Watching this video just now on WoTC's plans for their VTT
AI DMs...
no homebrew content at base tier... $30/month subscription fee...
I think the suggestion that WoTC are actively trying to burn down their existing player (and especially GM) base, to rebuild with a clean slate from the ashes, has a lot of merit.
Quote from: S'mon on January 17, 2023, 03:40:49 AM
Watching this video just now on WoTC's plans for their VTT
AI DMs... no homebrew content at base tier... $30/month subscription fee...
I think the suggestion that WoTC are actively trying to burn down their existing player (and especially GM) base, to rebuild with a clean slate from the ashes, has a lot of merit.
I have watched a few of her videos now, and her delivery is quite good and effective. Her channel is unique.
My takeaway: WOTC is betting HARD on Digital being the future; and they are willing to lose now, to win later. As long as WOTC gains total control of all D&D content, before the coming Digital Domination; they can't help but win.
Quote from: S'mon on January 17, 2023, 03:40:49 AM
Watching this video just now on WoTC's plans for their VTT
AI DMs... no homebrew content at base tier... $30/month subscription fee...
I think the suggestion that WoTC are actively trying to burn down their existing player (and especially GM) base, to rebuild with a clean slate from the ashes, has a lot of merit.
So their payer base will be a tiny bunch of skeevy people with more money than sense. I wish I thought it wouldn't work, but mobile games have shown that those people are out there. And it will have the Official Brand Recognition.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 17, 2023, 04:39:00 AM
So their payer base will be a tiny bunch of skeevy people with more money than sense. I wish I thought it wouldn't work, but mobile games have shown that those people are out there. And it will have the Official Brand Recognition.
But also competition. People who more recently came into D&D aren't going to have the same attachment to the brand as those who started with TSR (or even 3.x). Those who have the attachment to the brand aren't going to like the direction it's going at all. So while it does have the potential to succeed, it also has the potential to fail terribly.
Also if WotC changes D&D into an online experience, then TTRPGs no longer get explained as being like D&D, except... They start being described on their own merits because D&D is no longer a useful comparison, and the network externality changes.
As she says in the video, Wotc could well see profits rise from D&D even if the player base greatly declines.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 17, 2023, 06:36:18 AM
As she says in the video, Wotc could well see profits rise from D&D even if the player base greatly declines.
'Zactly. If true, this is about maximizing income and leaving the hobby behind to cater to a very niche group. Which is their business, but would put D&D One outside of my interests.
Time will tell, I guess. I hope somebody is keeping receipts. Youtubers seem to be doing very well through all of this.
So, AI DMs and no homebrew content (note - an adventure that isn't a module is homebrew content)... that's called an MMO. Except they want to charge twice what a AAA-tier MMO charges for their top tier subscriptions as the BASE tier?
If this is true... they are literally insane. Anyone wanting a scripted fantasy experience could snag a hundred times the content from an MMO like ESO for a one-time $20 purchase during a Steam sale... I guarantee better graphics and a wider player base and plenty of custom skins you can choose from for a fraction of what this insane OneD&D plan could possibly offer.
Throw in a flop in the making movie (for reasons that have nothing to do with the OGL controversy) and this whole debacle needs to be called SingularityD&D... as in its collapsing into a black hole.
To be fair, the $30/month is the top tier cost, not the base. It's still all shit though.
I think this is probably clickbait. I don't believe WOTC top brass even know what "homebrew" means in a game context. For internal use it would have been called "custom content generation" or something.
Not to say they aren't planning basically this, but I find this specific leak suspect.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 17, 2023, 10:08:41 AM
I think this is probably clickbait. I don't believe WOTC top brass even know what "homebrew" means in a game context.
Consider if the base subscription gives you access to a character builder that contains all the official classes, races, spells, equipment, etc. But if you want to add custom races or classes, you need to upgrade to gain access to the editor software. This is a perfectly reasonable pricing system yet it can also be declared as "NO HOMEBREW AT THE BASE LEVEL! OMG!"
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2023, 10:15:38 AM
Consider if the base subscription gives you access to a character builder that contains all the official classes, races, spells, equipment, etc. But if you want to add custom races or classes, you need to upgrade to gain access to the editor software. This is a perfectly reasonable pricing system yet it can also be declared as "NO HOMEBREW AT THE BASE LEVEL! OMG!"
In foundry I can pay 20$ once to get interlinked and operational automation for all classes, races and other such stuff while always having homebrew and even mod support. I also get to keep it forever even if all servers go down, with recurring fees of like 10 bucks for 1 person only if I want to host on a server online. And 1 player can have like 8 other players play for free.
This leak is probably fake as heck, but it's absolutely a crap deal.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 17, 2023, 10:08:41 AM
I think this is probably clickbait. I don't believe WOTC top brass even know what "homebrew" means in a game context. For internal use it would have been called "custom content generation" or something.
Not to say they aren't planning basically this, but I find this specific leak suspect.
The actual wording comes from this tweet. As to its veracity, who knows?
https://twitter.com/DungeonScribe/status/1615094844048936960 (https://twitter.com/DungeonScribe/status/1615094844048936960)
I'm glad I have no investment in this mess of a game.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 17, 2023, 10:20:18 AM
This leak is probably fake as heck, but it's absolutely a crap deal.
DnD Shorts confirmed the leak, he has a record of having very reliable info from WoTC employees. https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615134661419896832?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Quote from: S'mon on January 17, 2023, 10:40:42 AMDnD Shorts confirmed the leak, he has a record of having very reliable info
I don't trust any internet personalties on this sort of stuff just out of habit. Too many times they have reliable track records and then just start fibbing for clicks.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2023, 10:15:38 AM
Consider if the base subscription gives you access to a character builder that contains all the official classes, races, spells, equipment, etc. But if you want to add custom races or classes, you need to upgrade to gain access to the editor software. This is a perfectly reasonable pricing system yet it can also be declared as "NO HOMEBREW AT THE BASE LEVEL! OMG!"
For ~30 years individual fans have been writing character generators for games as fan projects. Maybe longer, I have no idea - they existed when I got in the hobby in the very early 90s. For free. It's not
that difficult.
And generally speaking, subscription models for software are predatory bullshit to begin with. Hell, I happily forked over 29.99 or something like that for the AD&D rules CD that included a pretty darned good character generator...
In other words: It's a "perfectly reasonable pricing system" only in that it is technically legal. In no other way.
Worse? Only for WotC's paypigs, for the hobby in general this is a good thing, (IF TRUE) they are removing themselves from it! Now they'll be competing with MMORPGs like WoW and others, who charge fer lass than that AND have an established/fan/consumer/paypig base, I honestly don't see the commies (who don't buy the books anyway) becoming paypigs, and I suspect the vast majority of GMs will walk away (something they think too hence the AI-DM) but they fail to see that, if my GM were to drop out of Roll20, I would follow him, it's not the platform it's the people I play with.
So...One D&D or whatever it's called is basically just going to turn into an overpriced World of Warcraft? Nice.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2023, 10:15:38 AM
Consider if the base subscription gives you access to a character builder that contains all the official classes, races, spells, equipment, etc. But if you want to add custom races or classes, you need to upgrade to gain access to the editor software. This is a perfectly reasonable pricing system yet it can also be declared as "NO HOMEBREW AT THE BASE LEVEL! OMG!"
I saw someone somewhere (it might have been TPB) opine that they had to lock out the homebrew section to avoid people just ripping all the for-pay content from elsewhere and sharing it with everyone at the homebrew level. If so, it does make a certain level of sense, and I'm not one inclined to defend WotC. :)
Quote from: Brad on January 17, 2023, 11:36:06 AM
So...One D&D or whatever it's called is basically just going to turn into an overpriced World of Warcraft? Nice.
WoW at least has an actual game engine and graphics and stuff. This sounds like it's basically going to be a slightly dolled up MUD.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 17, 2023, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2023, 10:15:38 AM
Consider if the base subscription gives you access to a character builder that contains all the official classes, races, spells, equipment, etc. But if you want to add custom races or classes, you need to upgrade to gain access to the editor software. This is a perfectly reasonable pricing system yet it can also be declared as "NO HOMEBREW AT THE BASE LEVEL! OMG!"
I saw someone somewhere (it might have been TPB) opine that they had to lock out the homebrew section to avoid people just ripping all the for-pay content from elsewhere and sharing it with everyone at the homebrew level. If so, it does make a certain level of sense, and I'm not one inclined to defend WotC. :)
Nothing is preventing people from buying actual books and pulling in the content into a VTT, a spreadsheet, whatever.
I've spent plenty of time taking the Forgotten Realms add-in for 3.x/PF1e in Herolab and adding in a bunch of stuff from the 3.x FR books that wasn't already included.
If you can type into Excel and can parse xml, you can generate data for input into pretty much any tool.
I'll be honest, I don't give a toss of shit how WotC wants to ruin the DnD brand. All I want to know is if the OGL 1.0(a) will remain intact so I can use the 5e SRD to release my Nazis From The Moon setting, where you play as the Nazis.
This is what Ive been saying - WotC is banking on the Mobile game psyop tactics to go after the Brand loyalists. It will succeed from a monetary standpoint. But it will not be D&D. And it will cleave off those that only want to play TTRPG's as we do. It will capture those that have never played Mobile games and predatory monetization *and* want to play some flavor of D&D... the former will overtake the latter. It will also pull in people already conditioned to engage in games like this.
Blizzards Diablo Immortal got unmitigated hate by the "gaming community"... it's already made more than 300-million dollars despite having non-stop hate poured on it by gaming channels. I literally know no one in my orbit that plays it. But the game is fantastically successful despite being one of the most predatory games out there. D&D is going this route.
The benefit we have in TTRPG's is that what they do has nothing to do with us, unless you *want* to play their game. So don't. And be free.
Quote from: Effete on January 17, 2023, 02:14:54 PM
I'll be honest, I don't give a toss of shit how WotC wants to ruin the DnD brand. All I want to know is if the OGL 1.0(a) will remain intact so I can use the 5e SRD to release my Nazis From The Moon setting, where you play as the Nazis.
Why do you need the OGL to do that? Nothing in the SRD is modern (e.g. no machine guns or tanks or rocket ships), so you'd have to do a lot of original content anyway. They can't restrict you from publishing if you use just the mechanics.
Could you, frex, rename attributes to be "safe?" Sure. D&D has Strength and Dexterity. Other games might refer to them the same way or could call them Muscles and Agility. Doesn't matter. You can't protect the idea of physical attributes. Just write your own descriptive text to avoid the expression of the idea.
Or are you concerned that being allowed to play the bad guys would draw ire? Newsflash - D&D can't claim the moral high road - they already published the Book of Vile Darkness that depicted a BBEG with child slaves in shackles attached to his carriage, if I recall
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 17, 2023, 02:39:31 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 17, 2023, 02:14:54 PM
I'll be honest, I don't give a toss of shit how WotC wants to ruin the DnD brand. All I want to know is if the OGL 1.0(a) will remain intact so I can use the 5e SRD to release my Nazis From The Moon setting, where you play as the Nazis.
Why do you need the OGL to do that? Nothing in the SRD is modern (e.g. no machine guns or tanks or rocket ships), so you'd have to do a lot of original content anyway. They can't restrict you from publishing if you use just the mechanics.
Could you, frex, rename attributes to be "safe?" Sure. D&D has Strength and Dexterity. Other games might refer to them the same way or could call them Muscles and Agility. Doesn't matter. You can't protect the idea of physical attributes. Just write your own descriptive text to avoid the expression of the idea.
Or are you concerned that being allowed to play the bad guys would draw ire? Newsflash - D&D can't claim the moral high road - they already published the Book of Vile Darkness that depicted a BBEG with child slaves in shackles attached to his carriage, if I recall
Uh...he's not really making a game where you can play as a Nazi :)
Rest of the points stand though. Kevin Crawford has already proved that you do not need an OGL.
Fantasy Candy Crush, the final evolution of Gary and Dave's historic innovation! ;D
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
Quote from: Chainsaw on January 17, 2023, 04:15:49 PM
Fantasy Candy Crush, the final evolution of Gary and Dave's historic innovation! ;D
For a moment, I misread that as "Fatal Candy Crush", and almost had whiplash. :D
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 17, 2023, 05:06:35 PM
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
Yeah but for only 99c you can buy a limited edition digital sparkly sword if you log on between 7-8pm, so you got that working for you.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 17, 2023, 05:06:35 PM
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
But they made at least 3 mistakes:
Missread the willingness of 3pp to sign their poison pill
Thought they would be able to pick them out one at the time
Thought the Sparkle Trolls would be on their side because of their morality clause
I think now that the chances of both publishers and players uniting to pitch in money to fight Wankers on the Beach off is about 80%
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 17, 2023, 05:06:35 PM
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
It sure looks like that is what they are trying to do. But they failed to realize that there is an entire world full of other games that we can all just go and play.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 17, 2023, 05:06:35 PM
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
I'm sure they were framing it in a more positive light, at the company board meetings. We may think they can't legally do it, but they are effectively already doing it. This is a little bit like Star Wars. The plans to the Death Star have been stolen, but has Emperor Palpatine foreseen this?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 11:26:30 AM
Worse? Only for WotC's paypigs, for the hobby in general this is a good thing, (IF TRUE) they are removing themselves from it! ...
Exactly.
I don't understand any of the pleas to put pressure on WotC to change.
WotC is inadvertently in the process of saving the hobby from itself.
Why would anyone want to stop WotC?
Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2023, 02:35:31 PM
This is what Ive been saying - WotC is banking on the Mobile game psyop tactics to go after the Brand loyalists. It will succeed from a monetary standpoint. But it will not be D&D. ...
^This^
WotC is trying to leverage their current
dominant network effect to flip the D&D brand loyalists to their NuRPG model, giving them a critical mass for the OneVTT.
Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2023, 02:35:31 PM
Blizzards Diablo Immortal got unmitigated hate by the "gaming community"... it's already made more than 300-million dollars despite having non-stop hate poured on it by gaming channels. I literally know no one in my orbit that plays it. But the game is fantastically successful despite being one of the most predatory games out there. D&D is going this route.
...
The endgame they are working towards.
If One VTT hits, they can care less about the haters.
They will happily alienate a large segment of their traditional RPG base if they are able to make more money with the lemmings that they bring into the OneVTT ecosystem...
WOTC is pissing on the Past and the Present, somehow believing that their Future will be even brighter.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 17, 2023, 05:55:56 PM
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 17, 2023, 05:06:35 PM
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
I'm sure they were framing it in a more positive light, at the company board meetings. We may think they can't legally do it, but they are effectively already doing it. This is a little bit like Star Wars. The plans to the Death Star have been stolen, but has Emperor Palpatine foreseen this?
They had two goals - one was kill OGL 1.0a, which they may well have succeeded at anyway, and the other was to get 3PP to sign on with their new deal. That may have failed spectacularly, leaving them with just people writing for DM's Guild. The OGL was originally pitched and accepted on the grounds that it would help D&D by having 3rd party publishers release adventures, modules and supplements. It appears to have succeeded as well. If WotC is forced to do everything in house, they may have screwed themselves with this stunt.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 17, 2023, 10:08:41 AM
I think this is probably clickbait. I don't believe WOTC top brass even know what "homebrew" means in a game context. For internal use it would have been called "custom content generation" or something.
Not to say they aren't planning basically this, but I find this specific leak suspect.
My thought too and that video and the so called leaked info have been called out by a few.
Could be real, could be fake, could be some ploy by wotc even.
But right now it is just another "leak" with nothing yet to support it and it feels a but too clickbaity.
There's really no reason to believe this is untrue. None of this is at all surprising in any way to me. It's simply reality that a company like Hasbro wants to monetize D&D and it's easily possible to milk a handful of superwhales for more cash than the whole hobby will make if you're pricing things normally.
It's also inevitable given their huge investment of resources into digital D&D that they will either (a) squash homebrew content or (b) build it into their monetization.
The suits correctly identified that the future is the VTT + Microtransactions + Automation driven gaming (Heck there's already a D&D branded "Idle" game you can play.) D&D the TTRPG is dead.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 17, 2023, 06:18:22 PM
WOTC is pissing on the Past and the Present, somehow believing that their Future will be even brighter.
In terms of raw dollars... They may not be wrong.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 17, 2023, 02:39:31 PM
Or are you concerned that being allowed to play the bad guys would draw ire? Newsflash - D&D can't claim the moral high road - they already published the Book of Vile Darkness that depicted a BBEG with child slaves in shackles attached to his carriage, if I recall
I'd swear they were shackled to his armor.
And Paizo did the Book of the Damned with an entity that was concerned with "abduction" and "strangers" and "sweets" with subdomains of Lust and Deception. He has since been excised from that work. I thought that was a good fucking book, though - they're not
supposed to be laudable entities, ffs.
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 17, 2023, 11:04:09 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 17, 2023, 02:39:31 PM
Or are you concerned that being allowed to play the bad guys would draw ire? Newsflash - D&D can't claim the moral high road - they already published the Book of Vile Darkness that depicted a BBEG with child slaves in shackles attached to his carriage, if I recall
I'd swear they were shackled to his armor.
And Paizo did the Book of the Damned with an entity that was concerned with "abduction" and "strangers" and "sweets" with subdomains of Lust and Deception. He has since been excised from that work. I thought that was a good fucking book, though - they're not supposed to be laudable entities, ffs.
These are very controversial depictions and absolutely should be excised. Bring on the barista campaign book instead!
Quote from: Jaeger on January 17, 2023, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 11:26:30 AM
Worse? Only for WotC's paypigs, for the hobby in general this is a good thing, (IF TRUE) they are removing themselves from it! ...
Exactly.
I don't understand any of the pleas to put pressure on WotC to change.
WotC is inadvertently in the process of saving the hobby from itself.
Why would anyone want to stop WotC?
I don't want to stop WOTC specifically, but what's to stop other gaming companies from going down this road when/if they see how much money they can get versus scraping by on traditional TTRPG sales? Even well intentioned game creators gots bills to pay, and if a game gets popular, the offers to buy the IP so they can monetize it like D&D may start coming in.
Or WOTC or Paizo may offer to buy them out to either scuttle the game, or integrate it into their system, removing a source of competition.
I think a few holdouts will stick to their guns, but any kind of popular IP, or franchise is likely going to go down this road. We'll be stuck with our existing hardcopies and fan material with the serial numbers filed off, and the hobby will dwindle down to a few peculiar neckbeards who prefer their RPGs without that new fangled online loot box thingamajiggers.
Quote from: FingerRod on January 17, 2023, 03:05:27 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 17, 2023, 02:39:31 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 17, 2023, 02:14:54 PM
I'll be honest, I don't give a toss of shit how WotC wants to ruin the DnD brand. All I want to know is if the OGL 1.0(a) will remain intact so I can use the 5e SRD to release my Nazis From The Moon setting, where you play as the Nazis.
Why do you need the OGL to do that? Nothing in the SRD is modern (e.g. no machine guns or tanks or rocket ships), so you'd have to do a lot of original content anyway. They can't restrict you from publishing if you use just the mechanics.
Could you, frex, rename attributes to be "safe?" Sure. D&D has Strength and Dexterity. Other games might refer to them the same way or could call them Muscles and Agility. Doesn't matter. You can't protect the idea of physical attributes. Just write your own descriptive text to avoid the expression of the idea.
Or are you concerned that being allowed to play the bad guys would draw ire? Newsflash - D&D can't claim the moral high road - they already published the Book of Vile Darkness that depicted a BBEG with child slaves in shackles attached to his carriage, if I recall
Uh...he's not really making a game where you can play as a Nazi :)
Yeah, probably not. :)
But the thought has crossed my mind ever since WotC doubled-down on their morality gaslighting. The point about specifically using the 5e SRD is to provoke a retarded reaction from them. I don't actually care if the game is playable. In fact, I think it would be funnier if it wasn't. At least then the joke would be more obvious... but of course, the point is bait morons who have no sense of humor. Might even call the game
Schadenfreude for that extra layer of irony.
While part of me wants to do this just as an epic level trolling, the first part of my statement is absolutely true: I really don't care about WotC or DnD. I haven't for years, but this whole debacle sealed the coffin lid for good. There's plenty of good rpgs out there, all of them better than 5e. Nothing of importance would be lost if DnD disappeared from the tabletop.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 17, 2023, 11:52:26 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 17, 2023, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 11:26:30 AM
Worse? Only for WotC's paypigs, for the hobby in general this is a good thing, (IF TRUE) they are removing themselves from it! ...
Exactly.
I don't understand any of the pleas to put pressure on WotC to change.
WotC is inadvertently in the process of saving the hobby from itself.
Why would anyone want to stop WotC?
I don't want to stop WOTC specifically, but what's to stop other gaming companies from going down this road when/if they see how much money they can get versus scraping by on traditional TTRPG sales? Even well intentioned game creators gots bills to pay, and if a game gets popular, the offers to buy the IP so they can monetize it like D&D may start coming in.
Or WOTC or Paizo may offer to buy them out to either scuttle the game, or integrate it into their system, removing a source of competition.
I think a few holdouts will stick to their guns, but any kind of popular IP, or franchise is likely going to go down this road. We'll be stuck with our existing hardcopies and fan material with the serial numbers filed off, and the hobby will dwindle down to a few peculiar neckbeards who prefer their RPGs without that new fangled online loot box thingamajiggers.
Ehhh, I think the black-pilled folks worrying about WotC's success are overlooking some obvious challenges to their plans. First and foremost is that, like and publicly traded company, Hasbro is more interested in "growth" than in income. It's the paradox of most modern industry leaders. You could be making a steady stream of profit that would sustain your business and shareholders for eternity, but see your share price drop and become an industry pariah, because your profits aren't growing year-over-year.
So the whale-based micro-transaction business model might show a short term jump in profitability, but it's not going to grow the brand. Look at the makeup of the successful mobile game companies. They are either foreign owned, not publicly traded, or too small to compare to Hasbro, and all of them have a glut of products to farm whales. D&D gains players by word of mouth and social cache. Not as likely now...
Quote from: S'mon on January 17, 2023, 03:40:49 AM
I think the suggestion that WoTC are actively trying to burn down their existing player (and especially GM) base, to rebuild with a clean slate from the ashes, has a lot of merit.
Their delusion is that they think that a large percentage of the current tabletop roleplaying D&D audience is convertible to a computer gaming audience. A good friend of mine who keeps up with both tabletop roleplaying and computer gaming, walked me through the Gloomhaven computer game. That coupled with my experience Solasta solidified my thinking that what Wizards is trying to do here is looking at D&D as a game first. Then throwing in story elements and other game elements to make it something that is considered in the same class as Gloomhaven, Shadowrun Crossfire, and other games that sit across the RPG, Board game boundary. (like Dungeon! Talisman, etc. ). But with the D&D IP.
Where he and I disagreed is whether Wizards will do this all at once or slow walk the different components in. I think based on what currently known that Wizards will do it all at once. Based on his experience with computer gaming, my friend found that unbelievable that Wizards would be that stupid. He feel that starting with the VTT and D&D Beyond integration that Wizards is going build this piece by piece until it's gets to it final form. He feels based on his kid's and his friend's kids experience that there is a big shortage of referees and that the setup will be acceptable to much of the younger audience as a way to play D&D when they don't have a referee.
My counterpoint, is that the current D&D 5e boon grew despite all the other options being available. The current D&D audience choose to play tabletop roleplaying as one of their hobbies rather than spend all of their hobby time computer gaming or playing board games. That this new setup by Wizards will not feel the same and thus not be appealing to the vast majority of the current audience.
Furthermore given Hasbro's track record with software, they will find that after a year or two that other game companies do what they are trying to do way better and will fail as a computer game company.
It also came up is that the my friends feels that most players play D&D and tabletop roleplaying as a series of story beats intermixed up with playing out combat encounters. Basically a campaign consists of narrating part of the story, giving the group a few basic choices, and the when combat ensues play it out with minis and a board (or Dwarven Forge style terrain). Something that Gloomhaven does but in a more straight forward way.
Finally my friend plays in my campaign and enjoys it a lot. Is well aware of other styles of play. He just thinks that what I do, what others do, (storygaming, classic dungeon crawling, etc.), are smaller niches the roleplaying hobby. Personally, I feel that things are much more fragmented and that there are no styles that THE style. However there some that are more well-known.
Why kill the OGL? Why not just get another company to take over WotC tabletop responsibilities the way GDW does? this would allow them to maintain their market position while concentrating on VTT.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 17, 2023, 05:06:35 PM
So Hasbro is trying to ruthlessly nuke the entire TTRPG hobby and industry, so that our only option is to pay money to play some internet video game with an AI DM Chatbot?
That seems horribly depressing. :(
Only if you believe the "entire TTRPG hobby and industry" is D&D.
Fortunately for me, and imo - the whole hobby, this is one of the greatest things ever. Let WotC blast off and leave us be. Give them the two-finger salute as they leave our planet. Maybe we'll see some fireworks if they explode... or maybe they'll succeed and go into another realm of gaming where they'll be swimming with much bigger sharks.
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 10:59:17 AM
Only if you believe the "entire TTRPG hobby and industry" is D&D.
Fortunately for me, and imo - the whole hobby, this is one of the greatest things ever. Let WotC blast off and leave us be. Give them the two-finger salute as they leave our planet. Maybe we'll see some fireworks if they explode... or maybe they'll succeed and go into another realm of gaming where they'll be swimming with much bigger sharks.
My current bet is on the RPG Industry and Hobby parting ways with Wizards. Although D&D as a system will still remain, probably as a good enough clone.
Even if they are truly contrite with the newest announcement their reputation is shit now. I doubt it can recover unless Wizards and its D&D IP is sold off. Even then it has to have the right team owning and leading it.
It's like they saw the complete shitshow that was nuTSR and said... 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 10:52:29 AM
Why kill the OGL? Why not just get another company to take over WotC tabletop responsibilities the way GDW does? this would allow them to maintain their market position while concentrating on VTT.
That's my prediction on D&D 7th and on. Some other company will license it and print their version until the license expires, while Hasbro/Wizards view D&D's primary existence as a weird World of Warcraft with some self-server creation ability for a price.
The ttrpg will be another licensing opportunity for the brand.
Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 10:52:29 AM
Why kill the OGL? Why not just get another company to take over WotC tabletop responsibilities the way GDW does? this would allow them to maintain their market position while concentrating on VTT.
That's my prediction on D&D 7th and on. Some other company will license it and print their version until the license expires, while Hasbro/Wizards view D&D's primary existence as a weird World of Warcraft with some self-server creation ability for a price.
The ttrpg will be another licensing opportunity for the brand.
Except they could have done so right now, before damaging the brand, who would buy the rights and at what price now? Would the contract contain some morality clause? I bet it would.
I mean if developing/selling books doesn't make enough money AND you're SO sure the future is your WoW+ clone then leave the OGL as it was, go build your VTT/WoW clone AND, IF it works as you think and you're getting money hand over fist THEN sell the rights to publish the game.
I'm not sure we're dealing with sane people, this very well might have something to do with the cult, (We must control the TTRPG industry even if it doesn't make money because it helps spread
"The Message!TM" )
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:49:43 PM
Except they could have done so right now, before damaging the brand, who would buy the rights and at what price now? Would the contract contain some morality clause? I bet it would.
For instance, they could have offered Paizo the license to publish D&D as a TTRPG, while they focus on the digital side of things, not release the next version of D&D under the OGL, and make the deal with Paizo that they don't either. That takes Paizo out of the equation as a competitor to fight them on the licensing front. Would Paizo have taken that chance, given they were already burned once? Maybe not. But with Paizo on their side, they could have then gone to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, and anyone remaining wouldn't have had the resources to fight them, and Paizo wouldn't have dared to, because they have the rights to the most popular TTRPG ever. And WotC gets to focus on merchandising.
So they posted an update. Some people are saying "they blinked" or "we won", buuuut...
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
While it does sound good by comparison, they don't address the concept of a morality clause (Which will almost assuredly exist going forward, buuuut...)
More importantly, they say that the new OGL will only be for 5E content going forward, and that the old OGL will still remain in effect for published works... But they stop short of saying you'll still be able to use the OGL 1.0a for new works, or that they don't still intend to "deauthorize" it, because they said all along that existing products would be safe.
So really, while it sounds good, they haven't materially changed much of anything yet. Except to throw a bone to Youtube content creators.
Quote from: migo on January 18, 2023, 03:07:33 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:49:43 PM
Except they could have done so right now, before damaging the brand, who would buy the rights and at what price now? Would the contract contain some morality clause? I bet it would.
For instance, they could have offered Paizo the license to publish D&D as a TTRPG, while they focus on the digital side of things, not release the next version of D&D under the OGL, and make the deal with Paizo that they don't either. That takes Paizo out of the equation as a competitor to fight them on the licensing front. Would Paizo have taken that chance, given they were already burned once? Maybe not. But with Paizo on their side, they could have then gone to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, and anyone remaining wouldn't have had the resources to fight them, and Paizo wouldn't have dared to, because they have the rights to the most popular TTRPG ever. And WotC gets to focus on merchandising.
When the woke go after something, they don't care if it survives. They want one of two results: 1.) It's completely, ruthlessly co-opted and controlled by their fellow travelers, or 2.) It's destroyed so that it can no longer be a haven for anyone that disagrees with them. They are equally happy with both results. (Some of the useless idiots that thought this time would be different and actually liked the thing for itself may care, but they aren't calling the shots.)
You can't reason with that kind of unrelenting hatred, based on a Will to Power.
Quote from: estar on January 18, 2023, 02:14:47 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 10:59:17 AM
Only if you believe the "entire TTRPG hobby and industry" is D&D.
Fortunately for me, and imo - the whole hobby, this is one of the greatest things ever. Let WotC blast off and leave us be. Give them the two-finger salute as they leave our planet. Maybe we'll see some fireworks if they explode... or maybe they'll succeed and go into another realm of gaming where they'll be swimming with much bigger sharks.
My current bet is on the RPG Industry and Hobby parting ways with Wizards. Although D&D as a system will still remain, probably as a good enough clone.
Even if they are truly contrite with the newest announcement their reputation is shit now. I doubt it can recover unless Wizards and its D&D IP is sold off. Even then it has to have the right team owning and leading it.
That's precisely as I see it. The Overlords are in the process of pulling up stakes and leaving us behind. I'm okay with that. The current apology is meaningless in light of where they intend on going with the brand. It's allowed everyone to rouse themselves from the inertia of D&D and the OGL to realize the brand and the license aren't really what our hobby is about. Sure people will follow wherever WotC goes, but for the rest of us - "D&D" will be the euphemism we continue to use for playing TTRPG's regardless of the actual mechanics or systems we use.
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 03:38:01 PM
"D&D" will be the euphemism we continue to use for playing TTRPG's regardless of the actual mechanics or systems we use.
D&D, the Kleenex™ of tabletop roleplaying.
Quote from: migo on January 18, 2023, 03:07:33 PM
For instance, they could have offered Paizo the license to publish D&D as a TTRPG, while they focus on the digital side of things, not release the next version of D&D under the OGL, and make the deal with Paizo that they don't either. That takes Paizo out of the equation as a competitor to fight them on the licensing front. Would Paizo have taken that chance, given they were already burned once? Maybe not. But with Paizo on their side, they could have then gone to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, and anyone remaining wouldn't have had the resources to fight them, and Paizo wouldn't have dared to, because they have the rights to the most popular TTRPG ever. And WotC gets to focus on merchandising.
If I was running Wizards I would divide the company into Digital and Tabletop. The Tabletop group (including Magic) makes more money than Hasbro so why throw that away for curtain number 3? Stupid move. Have a skeleton crew run Tabletop but keep that going.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 04:50:40 PM
Quote from: migo on January 18, 2023, 03:07:33 PM
For instance, they could have offered Paizo the license to publish D&D as a TTRPG, while they focus on the digital side of things, not release the next version of D&D under the OGL, and make the deal with Paizo that they don't either. That takes Paizo out of the equation as a competitor to fight them on the licensing front. Would Paizo have taken that chance, given they were already burned once? Maybe not. But with Paizo on their side, they could have then gone to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, and anyone remaining wouldn't have had the resources to fight them, and Paizo wouldn't have dared to, because they have the rights to the most popular TTRPG ever. And WotC gets to focus on merchandising.
If I was running Wizards I would divide the company into Digital and Tabletop. The Tabletop group (including Magic) makes more money than Hasbro so why throw that away for curtain number 3? Stupid move. Have a skeleton crew run Tabletop but keep that going.
You sir are clearly unfit to run the company what with all these ethics and common sense. Do you even have an MBA?!
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 18, 2023, 03:14:05 PM
So they posted an update. Some people are saying "they blinked" or "we won", buuuut...
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
While it does sound good by comparison, they don't address the concept of a morality clause (Which will almost assuredly exist going forward, buuuut...)
More importantly, they say that the new OGL will only be for 5E content going forward, and that the old OGL will still remain in effect for published works... But they stop short of saying you'll still be able to use the OGL 1.0a for new works, or that they don't still intend to "deauthorize" it, because they said all along that existing products would be safe.
So really, while it sounds good, they haven't materially changed much of anything yet. Except to throw a bone to Youtube content creators.
Brink is the sacrificial anode. Which is a shame because he is a former Spectrum-Holobytecand Microprose guy and I have a soft spot in my heart for Falcon 3.0 and F-15 Strike Eagle.
The *key* words are "...have published..." when talking about OGL 1.0a. That's present perfect tense. That implies *only* that if you publish something under it, it's all good. It does *nothing* to indicate that new stuff for new editions will be allowed to be published under 1.0a, nor that if you accept the update to publish new edition stuff, you'll still be allowed to use 1.0a for older editions. The great unknown is whether or not you can publish under 1.0a simultaneously with the new version or if you'll be in the same boat as when the GSL cancer came on the scene.
Bottom line - WotC is still trying to rearrange the decks chairs. Those who've decided to bail on them need to hold firm in that decision.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 18, 2023, 07:58:58 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 18, 2023, 03:14:05 PM
So they posted an update. Some people are saying "they blinked" or "we won", buuuut...
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
While it does sound good by comparison, they don't address the concept of a morality clause (Which will almost assuredly exist going forward, buuuut...)
More importantly, they say that the new OGL will only be for 5E content going forward, and that the old OGL will still remain in effect for published works... But they stop short of saying you'll still be able to use the OGL 1.0a for new works, or that they don't still intend to "deauthorize" it, because they said all along that existing products would be safe.
So really, while it sounds good, they haven't materially changed much of anything yet. Except to throw a bone to Youtube content creators.
Brink is the sacrificial anode. Which is a shame because he is a former Spectrum-Holobytecand Microprose guy and I have a soft spot in my heart for Falcon 3.0 and F-15 Strike Eagle.
The *key* words are "...have published..." when talking about OGL 1.0a. That's present perfect tense. That implies *only* that if you publish something under it, it's all good. It does *nothing* to indicate that new stuff for new editions will be allowed to be published under 1.0a, nor that if you accept the update to publish new edition stuff, you'll still be allowed to use 1.0a for older editions. The great unknown is whether or not you can publish under 1.0a simultaneously with the new version or if you'll be in the same boat as when the GSL cancer came on the scene.
Bottom line - WotC is still trying to rearrange the decks chairs. Those who've decided to bail on them need to hold firm in that decision.
DnD Shorts is basically agreeing on Brink as a sacrificial lamb... also that its a batch of mealy mouthed weasel words that don't actually mean a thing and the idea of the survey is try and get the talk off Twitter, Reddit and Social Media and onto a format they control and can keep quiet.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 18, 2023, 07:58:58 PM
...Brink is the sacrificial anode. Which is a shame because he is a former Spectrum-Holobytecand Microprose guy and I have a soft spot in my heart for Falcon 3.0 and F-15 Strike Eagle...
If he was involved in making the 'definitive, never equaled, best manual, AI amazing, I'll-never-stop-loving you' Falcon, then the man's already a Saint and whatever he does will be overlooked from me, short of burning down the whole hobby. S!
<edit> he wrote the User Manual: all is forgiven. :)
Quote from: estar on January 18, 2023, 03:42:58 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 03:38:01 PM
"D&D" will be the euphemism we continue to use for playing TTRPG's regardless of the actual mechanics or systems we use.
D&D, the Kleenex™ of tabletop roleplaying.
Genericization is actually a risk to Wotzi if this OGL stuff goes to court.
Who actually invented what when it comes to certain creatures and names can be contested. Gygax pulled from a lot of different sources, and fellow gamers when he wrote D&D...
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 18, 2023, 07:58:58 PM
The *key* words are "...have published..." when talking about OGL 1.0a. That's present perfect tense. That implies *only* that if you publish something under it, it's all good. It does *nothing* to indicate that new stuff for new editions will be allowed to be published under 1.0a, nor that if you accept the update to publish new edition stuff, you'll still be allowed to use 1.0a for older editions. The great unknown is whether or not you can publish under 1.0a simultaneously with the new version or if you'll be in the same boat as when the GSL cancer came on the scene.
Bottom line - WotC is still trying to rearrange the decks chairs. Those who've decided to bail on them need to hold firm in that decision.
WotC hasn't budged an inch. That last statement from them was very carefully worded.
If they get people to accept "we're allowing the OGL 1.0a to remain in effect for previously published products, but anything going forward must use the new version of the OGL..." then they'll have established that they have the authority to not only revoke (or de-authorize, or whatever) the OGL 1.0a, but they can even dictate specific circumstances under which it may or may not be considered authorized. Then, a few years later when they decide to revoke it entirely they'll be in a better position than they are currently, and can point to how everyone clearly understood they had such authority by accepting this new license which said so, and has been in use for years...
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 19, 2023, 01:29:21 AM
WotC hasn't budged an inch. That last statement from them was very carefully worded.
If they get people to accept "we're allowing the OGL 1.0a to remain in effect for previously published products, but anything going forward must use the new version of the OGL..." then they'll have established that they have the authority to not only revoke (or de-authorize, or whatever) the OGL 1.0a, but they can even dictate specific circumstances under which it may or may not be considered authorized. Then, a few years later when they decide to revoke it entirely they'll be in a better position than they are currently, and can point to how everyone clearly understood they had such authority by accepting this new license which said so, and has been in use for years...
Yes. And ultimately, they've managed to kill the OGL either way. They've shown that they, and thus the OGL, can't be trusted. So any new project that gets started is going to be released on a different license, and with compatibility with a system that isn't D&D.
Certain OSR products are kind of stuck (OSE and OSRIC), but the rest can move on - familiar mechanics, but different classes, different spells and different monsters.
For this to change, Paizo would need to deliberately provoke them by re-releasing Pathfinder 1e, but they seem to be already set on 2e and leaving the OGL, so we won't see that legal battle.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2023, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: estar on January 18, 2023, 03:42:58 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 03:38:01 PM
"D&D" will be the euphemism we continue to use for playing TTRPG's regardless of the actual mechanics or systems we use.
D&D, the Kleenex™ of tabletop roleplaying.
Genericization is actually a risk to Wotzi if this OGL stuff goes to court.
Who actually invented what when it comes to certain creatures and names can be contested. Gygax pulled from a lot of different sources, and fellow gamers when he wrote D&D...
That's exactly why I'm happy. I don't think it matters now. The cat is out of the bag. The ORC? Fine whatever, there will be other Licenses, just like there are now with non-d20 systems, to the point where effectively all these licenses will be a blanket of insulation that will protect us as WotC will be in no real position to waste money suing. What would be the point? They already splintered their own market and have fully committed to this course of hybrid video-boardgaming - the amount of time it will take for them to turn around and grab those they left behind (if they even care) will be moot.
I do believe they will make money. More money than they're making now. I think they will lose a lot of players, but they're going to make that up in subscriptions and microtransactions from those that follow. I mean if it's true that GM's spend 5x more than players (and I believe that number)... a $30 dollar subscription from *everyone* playing, plus microtransactions? That's a LOT of people they can afford to lose who *weren't* paying WotC a single a dime.
And I'm sure it will bring in people that play videogames that never played "D&D" before... but in the end, we'll be left to our own devices. And I've been saying it here for a long time "D&D" isn't whatever WotC poops out of their HQ in Seattle. It's a genre of fantasy *we* engage in at our tables. No amount of corpspeak will change that. We make it what we want as we always have, no one has used the rules RAW all the time, and never have. Not even Gygax. That principle *is* the rule and remains so now more than ever.
It just took this event for this generation of 5e nerdzerkers to see it. Just like 4e fans did before, and 3e before that, and 2e fans before that, etc. The constant going backwards to rediscover what we lost, only to find that we became ostracized by whatever the modern edition Orthodoxy of WotC declared. Well here we are again. The only thing constant about D&D is the name and the elements we use when rolling dice.
We don't need WotC. Especially now. And that's okay.
Quote from: tenbones on January 19, 2023, 10:22:52 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2023, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: estar on January 18, 2023, 03:42:58 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 03:38:01 PM
"D&D" will be the euphemism we continue to use for playing TTRPG's regardless of the actual mechanics or systems we use.
D&D, the Kleenex™ of tabletop roleplaying.
Genericization is actually a risk to Wotzi if this OGL stuff goes to court.
Who actually invented what when it comes to certain creatures and names can be contested. Gygax pulled from a lot of different sources, and fellow gamers when he wrote D&D...
And I'm sure it will bring in people that play videogames that never played "D&D" before... but in the end, we'll be left to our own devices. And I've been saying it here for a long time "D&D" isn't whatever WotC poops out of their HQ in Seattle. It's a genre of fantasy *we* engage in at our tables. No amount of corpspeak will change that. We make it what we want as we always have, no one has used the rules RAW all the time, and never have. Not even Gygax. That principle *is* the rule and remains so now more than ever.
It just took this event for this generation of 5e nerdzerkers to see it. Just like 4e fans did before, and 3e before that, and 2e fans before that, etc. The constant going backwards to rediscover what we lost, only to find that we became ostracized by whatever the modern edition Orthodoxy of WotC declared. Well here we are again. The only thing constant about D&D is the name and the elements we use when rolling dice.
I like your overall point but, why do you cling to the word D&D. If anything we should be distancing ourselves from it, and the company that owns its name. Clinging to copyrighted terms just hurts the genre.
Quote from: Yabba on January 19, 2023, 09:12:32 PMI like your overall point but, why do you cling to the word D&D.
Acccctttuuaaalllllyyyyy it's an acronym.
(https://static.tumblr.com/x9dboft/Dp8makgud/mikey_way_gif_push_up_glasses.gif)
So all this $30 stuff, no homebrew, AI GM, all of that turned out to be entirely false (as of news today).
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 01:08:29 AM
So all this $30 stuff, no homebrew, AI GM, all of that turned out to be entirely false (as of news today).
The corporation said so, therefore we must all believe it, all hail the corporation!
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 01:08:29 AM
So all this $30 stuff, no homebrew, AI GM, all of that turned out to be entirely false (as of news today).
Almost as if discrediting leakers and the most vocal youtubers were a good thing, by leaking what can be later discredited.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 19, 2023, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: Yabba on January 19, 2023, 09:12:32 PMI like your overall point but, why do you cling to the word D&D.
Acccctttuuaaalllllyyyyy it's an acronym.
For Dingleberries & Diddlers, right?
Quote from: Lynn on January 20, 2023, 01:41:34 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 01:08:29 AM
So all this $30 stuff, no homebrew, AI GM, all of that turned out to be entirely false (as of news today).
Almost as if discrediting leakers and the most vocal youtubers were a good thing, by leaking what can be later discredited.
Or see what the reaction is. If it's neutral or even positive, they go ahead with it, but weren't committed to anything.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 19, 2023, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: Yabba on January 19, 2023, 09:12:32 PMI like your overall point but, why do you cling to the word D&D.
Acccctttuuaaalllllyyyyy it's an acronym.
(https://static.tumblr.com/x9dboft/Dp8makgud/mikey_way_gif_push_up_glasses.gif)
Terribly sorry good sir. I be of yee forgiveness.
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 01:08:29 AM
So all this $30 stuff, no homebrew, AI GM, all of that turned out to be entirely false (as of news today).
I thought the same thing. I guess that could still show up as changes to D&DBeyond, but something seemed off from the jump with that leak.
Planted leaks are useful to discredit sources, expose moles, and make real bad news easier to swallow. I'm not saying WotC planted the $30/AI-DM leak but I wouldn't put it past them.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2023, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: estar on January 18, 2023, 03:42:58 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2023, 03:38:01 PM
"D&D" will be the euphemism we continue to use for playing TTRPG's regardless of the actual mechanics or systems we use.
D&D, the Kleenex™ of tabletop roleplaying.
Genericization is actually a risk to Wotzi if this OGL stuff goes to court.
Who actually invented what when it comes to certain creatures and names can be contested. Gygax pulled from a lot of different sources, and fellow gamers when he wrote D&D...
Perhaps, but we still run afoul of the "exty points of similarity" problem. While D&D draws heavily on folklore and literature, the D&Disms aren't the same thing.
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 20, 2023, 09:35:34 AM
Planted leaks are useful to discredit sources, expose moles, and make real bad news easier to swallow. I'm not saying WotC planted the $30/AI-DM leak but I wouldn't put it past them.
The thing is, even if it's not literally true, the fact that many were willing to believe it speaks to the depth of PR hole Hasbro dug for itself and this particular rumor being wrong doesn't actually fix all the problems we know exist.
I mean there was WW2 propaganda of the Japanese Emperor as a vampire bat in a Nazi uniform. That it was a lie didn't make anyone more sympathetic to the Japanese because what they were already actually doing was horrible enough that "not being literal Satan" was not going to save them.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 20, 2023, 09:50:19 AM
Perhaps, but we still run afoul of the "exty points of similarity" problem. While D&D draws heavily on folklore and literature, the D&Disms aren't the same thing.
This is the part a lot of people are struggling with in coming to grips with the OGL going away. I've taken to calling them "concept stacks" (borrowing from Scott Adams' talent stacks concept) and D&D is actually loaded to the gills with them.
The D&D cleric, for example, is a concept stack a lot of people need to be more aware of because it is SUCH a D&D-ism that is not found in media not directly derived from D&D.
- traveling priest
- who casts spells
- with a focus on healing and buffing
- and prepares them into level-based slots
- and can repel/destroy undead
- and wears heavy armor
- and has a limited weapon selection based on their faith
That is a very specific expression of a character class in a game system. Particularly if you're also using the same set of available spells at the same levels in a traditional fantasy setting.
In terms of copyright that is something you want to avoid with extreme prejudice and if you are determined to use it, you either need to replace about half that concept stack with other concepts or split up the means of assembly into smaller chunks so that particular assembly is just one particular way separate concepts can be assembled.
For example; in my system you could pretty much get everything in that Cleric concept stack except the slot-based preparation (because my system doesn't use that for any of its magic)... BUT only by assembling the Theurge class (spellcasting) with the Militant focus (for the heavy armor; other options being faithful, martyr, and zealous) and the Benedictor path (focus on healing/buffing) and the Religious background (being an actual priest) who takes the Repel Supernatural boon (turn/destroy undead).
Each part of the D&D cleric concept stack is there... but only as an individual concept that is not copyrightable on its own and "but a player 'could' assemble them into a D&D cleric" isn't a valid argument either.
Yup. I assembled a list of monsters from the 5e SRD and checked their origins to see whether they were safe. This is the result:
Just looking at the 5e SRD, a lot of monsters would need to at least be renamed because their expression is a D&Dism.
Aboleth: D&D original monster.
Angels, Deva, Planetar and Solar: while loosely based on Theosophy, this expression is a D&Dism.
Animated Objects: not distinct enough to be a D&Dism.
Ankheg: D&D original monster, but can probably be renamed to "giant ant" or something
Azer: D&D original.
Basilisk: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Behir: based on the public domain dragon "beithir" from Scottish folklore.
Bugbear: this expression is a D&Dism, but the name comes from folklore.
Bulette: D&D original monster based on cheap Chinese dinosaur toys. Could probably be modified to a "land shark" or something
Centaur: public domain monster from Greek myth
Chimera: public domain monster from Greek myth
Chuul: D&D original
Cloaker: D&D original
Cockatrice: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Couatl: based on public domain deity Queztalcoatl
Darkmantle: D&D original
Demons: the names and expressions are D&D originals
Devils: the names and expressions are D&D originals
Devil, Imp: public domain monster from Germanic folklore
Devil: Erinyes: public domain monster from Greek myth
Devil, Chain: a ripoff of the cenobites from Clive Barker's Hellraiser
Dinosaur: real animals and therefore public domain
Doppelganger: while the name comes from Germanic folklore about a portent of death, this expression is a D&Dism.
Dragons, Chromatic: this expression of color-coded breath weapons is a D&Dism.
Dragons, Metallic: ditto.
Dragon Turtle: public domain monster from Chinese folklore
Drider: D&D original
Dryad: public domain from Greek myth
Duergar: D&D original. The name is derived from the same source as dwarf, which is a public domain monster.
Elementals: public domain monster derived from the writings of Paracelsus, though the homogenous mass of elemental material appears to be a D&Dism as Paracelsus' elementals were fairies
Elf, Drow: while "dark elves" exist in Norse myth, they're probably the same as dwarves. This expression is a D&Dism.
Ettercap: D&Dism, although the name may derive from Danish Edderkop (spider).
Ettin: D&Dism. The name is the English/Anglo-Saxon cognate of Norse jotun, translated as "giant" although ettins were not universally large in myth.
Fungus: no clue, but I wouldn't chance it.
Gargoyles: public domain monster from the early 20th century
Genies: public domain monster from Arabic folklore, although "djinni" is just a variant spelling of genie/jinn and ifrit is a synonym.
Ghost: public domain monster from world mythology
Ghoul: public domain monster from Arabic folklore
Ghast: public domain monster from Lovecraft stories
Giant: public domain monster from Indo-European myths, but some of the D&D expressions may not have sufficient public domain reference to substitute
Gibbering Mouther: D&Dism, but probably based on Lovecraft's public domain shoggoth
Gnoll: name comes from Dunsany, but the hyena thing is a D&Dism
Gnome, Deep: as distinct from gnomes, a D&Dism
Goblin: public domain monster, although it doesn't have fixed traits in folklore and is synonymous with fairies in general
Golem: public domain monster from Jewish folklore, although the specific traits of being resistant to magic and such are a D&Dism. Other kinds of golems are based on Frankenstein, Greek myth automatons, etc.
Gorgon: a misnamed depiction of the Catoblepas from medieval bestiaries, propagated by Topsell. In Greek myth the Gorgons are snake-haired monstresses
Grick: D&Dism, maybe loosely based on Brian Lumley's The Burrowers Beneath
Griffon: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Grimlock: renamed from Morlock's in the Time Machine novel, which is public domain
Hag: based on European fairy tales and folklore.
Hag, Night: based on myths around sleep paralysis
Half-dragon: rare in myth and folklore, but a few examples exist such as the Slavic dragon-hero
Harpy: public domain monster from Greek myth
Hell Hound: public domain monster from various mythologies and folklore
Hippogriff: public domain monster from Greek myth (originally invented as a joke)
Hobgoblin: the name is public domain, but refers to a smaller friendlier variety of goblin. The bigger goblin idea is a D&Dism based on a misreading of a line from Tolkien.
Homunculus: public domain monster from medieval alchemy
Hydra: public domain monster from Greek myth
Invisible Stalker: D&D original
Kobold: D&Dism. Name comes from Germanic folklore, where it is a synonym for goblin.
Kraken: public domain monster from Norse myth
Lamia: public domain monster from Greek myth, tho the D&D depiction is based on Topsell's bestiary
Lich: the name is a D&Dism (it's just the original English word for corpse before being displaced by French loan word), although the basic idea is based on a mashup of the fairy tale of Koschei the Deathless and the character Afgorkon from the Kothar the Barbarian stories
Lizardfolk: unknown origin, although reptilian humanoids are found in public domain pulp stories.
Lycanthrope: public domain monster from European folklore and Hollywood movies
Magmin: D&D original
Manticore: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Medusa: public domain monster from Greek myth
Mephit: D&D original
Merfolk: public domain monster from nautical folklore
Merrow: public domain monster from Hiberno-English folklore, tho the exact traits differ from the D&D depiction
Mimic: D&D original
Minotaur: public domain monster from Greek myth, although the original couldn't solve mazes and was trapped in one for that reason
Mummy: public domain monster from gothic literature and Hollywood movies
Naga: public domain monster from Vedic folklore, tho the D&D expression is probably original
Nightmare: nightmare horses are a public domain monster of unclear origin (probably wordplay), but the association with Hell is a D&Dism
Ogre: public domain monster from European fairytales
Oni: public domain monster from Japanese fairytales
Ooze: D&D original, loosely inspired by nature
Orc: copied from Tolkien. Inspired by folklore, but the hordes of evil concept was invented by Tolkien
Otyugh: D&D original
Owlbear: D&D original based on a toy
Pegasus: public domain monster from Greek myth
Pseudodragon: D&D original, although "dragonets" (tiny dragons) are found in folklore
Purple Worm: D&D original, possibly based on the Mongolian death worm
Rakshasa: name comes from Vedic folklore, but the depiction as tiger-men with backwards hands is a D&Dism
Remorhaz: D&D original
Roc: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Roper: D&D original
Rust Monster: D&D original based on a toy
Sahuagin: D&D original, maybe based on Creature from the Black Lagoon
Salamander: public domain monster from writings of Paracelsus
Shadow: public domain, as similar creatures appear in fairytales and gothic literature
Shambling Mound: D&D original
Shield Guardian: D&D original
Skeleton: public domain, seen in Ray Harryhausen movies
Specter: public domain, synonym of ghost
Sphinx: public domain monster from Egyptian and Greek myth
Spider Eater: a giant version of real life spider-hunting parasitic wasps
Sprite: public domain monsters from fairy lore
Stirge: D&Dism, based on the Greek strix and mosquitos
Succubus/Incubus: public domain monster from European folklore
Tarrasque: D&Dism, but based on the French Tarasque
Treant: copied from Tolkien's Ents, renamed to avoid copyright claim (ironic, no?)
Trolls: public domain monster from European fairytales, although the D&D version is based on a story by Poul Anderson
Unicorn: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Vampire: public domain monster from Slavic folklore and Bram Stoker's Dracula novel
Wight: D&Dism, loosely based on Tolkien's barrow-wights, which were based on Norse draugs. The original word has acquired multiple meanings.
Will-O'-Wisp: public domain monster from fairy lore
Wraith: public domain, synonym for ghost
Wyvern: public domain monster from medieval bestiaries
Xorn: D&D original
Zombie: public domain monster from Haitian Voodoo
Even if the monster does come from public domain, you'll need to be careful not to replicate any D&D-specific expressions.
Larger lists can be found here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180810053344/http://rpg.crg4.com/origins.html
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60560
The monsters I marked as D&D originals without public domain inspiration are probably off limits since they can be trademarked
Wights as intelligent energy drainers may be off the table but thanks to GRRM and HBO the term "Wight" as a generic undead monster is pretty wide open.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 11:21:04 AM
Wights as intelligent energy drainers may be off the table but thanks to GRRM and HBO the term "Wight" as a generic undead monster is pretty wide open.
It doesn't predate D&D tho. If you want to avoid the concept stack problem, then you're probably safer using the expanded definitions. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wight#Noun
Where D&D trips you up is that it uses wight
only for a specific undead creature, when in fact it already has multiple valid meanings. There's nothing about the name "barrow-wight" that indicates it is an undead creature. Maybe it's the angry ghost of the interred attacking grave robbers, maybe it's a spirit that was summoned and bound to guard the tomb, maybe it's a wandering being that took up residence and claims the treasure. Maybe it's not even connected to a tomb at all, but a house, a forge, a parcel of land, etc.
Also, I just like the whole Anglo-Saxon feel of using the word in all those contexts.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 20, 2023, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 11:21:04 AM
Wights as intelligent energy drainers may be off the table but thanks to GRRM and HBO the term "Wight" as a generic undead monster is pretty wide open.
It doesn't predate D&D tho. If you want to avoid the concept stack problem, then you're probably safer using the expanded definitions. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wight#Noun
Where D&D trips you up is that it uses wight only for a specific undead creature, when in fact it already has multiple valid meanings. There's nothing about the name "barrow-wight" that indicates it is an undead creature. Maybe it's the angry ghost of the interred attacking grave robbers, maybe it's a spirit that was summoned and bound to guard the tomb, maybe it's a wandering being that took up residence and claims the treasure. Maybe it's not even connected to a tomb at all, but a house, a forge, a parcel of land, etc.
Also, I just like the whole Anglo-Saxon feel of using the word in all those contexts.
I use Wight in my system as the term for all intelligent corporeal undead (with Wraith referring to all intelligent incorporeal undead). I just like the alliteration of Wights & Wraiths.
What D&D calls a Lich is, in my system, a Wight Necromancer. What D&D calls a Death Knight is a Wight Knight (because puns) or a Wight Warlord. Mummies are wights wearing infected burial clothes to protect them from direct sunlight (because ALL undead in my setting burn in direct sunlight).
I also have ghouls, but they are expressly a demonically empowered wight (and basically replace vampires as lords of the undead in my setting).
Throw in their origin as literally the chosen spawn of my Satan-expy (even more so than the other demons) and the combined whole is a very different concept stack from the D&D variety.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 20, 2023, 11:09:06 AM
Ooze: D&D original, loosely inspired by nature
Eh, "ooze" is a pretty broad concept. Not only are they giant versions of things found in nature, as you say, they seem specifically inspired by prior art, such as Lovecraft 's shoggoths, Slime (1953), and The Blob (1958),
Quote from: Zalman on January 20, 2023, 12:32:38 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 20, 2023, 11:09:06 AM
Ooze: D&D original, loosely inspired by nature
Eh, "ooze" is a pretty broad concept. Not only are they giant versions of things found in nature, as you say, they seem specifically inspired by prior art, such as Lovecraft 's shoggoths, Slime (1953), and The Blob (1958),
Yeah. The specific names and powers of the individual monsters seem to be D&D firsts tho.
I've been looking at the title of this thread for a few days, and I'm still thinking that they haven't gotten anywhere close to what I can imagine. I'd give specifics, but I don't want to give the Woke any ideas. :D
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 20, 2023, 01:21:52 PM
I've been looking at the title of this thread for a few days, and I'm still thinking that they haven't gotten anywhere close to what I can imagine. I'd give specifics, but I don't want to give the Woke any ideas. :D
I think they're saving "Trample a crucifix, pledge allegiance to the Progressive Pride Flag, and offer sacrifice to the Lords of Hell" for the OneD&D rollout campaign. ;)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 10:03:08 AM
I mean there was WW2 propaganda of the Japanese Emperor as a vampire bat in a Nazi uniform. That it was a lie didn't make anyone more sympathetic to the Japanese because what they were already actually doing was horrible enough that "not being literal Satan" was not going to save them.
Just because that was false doesn't mean that Cynthia Williams is not a reptilian.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 20, 2023, 01:21:52 PM
I've been looking at the title of this thread for a few days, and I'm still thinking that they haven't gotten anywhere close to what I can imagine. I'd give specifics, but I don't want to give the Woke any ideas. :D
I may have been guilty of mild clickbait. :-[ ;D