Sure. You can roll dice outside of a VTT.
Sure. You can use a paper character sheet and then start typing stuff into an online roller outside of a VTT.Both of those are annoying. Annoying products aren't used as much as convenient products.
What proportion of D&D/Pathfinder players use VTTs?
I'm not asking that sarcastically to minimize the issue. I'm honestly wondering. I've never used a VTT in my life, and it didn't seem to me like something that was that ubiquitous, but I first started role-playing more than forty years ago so maybe I'm kind of an old fogey out of touch with current ways; I'm getting the impression VTTs are a lot more popular than I realized...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use Foundry for one-on-one games with my wife (of various RPG's). But we finished up Starfinder's Horizons of the Vast in Foundry and while it was useful for tracking a lot of the numbers, my group all concurred that they had more fun at a physical table.
"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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."
If you aren't doing any copying, modifying, or distributing of Open Game Content, then you don't have to use OGL 1.1.
Which is why I say that for PF1 WotC can't claim royalties or distribution license under OGL 1.1. Paizo is not currently copying, modifying, or distributing PF1 content.
VTTs, the Paizo store if it still sells .pdf copies of the PF1 CRB, FLGS that have used copies of the PF1 CRB, web and phone apps that help with character creation, etc... - They may have problems since they could be claimed to be copying or distributing.
-----
The fix for that, of course, is to excise any Open Game Content from the product and publish it without the OGL in any version.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the announcement from Kobold Press today, I wonder how much longer it will be before we have an announcement of some kind from Paizo?
From what I have heard, WotC sent out a few contracts with OGL 1.1 attached to various parties, but only if said party first signed an NDA. This could be simple rumour/hearsay, but it would compel any such company to refrain from any public announcements/discussion until Jan 13th (or whenever the NDA expires) if true.
I am pretty sure a lot of people are very, very keen to hear what Paizo has to say on the topic (when they can). I know I am.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the announcement from Kobold Press today, I wonder how much longer it will be before we have an announcement of some kind from Paizo?
Hopefully not much longer. I'm not concerned about PF2e but I am very concerned about Starfinder.
From what I have heard, WotC sent out a few contracts with OGL 1.1 attached to various parties, but only if said party first signed an NDA. This could be simple rumour/hearsay, but it would compel any such company to refrain from any public announcements/discussion until Jan 13th (or whenever the NDA expires) if true.
While the first part of that is true, there is no NDA preventing people from talking about receiving it, as Gryphon Saddlebags got one, told them to get bent, and has been front and center telling people that this stuff was out in December.
I personally doubt they even considered sending Paizo a contract, even as a formality.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. You can roll dice outside of a VTT.
Sure. You can use a paper character sheet and then start typing stuff into an online roller outside of a VTT.Both of those are annoying. Annoying products aren't used as much as convenient products.
What proportion of D&D/Pathfinder players use VTTs?
I'm not asking that sarcastically to minimize the issue. I'm honestly wondering. I've never used a VTT in my life, and it didn't seem to me like something that was that ubiquitous, but I first started role-playing more than forty years ago so maybe I'm kind of an old fogey out of touch with current ways; I'm getting the impression VTTs are a lot more popular than I realized...
I use VTTs even when I'm playing live at the table with my players. I couldn't go back to the bad old days of running 1e high level combats with manual dice rolls for when I've got dozens of enemies with multiple attacks, with changing bonuses based on what feats, spells etc are active at any given time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This being the American legal system, Paizo could win but lose - an ultimate victory in the court followed by going bankrupt because legal fees are a beach. So, they might decide to ditch OGL and rework the game as a less expensive and disruptive proposition than a protracted legal battle.
We might end 2023 with Pathfinder 2.5e where your attributes are Might, Agility, Stamina, Smarts, Wits and Personality, you lose Life Points if an attack beats your Protection Class, and you cast Arcane Missile at a Birdbear.
We might also see a TTRPG market where anguished sensitive fans who bought into the open-minded 5e era WotC abhor the corporate money grab by Hasbro lords of boards and decide to explore other RPGs, which wouldn't be that bad.
I was in the D&D Discord yesterday and joined a conversation where there was some chatter about other games folks were playing. I chimed in and mentioned how I loved D&D but also play and love other games like PF2e, GURPS, and Edge Star Wars... it makes me a better DM and player. I was banned. It's interesting how defensive the D&D community is right now. I see a lot of folks leaving D&D.
So who else is excited to hear that D&D is going to have a live-action show on Paramount+.
*Quickly ducks out before getting clobbered by thrown DMGs*
I've used Roll20, but it isn't always convenient for scheduling. I've taken to forum and Discord lately.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So who else is excited to hear that D&D is going to have a live-action show on Paramount+.
*Quickly ducks out before getting clobbered by thrown DMGs*
Yep, I cancelled my subscription and in the reason indicated that they should ask Hasbro/WotC about the OGL, and explained that I would not currently support DnD directly or indirectly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is yeah. Not just them, tho. This is likely an attempt to cripple the competition with the ultimate goal being consolidation into their own VTT and a tiered subscription model. 1.1 as-is likely isn't the end of this, just tge opening play.
It seems in reframing the new OGL as having more power over all multimedia universes (I saw mention of NFTs for chrissakes) this is really the play. A new edition. New media control -DnD Beyond, the Paramount plus TV show, the hugely popular VTTs out there, all of it is to be brought under One DnD. It is a grab to control and cash in on so many other people’s work, ideas, passion, amd to put it under capitalist control of people who love nothing. Because only that kind of person would conceive of this, let alone enact it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is yeah. Not just them, tho. This is likely an attempt to cripple the competition with the ultimate goal being consolidation into their own VTT and a tiered subscription model. 1.1 as-is likely isn't the end of this, just tge opening play.It seems in reframing the new OGL as having more power over all multimedia universes (I saw mention of NFTs for chrissakes) this is really the play. A new edition. New media control -DnD Beyond, the Paramount plus TV show, the hugely popular VTTs out there, all of it is to be brought under One DnD. It is a grab to control and cash in on so many other people’s work, ideas, passion, amd to put it under capitalist control of people who love nothing. Because only that kind of person would conceive of this, let alone enact it.
They love money. Short term gains and monopolization to keep them going. The shareholder meeting that triggered this crapshoot specifically questioned why they were selling a single book (to the DM) and having a half-dozen other people (the players) not buy it. "Why isn't there a subscription model in place? Why no microtransactions?"
This is the big money that invests in D&D demanding more of a return on that investment. They want results. More results.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that I would ever go back to what they call D&D. I'd probably wait for Paizo to make something of their own as I like their designers and team. They show some consideration for the old game while putting their own spin on it. They are gamers. Their adventures are far better than D&D's adventures.
So even if the OGL goes, I still won't play D&D as long as I can find something else decent.
D&D is headed in a direction I don't like. Their adventures are bland. Their game is bland. Even the new movie looks like another terrible decision made by someone in the D&D corporate department.
Why D&D doesn't produce some of their great books or modules into movies continuing to make some bland movie with a new arc and some special effects without a good story is beyond me.
I wish someone would buy D&D that had a vision for it. They have the best IP for a MMORPG and films, but they use almost none of it. I can only surmise the movie and game portion of D&D is run by fools who barely played the game and have no understanding or appreciation of the IP they have.
So I'll stick the game company that still has a designer base that games, understands games, and exhibits a more creative and interesting approach to adventures and gaming in general.
Paizo has more respect for D&D than the company that owns the brand, which is a hollow brand now with none of the creative spark and rebellious nature of the game I played when young.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've used Roll20, but it isn't always convenient for scheduling. I've taken to forum and Discord lately.
I was actually all set to reactivate my Paramount+ subscription for content other than the D&D series until I heard the announcement. I let them know, too.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is Hasbro will not be able to revoke 1.0 or 1.0a.IP attorney who specializes in table top games says you're wrong.
The OGL 1.0a is a perpetual (but not irrevocable) Open License that allowed Third Party Creators to build a thriving tabletop industry that we have all enjoyed,emphasis added
1.0a isn't irrevocable. It can absolutely be revoked. The problem that WotC has is that the circumstances under which it can be revoked are given in the terms of the 1.0a itself:
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
Unless a licensee violates the terms of the 1.0a license, then it remains in effect. "Because we don't want it to be legal anymore" is not among the listed circumstances that will revoke the license.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. You can roll dice outside of a VTT.
Sure. You can use a paper character sheet and then start typing stuff into an online roller outside of a VTT.Both of those are annoying. Annoying products aren't used as much as convenient products.
What proportion of D&D/Pathfinder players use VTTs?
I'm not asking that sarcastically to minimize the issue. I'm honestly wondering. I've never used a VTT in my life, and it didn't seem to me like something that was that ubiquitous, but I first started role-playing more than forty years ago so maybe I'm kind of an old fogey out of touch with current ways; I'm getting the impression VTTs are a lot more popular than I realized...
Understood. I don't - obviously - have numbers, but they're not trivial. They're enough to support multiple VTT products that have base features free. As in, enough people pay money they don't need to, to make a profit.
I too am a long-time RPG player. And I don't see shifting off the table for us. But for over a year we moved for pandemic playing and you know... it's way better than no game. And - like someone else here mentioned - we now incorporate VTT at the table. Primarily it's a nice tool for displaying/revealing maps to players... who then build what they see on the battlemat. It's... a neat DM time-saver. (But admittedly this use doesn't need character sheets or rules.)
Anyway, VTT is a viable market and the portion of its paying playerbase that uses OGL rules want to. Losing the OGL gamers isn't going to be good for any of the VTT companies.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Communications Workers of America should be speaking out about this too. It's one thing to say let's get all the customers to boycott WotC over this, but we should also be pushing for freelancers to refuse to work for them.
Every freelancer got their start plinking away and doing their own thing on the OGL. It's how the entirety of the RPG workforce came about over the past 20 years. None of them would have their gigs today without it, and closing it now hurts everyone trying to follow the same path.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Err... for those of you hoping 'perpetual' saves the day, the EFF disagrees. New post from them, and it's their opinion that:
"Some have pointed to the word “perpetual” to argue that the license is irrevocable, but these are different concepts in the law of licenses. Perpetual means that the license will not expire due to time passing, that’s all. In RPG terms, consider the invisibility spell. “Perpetual” is like the duration; the spell lasts for one hour. But the caster can dismiss it at any time: that’s like revocation."
They also say (just above that) that:
The OGL does not say that it is irrevocable, unfortunately. It’s possible that Wizards of the Coast made other promises or statements that will let the beneficiaries of the license argue that they can’t revoke it, but on its face it seems that they can."
Ahh, we all knew it'd take a court to figure it all out. Seems the EFF is agreeing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is my understanding that OGL is WotC's property. They can do with it as they want. They could revoke it but it is better for them to update it, so that the cash keeps on flowing.
Everyone jumped on the 5e train to profit from its popularity and make cash, thanks to WotC's property. Only that it did not cost them anything based on the current version of the OGL.
WotC wants the cash to keep on flowing. They just want to also profit from the cash made on 5e by others.
They cannot unmake the past. They cannot ask Paizo or anyone to give them a share of the money they made under the current OGL. But it seems they will definitely make money from any business done under the cover of a new version of the OGL.
Including selling products based on the current OGL.
Will WotC try to profit from 3.x-based products ? They will likely try as long as it costs them little. But if they need to sue someone on these, they will drop it : not worth the time and money. Because 5e is where the real cash is.
I hope other companies such as Paizo took the time from the beginning to really consider the risks of using the OGL and have their battle plan ready.
They or some others might try to do their own version of the current OGL. But I expect all editors to be extremely wary of any such licence in the future.
Yes, it threatens the whole ecosystem that was based on free sharing. But really, the zeitgeist these days is completely about going back to basics, protecting your own and not caring about others.
Free trade / sharing, mutual benefits for everyone and caring about others beyond your own is a thing of the past. And also of the future because it's really a cycle.
Genuinely terrible takes from outsiders on the topic, like John Campea on his show yesterday (https://youtu.be/38gzWgX-CwM), also don't help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How will this effect Youtube channels and podcasts that play 5e? I listen to Oxventure, Dragon Friends, Adventure Zone, Dungeon Dudes (among others), will they be able to continue producing new episodes after 13/01/2022 if they make money via adverts, merchandise or live shows?
Its a puzzle to me. A lot of people have claimed that streamers will have to pay royalties as per OGL1.1.
However, wizards also claimed explicitly in the document that the OGL doesnt apply to anything but books and PDFs.
So it would seem to me that if streamers have a problem, they have a different problem than publishers. Having said that, maybe theres no problem for them at all:
They can't sign up for the new OGL (it only applies to books). They'll need a separate license or to produce unlicensed shows (which presumably has a well established precedent given the volume of youtube channels, professional non-RPG twitch streams, etceters).
^If your revenue is $1,500,000 and your expenses are $,250,000 (including paying federal and state and maybe even local taxes), you aren't going to be earning income under the OGL 1.1 -- you're going to be losing $50,000 each year (or $75,000 if you didn't sign onto their corrupt bargain with Kickstarter).
{. . .}
I need to get a new keyboard (actually a whole new computer) -- that second number was supposed to be $1,250,000 -- that means you only get $250,000 difference between your revenue and your expenses. I also forgot to apply the deduction of $750,000 to the revenue, so 25% of the remaining $750,000 is $175,000, so you would have a little bit left over. But then some other people pointed out that you're unlikely to make 25% margin in this industry -- more like 10%.
So using revised numbers with that 10% figure, if your revenue was $1,500,000 it would probably land you with $1,350,000 in expenses. That's $150,000 left over. Then Hasbro forces you to pay them $175,000 if you didn't sign onto their corrupt bargain with Kickstarter, and that means you lose $25,000. If you did sign onto their corrupt bargain withh Kickstarter, you would be paying them $150,000 and barely breaking even. Then they send you a notice that they are reducing the revenue deduction to $500,000 . . . and now even if you signed onto their corrupt bargain with Kickstarter, after a delay of 30 days you now have to pay them $200,000 per year, and you are losing $50,000 per year.
Unfortunately, it looks like almost everybody who has said anything at all has decided to run rather than fight. Which they may have no choice but to do due to the sheer size of Hasbro(*), but it's still a shame.
(*)Edit: Or due to taking a quick look at who dominates the Supreme Court.
The possible exception so far is Kobold Press (with support from some posts above giving different links about this).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone jumped on the 5e train to profit from its popularity and make cash, thanks to WotC's property. Only that it did not cost them anything based on the current version of the OGL.
I would argue that is a misrepresentation of the situation.
5E was released as a new edition of the game, streamlined and simplified (a bit too much so IMHO) to make it as accessible as possible for new players ().
Problem is: Wizards of the Coast basically did precious little with it. Their release schedule has been positively glacial, and what they release is very light in actual content compared to the standards of previous editions. For those very new to the hobby or playing very infrequently, this likely isn't an issue. But for those who play regularly, it doesn't come close to satisfying the demand for new content.
Once there was 5E SRD, there was always going to be third party publications, but I would argue that a large part of why the third party scene has grown so much recently, is because there was a huge demand that WotC wasn't satisfying.
WotC wants the cash to keep on flowing. They just want to also profit from the cash made on 5e by others.
I wouldn't add "just" in that. Most third party material is barely profitable at all. No one is getting rich publishing 5E supplements, and WotC largely has itself to blame if it is unhappy with it's D&D revenue:
Will WotC try to profit from 3.x-based products ? They will likely try as long as it costs them little. But if they need to sue someone on these, they will drop it : not worth the time and money. Because 5e is where the real cash is.
Actually, they've already made their stance clear within the OGL 1.1 itself. Nothing except SRD 5.1 is licensed content. Anything 3.X based that relies on the SRD (e.g. Pathfinder 1) cannot be sold under the OGL 1.1.
I hope other companies such as Paizo took the time from the beginning to really consider the risks of using the OGL and have their battle plan ready.
Paizo have. They're wise and do not trust the Thassilonians.
Most others, when explicitly told by the creators of the OGL 1.0(a) that it cannot be legally undone and will last forever... one can't really fault them for thinking the claim is legit. Presently, even IP specialised lawyers can't actually agree on whether or not it is revokable.
Yes, it threatens the whole ecosystem that was based on free sharing. But really, the zeitgeist these days is completely about going back to basics, protecting your own and not caring about others.
Free trade / sharing, mutual benefits for everyone and caring about others beyond your own is a thing of the past. And also of the future because it's really a cycle.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on that one. Accepting bad situations as "that's how things are" is how you get bad situations. The more people who act with honesty and integrity, the easier it is for others to act accordingly - we're a social animal. Also, I'm an optimist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I just bought every rulebook for 2E that I don't already own. Paizo gets some additional $ for legal defense, and WotC can come and try to take my books. They will be guarded by three house cats, one of whom may pee on their shoes.
I just did the same thing, and downloaded all the PDFs - suggest everyone does the same thing in case. Furthermore, if Paizo needs bodies to help them in this potential fight, I know this community will come together and help in which ever way they can. It's interesting that, if Paizo play this correctly (Critical Success on Diplomacy), they can come out as the white knights of the hobby, albeit RfC are doing a great job with this at the moment!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Communications Workers of America should be speaking out about this too.'Should' is someone's fantasy about an imaginary world.
Freelancers aren't organizing a boycott. CWA isn't speaking out. Why do you suppose that is?
Could be the fact that it's not even been a week, and that the RPG creators that they represent haven't pushed the issue with them yet (which would be Paizo's workers, since I don't know that they represent any other ttrpg developers) and it's probable that Paizo's workers are waiting on Paizo's official response first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The EFF has waded into it:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gam ing-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The EFF has waded into it:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gam ing-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
Penguinzo also covered it on his YouTube channel, which has over 11 million subscribers.
Penguinzo also covered it on his YouTube channel, which has over 11 million subscribers.
I made sure to post the https://www.opendnd.games/ link every few hours in their replies to the video
What about this part of the EFF statement that came after the above two? Does this provide content creators any wiggle room?
What Wizards of the Coast can’t do is revoke the license, yet continue to hold users to the restrictions in the OGL. If they revoke it, then the people who have relied on the license are no longer under an obligation to refrain from using “Product Identity” if they do so in ways that are fair use or otherwise permitted under copyright law. And unless they are using actually copyrighted material in a way that would infringe copyright, there may be little incentive to agree to such restrictions, let alone the new restrictions and potential royalty obligations of any new version of the OGL that comes along.
That is what it sounds like to me.
If OGL 1.0a is revoked, just excise anything able to be copyrighted from D&D (mechanics are not copyrightable), and move on without the OGL.
WotC can't revoke the 1.0a license today, then sue for breaching the 1.1 license over events that happened yesterday.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like Kobold Press fired the first cannons in reply to OGL 1.1. Project Black Flag looks like it will be its own game system to divorce itself from the SRD.
I really believe all the big developers like Paizo, Kobold, AAW, etc need to get together and build a new generic game system that anyone can use. And so they can divorce themselves from the SRD.
Incidentally, I have sold off all my D&D books and will never ever run another D&D game again after 40 years. I am boycotting direct WotC products from now on.
Luckily I have most of the Pathfinder, Starfinder, and all the Pathfinder 2E books digitally and many physical copies to keep me and my group happy for years.
The cash grab is poorly timed. If they planned on revoking the OGL 1.0a they shouldn't have even given an inkling until after the movie was released.
Now if the movie does poorly they won't know if it is because it is crap or because they bit the hand that feeds them.
Paramount+ - I already subscribe and am unsure if I would tune in to this if they go through with the leaked OGL 1.1, and I am not even a DnD player.
The cash grab is poorly timed. If they planned on revoking the OGL 1.0a they shouldn't have even given an inkling until after the movie was released.
Now if the movie does poorly they won't know if it is because it is crap or because they bit the hand that feeds them.
Paramount+ - I already subscribe and am unsure if I would tune in to this if they go through with the leaked OGL 1.1, and I am not even a DnD player.
Alternate take - this is extremely conveniently timed, as we have all these extra avenues of expressing displeasure.
It's nice to think that maybe we could persuade enough people to threaten to boycot these alternate forms of media that Hasbro might take notice.
Probably not, but the internet is a surprising place where sometimes you can get a lot of people to do a thing if it doesn't require too much work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cash grab is poorly timed. If they planned on revoking the OGL 1.0a they shouldn't have even given an inkling until after the movie was released.
Now if the movie does poorly they won't know if it is because it is crap or because they bit the hand that feeds them.
Paramount+ - I already subscribe and am unsure if I would tune in to this if they go through with the leaked OGL 1.1, and I am not even a DnD player.
Alternate take - this is extremely conveniently timed, as we have all these extra avenues of expressing displeasure.
It's nice to think that maybe we could persuade enough people to threaten to boycot these alternate forms of media that Hasbro might take notice.
Probably not, but the internet is a surprising place where sometimes you can get a lot of people to do a thing if it doesn't require too much work.
Very true, by poorly timed I meant on the part of the people trying to grab the cash. It is never poorly timed for a 'captive' audience to realize they are being pressed for every dime they have and start an uprising.
Just wish WotC didn't prove every fear the community had true with this bait and switch. I get monetizing the online community, but literally biting the hand that feeds them is mind boggling. More so because they already knew what would happen based on the 4e experiment.
Granted, that got me Pathfinder and then 2e, so it worked out well for me, but you would think they could learn from their mistakes.
Kobold Press will show them round 2 I suppose.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OGL 1.0a is a perpetual license, it cannot be revoked or "un-authorized" without certain conditions being met. Those are rare and require much evidence, and all current evidence would go against Hasbro/WotC being capable of revoking the license under current conditions. WotC can do whatever they like but it is a contractual agreement and the courts tend to give less leverage to those who write the contract. Perpetual means just that, perpetual.
I've already started taking 5E rules in my homebrew from the 5E SRD and have been re-writing things for my new version of it, Trailblazer. I'll give it away for free for anybody under OGL 1.0a and WotC can go to the 666th level of the Abyss for all I care.
Ryan Dancey has stated the OGL cannot be revoked or deauthorized and had they intended for WotC to have that power it would have been enumerated in the OGL.
If I was Paizo, I would be contacting the Electronic Frontier foundation as any legal decision giving WotC the power to revoke OGL 1.0a will have MASSIVE effects on open source software licensing and the perpetuality that exists in that space as well.
Where do you think their orders come from?
