| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me or does WoTC's response sound very condescending? And also the whole thing about them always planning to get feedback from the community feeling like a total lie since if the leaks are to be true they planned to release it as is. And in fact later on in their resposne they even go, well obviously we can't release it today. So like which is it WoTC?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a sidenote, I do cautiously hope that the ORC adopts language similar to the new OGL's about prohibiting blatantly abusive content. We don't need "Myfarog, ORC edition".
I see absolutely no way for a open license held by a third prty would be able to legally enforce such a use of the license. It would be market forces that would prohibit such content, i.e nobody buys it.
They KNEW it was possible to do Nazi content under the original OGL. The idea was, "fine, they cannot get the D20 logo" and it worked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, in general I think I soured on the idea even as I said it. Y'all are right--it's just not a good idea to Go There.
Besides, a tiny part of me likes the idea that if some asshat did try to publish under the ORC, we could immediately reclaim and reframe everything he wrote into a better story. ;)
EDIT: This includes pornography, too. Honestly, if someone wants to make a properly-tagged adults-only game with the ORC, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Wizards, you can't walk back before initiative starts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetically, I guess whoever is put in charge of the license (like the suggested Linux Foundation) presumably would, or there would be terms to navigate such an issue in the license. That said, I think we're all generally anti-restrictions at this point. I've been successfully talked out of it.
|
Is it just me or does WoTC's response sound very condescending? And also the whole thing about them always planning to get feedback from the community feeling like a total lie since if the leaks are to be true they planned to release it as is. And in fact later on in their resposne they even go, well obviously we can't release it today. So like which is it WoTC?
According to a lawyer who commented, draft contracts are typically circulated to stakeholders as if that draft WILL be the final draft - because if the stakeholders approve that draft, it is.
(if so, oh my Bob that would have been a humiliation, because the language in the draft posted on Battlezoo is so laughable that I could probably do better and I'm not even a law student)
The statement they made, even if spinnier than a centrifuge, makes actionable promises that they clearly intend to keep or they wouldn't be making them (lying in a formal release about your intentions is Bad and Legally Actionable).
Also, I'm not surprised that they can't release it today; because of the fan reaction, they're going to have to do a major revision on the contract that's probably going to involve another round of third party/contractor feedback (probably excluding whoever broke NDA and leaked - and they definitely know who that is because it's standard practice to include "version control" tells in each circulated copy that can tell them WHICH copy was leaked).
My read is this: If they fix this and release a version of the contract that's generally acceptable (maybe even good), this will be forgotten by late March. If they "fix" this and the next contract version that's released isn't, D&D as a brand is screwed for the next several years.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, whenever anyone tries to suggest "decency" requirements on anything, you really have to keep in mind that some people think a trans woman using a public restroom is "indecent". You don't even have to leave the US for it to start being a problem.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Wizards, you can't walk back before initiative starts.
This popped into my head when I read your line...
Sorry Wizards, you failed your perception check, and the sneak attack lands (the leak). Initiative has been rolled, you are caught in a surprise round, and can't act in this round, please go back to where you were before the start of battle.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me or does WoTC's response sound very condescending? And also the whole thing about them always planning to get feedback from the community feeling like a total lie since if the leaks are to be true they planned to release it as is. And in fact later on in their resposne they even go, well obviously we can't release it today. So like which is it WoTC?
I have seen multiple people say exactly that.
|
Well, sure, I don't think anyone thinks that D&DI think 6E will crash hard given this BS. Maybe by the time they do 7E they'll decide to use the only real Open Roleplaying Game Creative License still operating (ORC). <eg>No offense but I think that that's naively optimistic. While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly doubt there will be enough people walking away from 5.1 to make it crash and burn. We might make a noticeable dent at best.
Also, with D&D becoming as important to Hasbro's bottom line as it has become, there's almost no chance that any subsequent version of D&D will have a truly open and irrevocable commercial license for 3PPs.
Yeah, I think we (me and Xyxox, your quote got messed up) were just replying to thejeff! My impression was that thejeff was saying, "WotC isn't finished here. Last time an edition collapsed, they just came back with 5e and got all the goodwill back. History could easily repeat itself."
And I was thinking, sure, but 5e got goodwill back because it returned to the OGL. So if history actually did repeat itself, that'd be swell.
I do think it's unlikely that 6e will crash and burn, but who knows?
|
|
Yeah, I think we (me and Xyxox, your quote got messed up) were just replying to thejeff! My impression was that thejeff was saying, "WotC isn't finished here. Last time an edition collapsed, they just came back with 5e and got all the goodwill back. History could easily repeat itself."
And I was thinking, sure, but 5e got goodwill back because it returned to the OGL. So if history actually did repeat itself, that'd be swell.
I do think it's unlikely that 6e will crash and burn, but who knows?
Ah, my bad for misunderstanding.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really nice to feel justified about being a fan of a company for as long as I have been.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, with D&D becoming as important to Hasbro's bottom line as it has become, there's almost no chance that any subsequent version of D&D will have a truly open and irrevocable commercial license for 3PPs.Well, sure, I don't think anyone thinks that D&DI think 6E will crash hard given this BS. Maybe by the time they do 7E they'll decide to use the only real Open Roleplaying Game Creative License still operating (ORC). <eg>No offense but I think that that's naively optimistic. While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly doubt there will be enough people walking away from 5.1 to make it crash and burn. We might make a noticeable dent at best.
I'mma pop a bubble or two here:
The target market for D&D is preteen boys.
Repeat:
The target market for D&D is preteen boys.
Why do you think D&D is placed for sale at Target? You, adult with a job, are a periphery demographic for Wizards of the Coast, even though you're the primary demographic for most other RPG publishers.
Preteen boys, frankly, not only don't care about the creative license issues, they don't see them. At all. You and I are not the main people D&D is being marketed to. Those people are people like my sister: They're non-gaming parents of bright, nerdy kids who have at most a nerdy sibling who never stopped playing RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure that's exactly the case. Maybe it was once? But with the impact of Critical Role and podcasts and with WotC's obvious desire to pivot towards a subscription-based model (a model which tends to prioritize whales), no, I don't believe it. The industry will always be dependent on existing GMs to bring in new players.
I'd be shocked if "cold-read" GMs (newbies who buy the books and try to run D&D with no prior gaming experience or cultural connection) make up even 10% of book sales.
That theory also isn't supported by the evidence of how scared WotC is of people canceling their D&D Beyond subscriptions. The execs want their prior customers, but they also resent those customers. Maybe teenagers* a market they'd like to pivot to, but it won't work, because D&D isn't a video game, it's a board game, and one that practically necessitates a special kind of word of mouth.
*I'm not sure I buy the "teen boys" theory in particular. Maybe if they have no understanding of the current demographics? But that seems unlikely. It's not being marketed as a boys-only game anymore. There's still gender bias, not nearly as centered as it once was.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure that's exactly the case. Maybe it was once? But with the impact of Critical Role and podcasts and with WotC's obvious desire to pivot towards a subscription-based model (a model which tends to prioritize whales), no, I don't believe it. The industry will always be dependent on existing GMs to bring in new players.
I'd be shocked if "cold-read" GMs (newbies who buy the books and try to run D&D with no prior gaming experience or cultural connection) make up even 10% of book sales.
Be shocked, then. That's how I got in. That's how everyone I know who plays got in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be shocked when I see numbers, and my TTRPG experience is about as far from a "bubble" as you can find. I've been in this community back when it was mainly grognards and I was the one kid on the forums, but I've also been deeply immersed in the new gaming scene that's developed of late. If I see numbers, I'll eat my words.
What you describe is not how anyone I know has gotten in in the last ten years. The closest I've seen is players who got into it and tried GMing for the first time from podcasts, but that's not the kind of cold-read GMing you're talking about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
The problem for WotC is that the support that the license had provided and helped their brand overall is going to wither away, and they will have less material for the casual player to shift through or use for the home game play.
Organized play will also suffer. A primal backbone for Paizo, WotC official organized play will go to 6th (OneD&D) Edition and has not been popular as much as store play with homebrew or static groups going through the adventures they have.
No one will want to move from 5th Edition or try to adjust to the "revision" of the system for the new edition named "OneD&D."
Statistics from 2020
Ooh, thank you! This is fascinating. There are definitely a ton of teen players--no surprise, since I was one--but it's pretty clearly not where the bulk of players are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Working off my experience with other big TTRPG scandal controversies, I'm not looking forward to the point where people start saying, "See? I told you there'd be nothing to worry about," as if this change in policy isn't very obviously directly sprouted from the massive and well-organized fandom backlash.
Haha - that was me!
Honestly, this is more a lesson in public relations than it is about licensing or anything law-related. I’ve been of the opinion that the OGL 1.0 was not revocable, and everyone with any credibility (including Paizo) agrees with that position. Pathfinder was always safe.
But holy cow - what a fiasco for Hasbro, and what a move by Paizo to seize the momentum and build goodwill. This feels like something that Paizo was prepared for and expecting for quite some time. Well done Paizo.
I’m sure this will all end up the the textbook of some MBA class in the future.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*I'm not sure I buy the "teen boys" theory in particular. Maybe if they have no understanding of the current demographics? But that seems unlikely. It's not being marketed as a boys-only game anymore. There's still gender bias, not nearly as centered as it once was.
I'm going by where I see the boxes placed at Target. They're placed toward the area of the endcap game shelves that corresponds with the "war" and "action" toys - your action figures, Nerf guns, licensed Lego sets, and Matchbox cars. The stuff that's classified as "boy toys" by the industry. They're not at the end of the game shelves that corresponds with the more domestic play styles, things like dolls and accessories (classified as "girl toys").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yeah, they're certainly marketing towards them! Like, you wouldn't ignore a strong demographic. But there's a big difference between placing boxes in the toy aisle next to the Lego sets and that toy aisle being the primary vector for selling the game.
I can buy my milk at the gas station. It's smart to sell milk there, since every now and then someone's in a hurry and just pops in and buys it at a worse price than the grocery store. But that's not where Big Milk is actually concentrating its marketing.
Teen boys aren't the primary audience. They're an audience, and an important one. Roughly 10% of your customer base ain't nothing. It also, definitely, numerically, ain't everything. :P
Also, WRT to the gender thing--Lego and D&D are both enjoyed by both genders, but if you place a toy in the girls' aisle, boys won't buy it. They learn that insecurity young. Unfortunately, toy stores continue to divide based on gender, and as long as they do that, "boy" will continue to mean "unisex". I wouldn't assume it's just for boys just because it's in the boys' section.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is tricky. Because you can't have it both ways.Basically you can't release your rules under an open license and restrict how other people use your content.
Again, using the Open Source GPL because it is what I am familiar with.
If I create a graphics and rendering library and release it open source under GPL, then someone else can take my library and create an open source video game about things that I personally don't like. But there is nothing I can do about forbidding them from creating and releasing their video game.
In any controversy about applying "standards and practices" to TTRPG's, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is going to be the first target. The people who make Lancer already tried to complain about how one of their (admittedly gross) adventure modules won an Ennie. The idea of a bunch of jealous 3PP/indie snitches going around trying to tattle on each other and drum up controversy sounds distasteful.
Example: Kobold Press has examples of slavery in its books. Paizo does not. Which standard are we going to apply?
I suspect they'd rather avoid that whole mess of content clauses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*I'm not sure I buy the "teen boys" theory in particular. Maybe if they have no understanding of the current demographics? But that seems unlikely. It's not being marketed as a boys-only game anymore. There's still gender bias, not nearly as centered as it once was.I'm going by where I see the boxes placed at Target. They're placed toward the area of the endcap game shelves that corresponds with the "war" and "action" toys - your action figures, Nerf guns, licensed Lego sets, and Matchbox cars. The stuff that's classified as "boy toys" by the industry. They're not at the end of the game shelves that corresponds with the more domestic play styles, things like dolls and accessories (classified as "girl toys").
I’d have to say the judgment of stores like target of what the audience that buys it is not necessarily what I would go on
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, considering nearly half of D&D players are women or non-binary, this is clearly just a symptom of Target continuing to arbitrarily and awkwardly divide toys based on gender, not Hasbro telling Target, "this is a boy box. it's for boys only."
New Gizmodo article up with an interview with Jim Butler about ORC
https://gizmodo.com/paizo-universal-rpg-license-interview-jim-butler-184998 6745
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like WotC is trying to walk things back now. It doesn't matter. We now know that they believe they can do this, legally.
Notably, they have specified that already published properties should be unaffected, so PF1 should be fine for now.
EDIT: Darn my slow texting!
Old products, yes, but they said nothing about new products compatible with PF1 and other old versions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's heavily implied those are still screwed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me or does WoTC's response sound very condescending?
The modern day aloof aristocracy are addressing the unwashed peasantry - heed your betters!
(Arrogance within the executive levels of corporations is nothing new)
And also the whole thing about them always planning to get feedback from the community feeling like a total lie since if the leaks are to be true they planned to release it as is.
It's a statement with just enough truth in it that they can likely dodge legal trouble. They sent it out in a form they were happy with a few weeks ahead of its rollout date, knowing they would get feedback from those they sent it to.
... there was neither any time or intention to CHANGE anything based on that feedback, but they were expecting/intending to get it.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that WotC made no mention of their claims that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized or that they can make whatever changes they want with 30 days notice. As long as those items remain in place, any other changes or promises they make are worthless.
|
|
Old products, yes, but they said nothing about new products compatible with PF1 and other old versions.Sounds like WotC is trying to walk things back now. It doesn't matter. We now know that they believe they can do this, legally.
Notably, they have specified that already published properties should be unaffected, so PF1 should be fine for now.
EDIT: Darn my slow texting!
It also seems less certain that Paizo could do new printings of 1e material?
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also:
When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. 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. 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.
What Wizards seem adamantly determined to never say, is that the third point there is a complete 180 on the entire purpose of the OGL.
The OGL was written specifically for major corporations to use the SRD and D&D system for their commercial and promotional purposes. The existence of popular and profitable OGL-based products isn't "companies exploiting WotC's good will", it was the entire point of the OGL.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also seems less certain that Paizo could do new printings of 1e material?Old products, yes, but they said nothing about new products compatible with PF1 and other old versions.Sounds like WotC is trying to walk things back now. It doesn't matter. We now know that they believe they can do this, legally.
Notably, they have specified that already published properties should be unaffected, so PF1 should be fine for now.
EDIT: Darn my slow texting!
I think there that the plan there is for Paizo to proceed as normal until and unless WotC takes steps to stop them -- then it's "See you in court."
|
|
Also, with D&D becoming as important to Hasbro's bottom line as it has become, there's almost no chance that any subsequent version of D&D will have a truly open and irrevocable commercial license for 3PPs.Well, sure, I don't think anyone thinks that D&DI think 6E will crash hard given this BS. Maybe by the time they do 7E they'll decide to use the only real Open Roleplaying Game Creative License still operating (ORC). <eg>No offense but I think that that's naively optimistic. While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly doubt there will be enough people walking away from 5.1 to make it crash and burn. We might make a noticeable dent at best.I'mma pop a bubble or two here:
The target market for D&D is preteen boys.
Repeat:
The target market for D&D is preteen boys.
Why do you think D&D is placed for sale at Target? You, adult with a job, are a periphery demographic for Wizards of the Coast, even though you're the primary demographic for most other RPG publishers.
Preteen boys, frankly, not only don't care about the creative license issues, they don't see them. At all. You and I are not the main people D&D is being marketed to. Those people are people like my sister: They're non-gaming parents of bright, nerdy kids who have at most a nerdy sibling who never stopped playing RPGs.
I think you've reinforced my post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NoNat1's did a reading and reaction to it
And hey, the guy does a lot of good PF2 content and could use some more clicks.
The one point I disagree with is with regards to the license back clause discussion. I think Wizards is actually being honest - I genuinely think it did never cross their minds that they might use it to steal community-developed work...
... because that would require them to believe that 'amateur/customer' content could in any way rival 'official content' in quality or creativity. And I have seen nothing that convinces me that they have that degree of humility as a company. Individuals within Wizards probably do - there are a lot of Good people there, but when combined together into a troop stat block, it has the NE alignment.
5E has a few fundamental problems, with the largest being that while WotC playtested and tinkered with the Player Tools a whole bunch and have managed to make it extremely popular... the GM Tools are largely an afterthought, and one of the main results is a lot more people wanting to play than there are people running games. The system is simply not new-GM friendly from simply running the game with its mechanics.
The second issue is in how simplified the game has gotten in 5th Edition, where it not only pushes for players to have as few decisions as possible to make both in combat and when levelling up, but also as few decisions as possible for the GM to make as most monsters are stripped down to the minimum number of actions possible.
Making combat 'fun' when published adventures typically just throw encounters of "here's a bunch of identical monsters with a pile of hp and one one action to take in combat" requires experience that takes time to learn, and the published books don't help. Indeed, the most common advice online for making 5E combat fun (once the novelty of D&D wears off) typically involves a lot of homebrewing to give creatures more things to do.
When WotC announced One D&D, I was initially optimistic they would address these flaws in the system and try to revamp the system to be similar in mechanics (so as to be familiar), but friendlier to new GMs and have a bit more depth. I was mistaken.
One D&D so far has fewer changes from 5th edition than 3.5 did from 3.0 - and most of those changes involve even further simplification aka dumbing down of already oversimplified mechanics. Indeed, their reaction to "there's not enough GM's" seems to be to try and make monsters even simpler and more boring.
I sincerely believe it is possible to do a better version of 5E that would help the hobby grow. But One D&D to me looks like the exact opposite direction of where they should be heading.
For anyone interested in a 5E-like game, I'm going to plug EN Publishing's "Level Up" product line, as while I don't think it is perfect, it is a huge step in the right direction. It just doesn't have the brand name on the cover.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tangenital Response to Tangential Rant: I mean, me, I looked at 3.5, I looked at Pathfinder 1 (with Rolemaster leaning over from the one-in-forp'nnies) and said "that's not complicated enough! I'mma make my own edition, with Brimoraks and Hook Horrors! Let's add it all together and steal some bits from 4E and 5E (since I saw the latter on Unexpectables!) Huzzah!"
...
I do not think I am anyone's target market anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be shocked when I see numbers, and my TTRPG experience is about as far from a "bubble" as you can find. I've been in this community back when it was mainly grognards and I was the one kid on the forums, but I've also been deeply immersed in the new gaming scene that's developed of late. If I see numbers, I'll eat my words.
What you describe is not how anyone I know has gotten in in the last ten years. The closest I've seen is players who got into it and tried GMing for the first time from podcasts, but that's not the kind of cold-read GMing you're talking about.
You young whippersnapper, you!
:)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
New Gizmodo article up with an interview with Jim Butler about ORC
Link’t.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tangenital Response to Tangential Rant: I mean, me, I looked at 3.5, I looked at Pathfinder 1 (with Rolemaster leaning over from the one-in-forp'nnies) and said "that's not complicated enough! I'mma make my own edition, with Brimoraks and Hook Horrors! Let's add it all together and steal some bits from 4E and 5E (since I saw the latter on Unexpectables!) Huzzah!"
...
I do not think I am anyone's target market anymore.
Oooh. I still have my role master for when I get a real desire for numbers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a sidenote, I do cautiously hope that the ORC adopts language similar to the new OGL's about prohibiting blatantly abusive content. We don't need "Myfarog, ORC edition".
At the same time, I (perhaps vainly) hope the ORC avoids being overly restrictive around "messy" content, like BoEF-style Mature Audiences Only publications, publications that explore potentially traumatic subjects, and content that digs into "problematic" tropes to try to unpack their deeper meaning. I think a lot about how marginalized writers like Isabel Fall have been treated when trying to write about some edgy topics, and it's left me sort of more on the side of taking a light touch to this sort of thing. There's a difference between tackling a messy subject in good faith and writing actual Nazi propaganda, and I hope we can tell the difference.
As one example, I'm working on an ancestry right now that is closely linked to severe trauma as a key motif of its, well, existence. It's not the sort of thing everyone would be comfortable with, and parts of it might not be super kid-friendly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist provided it's correctly labeled.
I may be paranoid, but I guess I worry about new licenses ultimately emphasizing a squeaky-clean Disneyfied feel for new releases--less out of social conservativism so much as simple play-it-safe corporate caution. I've seen that trend in other industries, and I'm not a huge fan.
Oops, my sidenote went longer than my actual note.
This kind of thing, tbh. Most of my Pathfinder energy of late has been devoted to working on Mature-themed setting heavily inspired by the Monstergirl/boy trope and a number of works in the genre for PF1. I might eventually publish it, but it rather obviously contains a range of themes that would run afoul of a Disneyfied vision of Fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of thing, tbh. Most of my Pathfinder energy of late has been devoted to working on Mature-themed setting heavily inspired by the Monstergirl/boy trope and a number of works in the genre for PF1. I might eventually publish it, but it rather obviously...
Oh, hey, same! Which ones are you doing? We're working on the slimefolk right now, having mostly finished beefolk, alraunes, and a confused sort of imp/succubus/goblin ancestry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, not really on topic, so spoilered:
Probably should avoid further discussion of that here, lol. Especially while I'm at work =3