Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 01:29:22 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on January 15, 2023, 01:16:10 PM
For me no matter the license it's the huge assumption on the part of players and DMs that many will make the switch simply to stick it to Wotc and D&D in large amounts.

Yes I know subscribers left Beyond except gamers are both notoriously cheap and resistant to change.

Sorry but if I'm running 5E or another rpg and you hate what Wotc has done then fine. You want to switch to P2E or something else. Then the players who want to change are buying the core, bestiary and screen with their own money and give it to me free of charge. Or you can keep posting the current rpg or find another table. Sorry I don't have the money 100+$ for a new rpg or the will to learn a new rpg.

Same thing as a player. You want to switch to PF2E you can buy me and the other players the new core book as I ain't. If not I leave  and find a new table.

Too many choices made by emotion and not enough clear thinking. Same thing with selling 5E products. You're mad at Wotc for what they did get you want to sell me your books only 5-10$ cheaper. Yeah no I will buy it from Amazon.

Look, realistically, nobody but the most rah-rah OSR optimists thinks that this is going to be some death knell for WotC and D&D vanishes in the next year or two and the gaming community blooms into a utopia of indie RPG players... We know that a lot of players aren't going to switch, we know some GMs won't switch, yadda yadda.

But on the other hand, "lawl, everyone is a sheepish cheap bastard, you can't change anything, nobody will ever leave the WotC garden" is... not a lot better.

While obviously it's a lot more complicated than this, you can sort of broadly put gamers into two categories:

• The "I play <brand>!" gamers. To these players, the hobby IS the game they play. Most of these players are D&D players, but there are some exceptions - there used to be a lot of World of Darkness players like this, for example. There are probably some Pathfinder players like this. I know there are a haaaandful of Shadowrun players like this, and so on. But yes, we can concede these are mostly D&D players right now.
• The "I play RPGs!" type of gamers. These gamers may have a strong preference for a single game, and again, I'll concede that it's probably D&D for a lot of them, but for these people, they already have other options.

The first group? Yeah. Realistically, we were neeeever going to get more than a tiny handful of them to switch away from D&D. We're not really talking about those people to begin with. We're talking about the second group. The million dollar question, of course, is what the ratio of the two groups is.

Agreed, in the broadest of senses, I only see ONE way where WotC kills D&D as a TTRPG:

Those of us who think they ARE pivoting away from that market to go after the mobile game/MMO market are correct and in 5-10 years they're no longer publishing books and everything is online on their walled garden where they can milk you the player for that new +1 sword for ONLY 12.99 US and those extra saves for ONLY 2.99 each (use it and loose it).

IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct then yes you'll see many of those (I Play Brand!) who don't want to play a video game but a TTRPG leave D&D, else I don't see that hapening anytime soon if ever.

In any case WotC's decision to kill the OGL IS a good thing for the hobby, without it they can't prevent ANYONE from writting an adventure and putting on it it's D&D (edition) compatible. So, your garden variety shitlord could theoretically write one that checks all the right boxes, with racial and sex trait/attribute modifiers, slavery, capitalism, only two genders, etc. And market it as 6e compatible, because Fuck WotC.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
Now, that's about the mildest criticism I think I could possibility express and still have it even be considered a criticism, and it wasn't targeted at any specific person or thing, so I don't have a clue why you're being so hostile to me over it.

He's hostile because, as I mentioned about previous conversations with him, Geeky doesn't believe anyone should have the right to any intellectual property. Pushing others to adopt a CC license is a way to get people to sign away their intellectual property rights.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 01:46:39 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
Now, that's about the mildest criticism I think I could possibility express and still have it even be considered a criticism, and it wasn't targeted at any specific person or thing, so I don't have a clue why you're being so hostile to me over it.

He's hostile because, as I mentioned about previous conversations with him, Geeky doesn't believe anyone should have the right to any intellectual property. Pushing others to adopt a CC license is a way to get people to sign away their intellectual property rights.

Nice strawman you got going there my dude.

That can be proven false by reading our interactions where I explicity say that it does allow for the enumeration of stuff not under the license.

Furthermore, on several occasions when a thread has gone into the copyright issue I have been ALWAYS onb the side of it should exist, and those who are against it have pushed me to the extreme of it shouldn't end ever.

Any more lies about me and my possitions you want to tell?

Edited to add:

While you were busy writting lies about me I posted this:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-s-the-optimal-open-license/#new

Good video and warning. I'm sure Paizo is thrilled with the blue-haired sjdubs migrating to P2. But that means they'll continue to gatekeep any "bad-wrong traditional" gaming. With wokosium...er chaosium being on board with it and DCC....kinda seals the shifting of all the woke gatekeepers to paizo

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on January 15, 2023, 02:03:12 PM
Good video and warning. I'm sure Paizo is thrilled with the blue-haired sjdubs migrating to P2. But that means they'll continue to gatekeep any "bad-wrong traditional" gaming. With wokosium...er chaosium being on board with it and DCC....kinda seals the shifting of all the woke gatekeepers to paizo

(Insert video of Bernie saying "And that's a good thing!" here)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct

Ya know...

10 years ago I would have said you were batshit insane if you suggested that.
5 years ago I would have said it was unlikely.
2 years ago I would have said I hoped it didn't happen.

At this point? I think it's more likely than not, and probably in the next two-five years.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 02:07:37 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct

Ya know...

10 years ago I would have said you were batshit insane if you suggested that.
5 years ago I would have said it was unlikely.
2 years ago I would have said I hoped it didn't happen.

At this point? I think it's more likely than not, and probably in the next two-five years.

The first clues was hiring the Micro$oft executives, then the announcement of their "VTT", then the OGL fiasco.

Yeah, I might be wrong but I don't think so.

The funny thing is they didn't need to anger everybody.

They just had to put 6e not on the OGL, create their walled garden and little by little push the paypigs into the mobile game thing.

Zero PR disaster and 100% proffit, because IF they manage to make a "good"  game (for certain values of good) they'll end up making tons more money than with books.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AM
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.

Your other points about what you want out a license make quite a bit sense, but I'm not sure I understand this specific concern. Yes, with CC derivatives of derivatives need to include all the copyright notices from everything they're derived from, but is that a bad thing? It means everyone gets credit. I'm not sure there's a better solution that can implemented in an open license; it would just have to be negotiated on a per-licensee basis.

FWIW the OGL 1.0a already requires this — some OGL-covered books have a long trail of copyright notices at the back. So it's at least not worse than the OGL.

Let these large game companies duke it out.  Now that Hazards-of-the-Bro has tried to cor er the market with its "We reserve the right to revoke your licence" plot, evertly game designer and publisher needs to go forward more carefully from now on. 

My biggest fear was that we'd lose the OSR, with the morality clause, since older style games used the term "race".

PBS started going after OSR gamers, which might give 'Hazards, Baizuo, and any other company with an OGL, cause to thin out their competition.

I'm doubtful that there'll be a no-wrongthink provision in Paizo's license.  Not because they don't want one, I bet they very much do, but because I suspect that no company is stupid enough to hand over the right to yank the license from their products to any third party.  It's an obvious poison pill in any contract, no matter how loftily it may be worded.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:57:23 PM
Furthermore, on several occasions when a thread has gone into the copyright issue I have been ALWAYS onb the side of it should exist, and those who are against it have pushed me to the extreme of it shouldn't end ever.

Any more lies about me and my possitions you want to tell?

You are correct and I apologize. I should have refreshed my memory instead of foolishly relying upon it.

I had confused you for another poster in that conversation. Our disagreement in that thread was over whether or not a publisher should reduce the price of their PDFs after they'd made "enough money" that got interspersed with other posters arguing IP shouldn't exist. I remembered the disagreement with you and the anti-IP sentiments from the thread and mistakenly conflated them in my memory.

I was wrong and and I apologize. I will try my best to do better in the future.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
Agreed, in the broadest of senses, I only see ONE way where WotC kills D&D as a TTRPG:

Those of us who think they ARE pivoting away from that market to go after the mobile game/MMO market are correct and in 5-10 years they're no longer publishing books and everything is online on their walled garden where they can milk you the player for that new +1 sword for ONLY 12.99 US and those extra saves for ONLY 2.99 each (use it and loose it).

IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct then yes you'll see many of those (I Play Brand!) who don't want to play a video game but a TTRPG leave D&D, else I don't see that hapening anytime soon if ever.

There is an analogy to this going on right now. Marvel Comics. Marvel is a brand, that Disney is using for other purposes than what Marvel originally was started as - comic books. Now Disney uses the stories of Marvel and its constituent characters to sell videogames, movies, and other commercial products, and their comics are dogshit, and likely a monetary loss. They're certainly not attracting more readers, in fact it's dying.

Disney doesn't care because the Marvel brand has pulled in generations of faithful consumers, and they've been mining the fuck out of it since taking over, and have almost collapsed the American comic market in the process.

Hasbro *doesn't give a fuck about D&D* specifically. It cares about the D&D Brand(tm) and the current leaders of WotC are not TTRPG enthusiasts, they're going to turn D&D into a hybrid Mobile-monetized board-game because the Brand is undermonetized. It has little to nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.

All the d20 Dickriders want to pretend this isn't the case and still crave the "D&D Legitimacy Achievement". When in reality, the OGL may well have been rendered pointless. And the ORC might likewise be just another corral for everyone to pat themselves on the back and pretend they're "okay, and carrying the D&D Torch forward."

Maybe they are. But you'll be still be standing with those that will disagree what "d20" is, and since you won't be in the official D&D Garden, the point will be *moot*.

Welcome to the Jungle, baby. May the best game, the coolest mechanics, and the best marketing win.

And it might end up being a videogame called D&D. But that's like comparing your Fantasy Heartbreaker RPG to World of Warcraft. Who cares? They're different things.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 06:49:16 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:57:23 PM
Furthermore, on several occasions when a thread has gone into the copyright issue I have been ALWAYS onb the side of it should exist, and those who are against it have pushed me to the extreme of it shouldn't end ever.

Any more lies about me and my possitions you want to tell?

You are correct and I apologize. I should have refreshed my memory instead of foolishly relying upon it.

I had confused you for another poster in that conversation. Our disagreement in that thread was over whether or not a publisher should reduce the price of their PDFs after they'd made "enough money" that got interspersed with other posters arguing IP shouldn't exist. I remembered the disagreement with you and the anti-IP sentiments from the thread and mistakenly conflated them in my memory.

I was wrong and and I apologize. I will try my best to do better in the future.

No poblem, I still think the PDFs are overpriced in many cases

Quote from: tenbones on January 15, 2023, 07:08:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
Agreed, in the broadest of senses, I only see ONE way where WotC kills D&D as a TTRPG:

Those of us who think they ARE pivoting away from that market to go after the mobile game/MMO market are correct and in 5-10 years they're no longer publishing books and everything is online on their walled garden where they can milk you the player for that new +1 sword for ONLY 12.99 US and those extra saves for ONLY 2.99 each (use it and loose it).

IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct then yes you'll see many of those (I Play Brand!) who don't want to play a video game but a TTRPG leave D&D, else I don't see that hapening anytime soon if ever.

There is an analogy to this going on right now. Marvel Comics. Marvel is a brand, that Disney is using for other purposes than what Marvel originally was started as - comic books. Now Disney uses the stories of Marvel and its constituent characters to sell videogames, movies, and other commercial products, and their comics are dogshit, and likely a monetary loss. They're certainly not attracting more readers, in fact it's dying.

Disney doesn't care because the Marvel brand has pulled in generations of faithful consumers, and they've been mining the fuck out of it since taking over, and have almost collapsed the American comic market in the process.

Hasbro *doesn't give a fuck about D&D* specifically. It cares about the D&D Brand(tm) and the current leaders of WotC are not TTRPG enthusiasts, they're going to turn D&D into a hybrid Mobile-monetized board-game because the Brand is undermonetized. It has little to nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.

All the d20 Dickriders want to pretend this isn't the case and still crave the "D&D Legitimacy Achievement". When in reality, the OGL may well have been rendered pointless. And the ORC might likewise be just another corral for everyone to pat themselves on the back and pretend they're "okay, and carrying the D&D Torch forward."

Maybe they are. But you'll be still be standing with those that will disagree what "d20" is, and since you won't be in the official D&D Garden, the point will be *moot*.

Welcome to the Jungle, baby. May the best game, the coolest mechanics, and the best marketing win.

And it might end up being a videogame called D&D. But that's like comparing your Fantasy Heartbreaker RPG to World of Warcraft. Who cares? They're different things.

1000% agreed, I would still like to be a way to signal compatibility with other games WITHOUT listing them all, the OSR branding did that until they started mixing retroclones of other systems.

So maybe the industry needs a few "new" systems, so you can put "Powered by (Insert system name here)" {Don't really like the Powered by because it feels like PbtA} or something like that so the buyer KNOWS your game is compatible with mine at a glance.

Quote from: Valatar on January 15, 2023, 06:29:50 PM
I'm doubtful that there'll be a no-wrongthink provision in Paizo's license.  Not because they don't want one, I bet they very much do, but because I suspect that no company is stupid enough to hand over the right to yank the license from their products to any third party.  It's an obvious poison pill in any contract, no matter how loftily it may be worded.

I agree. No disinterested 3rd party would agree to administer a license with a morality clause because they wound not be able to adjudicate it and would face being sued if they tried. At most it will be comply with the laws of whatever country is specified.