Quote from: Ruprecht on January 13, 2023, 09:58:13 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 09:39:47 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 13, 2023, 08:34:00 AM
If you are right they really screwed up big. They could have re-written OGL 1.0a to ensure that digital products were not included but otherwise it stays the same (and gotten good will from everyone), and then made an OGL 2.0 strictly for digital (that would mostly screw the 3pp) and the with their money and head start they could have easily dominated the VTT space. They could have had it all, including a vibrant table-top market in case VTT and the lifestyle brand fail and they are forced to crawl back. As is they burned the bridges and built up a lot of ill will before their movie and lifestyle brand launched which seems daft to me.

So here's the deal. I don't know that they could prevent VTT competitors, OGL or not.

I've highlighted the main point regarding VTT. I'm not saying outright prevent competitors. Basically they move forward and allow others to join them (in a hobbled state) in the VTT world. One could try to catch up but money and head start and massive name recognition have a very, very large advantage.

You don't think that the guys who sold DDB who've left and aren't supporting WotC know how to do a VTT? You don't think that they'll be able to "consult" with competitors even if they signed a non-compete (which is possibly to become null and void pending an upcoming SCOTUS case)?

It doesn't have to have a pre-populated dataset. It needs to work better. WotC doesn't do "better" in the digital arena.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2023, 10:48:06 AM
The biggest problem WotC is going to have in competing with other VTTs is if any system that uses ORC is close enough to D&D's mechanics it can sub in for D&D as a module to handle rolls, track damage, etc.

It's not derived from their SRD and so modules for that system could easily be released. Just include a "manual" setting for inputting custom values and "rename" option for attributes, skills, etc.

VTT's are not responsible for policing the games run on them (particularly ones like Foundry which don't even run on a specific server), so if someone happens to use the "Elder College Reborn" System Foundry module to run a game of 1e D&D, it's not like Foundry or Hasbro could do anything about it.

WotC's walled garden only works if they can shut down competition with better features from using anything D&D-like. The walled garden also won't be competing with other VTTs, but with MMO's. The value is in the freedom of GMs and players to create their own things... the closer WotC tries to manage what can be done in their walled garden, the more just playing an MMO with superior graphics and faster play will be the competition.

Yep. The question is - what features do roll20, Foundry, Fantasy Grounds, etc. have that are clearly better than whatever WotC does with one&D?

Statement by dndBeyond:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

It includes this statement: "The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 13, 2023, 11:21:57 AM
Statement by dndBeyond:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

It includes this statement: "The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

Their dicks are already out of their zippers.  Damage control too little, too late

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 10:56:51 AM
You don't think that the guys who sold DDB who've left and aren't supporting WotC know how to do a VTT? You don't think that they'll be able to "consult" with competitors even if they signed a non-compete (which is possibly to become null and void pending an upcoming SCOTUS case)?

It doesn't have to have a pre-populated dataset. It needs to work better. WotC doesn't do "better" in the digital arena.

I think anyone who was part of DDB that doesn't work of WotC probably has a non-competitive clause as part of the sale. I watched Microsoft screw with hundreds of companies in the 90s and destroy companies that had better products. Microsoft didn't even have a product in some cases and their pile of money and dominance in the marketplace gave them victory after victory. WotC has hired Microsoft Execs, they know that game plan. I think money, Name Recognition, and the lead they have at creating a more immersive version of a VTT will be very difficult if not impossible to compete against.

I also think WotC shitting on their fans combined with an imperfect launch of the VTT could change all that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 13, 2023, 11:01:31 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2023, 10:48:06 AM
The biggest problem WotC is going to have in competing with other VTTs is if any system that uses ORC is close enough to D&D's mechanics it can sub in for D&D as a module to handle rolls, track damage, etc.

It's not derived from their SRD and so modules for that system could easily be released. Just include a "manual" setting for inputting custom values and "rename" option for attributes, skills, etc.

VTT's are not responsible for policing the games run on them (particularly ones like Foundry which don't even run on a specific server), so if someone happens to use the "Elder College Reborn" System Foundry module to run a game of 1e D&D, it's not like Foundry or Hasbro could do anything about it.

WotC's walled garden only works if they can shut down competition with better features from using anything D&D-like. The walled garden also won't be competing with other VTTs, but with MMO's. The value is in the freedom of GMs and players to create their own things... the closer WotC tries to manage what can be done in their walled garden, the more just playing an MMO with superior graphics and faster play will be the competition.

Yep. The question is - what features do roll20, Foundry, Fantasy Grounds, etc. have that after clearly better than whatever WotC does with one&D?

Not being a walled garden
Not being full of microtransactions to bleed you dry
Not trying to take the power to run homebrewed adventures away from the GM (and if they don't do this then....)
Not trying to take the hombrewed adventures and publish them for profit without paying royalties

If someone needs more reasons than that then I don't know what to tell them.

Did WotC just blink?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

  Maybe. The cyclonic levels of spin in that statement certainly make it feel that way. (And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind.

First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.

Translation: We wanted the ability to exclude people based on nebulous terms that only WE have the power to decide their meaning from one moment to the other while retaining the rights to their "hateful" works.

Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements.

Bullshit! This is the classic: We're hitting you for your own good.

And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Translation: We wanted to destroy what we see as competition and steal their works while driving them to the poor house.

It all comes down to this: They were caught with their pants down, are now trying to damage control, if any of this was true (especially the part of "it was only a draft so we could get feedback you guys!") they could have said so on day one, they didn't.

Also:

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build Translation: WE want to exclude those who don't toe the party line comrade!

and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. Translation: It's not really an openlicense since it includes both this restrictions plus anything else we manage to slip by the people.

Fuck WotC.

Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 05:25:44 PM
It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?

No need. wotc has been trying to self destruct for a very very long time.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 13, 2023, 11:35:37 AM
(And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)

I don't doubt that many of the woke rank-and-file employees supported this cash grab because of that reason.
Note it was only one or two leakers rather than dozens.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 13, 2023, 11:35:37 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

  Maybe. The cyclonic levels of spin in that statement certainly make it feel that way. (And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)

One of their goals? Their "first" goal. Big time spin. 

You can tell they must be really sincere because they had "staff writer" to deliver this important  message.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 13, 2023, 11:35:37 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

  Maybe. The cyclonic levels of spin in that statement certainly make it feel that way. (And as many predicted, they led off with "protect D&D from the bigots" as one of their goals.)

There's no maybe there, they were caught with their pants down.

Here's the thing that worries me:

Leading with the "Kick the bigots out!" might be enough to placate the SparkleTroll brigade, leaving us to hang.

Given Paizo's track record on the exclusionary language it's something to look out for in their propossed ORC license. Don't trust those motherfuckers not to try and put the same type of provissions in their "Open License".

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Did WotC just blink?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

Perhaps, but definitely read the fine print of the "OGL2.0."

Rumor has it they'd try a PR stunt of "we heard you and are making changes" but that the OGL2.0 would still have all the toxic provisions of 1.1 in the legalese ("you own your stuff" was in the 1.1 too... it was the perpetual irrevocable worldwide royalty-free license part people were objecting to)... they're just hoping they do better with the bluff check this time.

They also doubled down on the "we're doing this to fight bigots" language so "we can cancel you anytime we want and there's you can do about it" will definitely still be in the 2.0 which means the FUD of opporating under it is still in place for third-parties... along with the registration requirements because how else will they know if you're being a bigot you bigot?

Maybe they've pulled back on the fluff text surrounding deauthorizing 1.0a... but only in the sense that they're now saying "you can still sell the old stuff, you just can't make anything more for it" instead of "after X date you can't even sell 1.0a material." They're still saying all new products even for established OGL properties must be made in compliance with their 2.0 license.

Also no word at all on "we can alter the deal at any time with 30 days notice" or "you can't sue us when we screw you over" nor "we can send our lawyers into any legal case you're involved in to represent our interests and then bill you for it."

No... this will be just as bad, they're just hoping enough lipstick on the pig will fool the rubes into laying down with it this time.

Me? I'd rather kiss an ORC.

From the D&D Beyond update:

Second, you're going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

You have to be really petty to write something like that.