|
Epi Lepi posted:I bet Matt will write his own system at some point. I think WOTC is just going to keep paying him not to do that until he retires from the hobby.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Megazver posted:I think WOTC is just going to keep paying him not to do that until he retires from the hobby. Depends on who makes the call, remember the brain trust at WotC killed off the budget for stuff like the Penny Arcade collab, which I know brought in a ton of new folks and interest back in the day. I could see someone at Hasbro incorrectly thinking CR needs them more than they do. Especially if they think of Mercer as just an actor who plays D&D and underestimate his experience with and openness to other games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I don't understand what part you disagree with. Any authorized version can be used to use content made under any version. They want full backwards compatibility with 5E, so using OGL instead of a new license makes sense. They also want a more restrictive license. Therefore, 1.0a has to be deauthorized because otherwise everyone would use that instead of 1.1. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I disagree that 1.1 has to somehow invalidate 1.0 in order for it to have any teeth. I think 1.1 has teeth by virtue of being the only license agreement available for OGL publication of D&EOne content. I suspect that basically all of Wizard's focus right now is on setting up a licensing agreement they're happy with for new content going forward based on their new edition of their game. I think 1.0a will be "de-authorized" for new content, and I don't think that will affect existing content, including possibly new content based on older editions of D&D. These are subtle differences that I realize I'm not 100% qualified to insist on, so I'm trying to use a lot of weasel words. But my most important point I guess, a tl;dr, is that a fair number of internet online people are in a tizzy over changes that aren't settled or clear and are also probably not as overreaching as they're being told by other twitter and youtube personalities. None of that should be construed to mean that I think Wizards will "do the right thing" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think 1.0a will be "de-authorized" for new content, and I don't think that will affect existing content, including possibly new content based on older editions of D&D. Yes - no 1.0a for new, yes 1.0a for existing, and I suspect it will affect new from old on the basis of it being *at worst* a reasonable argument and WOTC having way more money for lawyers than anyone who’s likely to try to do that will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HiddenPathEnt/status/1611101824458850304 https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1611154672638889985 It wouldn't be the first time that devs were the last ones to find out their project had been cancelled, but man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Depends on who makes the call, remember the brain trust at WotC killed off the budget for stuff like the Penny Arcade collab, which I know brought in a ton of new folks and interest back in the day. I could see someone at Hasbro incorrectly thinking CR needs them more than they do. Especially if they think of Mercer as just an actor who plays D&D and underestimate his experience with and openness to other games. Yeah, I was imagining the minds behind the Battleship movie seeing LoVM on Amazon and freaking out: "How the hell is there a D&D TV show and we ain't getting a cut?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonritter/status/1611077486254645252
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
No hidden benefits, just all the obvious ones of being the preferred platform for D&D crowdfunding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:08
|
|
|
Megazver posted:I think WOTC is just going to keep paying him not to do that until he retires from the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Don't they sponsor the show as D&D Beyond? It'd be pretty weird of WotC to give CR a bunch of money every week, and then behind the scenes be like "...and we'll have that back, thank you very much." potentially, that sponsorship deal they have/had with Beyond was in place before WotC bought them. Might have gotten renewed or whatever I dunno. Mostly the only thing CR has that would be affected by this is that Taldorei book they released on their own, I doubt the official Adventure or Wildemount book would be as those are directly licensed. Unless WotC is really going to try to somehow come after streamers income and like twitch subs. Which would be a sensationally dumb idea. Dexo fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:https://twitter.com/HiddenPathEnt/status/1611101824458850304 God and one of their project managers was in aggressive denial in Jason's thread for a while (including apparently harassing a different, female reporter). Then a lot of those tweets got deleted and it seems Hidden Path people have gotten very quiet. I suspect it's been a very awkward evening for them. Dexo posted:Unless WotC is really going to try to somehow come after streamers income and like twitch subs. My friend I would get ready for some Monetization™
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 08:36
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Unless WotC is really going to try to somehow come after streamers income and like twitch subs. Yeah, and I don't know if they're even thinking along those lines. A lot of the OGL 1.1 changes seem directed at DMs Guild and VTT stuff. But big corpos have been colossally stupid when it comes to monetization (EA, ActiBlizzard, etc.), so who knows what the future holds. They're trying their darnedest to run MTG into the ground, though. There's a graph getting posted around of product dilution in the last few quarters, and people seem to be pretty cynical about $250 premium boosters of restricted list reprints. However, a lot of MTG buyers seem brokebrained, so maybe that community can withstand getting milked so aggressively. (I wish I could find that graph, now. Of course my google fu fails me when I'm trying to just post.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 09:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Sorry, I wasn't clear. I disagree that 1.1 has to somehow invalidate 1.0 in order for it to have any teeth. I think 1.1 has teeth by virtue of being the only license agreement available for OGL publication of D&EOne content. I suspect that basically all of Wizard's focus right now is on setting up a licensing agreement they're happy with for new content going forward based on their new edition of their game. What I'm fumbling to say here is only that I think they can't say "both are still available but you can only use 1.1 for One.E", because the license doesn't flex like that. The OGL can't tell a difference between games, so every piece of Open Game Content published under it is floating out there in a big blob of context-free game text. Any piece of Content in that blob can be used to make a new piece of Content for the blob. Now if we check section 9 of 1.0a: quote:You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. There's probably a whole host of ways for Wizards to prevent this, but the easiest seems to be to say "hey please don't use 1.0a in the future". My main takeaways here are a) there is no remix culture under capitalism and b) we might finally see the death of ability scores.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 09:48
|
|
|
Ok yeah we agree! Except on b there, lol out loud
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 09:53
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:https://twitter.com/HiddenPathEnt/status/1611101824458850304 oh this so bad oof OOF poor guys
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 10:30
|
|
|
There are so many people defending Hasbro right now - It's fake! It's not the full license! It's not possible! It won't apply to the thing/product/company I like! I don't understand why they are trying to defend Habro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 11:03
|
|
|
Comstar posted:There are so many people defending Hasbro right now - It's fake! It's not the full license! It's not possible! It won't apply to the thing/product/company I like! seems Hasbro is not wrong about D&D being a lifestyle product for many people
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I don't understand why they are trying to defend Habro. Various reasons. There are more but the ones I can think of are: brand loyalty as an unhealthy part of personal identity, not realizing that entities that you considered good in the past can change and disappoint you now, focusing on good people within an organization without understanding or accepting the serious disconnect between their individual virtues and those of the organization they are part of, a learned resistance to an admittedly intensely negative internet, a sincere wish to be reasonable and try to understand things before making judgements especially in cases where it's just commercialism and products and not some political issue with more serious consequences. I think it's okay in this case to not concern ourselves with giving Hasbro and Wizards the benefit of the doubt for what they do anymore. Maybe it's reasonable to afford them some grace for its own sake, but also maybe your money and attention are just better spent elsewhere. We do not live in a desert of entertainment product.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 11:53
|
|
|
A lawyer for Sad Fishe Games (?) sent a letter to WotC Legal. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRMOOlka
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:A lawyer for Sad Fishe Games (?) sent a letter to WotC Legal. Seems to be the lawyer’s own dtrpg brand: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/297073/Black-Spear-Bucolic-Fantasy-Role-Play?cPath=32100_39751 (look at the author/account in comments)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
IANAL but AFAIK "I read a scary rumor/leak" doesn't enable this kind of legal demand. Once the actual license drops it's (almost certainly) going to be an open season shitshow, but I wouldn't expect anything to actually come of this particular letter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
TG as an Industry: creators are going to be bullied
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
TG Industry: open season shitshow
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
moths posted:IANAL but AFAIK "I read a scary rumor/leak" doesn't enable this kind of legal demand. Yeah, that was premature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:TG Industry: open season shitshow
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
It may be a situation where timely action is helpful, mind. The letter requests more details, and says "Hey, haha, surely this is all a misunderstanding which you can clear up instantly by refuting it, right?" So the threatened action can go away if Wizards genuinely has nothing to hide and the leak really is incorrect - or if they've changed their mind. On the other hand, if Wizards' behaviour in response to the letter suggests that the licence is legit, then seeking an injunction prior to Wizards doing the thing which makes things legally awkward for everyone may be a more sensible move than waiting for the awkward thing to happen and then taking action later on, both because if an injunction is granted then that may stop Wizards doing the awkward thing unless and until all court issues are cleared, and because whether or not an injunction happens later on, taking action now avoids the chances of a court looking at the case later on and saying "but if you found this so objectionable, why didn't you take action sooner?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
As I understand it, the OGL is immutable but does the SRD have any such protections? Revising the resource document down to [intentionally left blank] would be a surprising way to revoke the previous agreement without violating any terms of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Various reasons. There are more but the ones I can think of are: brand loyalty as an unhealthy part of personal identity, not realizing that entities that you considered good in the past can change and disappoint you now, focusing on good people within an organization without understanding or accepting the serious disconnect between their individual virtues and those of the organization they are part of, a learned resistance to an admittedly intensely negative internet, a sincere wish to be reasonable and try to understand things before making judgements especially in cases where it's just commercialism and products and not some political issue with more serious consequences. The one thing I do know is Wizards need to do damage control, and soon. Even die-hard D&D content creators on twitter are starting to joke about moving to other systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
moths posted:As I understand it, the OGL is immutable but does the SRD have any such protections? You can’t take something back from being Open Gaming Content, it’s protected by term 4 of the OGL. Wizards could just not release a One D&D SRD under the OGL and require people to sign up to a new license instead, that’s what they did with 4e, but they can’t revoke the content they’ve already put out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, they actually baked all that into the license. At some stage I could have sworn they were two different documents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You can’t take something back from being Open Gaming Content, it’s protected by term 4 of the OGL. Wizards could just not release a One D&D SRD under the OGL and require people to sign up to a new license instead, that’s what they did with 4e, but they can’t revoke the content they’ve already put out there. I'd like this to be true, but it's also easy to look at, say, Musk buying Twitter, then firing half the staff and not paying them severance, saying roughly "Look, I'm rich and impulsive. What are you going to do about it, sue me? Good luck seeing your money after a decade plus of legal roadblocks and loopholes, suckers!" I really think a lot of corporate analysis is better done through the lens of "What would a very greedy and selfish person try to get away with if they needed money right now?" rather than "What would a rational actor do if they were trying to comply fully with the law and sustain long term profitability without upsetting a competitive market?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
moths posted:Oh poo poo, they actually baked all that into the license. At some stage I could have sworn they were two different documents. You’re probably thinking of the old d20 STL, which was a compatibility license you signed a separate contract with wizards for. Doing that allowed you to put that red d20 system logo on your OGL product and say it was for use with the 3e PHB, or d20 modern. Importantly, Wizards never offered anything like this for 5e and the old one is long gone. Other companies that do make their own OGL product lines generally offer compatibility licenses like this (for example, Pathfinder).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:I'd like this to be true, but it's also easy to look at, say, Musk buying Twitter, then firing half the staff and not paying them severance, saying roughly "Look, I'm rich and impulsive. What are you going to do about it, sue me? Good luck seeing your money after a decade plus of legal roadblocks and loopholes, suckers!" I don’t disagree, but there’s an important distinction that underlies much of this discussion. Musk’s changes are an action - he’s physically affecting someone else (blocking them from working) and daring them to sue him. But the idea that WotC will unauthorize the OGL 1.0a, or that they will revoke a SRD from being used, do not in and of themselves physically stop other people from using that OGL/SRD. If WotC does those things, then someone can still physically make an OGL 1.0a product using the 5e SRD - and WotC would have to sue them to stop them. The mechanism of action is reversed from a business placing an onus on you, to the business being under an onus to stop you. And since the discussion is about what WotC can do to interfere with people already using the OGL, it’s relevant to discuss what can and can’t be done inside the license itself already. Of course WotC can throw lawsuits until everyone else crumbles, we know that - but we’re discussing what they can do before that power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
Both aspects here are legally extremely cut and dry in a way that is hard even for money to shift. 1. Old content already released under the OGL will remain legal to publish and sell, as the license it holds cannot be revoked. 2. No new content will be able to be released under the OGL, as the standing offer of license can be revoked and, per the leak, essentially has been.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Both aspects here are legally extremely cut and dry in a way that is hard even for money to shift. Does that mean we’re about to see Pathfinder 3e, nuDelta Green, etc to cut any remnant OGL content? As presumably they can’t publish any more supplements for the current editions if this happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
I wonder what those games specifically have that falls under counts under the OGL
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DiceQueenDi/status/1611383178908037122 Regardless of how good an idea it is to want to tamp down on speculations and arguments based on leaked info, "accusing people of trolling" doesn't seem like the best way to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
The new thread title rules. Also I haven't had much to chime in with but I'm super interested to see where this all goes from an industry perspective. Do any other publishers have an OGL equivalent in place comparable to the current Wizards one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Podima posted:The new thread title rules. Also I haven't had much to chime in with but I'm super interested to see where this all goes from an industry perspective. Do any other publishers have an OGL equivalent in place comparable to the current Wizards one? A number of publishers have some form of open license. There's a FATE license, Eclipse Phase has one as I recall, PbtA has one of sorts (I don't know that it has the same degree of legal boilerplate other licenses do but it basically boils down to Vince Baker saying "you can call your game Powered by the Apocalypse, just don't be an rear end in a top hat with it"), there's Forged in the Dark for Blades in the Dark adaptations, Lancer has a third party license that's fairly permissive, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Does that mean we’re about to see Pathfinder 3e, nuDelta Green, etc to cut any remnant OGL content? As presumably they can’t publish any more supplements for the current editions if this happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:58
|
|