|
Yeah, putting a name to a statement has a concerningly high likelihood of opening them to some nasty harrassment. See also: Matt Ward.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Which raises the question of "why use a name now when there was a perfectly functional D&D Beyond brand account, which could have been used to say the exact same thing?" Sure, there's advantages to humanising the situation a bit, but do they really outweigh the disadvantages of setting up a harassment target for the least reasonable people in the discussion to fixate upon? Feels like someone might have been picked out to be the scapegoat for their peers and superiors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
It’s speculation, but he’s the guy who owns the success and failure of the game; he might just think it’s worth the risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Which raises the question of "why use a name now when there was a perfectly functional D&D Beyond brand account, which could have been used to say the exact same thing?" Probably to show they are listening™. One of the major complaints from the previous statements was that it was nameless and no one at WotC was putting their name on these statements. So this dude Kyle Brink who's the EP posted it under his name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
True, but now we can spin this as them putting a scape goat out, and they're lying because they never had an account, and if they post their REAL account, we'll pick apart their posts to find reasons their personal opinions have destroyed DND.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Yeah. The last statement got put through the wringer for being faceless, corporate, and over-edited. Making the next post more down to earth and tying a name to it so it's a one man show was the smart move. It probably helps that the early wave of outrage passed, so the guy probably isn't being harrassed as badly as it could be. They got a foot in the door.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
I really don't think it matters what WoTC does or says at this point, the intenion is clear. The executives are looking to gently caress the customers, plain and simple. If they don't get it this way you can bet your rear end they'll find a different angle to get their beak wet, and that angle is NOT going to be selling more high quality products.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Chaosium_Inc/status/1614099645646667777
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Boba Pearl posted:True, but now we can spin this as them putting a scape goat out, and they're lying because they never had an account, and if they post their REAL account, we'll pick apart their posts to find reasons their personal opinions have destroyed DND. I don't think them using a freshly minted account means they are lying or Fake Gamers. But I do think it is needlessly performative. It would be a good PR move in a situation where people were willing to give Wizards the benefit of the doubt, but they've ended up in a place where there is so little trust for them that in their shoes I would prioritise protecting my people over putting a human face on the company - because nobody's going to believe what the human face says to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Warthur posted:I don't think them using a freshly minted account means they are lying or Fake Gamers. But I do think it is needlessly performative. It would be a good PR move in a situation where people were willing to give Wizards the benefit of the doubt, but they've ended up in a place where there is so little trust for them that in their shoes I would prioritise protecting my people over putting a human face on the company - because nobody's going to believe what the human face says to begin with. That's probably why they chose that specific person, He is not someone who is ever public facing in a way that Perkins or Crawford are. And thus can just tank everything, by after this whole thing is resolved he can go back to being a faceless EP at Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
I like to give Monte a lot of poo poo for his systems, but he's totally correct here imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Worst person you know etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
haha folks the "he shoulda had an official company stamped approved D&D beyond account, but with his actual name on it, before now" thing is not a convincing or reasonable gotcha here. It's nothing. Let's attack wizards for actual problems, of which it has many, and not this sort of inventive nitpicking nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
It might look like Monte's post is about the OGL but I'm now convinced he's the one who shot Kennet Hite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Worst person you know etc It's really quite something that WOTC has teed themselves up for dunks like these
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
CHaKKaWaKka posted:It might look like Monte's post is about the OGL but I'm now convinced he's the one who shot Kennet Hite. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
actually3raccoons posted:I like to give Monte a lot of poo poo for his systems, but he's totally correct here imo Quite a surprising turn-around for the guy who had top billing on D&D 3.x, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
CHaKKaWaKka posted:It might look like Monte's post is about the OGL but I'm now convinced he's the one who shot Kennet Hite. Hite was shot for a laptop full of game design notes from a collab session between two good writers, so Cook had the motive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Quite a surprising turn-around for the guy who had top billing on D&D 3.x, though. Famously, the D&D edition that was released with the full force of the OGL and D20SRD etc. ... and thrived in that environment. It's not surprising to me that Cook is critical of Wizard's shenanigans on that front. It also is obviously in his interests now to get D&D players to switch to different systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
I mean Cook makes sense as a refuge for people moving from 5th ed - he worked on d&d before so some may have heard about him, his games have high production values so catch eye and are generally fairly meh on mechanics side. So for someone who played d&d should feel like home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Difference between people on the ground doing the work, who do legitimately tend to care, and know what they are doing and what's going on. Yeah. Anyone who has worked Big Corp knows this situation. Every indication here is that the problem is at the C-level and until you hear about some execs leaving to spend more time with their families the issues are going to continue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
A little sad that 13th Age is squandering this window. If you want a game that feels like 5E D&D but is better and not WotC, 13th Age is your best bet. But Pelgrane really hasn't said anything (that I have heard), and I think a fair amount of the 13th Age community is a little bummed out about the current state of the revised edition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/1616166917839929353 https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf Dexo fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Famously, the D&D edition that was released with the full force of the OGL and D20SRD etc. ... and thrived in that environment. It's not surprising to me that Cook is critical of Wizard's shenanigans on that front. Cook also published some stuff of his own under the OGL after he stopped officially working on D&D and before he moved on to his own systems, I don't think much of him as a designer but he's had skin in the game for longer than a lot of folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:A little sad that 13th Age is squandering this window. If you want a game that feels like 5E D&D but is better and not WotC, 13th Age is your best bet. Oh no, is the new 13th age edition not good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Oh no, is the new 13th age edition not good? They have decided to bring back Jonathan Tweet, the guy who previously got disavowed by a bunch of Pelgrane writers for being a weird race science biotruths dipshit, presumably because he's friends with Rob Heinsoo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Oh no, is the new 13th age edition not good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Dexo posted:https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/1616166917839929353 This part of the VTT agreement is what pops out at me upon a brief skim quote:What is permitted under this policy? What about stuff like fog of war or AoE markers or stuff like that? Is that allowed, or is that too video-gamey for them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Dexo posted:https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/1616166917839929353 quote:NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This Not a surprise, but yes, this is exactly what we expected. Everything else being fine, this is still telling companies that are maybe already months and tens of thousands into development on new content that they intended to publish under 1.0a that they'll have a deadline they may not be able to mee to get it out, or they're screwed. And, it's still operating under the debatable legal theory that 1.0a can be "deauthorized." e. on the other hand, quote:The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Much of what these D&D-derived third party works are built on could be included in this CC4 SRD, in which case they wouldn't need to rely on 1.0a any more. That's good. e2. well here it is, quote:6(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
yeah that weird. my guess is a marker is fine as like you can draw a circle as a "tabletop experience" I wonder if some of the Foundry modules that add little animations would count, but my guess is generally they just don't want people creating video games so I doubt they go hard after a gif playing lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
At this point, what changes from publishing that content under 1.2 instead of 1.0a? I haven't had a chance to pop into the legal doc yet, but the worst and most invasive provisions seem to be gone. Also god damnit. Did they really have to bring Tweet back?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Piell posted:This part of the VTT agreement is what pops out at me upon a brief skim It's already an issue that you apparently can't animate a fireball because that does not "replicate the experience at your dining room table." That's a feature at least Roll20 and Foundry have, and sell premium things for, and are featured in actual plays regularly, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer so gently caress if I know about anything particularly fishy, but this is probably for the best. The D20 rules go into CC, and the new OGL is essentially specifically for D&D content which means third party system makers won't ever be tricked into releasing their stuff into it. Nor should they trust WotC going forward. It's just gonna be people who make content like adventures or classes specifically for 5e/UnoD&D, which they will probably have to do if they want in on the ecosystem. But if they just want to release a PDF they can just not use the licensed material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:They have decided to bring back Jonathan Tweet, the guy who previously got disavowed by a bunch of Pelgrane writers for being a weird race science biotruths dipshit, presumably because he's friends with Rob Heinsoo. As far as I’m aware, “they” didn’t decide anything. Rob Heinsoo decided he wanted Tweet back for the core rulebook at least, and since 13th Age is owned by him (but published by Pelgrane), that’s where the decision tree ends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
So they're releasing the SRD under Creative Commons... minus the entirety of the sections describing races, classes, spells, monsters and magic items.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
M. Night Skymall posted:It's already an issue that you apparently can't animate a fireball because that does not "replicate the experience at your dining room table." That's a feature at least Roll20 and Foundry have, and sell premium things for, and are featured in actual plays regularly, etc. Maybe, that'd probably be something I'd leave feedback™ on. As like I have on a tabletop used an image to represent a spell effect but yeah. Just screams a lawyer trying to legally define a video game in a dumb way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Dexo posted:I'm not a lawyer so gently caress if I know about anything particularly fishy, but this is probably for the best. So long as any projects currently on 1.0a can seamlessly transfer to the CC without any trouble or unexpected gotchas, this does seem like the best. Mechanics are free and other tabletops shouldn't have to depend on Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Not a surprise, but yes, this is exactly what we expected. Everything else being fine, this is still telling companies that are maybe already months and tens of thousands into development on new content that they intended to publish under 1.0a that they'll have a deadline they may not be able to mee to get it out, or they're screwed. And, it's still operating under the debatable legal theory that 1.0a can be "deauthorized." The idea that they can choose to stop offering the deal isn’t that debatable, like, no judge in earth is going to declare a company must continue to offer a deal, only uphold the deals already made. E: I’ve been saying this from the start and this is literally exactly what I predicted it would be,
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
I just saw Leperflesh's second edit and, uh, woof. They had me in the first half but "we can shut you down for any reason and you consent to not contest it in any way" sure is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:52
|
|