|
FishFood posted:It doesn't use 4e's powers system (which I do think is better than PF2e), but the three-action system is a lot more dynamic and mobile than 3e/5e. Spending more than one and maybe two actions attacking is usually a bad idea so you need to use those actions for something else, be it movement, intimidation, maneuvers, etc. Arrrthritis posted:PF2e is pretty locked on the math side of things, I believe. There aren't that many vertical upgrades that you can grab, just different things that benefit you in different situations. My swashbuckler has grabbed nothing but ridiculous poo poo on level-ups (crystal healing, familiar master, etc.) and while I wouldn't say they're as powerful as the fighter (who is optimized), they still contribute meaningfully (and feel like they do) to each combat and have a lot of fun. Thanks! I like WEDU a lot but I've played and enjoyed plenty of systems that don't formalize your per-turn options quite that explicitly. Fragged * stuff comes to mind.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
canepazzo posted:
Lol, why include that last bit? It makes you sound like defensive salty babies. Just leave this out and it's a pretty good response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
I'm not mad. Please don't put on the newspaper that I got mad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
This isn't blood coming out of our mouths, it's victory wine
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:Lol, why include that last bit? It makes you sound like defensive salty babies. Just leave this out and it's a pretty good response. It's pretty well and carefully crafted Regret The Error speech, but salty babies gonna salty baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
So, they're completely axing the royalties and "we own your content" bits? That seems like a pretty big win, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (i.e. the release of the actual OGL 2.0 text).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
I'd note that "will not contain any royalty structure" isn't automatically the same as "we will not charge royalties"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:So, they're completely axing the royalties and "we own your content" bits? That seems like a pretty big win, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (i.e. the release of the actual OGL 2.0 text). I think they've still burned more than enough goodwill between this and the internal leaks about "customers being obstacles between them (the execs) and 'their' money" that most if not allt he pbulishers whoa lready walked away aren't ging to come crawling backno matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Can someone provide a nice concise statement about this whole thing that "normies" could easily understand? No one in my group is online to any major degree and only one of them even watches Critical Role. I'm having a hard time forming a coherent thought besides "Wizards sucks." For the last 20-something years, D&D has maintained its dominance in part because WotC offered a license for other publishers to make material compatible with it, the Open Gaming License or OGL. This helped create a huge ecosystem of supplemental material for D&D and gave other companies a reason to develop their own D&D books instead of trying to compete directly. Wizards adopted a different more exclusive license when they published 4e, but it did not go according to plan and ended up alienating those other companies who largely kept using the old OGL. They walked this decision back when they released 5e under the old OGL, which turned out to be a good business decision, given 5e's huge market-share despite being mediocre at best. Within the last couple of years, leadership at WotC has passed to people with no prior experience in tabletop gaming, but a background at companies like Microsoft and mobile game developers; MBA-brained rent-seekers who are responsible for the insane release schedule and whale-hunting products over at MTG. They recently turned their eyes to DnD and saw the OGL as overly permissive. They also see the Virtual Tabletop, or VTT, sphere as ripe for subscriptions and micro transactions akin to modern videogames. These newer execs had some lawyers cook up a new, much less permissive version of the OGL that would allow them to take a giant chunk of the profits from other publishers developing under it, as well as preventing them from using any VTT other than the one WotC is currently developing. Even worse, this new license would essentially delete the old version of the OGL, disallowing anyone from publishing new material under it at all. Notably, this was not attempted in WotC's earlier licensing boondoggle under 4e, and its legality is questionable, but these execs were not around for that particular mistake and so have learned nothing. The plan was for this new license to be released as a surprise along with announcements about 6e and a new VTT, forcing the other companies to adopt it or die. Unfortunately for WotC, their draft of the new OGL leaked early and everyone has been in an uproar. Writers and online fans have come out overwhelmingly against it and a group of the largest publishers under the OGL have teamed up to develop their own new license in order to break entirely from WotC's shackles. WotC has lost basically all goodwill, and instead of forcing all the other companies into their new walled garden, where Wizards could charge exorbitant rent for their work, every other publisher is scrambling to leave the rapidly sinking ship that is D&D publishing. Whether or not this actually hurts WotC remains to be seen, as the law tends to benefit giant rear end in a top hat companies more than anything else, but it so far appears that Wizards of the Coast took aim, squeezed the trigger, and proceeded to completely blow their entire dick and balls off. FishFood fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:So, they're completely axing the royalties and "we own your content" bits? That seems like a pretty big win, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (i.e. the release of the actual OGL 2.0 text). It literally doesn't matter. Paizo and co would be stupid as gently caress to keep using the OGL Anyone not making specifically D&D content for the VTT or whatever would be stupid as gently caress. Like if you want to make D&D stuff then god speed, it's objectively good that they are making all these changes for you and those like you. Keep fighting and keep the pressure up on that front. But anyone who's not specifically doing Dungeons and Dragon's based content would be incredibly stupid to use it. Lamuella posted:I'd note that "will not contain any royalty structure" isn't automatically the same as "we will not charge royalties" My guess is the Royalty stuff will move from the new OGL to just being able to be on D&D Beyond's/VTT's eventual marketplace. Which is how they should have done it in the first place. Have some goddamn faith that with your massive userbase(well who knows what it looks like now) on Beyond that you can keep them and make it THE place to buy supplements and homebrew stuff. Dexo fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Oh hey, Wizards went to the Satine Phoenix DARVO Academy
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:Lol, why include that last bit? It makes you sound like defensive salty babies. Just leave this out and it's a pretty good response. https://twitter.com/dril/status/873264183281889281?t=3Ekd7WTlURgwFxZj5AQJeQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Dexo posted:It literally doesn't matter. I used to work for a library system where one year they had a budget shortfall and laid off about a third of their staff. There was outcry about it and they "found more money" to rehire about half of them. Within a year pretty much everyone who had been rehired had found a new job somewhere else, because why the gently caress would you stay? You'd go back to make sure you had a paycheck while you jobhunted, but why the gently caress would you stay?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. New thread title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
It also specifically says that the OGL isn't intended for corporations, so all the companies that are signed on with Paizo to make a new open license aren't going to go back to the OGL, a license explicitly not for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Dexo posted:It literally doesn't matter. 1000% agree. I think ORC is going to be great, and I optimistically think that WotC/Hasbro will eventually end up releasing content under ORC, similar to how MS gave up and released .NET under open source licenses (started out Apache and then switched to MIT, I think). It took MS a decade or so of losing its lunch to open-source platforms before getting there, and I expect WotC will fafo for a while, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
M. Night Skymall posted:It also specifically says that the OGL isn't intended for corporations, so all the companies that are signed on with Paizo to make a new open license aren't going to go back to the OGL, a license explicitly not for them. Yeah that's the most telling part of the statement. Even if a million dollar Kickstarter barely returns 35% of that to its creators after printing and shipping, Wizards would rather chill that part of the market than not have a taste.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
FishFood posted:I'm not always good at concise, but here goes: Nobody bought cars because you could ride the trolley (OGL) for a nickel (free). Now Wizards wants to bulldoze the trolley so people will need to use their highways (OGL2.0) that will go right through Toon Town.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
I assume "no corporations" just means "don't be too successful", but isn't being successful part of the appeal? It's why people in the US keep voting against estate taxes - because one day they, too, might be so rich that they can give millions to their kids. I'm sure there are plenty of people on DM's Guild who are happy plunking away at Bigby's Bag of Big Bogarts supplements for $200 a month, but I assume many of them are (not so) secretly hoping to launch a million dollar Kickstarter for their power tool themed 5E setting. Knowing that you can make 5E content only if you're not very successful seems... disincentivizing, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
moths posted:Nobody bought cars because you could ride the trolley (OGL) for a nickel (free). Now Wizards wants to bulldoze the trolley so people will need to use their highways (OGL2.0) that will go right through Toon Town. Noids (third party publishers) do NOT have sex (obtain licensing agreements) with doodles (Wizards of the Coast)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Honestly this is legitimately for the best. Separate the entire industry at large from the OGL which is owned by Wizards. Wizard's can keep the License for people or companies to make things specifically for D&D. And make an actual open licensing system that isn't owned by the major player in the industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
There are definitely parts of this statement I don't care for. They immediately jump into buzzwords to try and position the OGL as a misguided attempt at fighting negative imagery ("we did this to fight the nazis and the NFTs and the megacorps!"). They call this an early draft when it sounds like it was further along the process. They throw in some twee joke about Nat 1s to seem #relatable. And by specifying existing 1.0 content won't be impacted, it seems clear that they have no intentions of the old license sticking around. They also said they always intended to solicit community response before releasing, and come on. Not only is that ridiculous, but we know how Wizards handles playtest feedback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
Fine, I admit it. You spanked my little butt until it was as bright as a Baboon's rear end, and everyone saw me pee my pants as a result. We'll call this a draw. -WoTC
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
The main thing the statement misses is the whole "we can stop the old licence being usable for new works" thing - indeed, they confirm that will still be in it - which means they can still go full Darth Vader with it. If you can accept that they can alter the deal and take the old licence off the table for new publications once, you accept that they can keep doing it... so they could change their mind and put the licence back provision in 2.1 whenever they feel like it. Nobody in their right might should be trusting them with this sort of thing unless your specific aim is to sell stuff via DM Guild (which uses a different licence anyway) and D&D Beyond, in which case fine, getting into a licence with Wizards is the the price of doing business in Wizard's yard. Warthur fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
The Bee posted:There are definitely parts of this statement I don't care for. They immediately jump into buzzwords to try and position the OGL as a misguided attempt at fighting negative imagery ("we did this to fight the nazis and the NFTs and the megacorps!"). They call this an early draft when it sounds like it was further along the process. They throw in some twee joke about Nat 1s to seem #relatable. And by specifying existing 1.0 content won't be impacted, it seems clear that they have no intentions of the old license sticking around. They seem to be doing playtest feedback so far so good on One D&D. Honestly if the Royalties really are gone, and they no long have the ability to steal your work in the new document I don't see anything objectionable with the new one. It's still best for the other companies to go for the ORC stuff however. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They seem to be doing playtest feedback so far so good on One D&D. I think that the royalties aren't straight up gone, but I don't know all of this as well as others. No matter what, they've absolutely destroyed a shitload of goodwill for absolutely nothing purely by attempting this. They needed to shut this entire project down hard as soon as it leaked and the backlash started.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They seem to be doing playtest feedback so far so good on One D&D. Even if they completely revoked the new 1.1 stuff no one should stick with OGL because this is proof that the next rugpull could come at any time, especially when there is a billion dollar profit imperative behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
The winning move here would be to reissue the first OGL with irrevocable added. To prevent silly misunderstandings like this from happening again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
canepazzo posted: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. Because they couldn't have just excluded those explicitly in the license. Well, ok, maybe not web3 because nobody seems to be sure what it is. quote: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. The only major corporation they could be referring to here is Paizo, so Paizo are not likely to roll back on the ORC. quote: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. This is a strange one. "Unaffected by any OGL update"? So that stuff will still be licensed until OGL 1.0a? If it's just "excluded" from the license, then the license doesn't give permission to use it so it's still copyright and can't be used. quote:A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. 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. No promise to not make the OGL 1.1 changable without limit in the future. No promise to make OGL1.0a irrevocable. No declaration that the "authorised" language in OGL 1.0a doesn't mean that future licenses can destroy past ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
The changes are good, but the come at little cost to WotC. They never intended to exploit the stupid your-work-is-mine clause and their royalty scheme is irrelevant now that most (all?) qualifying publishers are leaving D&D for greener pastures. Also, their explanation of their intentions feels dishonest. Sure, maybe their original intent was to adapt the OGL to the world of the 2020s by blocking everything the audience would want blocked, but judging by the provisions to ban third-party VTTs and collect royalties from high-performing publishers, I think the intent shifted somewhere. Still, it's a step forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Can you build an optimized martial who does significantly different things on different turns or are you still locked into the 3.5-esque "anything but vertical upgrades to a single gimmick is gimping yourself" dynamic? The answer is, yes, but not if you want to optimize to the totally over-the-top game-breaking extent. The best fighter for breaking APs either one track damage, or a champion/fighter hybrid who ends up playing like a 4e fighter on steroids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
I feel like the only genuine step forward is taking OGL 1.0 and added the word "irrevocable." Anything less is a step back, and judging by their verbiage (Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.) they have no intentions of doing that. If an agreement like this can be revoked at any time, it isn't nearly as safe as people believed it was for 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
queeb posted:what the fuuuck i just started reading the feats in pf2e and this poo poo is amazing, wtf. barbarians turning into animals, tossing their friends around the battlefield, scaring enemies to death, jfc But fighters getting cool stuff to do makes the ghost of E Gary Gygax cry. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Elephant Parade posted:The changes are good, but the come at little cost to WotC. They never intended to exploit the stupid your-work-is-mine clause and their royalty scheme is irrelevant now that most (all?) qualifying publishers are leaving D&D for greener pastures. Perhaps it costs them little to logical human beings like you and I, but you know the Patric Bateman freaks who tried to pull this poo poo are grinding their teeth into a fine mist forbeing forced to make even the smallest adjustment to their vile designs. You can tell by their release that they were white knuckling the whole time. Now that they've proven they can be bullied by the public, it's time we double down until they're forced to admit defeat and drop this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The only major corporation they could be referring to here is Paizo, so Paizo are not likely to roll back on the ORC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Fsmhunk posted:Perhaps it costs them little to logical human beings like you and I, but you know the Patric Bateman freaks who tried to pull this poo poo are grinding their teeth into a fine mist forbeing forced to make even the smallest adjustment to their vile designs. You can tell by their release that they were white knuckling the whole time. Now that they've proven they can be bullied by the public, it's time we double down until they're forced to admit defeat and drop this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Honestly, this worked out as well as could be expected. All the third parties seem to be moving off the OGL and WOTC backed off enough that I don't have to boycott them out of principle. No one should ever trust them again though. No one should have trusted them in the first place, but that's another matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Elephant Parade posted:I don't think public pressure will be enough to kill the VTT monopoly clause. Unlike the ones they just removed, they stand to make a lot of money from it. One of the statements was that VTT's won't be affected. quote:That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:One of the statements was that VTT's won't be affected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Elephant Parade posted:Oh, I didn't catch that. That's a huge change. Only if they actually make it an irrevocable part of the license.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:26
|
|
