|
ProfessorCirno posted:Beautiful. Not an emptyquote. Holy poo poo. Holy Shiiit Edit for new page Everblight posted:Not sure if it should go here or in the FATAL mock thread, but gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jan 13, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Sadly content restrictions will keep me from publishing Elminster's Guide to Fuckable Monsters, Cormyr: a Kingdom of Assholes, or Monstrous Compendium: Babies of Thay, but that's probably for the best. for sake of actually being able to complete it you should instead publish Elminster's Guide to UnFuckable Monsters. Elfgames fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:Elminster's Guide to UnFuckable Monsters Entry 1: Hedgehog, The (this is also the only entry)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Seriously though what is there to stop people from making a 5th-Edition-compatible Black Tokyo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Good taste and human decency?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Foglet posted:Entry 1: Hedgehog, The Will the other book include "with a giraffe if you stand on a stool"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:08
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Seriously though what is there to stop people from making a 5th-Edition-compatible Black Tokyo? That probably wouldn't work under the DM's Guild license, as it seems like there is some sort of oversight in that process, but using the new OGL license? I don't think there's anything in place to stop it. Those wanting to review the OGL license agreement can find it bundled in with the SRD.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Asimo posted:Good taste and human decency? But really, there's never been anything stopping anyone from making 3.X Black Tokyo, or Fate Black Tokyo, or Black Tokyo Powered by the Apoclaypse. The thing about an OGL is that (as far as I know) there's nothing in there that can let a game owner block someone from putting out "objectionable" content. WotC has stopped some companies (like Fast Forward Entertainment) from publishing 3.X stuff in the past, but that was based on said companies using content that wasn't in the SRD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
General popularity means that people with more...niche tastes will be drawn to D&D's OGL for their weird publishing needs, but I also feel like in putting that stuff out there and desiring validation for it, the authors want their work to be associated with a "real" (or THE real) game. Thus, poor OGL's coattails are ridden by some very awkward parasites. That's a theory rather than anything I can back up, but the sort of people who want to be 'gaming authorities!' always flash their D&D cred first. I'm talking about the folks who want to gatekeep or otherwise try to be king of our tiny poo poo molehill rather than someone like Shannon Applecline who did actual research to be an authority of sorts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Meinberg posted:That probably wouldn't work under the DM's Guild license, as it seems like there is some sort of oversight in that process, but using the new OGL license? I don't think there's anything in place to stop it. Those wanting to review the OGL license agreement can find it bundled in with the SRD. There is no pre-publication oversight on DM's Guild. FAQ posted:Will material be approved by Wizards before it is published?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:There is no pre-publication oversight on DM's Guild. If I'm understanding how this all works, that also means you couldn't sell it somewhere else, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Dmsguild has a no pornos rule, but as I understand it, it doesn't apply to OGL content sold elsewhere? So your 5th edition book of erotic fantasy or whatever is fine as long as it's not in the dmsguild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Technically they can block "offensive" content, whatever that may consist of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
You also get to put a TOO HOT FOR DM'S GUILD! sticker when you resell it, plus all the associated free publicity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
If I'm reading it correctly. Anything you publish to DM's Guild, even if it later gets pulled, is WOTC's property. You cannot publish anything that was ever on the DM's Guild because it is not yours and never was yours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:If I'm understanding how this all works, that also means you couldn't sell it somewhere else, right? Kurieg posted:If I'm reading it correctly. Anything you publish to DM's Guild, even if it later gets pulled, is WOTC's property. You cannot publish anything that was ever on the DM's Guild because it is not yours and never was yours. Yeah, this is basically the case. section 4b of the CCA posted:Except for short promotional excerpts used to promote your Work, you may not display, recreate, publish, distribute or sell your Work (or derivatives thereof) outside of the Program administered on OBS websites or through other platforms or channels authorized or offered by Owner. It's not actually WotC's property; it's still your property. You just can't do anything with your property, because you signed all those rights away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:Yeah, this is basically the case. I imagine it's meant to do is protect wizards from lawsuits . Like if you wrote an issue or two of a comic, introduced a character, and then threatened to sue because said character was mentioned in a future issue. Or if they come up with something in-house that's sort of similar to an idea in someone else's submitted material. That's why they ask for short adventures and FR material pretty much exclusively, and why they have the line in the dmsguild front page about purchasing IP if they plan to use it in earnest. Writing for companies on their established IP isn't exactly a great gig, but this doesn't strike me as some huge ripoff or anything. Dmsguild is intended stuff you wouldn't be able to write and sell on your own. I don't see anyone getting burned any worse than they might already from being a paid contributor to a book (not to say no one gets screwed that way, it just is what it is).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Maybe your local game stores are different, but without Pathfinder and D&D mine has basically only Fantasy Flight products on its RPG shelves. Without D&D and D&D esque games the RPG shelves become extensions of the 40k shelves. Your store almost certainly also runs off Magic: The Gathering as well. My local game store makes their money off of concessions, Magic, Warhammer, and board games. About 4 years ago the owner told me that ALL of their RPGs - and they have quite a few - were about 1/4th of the business. Big whoop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
ScaryJen posted:I imagine it's meant to do is protect wizards from lawsuits . Like if you wrote an issue or two of a comic, introduced a character, and then threatened to sue because said character was mentioned in a future issue. Or if they come up with something in-house that's sort of similar to an idea in someone else's submitted material. That's why they ask for short adventures and FR material pretty much exclusively, and why they have the line in the dmsguild front page about purchasing IP if they plan to use it in earnest. Neil Gaiman made a bunch of money this way awhile back- he created some characters for Spawn that it was ruled were his, and he was awarded a chunk of back royalties for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Only after a eight-year court battle. It's not really relevant or comparable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
I dunno, guys. Since it's clear WotC really isn't in the 'writing and selling books' business these days, I think this is a substantially different situation than we saw under 3.x and 4e. It's not really creating your own competition if you're not actually competing. Let fans create most of the content and collect royalties where possible, and use player reviews to lift the best content to the top, giving it a quasi-'official' status. Then do big releases a few times a year, with a lot of buzz around them ... and that actually doesn't sound like a terrible strategy to me for a smaller-scale operation like D&D is, now. Remember - PF was only 'needed' when WotC cancelled 3.5. In order to see a 5finder, they'd need to move away from 5e in the first place, and I think PF is a lot more likely to jump to a 2e before that would happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Only after a eight-year court battle. It's not really relevant or comparable. Plus, that's involving a character who became a major part of the canon, got a spinoff series and merchandise, etc. Now, not saying that you couldn't get the short end of the stick if you made the next Drizz't, sell him to WotC for 10k when no one cares about D&D, and they get rich off a toy line five years later or whatever but that's kind of a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Let fans create most of the content and collect royalties where possible, and use player reviews to lift the best content to the top, giving it a quasi-'official' status. Then do big releases a few times a year, with a lot of buzz around them ... and that actually doesn't sound like a terrible strategy to me for a smaller-scale operation like D&D is, now. If they don't have the manpower to do something as basic as regularly publish books, where are they going to find the time and bodies to review, edit, and promote other books?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Maybe your local game stores are different, but without Pathfinder and D&D mine has basically only Fantasy Flight products on its RPG shelves. Without D&D and D&D esque games the RPG shelves become extensions of the 40k shelves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:If they don't have the manpower to do something as basic as regularly publish books, where are they going to find the time and bodies to review, edit, and promote other books? Some suit decided that they were going to crowd-source all that stuff. They're flat out ceding the game to the fans at this point. D&D is going to end up as a masthead and a storefront. Sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:If they don't have the manpower to do something as basic as regularly publish books, where are they going to find the time and bodies to review, edit, and promote other books? I don't think WotC has actually written anything more in-depth than the occasional article since the PHB. e: I think I misunderstood. They're relying on peer reviews, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:In order to see a 5finder, they'd need to move away from 5e in the first place, and I think PF is a lot more likely to jump to a 2e before that would happen. I think a sufficiently flashy gimmick would work. Some nerd celebrity or out-credding Mearls (and the nobodies behind Next) wouldn't be impossible. Or a great licence. Next is taking its audience for granted, and the honeymoon period seems to be wrapping up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
If you can out-cred Mearls, you probably have better things to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Guys, I hate to spoil the ending because it look like people are having fun but: 5E is not going to be the end of D&D. Like, I'm sorry they canceled 4E but saying that WotC is failing or D&D is collapsing is the same kind of wishful thinking that that 3E grognards were criticized for saying about 4E when it came out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
I don't think that anyone is saying D&D is going to disappear or anything. That was just a hypothetical. We all know its sticking around for a long time coming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Serf posted:I don't think that anyone is saying D&D is going to disappear or anything. That was just a hypothetical. We all know its sticking around for a long time coming. yah but should it
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Everblight posted:yah but should it I typed that last sentence with a very sullen expression if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
A part of me feels selfish for wanting D&D to end, because at the end of the day it barely appeals to me anymore, so it feels like taking away someone else's source of enjoyment simply because it's popular and as such occupies a big part of TG related discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Guys, I hate to spoil the ending because it look like people are having fun but: 5E is not going to be the end of D&D. Like, I'm sorry they canceled 4E but saying that WotC is failing or D&D is collapsing is the same kind of wishful thinking that that 3E grognards were criticized for saying about 4E when it came out. But . . . where's all the 5e stuff (as compared to 4e or 3e), if it's not collapsing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
homullus posted:But . . . where's all the 5e stuff (as compared to 4e or 3e), if it's not collapsing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Guys, I hate to spoil the ending because it look like people are having fun but: 5E is not going to be the end of D&D. Like, I'm sorry they canceled 4E but saying that WotC is failing or D&D is collapsing is the same kind of wishful thinking that that 3E grognards were criticized for saying about 4E when it came out. You are ruining this for me
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
5E isn't collapsing. The OGL and DM's Guild will let them make some money off of it and hand over development/promotion to the fans. And they don't have to do much to begin with. D&D is THE roleplaying game. The brand recognition is enough. It's clear Hasbro doesn't really care one way or the other, but the licensing is probably good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Serf posted:5E isn't collapsing. The OGL and DM's Guild will let them make some money off of it and hand over development/promotion to the fans. And they don't have to do much to begin with. D&D is THE roleplaying game. The brand recognition is enough. It's clear Hasbro doesn't really care one way or the other, but the licensing is probably good. How is "releasing half as much licensed stuff and maybe hopefully making money off some decent-quality fan content" not a collapse from 3e or even 4e?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
homullus posted:How is "releasing half as much licensed stuff and maybe hopefully making money off some decent-quality fan content" not a collapse from 3e or even 4e? Because, to me, "collapse" implies that it will end. It doesn't seem like that is going to happen any time soon. Their business plan is bizarre, because you gotta sell books to make money, but they're not doing that. I just don't think WotC is going to shift any resources to D&D when they have Magic making the real money. 5E is just there to keep the license warm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Serf posted:Because, to me, "collapse" implies that it will end. It doesn't seem like that is going to happen any time soon. Their business plan is bizarre, because you gotta sell books to make money, but they're not doing that. I just don't think WotC is going to shift any resources to D&D when they have Magic making the real money. 5E is just there to keep the license warm. I didn't mean to imply an end, so maybe we agree after all. The license will be worth something to somebody someday. How about "D&D is contracting sharply"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:16
|
|