable if it goes sideways - all will be forgiven...
That is quite possibly the lesson they learned.
As I've said before, I came to enjoy 4e
by thinking about it as an alternate dungeon crawler than "D&D" and wound up running a several year campaign that might still be running if not for player death and COVID.
I have enjoyed 5e less because it came just enough back to D&D for that "not D&D" trick to not work.
That said, that seems like a "fool me once" lesson. You may be, might even probably be, right, but at my day job those aren't bones I'd roll (then again, my bread and butter is hedging interest rate sensitive investments, so I have different risk settings at work than someone at Hasbro).
Ih there are still arent 4e fans and several 4e cultists. Most seem parked over on BGG and Reddit.