A new leaked #WoTC document shows sinister plans for the #OGL "1.1". But who is Hasbro's real target? What are they really trying to prevent? And what should the #OSR do?
#dnd #OneDnD #ttrpg #dnd5e
Good video. I'm glad at least there's since been clarification that they can't actually make people destroy material made a decade ago... they're just going to claim nothing new can be made for anything without the OGL1.1.
So it's an EMP instead of nuclear bomb.
Still, time for a lot of the OGL users to be looking at alternatives... either going without or collaborating on a new System License. The real trick is going to be altering content sufficiently (ex. in the FreeSRD it's "force missile" instead of "magic missile") to be free and clear of They Sue Regularly 2.0.
I'll say this.
The 1.1 OGL leak has done wonders for forum traffic across the board!
I really think that the 1.1 OGL will be opt-in like Tenkar has speculated:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvxNIWXgAAXuMp?format=png&name=900x900)
If Tenkar is proven right; Then the current drama will largely blow over for WotC.
WotC will do custom agreements with the big 3pp plyers and only the small fry will get stiffed. Which WotC doesn't care about anyway.
In my opinion; all this is revolving around the future rollout of the OneVTT.
How the One VTT is received in 2024 will be the big tell if WotC will be successful in their plan.
I really hope that it is.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 06, 2023, 03:48:59 PM
I'll say this.
The 1.1 OGL leak has done wonders for forum traffic across the board!
I really think that the 1.1 OGL will be opt-in like Tenkar has speculated:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvxNIWXgAAXuMp?format=png&name=900x900)
If Tenkar is proven right; Then the current drama will largely blow over for WotC.
WotC will do custom agreements with the big 3pp plyers and only the small fry will get stiffed. Which WotC doesn't care about anyway.
In my opinion; all this is revolving around the future rollout of the OneVTT.
How the One VTT is received in 2024 will be the big tell if WotC will be successful in their plan.
I really hope that it is.
I hope it is too. However, how many times has betting a corporation doesn't take the greediest short term gain for themselves worked out? Not many in my experience.
I still think "better safe than sorry" is going to be in the best interests of the OGL corner of the hobby... even if that means crowdsourcing reworkings of all the relevant mechanics (so much of PC content falls under all the spells and feats that, from what Pundit stated, the OGL1.1 will say can't be used in any new product; only pre-existing ones).
That the pre-existing books are okay buys some time, but I'd still want out from under the OGL ASAP for sanity's sake if I'm not joining Hasborg's assimilation/co-option push.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 05:40:38 PM
I hope it is too. However, how many times has betting a corporation doesn't take the greediest short term gain for themselves worked out? Not many in my experience.
...
To clarify why I hope WotC's current plan is successful:
Really dumb retard greediest non opt-in will cause them to pivot in a few years, revert back to a version of the previous OGL, and everyone will come running back to WotC D&D.
But an opt-in walled garden version will segregate D&D, and create space for a competitor to rise up over time.
I want them to slow boil themselves, a big shock might actually wake them up in time to do something...
The real question is whether or not the D&D player base can maintain this current level of outrage for an entire year. Maybe it was smart for WotC to leak this document right now, a year before it is officially released. By 2024, how many people will be burned out on the whole affair and no longer care enough to stay away but, instead, just accept the situation for what it is and go along as best they can.
The biggest issue with a huge player walk out is that most casual D&D players probably don't even know what the OGL is nor would they care if WotC takes a percentage cut of the revenue (or whatever issues that game designers have with the new OGL).
And, of course, there is also the narrative that the new OGL guarantees that a product will be free of bigotry. So the only people who still want to use the 1.0 version are people that want to be able to make bigoted content.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 03:35:11 PM
Good video. I'm glad at least there's since been clarification that they can't actually make people destroy material made a decade ago... they're just going to claim nothing new can be made for anything without the OGL1.1.
So it's an EMP instead of nuclear bomb.
Still, time for a lot of the OGL users to be looking at alternatives... either going without or collaborating on a new System License. The real trick is going to be altering content sufficiently (ex. in the FreeSRD it's "force missile" instead of "magic missile") to be free and clear of They Sue Regularly 2.0.
FreeSRD?
Link?
The unfolding drama has been GLORIOUS! ;D
Everybody HATES this. WotC wanted to invalidate the OGL and it looks like they're gonna get their wish. After this nobody's ever going to trust their OGL again. I hope third party publishers make their own actually open licenses and leave WotC behind.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 03:35:11 PM
Good video. I'm glad at least there's since been clarification that they can't actually make people destroy material made a decade ago... they're just going to claim nothing new can be made for anything without the OGL1.1.
So it's an EMP instead of nuclear bomb.
Still, time for a lot of the OGL users to be looking at alternatives... either going without or collaborating on a new System License. The real trick is going to be altering content sufficiently (ex. in the FreeSRD it's "force missile" instead of "magic missile") to be free and clear of They Sue Regularly 2.0.
FreeSRD?
Link?
No link, just a suggestion for the name of the finished collaboration I proposed and an example of how you'd want to change all but the most self-evident terms because the more surface level differences a judge can easily be shown, the easier it will be to call for and get a summary judgment (and therefore the less likely WotC is to bother).
There's settled case law on systems with the exact same mechanics, but different surface details (two card games... identical rules, but one had player roles of Sheriff, Deputies, Outlaws, the Renegade and an overall Western theme. The other had the Emperor, Ministers, Bandits, the Warlord and an Oriental theme) and it was a summary judgment in favor of the company that copied all the mechanics right down to how each role worked... but a Sheriff isn't an Emperor and a Deputy isn't a Minister... so free and clear.
The more changes, particularly using new lore/fluff the easier it will be to make it not worth the effort to pursue.
The elephant in the room (IMO) is that the market for TTRPG books/pdfs is going to be obscenely glutted in a few years, and the only big corporate TTRPG producers that will continue to exist will be the biggest (WOTC) and whoever controls the reigning champ VTT. Hasbro wants to control both.
Naturally it's worse if they do.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 07:29:56 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 03:35:11 PM
Good video. I'm glad at least there's since been clarification that they can't actually make people destroy material made a decade ago... they're just going to claim nothing new can be made for anything without the OGL1.1.
So it's an EMP instead of nuclear bomb.
Still, time for a lot of the OGL users to be looking at alternatives... either going without or collaborating on a new System License. The real trick is going to be altering content sufficiently (ex. in the FreeSRD it's "force missile" instead of "magic missile") to be free and clear of They Sue Regularly 2.0.
FreeSRD?
Link?
No link, just a suggestion for the name of the finished collaboration I proposed and an example of how you'd want to change all but the most self-evident terms because the more surface level differences a judge can easily be shown, the easier it will be to call for and get a summary judgment (and therefore the less likely WotC is to bother).
There's settled case law on systems with the exact same mechanics, but different surface details (two card games... identical rules, but one had player roles of Sheriff, Deputies, Outlaws, the Renegade and an overall Western theme. The other had the Emperor, Ministers, Bandits, the Warlord and an Oriental theme) and it was a summary judgment in favor of the company that copied all the mechanics right down to how each role worked... but a Sheriff isn't an Emperor and a Deputy isn't a Minister... so free and clear.
The more changes, particularly using new lore/fluff the easier it will be to make it not worth the effort to pursue.
Yeah, I know of that case, so IF we're gonna go ahead and make it we need a place to talk about it and to collaborate, Guilded has a document creation feature but it doesn't play well with tables, it still would work, either that or Discord.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 06, 2023, 06:56:48 PMThe real question is whether or not the D&D player base can maintain this current level of outrage for an entire year. Maybe it was smart for WotC to leak this document right now, a year before it is officially released. By 2024, how many people will be burned out on the whole affair and no longer care enough to stay away but, instead, just accept the situation for what it is and go along as best they can.
It wouldn't be a good idea to wait.
Hasbro tried to project backward compatibility from the start of the beta for obvious reasons. They don't want a channel full of non-selling product until they deliver new product (and they don't want a lot of 'dead product' left when it does ship). The immediate response is to stop spending any money on Hasbro product purchases and subscriptions and to encourage a boycott of all things Hasbro until Hasbro declares the 1.0a license is perpetual and irrevocable. If Hasbro wants to create a new license that leaves 1.0a untouched, then that's fine. Third parties can continue to use 1.0a.
A palpable loss of revenue then affects stock prices and the leverage strengthens.
So stop buying Hasbro products right now. Do not buy any new 5e products or services. In your interactions with others online, if they talk about buying 5e products, tell them why you've stopped.
The success of 5e was driven by the (generally) low cost of social media. That low cost can also be used to change minds and stock valuation.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 06, 2023, 06:56:48 PM
And, of course, there is also the narrative that the new OGL guarantees that a product will be free of bigotry. So the only people who still want to use the 1.0 version are people that want to be able to make bigoted content.
I suspect this is what it's really about... increasing HASBRO's ESG score. Emphasis on the S.
You and I will never know, of couse, but... looking at the course WOTC has been taking over the last few years, I'd bet that's it.
As a person who regularly interacts with the "mainstream" d&d community, they hate it as much as we do, probably more. Be thankful that we know the alternatives while they don't. It's amazing how connected people are to the game, modding and changing it to the breaking point. Hopefully they'll be able to move on without ruining our hobby.
The ones you interact with probably aren't overly concerned with the stock price of HASBRO... or am I wrong?
Quote from: Lynn on January 06, 2023, 07:49:29 PM
So stop buying Hasbro products right now. Do not buy any new 5e products or services. In your interactions with others online, if they talk about buying 5e products, tell them why you've stopped.
I started that about 18 months ago, and by last fall I'd gradually worked around to everyone that is part of my old D&D games.
My next step is that not only will I not buy any WotC or Hasbro product, I will also not buy from anyone that caves into this and adopts OneD&D or the new license. Not a single dime for any product that they produce, even if it has nothing to do with D&D, WotC, or Hasbro. So my reasons for that will now be propagating out to my circle of gamers.
They are wrong about one thing, too. It's true that GMs buy more than players, 1:1. In my circle, the total buys by players dwarfs what the GMs buys. I wonder sometimes how many circles of gamers are largely off the web, with the GM the only one informed about these shenanigans, and then those players quietly follow along where the GM goes.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 06, 2023, 10:08:51 PM
The ones you interact with probably aren't overly concerned with the stock price of HASBRO... or am I wrong?
Some of them actually are. Believe me they aren't all as ignorant as they can seem. There's just a lot of them for better and for worse.
GrimJim has created a petition on Change.org. Seeing how much traction it gets will be a good indication of interest amoung non-publishers.
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35422238_en-GB%3A4&recruiter=1291281390&recruited_by_id=b3941500-8e8e-11ed-b4fe-7bc71f42fde5&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-35422238-en-GB
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 07, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
GrimJim has created a petition on Change.org. Seeing how much traction it gets will be a good indication of interest amoung non-publishers.
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35422238_en-GB%3A4&recruiter=1291281390&recruited_by_id=b3941500-8e8e-11ed-b4fe-7bc71f42fde5&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-35422238-en-GB
Signed and shared.
WotC wants a lifestyle brand out of D&D and wants a successful movie launch to start the ball rolling.
But first, they release this OGL stuff to ensure everyone hates them.
Betting it all and then setting the challenge to God mode difficulty when they didn't need to is a bold move.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:05:41 AM
WotC wants a lifestyle brand out of D&D and wants a successful movie launch to start the ball rolling.
But first, they release this OGL stuff to ensure everyone hates them.
Betting it all and then setting the challenge to God mode difficulty when they didn't need to is a bold move.
I wasn't planning on seeing what's clearly just an MCU clone in Renfair drag even before this (not to mention Chris Pine playing the same basic character he does in every film he appears in). Now I almost feel like protesting outside any local theatre (not that many left these days) that actually shows it.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 06, 2023, 11:45:29 PM
My next step is that not only will I not buy any WotC or Hasbro product, I will also not buy from anyone that caves into this and adopts OneD&D or the new license. Not a single dime for any product that they produce, even if it has nothing to do with D&D, WotC, or Hasbro. So my reasons for that will now be propagating out to my circle of gamers.
They are wrong about one thing, too. It's true that GMs buy more than players, 1:1. In my circle, the total buys by players dwarfs what the GMs buys. I wonder sometimes how many circles of gamers are largely off the web, with the GM the only one informed about these shenanigans, and then those players quietly follow along where the GM goes.
They probably have some useful data to back up claims as regards to customer value of DMs, but given also that there are different motivations to buy (some buy because they just want to read content they won't use, they are some type of collector, etc) it isn't all that black and white. But I also think that DMs and these other types are more likely to be aware of what's going on in the industry. I think just about every D&D related channel on Youtube at this point has chimed in, making it really hard to miss.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:05:41 AM
WotC wants a lifestyle brand out of D&D and wants a successful movie launch to start the ball rolling.
But first, they release this OGL stuff to ensure everyone hates them.
Betting it all and then setting the challenge to God mode difficulty when they didn't need to is a bold move.
It is either Bold, or Foolish. Probably Both.
I know the official word hasn't been released, but do we have any clarity on the 1.0 OGL for the OSR moving forward?
Quote from: Gegilles on January 07, 2023, 02:13:29 PM
I know the official word hasn't been released, but do we have any clarity on the 1.0 OGL for the OSR moving forward?
No true 100% clarity. In 6 days, OGL 1.1 will be released. Depending upon the exact wording of 1.1, as well as the exact wording of the previous 1.0a OGL text..... and the legal opinions of good IP attorneys..... content creators will have to make some difficult decisions.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 07, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
GrimJim has created a petition on Change.org. Seeing how much traction it gets will be a good indication of interest amoung non-publishers.
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35422238_en-GB%3A4&recruiter=1291281390&recruited_by_id=b3941500-8e8e-11ed-b4fe-7bc71f42fde5&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-35422238-en-GB
Why?
Nobody should sign this.
Let WotC melt down D&D.
It's time to leave the one true game behind.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 07, 2023, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 07, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
GrimJim has created a petition on Change.org. Seeing how much traction it gets will be a good indication of interest amoung non-publishers.
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35422238_en-GB%3A4&recruiter=1291281390&recruited_by_id=b3941500-8e8e-11ed-b4fe-7bc71f42fde5&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-35422238-en-GB
Why?
Nobody should sign this.
Let WotC melt down D&D.
It's time to leave the one true game behind.
Agreed.
I'm not going to ask those assholes to do the right thing.
Let natural selection do its worst here.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 06, 2023, 07:52:49 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 06, 2023, 06:56:48 PM
And, of course, there is also the narrative that the new OGL guarantees that a product will be free of bigotry. So the only people who still want to use the 1.0 version are people that want to be able to make bigoted content.
I suspect this is what it's really about... increasing HASBRO's ESG score. Emphasis on the S.
You and I will never know, of couse, but... looking at the course WOTC has been taking over the last few years, I'd bet that's it.
Yep. After 20 years, the only new factor is ESG. (TSR/WOTC has always wanted to make money off of D&D, that's a given...)
This isn't about money. It's about flushing money down the drain to appease the wokesters on whatever board is doling out ESG scores.
Apologies if I missed it, but where does it say the release is in 6 days?
Cheers.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 07, 2023, 03:19:57 PM
Quote from: Gegilles on January 07, 2023, 02:13:29 PM
I know the official word hasn't been released, but do we have any clarity on the 1.0 OGL for the OSR moving forward?
No true 100% clarity. In 6 days, OGL 1.1 will be released. Depending upon the exact wording of 1.1, as well as the exact wording of the previous 1.0a OGL text..... and the legal opinions of good IP attorneys..... content creators will have to make some difficult decisions.
I agree that avoiding the OGL is possible... but... my question regards the Hit Dice Formula for monsters, etc. My games are pretty much not derivative of the SRD 3.5 or anything else from WotC, IMHO... except for the monster stats and the use of the Hit Dice Formula. Of all the crap that WofC claims as proprietary the Hit Dice Formula seems the most likely to be found to be a 'unique process intellectual property'.
How could you replace that? Is it necessary to replace it? Has the Hit Dice Formula become part of the public domain?
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 04:40:26 PM
I agree that avoiding the OGL is possible... but... my question regards the Hit Dice Formula for monsters, etc. My games are pretty much not derivative of the SRD 3.5 or anything else from WotC, IMHO... except for the monster stats and the use of the Hit Dice Formula. Of all the crap that WofC claims as proprietary the Hit Dice Formula seems the most likely to be found to be a 'unique process intellectual property'.
How could you replace that? Is it necessary to replace it? Has the Hit Dice Formula become part of the public domain?
It would help if we knew what you meant by Hit Dice Formula. I'm aware of Hit Dice, but not of any special formula for their application.
I asked the same question on my blog:
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:
(X)d(Y)+(Z)
X = Number of HD
Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20)
Z = HD Bonus
From this formula the monster's level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:07:12 PM
I asked the same question on my blog:
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:
(X)d(Y)+(Z)
X = Number of HD
Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20)
Z = HD Bonus
From this formula the monster's level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.
Actually, that is a literal example of an uncopyrightable formula. If those values were laid out on a chart that chart could be copyrighted, but a basic formula like that is not copyrightable at all.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 05:10:08 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:07:12 PM
I asked the same question on my blog:
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:
(X)d(Y)+(Z)
X = Number of HD
Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20)
Z = HD Bonus
From this formula the monster's level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.
Actually, that is a literal example of an uncopyrightable formula. If those values were laid out on a chart that chart could be copyrighted, but a basic formula like that is not copyrightable at all.
I am not at all sure about that. Do you have any confirmation on that? Where does it say that formulas and algorithms are not subject to copyright? Plus the issue may not be about copyright so much as patent law. Over the last 30 years we have seen a lot of 'process patents' issued and winning in court. I suppose if it was a 'process' asset under patent law we would probably be ok, since it it has been about 50 years since its first introduction and it does appear to have been adopted by all sorts of people, suggesting a release to the public domain. I just don't want to be the test case to confirm this.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:18:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 05:10:08 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:07:12 PM
I asked the same question on my blog:
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:
(X)d(Y)+(Z)
X = Number of HD
Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20)
Z = HD Bonus
From this formula the monster's level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.
Actually, that is a literal example of an uncopyrightable formula. If those values were laid out on a chart that chart could be copyrighted, but a basic formula like that is not copyrightable at all.
I am not at all sure about that. Do you have any confirmation on that? Where does it say that formulas and algorithms are not subject to copyright? Plus the issue may not be about copyright so much as patent law. Over the last 30 years we have seen a lot of 'process patents' issued and winning in court. I suppose if it was a 'process' asset under patent law we would probably be ok, since it it has been about 50 years since its first introduction and it does appear to have been adopted by all sorts of people, suggesting a release to the public domain. I just don't want to be the test case to confirm this.
Patents are not copyrights. Process patents have a maximum lifespan of 20 years. Even if they had patented it in 2000 (they didn't), the patent has expired.
You cannot copyright formulas. Period. Its basic copyright law. If that doesn't convince you then you're just trying to scare yourself for the adrenaline hit.
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:18:16 PM
I am not at all sure about that. Do you have any confirmation on that? Where does it say that formulas and algorithms are not subject to copyright?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.That's US law -
17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright.
I can dig up the Berne Convention, TRIPS, and our UK CDPA 1988 if you remain unconvinced. ;D
Quote from: S'mon on January 07, 2023, 05:46:37 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:18:16 PM
I am not at all sure about that. Do you have any confirmation on that? Where does it say that formulas and algorithms are not subject to copyright?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
That's US law - 17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright.
I can dig up the Berne Convention, TRIPS, and our UK CDPA 1988 if you remain unconvinced. ;D
Thank you! :)
I am a worrier, and I like asking questions. Rather like 'doubting Thomas'... but seeing is believing!
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 05:29:06 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:18:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 05:10:08 PM
Quote from: squirewaldo on January 07, 2023, 05:07:12 PM
I asked the same question on my blog:
https://www.bozbat.com/2023/01/07/the-hit-dice-formula/
Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:
(X)d(Y)+(Z)
X = Number of HD
Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20)
Z = HD Bonus
From this formula the monster's level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.
Actually, that is a literal example of an uncopyrightable formula. If those values were laid out on a chart that chart could be copyrighted, but a basic formula like that is not copyrightable at all.
I am not at all sure about that. Do you have any confirmation on that? Where does it say that formulas and algorithms are not subject to copyright? Plus the issue may not be about copyright so much as patent law. Over the last 30 years we have seen a lot of 'process patents' issued and winning in court. I suppose if it was a 'process' asset under patent law we would probably be ok, since it it has been about 50 years since its first introduction and it does appear to have been adopted by all sorts of people, suggesting a release to the public domain. I just don't want to be the test case to confirm this.
Patents are not copyrights. Process patents have a maximum lifespan of 20 years. Even if they had patented it in 2000 (they didn't), the patent has expired.
You cannot copyright formulas. Period. Its basic copyright law. If that doesn't convince you then you're just trying to scare yourself for the adrenaline hit.
Plus you CAN'T patent something that everybody is already using. For instance go and try to patent the process of brewing beer.
Plus MANY of the processes algorithms and formulas in D&D come from much older wargames.
So last night I went to the game store where I run my D&D game and there were a lot of people talking about this subject. That includes people in my group an people who work in the store.
So it's clear that this has left the confounds of the internet and is now being talked about in person. Wizards/Hasbro has really screwed up.
One thing a player said to me was that while Pathfinder 1 is based on the OGL and would be hurt by this change, Pathfinder 2 is a different system that gets away from the OGL and it wouldnt have any effect. I know nothing about Pathfinder 2. Is this true?
Quote from: GhostNinja on January 08, 2023, 12:27:45 PM
So last night I went to the game store where I run my D&D game and there were a lot of people talking about this subject. That includes people in my group an people who work in the store.
So it's clear that this has left the confounds of the internet and is now being talked about in person. Wizards/Hasbro has really screwed up.
One thing a player said to me was that while Pathfinder 1 is based on the OGL and would be hurt by this change, Pathfinder 2 is a different system that gets away from the OGL and it wouldnt have any effect. I know nothing about Pathfinder 2. Is this true?
Looking at the pdf I have of the core book, I'd say no. I haven't looked really hard at the mechanics, but just perusing the spell lists, I see so many spells that go back to OD&D and are definitely in the SRD. That's from a 30 second glance, so anyone who thinks differently... I'd be happy to hear it.
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 08, 2023, 12:59:37 PM
Looking at the pdf I have of the core book, I'd say no. I haven't looked really hard at the mechanics, but just perusing the spell lists, I see so many spells that go back to OD&D and are definitely in the SRD. That's from a 30 second glance, so anyone who thinks differently... I'd be happy to hear it.
I think there are a lot of games out there that have baseline mechanics that are either generic enough or different from the SRD that they can maintain the skeleton, but that are going to have to deal with reworking the spells, monsters, and magic items, and possibly the classes.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 08, 2023, 12:59:37 PM
Looking at the pdf I have of the core book, I'd say no. I haven't looked really hard at the mechanics, but just perusing the spell lists, I see so many spells that go back to OD&D and are definitely in the SRD. That's from a 30 second glance, so anyone who thinks differently... I'd be happy to hear it.
I think there are a lot of games out there that have baseline mechanics that are either generic enough or different from the SRD that they can maintain the skeleton, but that are going to have to deal with reworking the spells, monsters, and magic items, and possibly the classes.
I generally agree, and to be on the safe side I suggest not just renaming things, but a complete rewrite of the fluff as well.
Things I'd look out for; use of chromatic/metallic dragons (with Dragons in their name I expect OneD&D to be especially prickly about offbrand use of their dragon categories), use of Alignment-based anything (planes, spells, monsters), planar structure in general (particularly wheels/mirrored structures), Vancian/X slots per spell level style magic systems... also Halflings and Reptilian Kobolds.
I've posted some notes on a renaming convention over here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/so-how-many-osr-games-are-going-to-go-away-if-ogl-1-1-is-a-thing/
All open to discussion of course. If something of the sort is to be done it needs to be in place as soon as possible to prevent multiple variations.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 08, 2023, 12:59:37 PM
Looking at the pdf I have of the core book, I'd say no. I haven't looked really hard at the mechanics, but just perusing the spell lists, I see so many spells that go back to OD&D and are definitely in the SRD. That's from a 30 second glance, so anyone who thinks differently... I'd be happy to hear it.
I think there are a lot of games out there that have baseline mechanics that are either generic enough or different from the SRD that they can maintain the skeleton, but that are going to have to deal with reworking the spells, monsters, and magic items, and possibly the classes.
I generally agree, and to be on the safe side I suggest not just renaming things, but a complete rewrite of the fluff as well.
Things I'd look out for; use of chromatic/metallic dragons (with Dragons in their name I expect OneD&D to be especially prickly about offbrand use of their dragon categories), use of Alignment-based anything (planes, spells, monsters), planar structure in general (particularly wheels/mirrored structures), Vancian/X slots per spell level style magic systems... also Halflings and Reptilian Kobolds.
This is correct, since WotC can't copyright Dragons, but the TYPE of Dragons and the fluff is IP therefore falls under the OGL and you could use it under it only.
I'm already working on a Bestiary that'll be placed under CC By SA. Mostly the fluff since I think it needs to be as system agnostic as possible.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 01:46:26 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 08, 2023, 12:59:37 PM
Looking at the pdf I have of the core book, I'd say no. I haven't looked really hard at the mechanics, but just perusing the spell lists, I see so many spells that go back to OD&D and are definitely in the SRD. That's from a 30 second glance, so anyone who thinks differently... I'd be happy to hear it.
I think there are a lot of games out there that have baseline mechanics that are either generic enough or different from the SRD that they can maintain the skeleton, but that are going to have to deal with reworking the spells, monsters, and magic items, and possibly the classes.
I generally agree, and to be on the safe side I suggest not just renaming things, but a complete rewrite of the fluff as well.
Things I'd look out for; use of chromatic/metallic dragons (with Dragons in their name I expect OneD&D to be especially prickly about offbrand use of their dragon categories), use of Alignment-based anything (planes, spells, monsters), planar structure in general (particularly wheels/mirrored structures), Vancian/X slots per spell level style magic systems... also Halflings and Reptilian Kobolds.
This is correct, since WotC can't copyright Dragons, but the TYPE of Dragons and the fluff is IP therefore falls under the OGL and you could use it under it only.
I'm already working on a Bestiary that'll be placed under CC By SA. Mostly the fluff since I think it needs to be as system agnostic as possible.
Paizo could have Liquid Dragons (replacement for metalics) and Emotions (replacements for chromatics), Bahamut and Tiamat in for their dragons and there isn't a dang thing WotC could do to stop them (damn Zoroasterites coming up with Bahamut and Tiamat).
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:03:43 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 01:46:26 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 08, 2023, 12:59:37 PM
Looking at the pdf I have of the core book, I'd say no. I haven't looked really hard at the mechanics, but just perusing the spell lists, I see so many spells that go back to OD&D and are definitely in the SRD. That's from a 30 second glance, so anyone who thinks differently... I'd be happy to hear it.
I think there are a lot of games out there that have baseline mechanics that are either generic enough or different from the SRD that they can maintain the skeleton, but that are going to have to deal with reworking the spells, monsters, and magic items, and possibly the classes.
I generally agree, and to be on the safe side I suggest not just renaming things, but a complete rewrite of the fluff as well.
Things I'd look out for; use of chromatic/metallic dragons (with Dragons in their name I expect OneD&D to be especially prickly about offbrand use of their dragon categories), use of Alignment-based anything (planes, spells, monsters), planar structure in general (particularly wheels/mirrored structures), Vancian/X slots per spell level style magic systems... also Halflings and Reptilian Kobolds.
This is correct, since WotC can't copyright Dragons, but the TYPE of Dragons and the fluff is IP therefore falls under the OGL and you could use it under it only.
I'm already working on a Bestiary that'll be placed under CC By SA. Mostly the fluff since I think it needs to be as system agnostic as possible.
Paizo could have Liquid Dragons (replacement for metalics) and Emotions (replacements for chromatics), Bahamut and Tiamat in for their dragons and there isn't a dang thing WotC could do to stop them (damn Zoroasterites coming up with Bahamut and Tiamat).
Their expression as a five-headed dragon and a platinum dragon respectively though is D&D specific IP however (the actual mythical Bahamit is a fish that supports the ox who supports the angel who supports the world... Tiamat is a primordial salt-water goddess who birthed a variety of demons and whose corpse became the world).
Quote from: Jaeger on January 07, 2023, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 07, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
GrimJim has created a petition on Change.org. Seeing how much traction it gets will be a good indication of interest amoung non-publishers.
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35422238_en-GB%3A4&recruiter=1291281390&recruited_by_id=b3941500-8e8e-11ed-b4fe-7bc71f42fde5&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-35422238-en-GB
Why?
Nobody should sign this.
Let WotC melt down D&D.
It's time to leave the one true game behind.
Yes exactly. A lot of people seem eager to rush back to WotC as soon as they see the error in their ways. Some serious Stockholm syndrome battered wife rationalizing going on here.
WotC makes bank on false scarcity pieces of cardboard and is owned by a multi-billion dollar toy company - they don't give a shit about us and long ago stopped giving a shit about making good RPGs.
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 08, 2023, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 07, 2023, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 07, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
GrimJim has created a petition on Change.org. Seeing how much traction it gets will be a good indication of interest amoung non-publishers.
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35422238_en-GB%3A4&recruiter=1291281390&recruited_by_id=b3941500-8e8e-11ed-b4fe-7bc71f42fde5&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-35422238-en-GB
Why?
Nobody should sign this.
Let WotC melt down D&D.
It's time to leave the one true game behind.
Yes exactly. A lot of people seem eager to rush back to WotC as soon as they see the error in their ways. Some serious Stockholm syndrome battered wife rationalizing going on here.
WotC makes bank on false scarcity pieces of cardboard and is owned by a multi-billion dollar toy company - they don't give a shit about us and long ago stopped giving a shit about making good RPGs.
If nothing else it COULD accomplish one very important thing:
Buy time so people can divest their games from all WotC owned IP. Since I like several OSR games that do use the SRD I think this would be a net possitive for the hobby.
Provided people DO divest from ALL D&D ADN.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:39:38 AM
Plus you CAN'T patent something that everybody is already using. For instance go and try to patent the process of brewing beer.
Sir Walter Raleigh would like to have a word.
Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:39:38 AM
Plus you CAN'T patent something that everybody is already using. For instance go and try to patent the process of brewing beer.
Sir Walter Raleigh would like to have a word.
Besides a "patent" to settle in Virginia I can't find anything else regarding him, is that which you're talking about? If so I bet those are two very different types of patent and it has shit to do with the current conversation.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 03:17:21 PM
Their expression as a five-headed dragon and a platinum dragon respectively though is D&D specific IP however (the actual mythical Bahamit is a fish that supports the ox who supports the angel who supports the world... Tiamat is a primordial salt-water goddess who birthed a variety of demons and whose corpse became the world).
Keep in mind this stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a huge amount of cultural references you can make without pointing at D&D. For example Final Fantasy uses Tiamut and Bahamut and depicts them as dragons, with many similarities to D&D presentations as well.
e.g.
Tiamat (https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Tiamat_(Final_Fantasy))
Bahamut (https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Bahamut_(Final_Fantasy_XIV)?so=search)
Honestly I don't think including depictions of existing mythological figures is at all likely to trigger a lawsuit.
Deleted
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 06:45:57 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:39:38 AM
Plus you CAN'T patent something that everybody is already using. For instance go and try to patent the process of brewing beer.
Sir Walter Raleigh would like to have a word.
Besides a "patent" to settle in Virginia I can't find anything else regarding him, is that which you're talking about? If so I bet those are two very different types of patent and it has shit to do with the current conversation.
https://suiter.com/a-brief-history-of-beer-and-patents/
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 06:45:57 PM
Besides a "patent" to settle in Virginia I can't find anything else regarding him, is that which you're talking about? If so I bet those are two very different types of patent and it has shit to do with the current conversation.
Elizabeth I granted Raleigh a 'letter of patent' (monopoly) on all beer sales within the City of London. This was before modern Patent law, and like the patent to settle Virginia it did not concern an invention, though.
Sorry, stupid IP law lecturer joke. ;D
Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 08, 2023, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 06:45:57 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:39:38 AM
Plus you CAN'T patent something that everybody is already using. For instance go and try to patent the process of brewing beer.
Sir Walter Raleigh would like to have a word.
Besides a "patent" to settle in Virginia I can't find anything else regarding him, is that which you're talking about? If so I bet those are two very different types of patent and it has shit to do with the current conversation.
https://suiter.com/a-brief-history-of-beer-and-patents/
So patents for processes or materials that don't prevent ANYONE from brewing beer, you just couldn't use their stuff while the patent lasted...
And that doesn't prove me wrong.
Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 06:45:57 PM
Besides a "patent" to settle in Virginia I can't find anything else regarding him, is that which you're talking about? If so I bet those are two very different types of patent and it has shit to do with the current conversation.
Elizabeth I granted Raleigh a 'letter of patent' (monopoly) on all beer sales within the City of London. This was before modern Patent law, and like the patent to settle Virginia it did not concern an invention, though.
Sorry, stupid IP law lecturer joke. ;D
Yeah, figured it was some type of joke on the different meaning of the word patent, after all there were also patents to be a corsair (pirate) but with the blessings of your country grantinjg you a safe harbor in return for hurting the other countries and some small taxation.
None of this is likely to affect the OSR in a big way. A lot of OSR products (including some of mine, because of my publishers) used the OGL, but most of them never really had to.
My own games use basically NOTHING that originated with the SRD as proprietary material of Wizards of the Coast. The only people WotC might have a claim against are the creators of clone products, products that have made use of specific vancian spell names for example, could be caught out.
But Armor Class, Hit Points, or Saving Throws are not something that they can make a claim over, because all of these predate the existence of D&D.
The only real effect this will have for most OSR writers is that they won't put the little OGL notice at the back of their books anymore.
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 10, 2023, 10:48:38 PM
None of this is likely to affect the OSR in a big way. A lot of OSR products (including some of mine, because of my publishers) used the OGL, but most of them never really had to.
My own games use basically NOTHING that originated with the SRD as proprietary material of Wizards of the Coast. The only people WotC might have a claim against are the creators of clone products, products that have made use of specific vancian spell names for example, could be caught out.
But Armor Class, Hit Points, or Saving Throws are not something that they can make a claim over, because all of these predate the existence of D&D.
The only real effect this will have for most OSR writers is that they won't put the little OGL notice at the back of their books anymore.
The history of Hit Points: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-history-of-hit-points/ (https://www.pcgamer.com/the-history-of-hit-points/)
Armor Class and Saving Throws: https://dmdavid.com/tag/the-tangled-origins-of-dds-armor-class-hit-points-and-twenty-sided-die-rolls-to-hit/ (https://dmdavid.com/tag/the-tangled-origins-of-dds-armor-class-hit-points-and-twenty-sided-die-rolls-to-hit/)
Edited to add: Chainmail WASN'T created by TSR but the first Edition had the input of several wargamers until it became a thing first published in 1971 by Guidon Games and a second edition (same publisher) in 1972. The publisher went under and then Gygax bought or reclaimed Chainmail for TSR and did the 3rd edition under that imprint.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 06, 2023, 06:56:48 PM
The real question is whether or not the D&D player base can maintain this current level of outrage for an entire year. Maybe it was smart for WotC to leak this document right now, a year before it is officially released. By 2024, how many people will be burned out on the whole affair and no longer care enough to stay away but, instead, just accept the situation for what it is and go along as best they can.
The biggest issue with a huge player walk out is that most casual D&D players probably don't even know what the OGL is nor would they care if WotC takes a percentage cut of the revenue (or whatever issues that game designers have with the new OGL).
And, of course, there is also the narrative that the new OGL guarantees that a product will be free of bigotry. So the only people who still want to use the 1.0 version are people that want to be able to make bigoted content.
If there isn't an alternative, player outrage doesn't matter. If there is an alternative, they don't even need to be angry, they just need to weigh their options.
3PP are spooked, whether or not Hasbro goes through with the leaked version, or if they go with an opt-in one for OneD&D, 3PP will probably continue with making games that are largely 5e (or whatever edition) compatible but without OGL content, and that will be offered to consumers.
Then it's just a matter for the players to decide if the changes to the play experience with OneD&D are too different for them to be palatable, and they would rather go to a mechanically similar system that isn't D&D, or if playing Dungeons & Dragons(tm) outweighs any drawbacks of the new form.
They can try painting the bigotry narrative, but the big problem for anyone is that if you make anything with the OGL, you give Hasbro irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free license to do what they like with your content, but they can terminate the license for any reason. So you produce something good, they terminate your license, you can't sell it anymore, and they can turn around and sell your work without giving you any money.
Nobody is going to take that deal. It's only worth it if you're trying to write material for Forgotten Realms. Either you play ball with their licensing and payment model, or you're not allowed to create content for it at all.
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 10, 2023, 10:48:38 PM
None of this is likely to affect the OSR in a big way. A lot of OSR products (including some of mine, because of my publishers) used the OGL, but most of them never really had to.
My own games use basically NOTHING that originated with the SRD as proprietary material of Wizards of the Coast. The only people WotC might have a claim against are the creators of clone products, products that have made use of specific vancian spell names for example, could be caught out.
But Armor Class, Hit Points, or Saving Throws are not something that they can make a claim over, because all of these predate the existence of D&D.
The only real effect this will have for most OSR writers is that they won't put the little OGL notice at the back of their books anymore.
I agree. It is a huge problem for the makers of retro-clones though. My view is that relying on the validity of OGL 1.0, as eg Stuart Marshall says he's doing with OSRIC, is a lot safer than trying to rejig a retro-clone to not need a licence, as Basic Fantasy RPG is attempting. Though in the latter case the author says he'll simply fold anyway if he gets a C&D, so *shrug*.
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 10, 2023, 10:48:38 PM
None of this is likely to affect the OSR in a big way. A lot of OSR products (including some of mine, because of my publishers) used the OGL, but most of them never really had to.
My own games use basically NOTHING that originated with the SRD as proprietary material of Wizards of the Coast. The only people WotC might have a claim against are the creators of clone products, products that have made use of specific vancian spell names for example, could be caught out.
But Armor Class, Hit Points, or Saving Throws are not something that they can make a claim over, because all of these predate the existence of D&D.
The only real effect this will have for most OSR writers is that they won't put the little OGL notice at the back of their books anymore.
All of this is 100% spot on. Multiple sources are out there to confirm this.
If I may add, Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha also fall into this category. Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium, etc. use these terms as well and without any issues.
Quote from: S'mon on January 11, 2023, 06:55:14 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 10, 2023, 10:48:38 PM
None of this is likely to affect the OSR in a big way. A lot of OSR products (including some of mine, because of my publishers) used the OGL, but most of them never really had to.
My own games use basically NOTHING that originated with the SRD as proprietary material of Wizards of the Coast. The only people WotC might have a claim against are the creators of clone products, products that have made use of specific vancian spell names for example, could be caught out.
But Armor Class, Hit Points, or Saving Throws are not something that they can make a claim over, because all of these predate the existence of D&D.
The only real effect this will have for most OSR writers is that they won't put the little OGL notice at the back of their books anymore.
I agree. It is a huge problem for the makers of retro-clones though. My view is that relying on the validity of OGL 1.0, as eg Stuart Marshall says he's doing with OSRIC, is a lot safer than trying to rejig a retro-clone to not need a licence, as Basic Fantasy RPG is attempting. Though in the latter case the author says he'll simply fold anyway if he gets a C&D, so *shrug*.
It depends on the nature of the retro-clone. BFRPG isn't trying to be exactly like B/X, just like it. It can keep the same play feel while changing enough to not rely on the OGL. OSRIC is trying to be an exact clone, like OSE, and that's where the OGL is really necessary.
LotFP would have a very easy time changing - it already doesn't have monsters, and stripping out all the OGL spells and changing the spellcasting is right in line with what Raggi wants anyway.
How nice for me that every single OSR game I've ever written doesn't have any original D&D monsters and none of them use the D&D magic system...
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:43:58 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on D&D Beyond (I believe that's the place) at 3pm EST.
I mean this will be interesting but I can't imagine what kind statement would do anything. It takes years to build goodwill and only a moment to destroy it.
My prediction is it will be a lot of spin with little substance.
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:43:58 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:43:58 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!
Does anyone still doubt my statement that we aren't dealing with evil geniuses, but a bunch of greedy first-stage thinkers who, now that the inevitable unconsidered backlash has struck literally have no idea what to do?
The leaker said all they care about are DBB subs as a metric they can immediately measure. I've watched a thread on their forums called "canceling my subscription" explode over there so my hunch? They looked at the number of cancelled subs (and rate they're coming in) and had a fresh panic attack.
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:43:58 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!
WotC now stands for Wizards of the Clown World.
It looks like they have a routine Thursday 3pm EST live stream planned. Wisely they canceled it due to the sheer volume of expected outrage that would show up and crash that live stream. There's another one at 5pm EST (after the bell closes in Wall Street). Let's see if they cancel that one as well.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 12, 2023, 03:35:15 PM
It looks like they have a routine Thursday 3pm EST live stream planned. Wisely they canceled it due to the sheer volume of expected outrage that would show up and crash that live stream. There's another one at 5pm EST (after the bell closes in Wall Street). Let's see if they cancel that one as well.
No, 5pm Tuesday now.
(https://www.enworld.org/attachments/screenshot-265-png.272203/)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 12, 2023, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:43:58 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.
UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!
Does anyone still doubt my statement that we aren't dealing with evil geniuses, but a bunch of greedy first-stage thinkers who, now that the inevitable unconsidered backlash has struck literally have no idea what to do?
The leaker said all they care about are DBB subs as a metric they can immediately measure. I've watched a thread on their forums called "canceling my subscription" explode over there so my hunch? They looked at the number of cancelled subs (and rate they're coming in) and had a fresh panic attack.
Yeah I'm thinking they did not expect this much backlash. I don't think they're geniuses but they did have an evil plan. Now they're scrambling for a way control the damage. They test of whether their idiots or not will be their statement.
If they try to stuff the fart back into the asshole, they're idiots.
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 12, 2023, 03:58:11 PM
If they try to stuff the fart back into the asshole, they're idiots.
I basically see three ways they might go.
- "Yup, we're evil, live with it, get fucked complainers." A.K.A. the Blizzard strategy. No apology, no contrition, no attempts to justify or obfuscate.
- "You're all misunderstanding, we'll try to clear up any confusion and concerns." We might even get a new version of 1.1 that is functionally identical to the leaked version, but slightly re-worded. This means they think we're all idiots and that this will die down, but they still wanna try to placate us.
- "Yeah, we screwed up, here's out counter offer:" The best we can hope for realistically, I think, is that they admit that 1.1 was/is real, and that going forward all their new content will be put out under 1.1a but they don't revoke 1.0a. Basically they write off the OSR/Pathfinder markets as a casualty, accept that realistically there's nothing they can do about them that will profit them, decide it isn't worth it, and try to earn a little good PR by promising to leave them alone. I don't expect this, but I would say there's an outside chance of it.
Possibilities 4 and 5 would be "Those responsible have been sacked", and "It was all a big hoax", which are both I suppose technically possible, but I think are too unlikely to be worth real consideration.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 12, 2023, 03:58:11 PM
If they try to stuff the fart back into the asshole, they're idiots.
I basically see three ways they might go.
- "Yup, we're evil, live with it, get fucked complainers." A.K.A. the Blizzard strategy. No apology, no contrition, no attempts to justify or obfuscate.
- "You're all misunderstanding, we'll try to clear up any confusion and concerns." We might even get a new version of 1.1 that is functionally identical to the leaked version, but slightly re-worded. This means they think we're all idiots and that this will die down, but they still wanna try to placate us.
- "Yeah, we screwed up, here's out counter offer:" The best we can hope for realistically, I think, is that they admit that 1.1 was/is real, and that going forward all their new content will be put out under 1.1a but they don't revoke 1.0a. Basically they write off the OSR/Pathfinder markets as a casualty, accept that realistically there's nothing they can do about them that will profit them, decide it isn't worth it, and try to earn a little good PR by promising to leave them alone. I don't expect this, but I would say there's an outside chance of it.
Possibilities 4 and 5 would be "Those responsible have been sacked", and "It was all a big hoax", which are both I suppose technically possible, but I think are too unlikely to be worth real consideration.
3 would be realistic and ideal, but that would mean they suddenly give a shit about the hobby. I don't think the execs there play D&D outside of mandated team building events. My money is on 2, they make some token changes to 1.1 and try to bafflegab their way past it.
It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?
Over on RPG.wet, they have an official thread at the top of the D&D page; but the moderators are commenting more than the membership is.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 05:47:37 PM
Over on RPG.wet, they have an official thread at the top of the D&D page; but the moderators are commenting more than the membership is.
What's the significance of this?
Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 05:59:07 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 05:47:37 PM
Over on RPG.wet, they have an official thread at the top of the D&D page; but the moderators are commenting more than the membership is.
What's the significance of this?
The mods on that website, don't trust their own forum members to talk about the most important subject in the RPG gaming hobby; without giving them ridiculous amounts of ground rules and guidance.
They're not sure how to react. Even they can't stomach supporting the 1.1 OGL and WotC's blatant grab. At the same time, this means they're afraid of getting cooties from standing side by side with Macris and Desborough.
Buy popcorn futures.