|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
My son's school's D&D club (6th-8th grade) started up again after the holiday break. They took a vote on what system to use and Pathfinder was almost the unanimous choice. Now he's stolen my Guns & Gears book and wants to make a Gunslinger. He said most of the kids knew about the OGL thing and were ready to try something that wasn't Hasbro.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't know what the experience of the rest of you was, but when I submitted stuff for publication to game companies back in the 1990s, both TSR (in a submission to Dragon Magazine) and Steve Jackson Games (a book proposal) required me to include a disclosure form that included rather similar "we can publish this without paying you" clauses. I think the stuff I actually got published later, submitted in open calls to White Wolf's Swords & Sorcery Studios, had a similar term governing submissions, but my memory is fuzzier.
That wasn't because TSR, Steve Jackson Games, or White Wolf was interested in stealing stuff that was sent to them; that was because they didn't want to have to deal with lawsuits over independent inventions of things they were already planning to publish, or might publish five years later, or whatever.
Indeed, the editor of Dragon, in issue #170 (June 1991), mentioned a case where
We once received module proposals from two authors (one in Texas and one in England) who each wanted to create a dungeon in an iceberg populated by people called "bergmen" -- in each case led by humans named Ingemar and Ingrid. One thought we had stolen his idea and given it to the other author (which we hadn't), and in frustration we dropped the whole project.
And, well, let's consider that in the RPG Superstar contests, the initial magic items were posted here on these boards, and "Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Inc the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media."
Which means Paizo secured a right to take whatever magic items of those it liked, compile them, and sell them in a book, without paying a dime to the creators . . . not because they were planning to do that, but to avoid being liable to a lawsuit on the chance that something Paizo later published resembled something posted to these boards.
So, from my perspective, as someone who had submitted stuff to game companies for publication (two decades ago, really? Man, I feel old), that clause in the "OGL 1.1" didn't look like a big deal on its own. What made it sketchy wasn't language similar to that I'd seen many times before, but that it was part of a license that indicated a general breaking of faith with the 23-year community of OGL users.
Which means Paizo secured a right to take whatever magic items of those it liked, compile them, and sell them in a book, without paying a dime to the creators
Sure. Though I would make a distinction between posting my proposed changes for the Witch class on the PF2 forums, publishing a replacement class or adjustment rules on Pathfinder Infinite, publishing that replacement class on my own website, and publishing a completely different Witch class for a different game system entirely.
If I am posting something on Paizo's own forums, I sort of expect that I am not keeping any sort of copyright on it.
If I am publishing something of my own, I sort of expect that I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if they walked back all the way and said they considered OGL 1.0a holy writ until the end of time, how could anyone trust their word on that after all they tried to do?
Their word, no.
A slight revision to the OGL (an OGL 1.0b) that adds legally-binding text that declares that authorization is irrevocable, the license offer is irrevocable, the rights granted are irrevocable, and the license can only be terminated for breach, followed by releasing the SRD (3rd), MSRD (d20 Modern), RSRD (3.5), and SRD5 (5th) under this slight revision?
Well, then I don't have to trust their word.
"Walking things back" is accordingly something that requires action.
I was a bit (pleasantly) surprised to see Chaosium listed among the companies that had signed on to the ORC (though maybe I shouldn't have been). Not because I thought there was anything shady about Chaosium, but only because they already released their Basic Roleplaying SRD under a custom open license, and I didn't think they'd necessarily see the need to sign on to a different one. Huh.
Unlike Paizo, Chaosium hasn't as far as I know released anything as Open Content beyond the initial SRD, and that's just bare-bones rules (it includes exactly one monster (a bear), presented as a "sample foe")). I really don't expect that to change and for Chaosium to start releasing a ton of open content (though I guess it's not entirely impossible), but even so, having the Basic Roleplaying ruleset and Pathfinder released under the same open license could be... interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if they walked back all the way and said they considered OGL 1.0a holy writ until the end of time, how could anyone trust their word on that after all they tried to do?Their word, no.
A slight revision to the OGL (an OGL 1.0b) that adds legally-binding text that declares that authorization is irrevocable, the license offer is irrevocable, the rights granted are irrevocable, and the license can only be terminated for breach, followed by releasing the SRD (3rd), MSRD (d20 Modern), RSRD (3.5), and SRD5 (5th) under this slight revision?
Well, then I don't have to trust their word.
"Walking things back" is accordingly something that requires action.
I liked the point Ryan Dancey made: Wizards could absolutely corner the market and get everyone on their new VTT and under newer and royalty-based license agreements. All they need to do is make a new edition of D&D that is so good that everyone voluntarily stops playing 5th Edition.
But that is hard, and takes a lot of time and money to develop, and they haven't even really started.
But they have dropped $146M on D&D Beyond and hired 350+ programmers to build them a VTT. But no matter how pretty their VTT tools are, if it's all just 5E and their VTT costs everyone a bunch of money, while a bunch of established VTTs are far cheaper or even free... That isn't going to sound like a safe bet to a shareholder.
So they may walk some things back. They may scrub royalties (dumb idea in the first place). They may remove the insane change/termination notice. They may even promise not leave any historical publications under 1.0a alone (e.g. PF1) and let them continue to be sold without challenge.
But I bet they're going to be gunning for getting 5E off the competing VTT's. I suspect they're going to take their time, hope the internet forgets aaaaaalll about it, and then make their play (if they're smart, with less collateral damage to avoid a repeat of their botched 1.1 rollout) closer to One D&D's release.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So they may walk some things back. They may scrub royalties (dumb idea in the first place). They may remove the insane change/termination notice. They may even promise not leave any historical publications under 1.0a alone (e.g. PF1) and let them continue to be sold without challenge.
Scrubbing royalties, they're already doing according to their latest announcement:
What it will not contain is any royalty structure.
Letting historical publications continue to be sold, apparently also:
Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
I don't see anything about the change/termination notice, though. And of course there are plenty of other things they didn't address. (Are they going to be okay with people releasing new material under OGL 1.0? Given their specifying "content already released", I'm guessing not.) It's a few steps in the right direction, but it's certainly nothing like a complete redemption, if that's even possible at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So they may walk some things back. They may scrub royalties (dumb idea in the first place). They may remove the insane change/termination notice. They may even promise not leave any historical publications under 1.0a alone (e.g. PF1) and let them continue to be sold without challenge.Scrubbing royalties, they're already doing according to their latest announcement:
...
I am reminded that text is still a very difficult medium when it comes to clearly articulating ideas. I think we're mostly just agreeing with each other here - I was more speculating that regardless of how much they walk back (already announced/implied), there are certain things I don't think they will be willing to even consider.
One of those is letting Roll20, Foundry etc compete with them unchallenged in 2024. The amount they've invested in cornering the digital gaming ecosystem in 2024 dramatically outweighs the legal costs of trying to obliterate the rival VTTs.
Hence, while WotC's effort to remove all competition has been thwarted and forced them to retreat and regroup, they will launch a new offensive within the next 18 months, aimed at removing 3rd party VTT's ability to support 5E.
The only question in my mind is whether they'll narrow the focus to just the VTT's and 5E, or once again be overly ambitious and try to take out all their rivals in one fell swoop. The smart (if still being a "total pasta" as my daughter likes to say) choice is the former... but that doesn't mean its the one they'll take.
I am reminded that text is still a very difficult medium when it comes to clearly articulating ideas. I think we're mostly just agreeing with each other here - I was more speculating that regardless of how much they walk back (already announced/implied), there are certain things I don't think they will be willing to even consider.
Ah, OK, yeah, sorry; I guess I misinterpreted your post and thought you hadn't seen they'd already said they were removing the royalty clauses. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The second is harder to understand and seems on much less solid ground to my non-lawyerly eyes.
I agree, but that doesn't mean that's not their intent. I've been following a (very long) thread about the matter on ENWorld that several lawyers are posting in, and while the lawyers disagree about some of the details, I get the impression that most of them are more or less in agreement that (1) Wizards of the Coast would be on very shaky legal ground if they tried to insist that nobody could release new material under the OGL 1.0, but (2) that doesn't necessarily mean they won't try it anyway, even if it might not hold up in court if it comes to that.
(I think someone already linked to the ENWorld thread earlier in this thread, but just in case here it is again.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DND Shorts covered the leaked FAQ response Wizards had apparently planned to release, but didn't.
Just. Wow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its going to be a bit hard for them to claim the fantisy creatures they use in D&D 90% of them are out of Mythology from various cultures from around the world. So do some research compare and creat another version of the OGL that doesnt connect to the WOC/Hasbro corporation. In my case it doesnt matter Ive never written anything connected to or related to any company. the RPG I have is based on my own novels. Maybe some day Ill see about finishing it *Chuckles*
|
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.
Doing with TTRPGs what Pokemon did in comparison to MtG and other TCGs, ie taking loads of money from the parents' wallet through their kids rather the meager content of young adults' spare cash ?
Actually I could completely see WotC aiming for this and doing all they can to ensure they are the only ones profiting from this.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
DND Shorts covered the leaked FAQ response Wizards had apparently planned to release, but didn't.
Just. Wow.
DND Shorts follow up video delves into WotC’s subsequent official statement and breaks it down lie by lie. He makes some very good points about the use of language, like that Wizard’s talk of who “won” is an attempt by them to say this is over (when it really isn’t) and that they listen to us to find out what we like and what “scares” us. The language is equal parts full-cringe, obfuscation, milquetoastery, outright lies, patronising and downright stupid. Definitely a corporate culture implosion.
I can’t say it enough. I was weirded out by 4th Edition, but that was more the system, parts of which I actually really like and find innovative and interesting. I found Pathfinder, which seemed to carry on 3rd edition’s roots. I was weirded out by 5th edition but that was more a sniff of corporate cash grab and a little “eh, I was there during Basic DnD and this is boring”. So I steered well clear as the corporate cash grab and “product” became a rewrapping of old school greats into something godsawful. Seeing Ghosts of Saltmarsh release was a clarion call to me that WotC were willing to take the old and try to repackage them as something new, when they clearly weren’t and needed…an idea they couldn’t seem to generate. DnD Beyond looked totally dodgy from a financial perspective, a move toward something I didn’t like, much as I don’t like Pathfinder’s Nexus partnership.
So I am saying to everyone I know, anyone who will listen. WotC don’t love the game. They don’t care about the heritage. You are a consumer, and that is all. Consume their product at our peril. Don’t buy their books. Don’t watch their movie/T.V tie-ins. Don’t subscribe to their stodge. If folks relent and say “Oh, they have backtracked and are legit now” they’ll only fester and grow and poison the wellspring of our shared culture. They evidently suck harder than a mind flayer. Cut their freaking head off and burn the body with acid. It is unfortunate for the employees, some of whom evidently love the game, but to let them exist in the ecosystem is problematic for the culture.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it very funny that they're acting like they want to support small publishers, but don't want the OGL to support big competitors. Wizards, please. Paizo WAS a small publisher until you screwed them over and the community flocked to them.
So is there some kind of threshold now where you can be a 3pp, but don't be too successful!?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I read that WotC response to the backlash it sounds like they pushed something out without putting it through the Hasbro legal team first. It has the reading of someone who believes so strongly that they are right but have had more knowledgeable people tell them they arn't. I can imagine Hasbos marketing and social media team wonder why they are trending, find out and tell the legal department and the shit storm went from there.
However it happened I have concerns for what WotC might attempt in the next 6 months. They have been backed into a corner and can be very dangerous to contain any violance they might choose.
My 2 coppers worth
EtG
Additionally: Its unfortunate that PF1ed is not in a state to be granfathered into the ORCL(yes I know its called ORC I prefer the future looking idea and that class).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I read that WotC response to the backlash it sounds like they pushed something out without putting it through the Hasbro legal team first. It has the reading of someone who believes so strongly that they are right but have had more knowledgeable people tell them they arn't. I can imagine Hasbos marketing and social media team wonder why they are trending, find out and tell the legal department and the s+!$ storm went from there.
Entirely possible. Hm.
Additionally: Its unfortunate that PF1ed is not in a state to be granfathered into the ORCL(yes I know its called ORC I prefer the future looking idea and that class).
There are a lot of people who love 3.x/pf1.0. Here's hoping something can be worked out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As has been pointed out by others, WotC can’t unring this bell. Why would anyone trust them at this point?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As has been pointed out by others, WotC can’t unring this bell. Why would anyone trust them at this point?
Ignorance. I've had to explain this shitshow to people irl twice. Folks who were interested in D&D and didn't know much of anything about the market, just that D&D was a thing and they were interested in trying to play.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignorance. I've had to explain this s#!%show to people irl twice. Folks who were interested in D&D and didn't know much of anything about the market, just that D&D was a thing and they were interested in trying to play.As has been pointed out by others, WotC can’t unring this bell. Why would anyone trust them at this point?
And ignorance’s great historical bedfellow - apathy. Even should you explain it to some people they may still shrug their wageslave shoulders and opine “So what. Big deal. Corpo evil is omnipresent and is a reality. Unlike some elf-game. Kindly keep your politrix out of my hobby.”
It has been heartening to see the rising of conscious nerd-dom but I’m not sure it is representative of the legion of main customers. I for one fervently hope to see a tide wash away the entire coast the Wizard’s tower rests on.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I read that WotC response to the backlash it sounds like they pushed something out without putting it through the Hasbro legal team first.
Entirely possible. Hm.
You don't send out contracts with OGL 1.1 attached to major contributors without the legal dept having vetted it first. Anybody telling you this was either a botched rollout of a draft or otherwise something that wasn't intended to see the light of day is lying through their teeth.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read the rest of my post. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I meant this.
Oops, my sidenote went longer than my actual note.
I also said as much in later follow-up posts, but I get that that's a lot of posts to read through, which is why I edited the original post, too.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea of any governing body having the right to decide who is or is not a bad actor. That's what the power of our wallets is for :P
And I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea of any governing body having the right to decide who is or is not a bad actor. That's what the power of our wallets is for :PAnd I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.
And just as or more often those same things are pushed or bankrolled by governing bodies. If you give them the upper hand you lose control over where they put it.
| 2 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.
Goddamn all these old people popping out of the woodwork.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I read that WotC response to the backlash it sounds like they pushed something out without putting it through the Hasbro legal team first.Entirely possible. Hm.You don't send out contracts with OGL 1.1 attached to major contributors without the legal dept having vetted it first. Anybody telling you this was either a botched rollout of a draft or otherwise something that wasn't intended to see the light of day is lying through their teeth.
Indeed. The statement by WotC on Friday was nothing but damage control in an attempt to stop the bleeding they experienced in the form of cancelled D&D Beyond subscriptions. Just about everything in it was a lie ("draft," "feedback," lol you don't send drafts of documents to licensees to be signed). Any promises they make are worthless until the new OGL is released and scrutinized under a microscope.
Even if they walked back all the way and said they considered OGL 1.0a holy writ until the end of time, how could anyone trust their word on that after all they tried to do?Their word, no.
A slight revision to the OGL (an OGL 1.0b) that adds legally-binding text that declares that authorization is irrevocable, the license offer is irrevocable, the rights granted are irrevocable, and the license can only be terminated for breach, followed by releasing the SRD (3rd), MSRD (d20 Modern), RSRD (3.5), and SRD5 (5th) under this slight revision?
Well, then I don't have to trust their word.
"Walking things back" is accordingly something that requires action.
I liked the point Ryan Dancey made: Wizards could absolutely corner the market and get everyone on their new VTT and under newer and royalty-based license agreements. All they need to do is make a new edition of D&D that is so good that everyone voluntarily stops playing 5th Edition.
But that is hard, and takes a lot of time and money to develop, and they haven't even really started.
But they have dropped $146M on D&D Beyond and hired 350+ programmers to build them a VTT. But no matter how pretty their VTT tools are, if it's all just 5E and their VTT costs everyone a bunch of money, while a bunch of established VTTs are far cheaper or even free... That isn't going to sound like a safe bet to a shareholder.
So they may walk some things back. They may scrub royalties (dumb idea in the first place). They may remove the insane change/termination notice. They may even promise not leave any historical publications under 1.0a alone (e.g. PF1) and let them continue to be sold without challenge.
But I bet they're going to be gunning for getting 5E off the competing VTT's. I suspect they're going to take their time, hope the internet forgets aaaaaalll about it, and then make their play (if they're smart, with less collateral damage to avoid...
They may very well do that, but they would be biting themselves in the foot. Particularly with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, where people are buying their books again on the platforms in order to play. If I spend $500 on books that Wizards overnight decides I can't use, I'm hardly likely to switch to wizard's platform to use their VTT. Players follow game masters usually, because the game masters are the ones "sharing" their collections so people can play.
What I can see wizards doing is prohibiting their books from being "shared" in a game - to force players to buy the books if they want to use the cool classes.
But then I couldn't see them canceling the OGL retroactively last week, so maybe they are arrogant enough to piss even more of their base off.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
DND Shorts covered the leaked FAQ response Wizards had apparently planned to release, but didn't.
Just. Wow.
DND Shorts follow up video delves into WotC’s subsequent official statement and breaks it down lie by lie. He makes some very good points about the use of language, like that Wizard’s talk of who “won” is an attempt by them to say this is over (when it really isn’t) and that they listen to us to find out what we like and what “scares” us. The language is equal parts full-cringe, obfuscation, milquetoastery, outright lies, patronising and downright stupid. Definitely a corporate culture implosion.
I can’t say it enough. I was weirded out by 4th Edition, but that was more the system, parts of which I actually really like and find innovative and interesting. I found Pathfinder, which seemed to carry on 3rd edition’s roots. I was weirded out by 5th edition but that was more a sniff of corporate cash grab and a little “eh, I was there during Basic DnD and this is boring”. So I steered well clear as the corporate cash grab and “product” became a rewrapping of old school greats into something godsawful. Seeing Ghosts of Saltmarsh release was a clarion call to me that WotC were willing to take the old and try to repackage them as something new, when they clearly weren’t and needed…an idea they couldn’t seem to generate. DnD Beyond looked totally dodgy from a financial perspective, a move toward something I didn’t like, much as I don’t like Pathfinder’s Nexus partnership.
So I am saying to everyone I know, anyone who will listen. WotC don’t love the game. They don’t care about the heritage. You are a consumer, and that is all. Consume their product at our peril. Don’t buy their books. Don’t watch their movie/T.V tie-ins. Don’t subscribe to their stodge. If folks relent and say “Oh, they have backtracked and are legit...
Using Ghosts of Saltmarsh as a clarion call here seems silly. The Saltmarsh adventures are widely regarded as some of the best ever made. Several of the others were from Dungeon magazines that may be familiar to the fan base here, but many in the larger 5e community had probably never seen. They were well done updates, and one of the best gifts I've ever gotten was the spontaneous gift of the Beadles and Grim Silver box of that adventure from my brother - it was a favorite when we were kids.
Did you look at who was involved in that book? I see F. Wesley Schneider in that developer list. I see Kim Mohan as the lead editor. Those are venerable and respected names in this community - names we trust to love the game.
I don't trust Wizards right now. There's plenty to be critical of. But that book? It was gold.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea of any governing body having the right to decide who is or is not a bad actor. That's what the power of our wallets is for :PAnd I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.
To throw my 2c in here: In the larger ecosystem of human endeavour you have fair concerns. Within the niche of TTRPGs, I'd much prefer people be able to freely articulate their values and ideas, and enable others to judge the content of their character easily. But this is a segue.
Short vid of Ryan and others commenting on the current status of events. Basically that Wizards have backed down a little and the strategy of pressure + cancelled D&D Beyond subs is working, but have not yet conceded the point they cannot revoke the OGL 1.0a.
Personally I think Ryan is being a little generous, but then, he has way more experience with executives, lawyers and PR doublespeak, so was probably less bothered by the sheer quantity of BS within their announcement, and more focused on what concessions they were making.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using Ghosts of Saltmarsh as a clarion call here seems silly. The Saltmarsh adventures are widely regarded as some of the best ever made. Several of the others were from Dungeon magazines that may be familiar to the fan base here, but many in the larger 5e community had probably never seen. They were well done updates, and one of the best gifts I've ever gotten was the spontaneous gift of the Beadles and Grim Silver box of that adventure from my brother - it was a favorite when we were kids.
Did you look at who was involved in that book? I see F. Wesley Schneider in that developer list. I see Kim Mohan as the lead editor. Those are venerable and respected names in this community - names we trust to love the game.
I don't trust Wizards right now. There's plenty to be critical of. But that book? It was gold.
While I've never run Ghosts of Saltmarsh and can't comment on its quality, the fact that most 1st party content coming out of Wizards of the Coast is just a "Greatest Hits" compilation is pretty valid criticism.
Yes, they're also supporting experimental stuff like Theros (also by F. Wesley Schneider, and I love it), but their bread and butter is mostly slapping a new coat of paint on Ravenloft, Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale. Their whole release slate this year was all pure nostalgia ('member Dragonlance? 'member Spelljammer?)
It's analogous to if Paizo put out maybe one new adventure every two years, and then kept re-releasing PF1 modules in PF2 in the interim.
Part of the whole controversy regarding OGL 2.0 is that it's the 3PP creators who've been making a lot of the adventures that have kept 5e going.
And I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.
Having a board of standards & practices for ORC is not something that any 3PP is going to get behind. I just don't see it. If that's a dealbreaker for you, then good luck finding a 100% ethical ecosystem to create stuff in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using Ghosts of Saltmarsh as a clarion call here seems silly. The Saltmarsh adventures are widely regarded as some of the best ever made. Several of the others were from Dungeon magazines that may be familiar to the fan base here, but many in the larger 5e community had probably never seen. They were well done updates, and one of the best gifts I've ever gotten was the spontaneous gift of the Beadles and Grim Silver box of that adventure from my brother - it was a favorite when we were kids.
The disparity I think boils down mostly to a mixture of exposure (most people who play 5E haven't heard of Curse of the Crimson Throne etc), and the fact that different people play for different reasons, and in effect we aren't all playing the same game.
On a personal level, I play for the drama and collaborative story - I want my characters actions to feel like they're striving to accomplish something great. When I'm GMing I want a published adventure to help me build the drama and a plot that gives conflict, tension and helps give players a personal stake in the outcome - that makes them care about what happens.
Vaguely themed but disconnected little adventures which are in theory motivated by "Do X, get paid" bore me to tears. And I freely admit, I don't play the game Gygax made. Other people do. And that's okay.
And this is for context for the below statement
Putting aside the topic of player preferences, I also took Saltmarsh (and Yawning Portal) not as positives for D&D. Here is why:
2014-08/11: Tyranny of Dragons
2015-04: Princes of the Apocalypse (5 months later)
2015-09: Out of the Abyss (5 months later)
2016-03: Curse of Strahd (6 months later)
2016-09: Storm King's Thunder (6 months later)
2016-04: Tales from the Yawning Portal (7 months later)
2017-09: Tomb of Annihilation (5 months later)
2018-09: Waterdeep: Dragonheist (12 months later. No heist included)
2018-11: Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad mage (2 months later)
2019-05: Ghosts of Saltmarsh (6 months later)
2019-09: Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus (4 months later)
2020-09: Rime of the Frost Maiden (12 months later)
[ooc]And at this point I stopped paying attention[/i]
Their release schedule is roughly one adventure book every 6 months (except when they skip a slot and it's a 12 month wait). Bolded are the books that are basically reprints with adapted mechanics.
My criticism is that adapting old modules, while work, is dramatically less work/cost than developing something original (e.g. Descent into Avernus) or taking an old adventure as inspiration and building something new (e.g. Tomb of Annihilation). Which is fine, except the anthologies started replacing the original adventures in the schedule and coming with the same price tag... and it just feels like a lazy cash grab rather than an earnest attempt to maintain and grow the hobby.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I've never run Ghosts of Saltmarsh and can't comment on its quality, the fact that most 1st party content coming out of Wizards of the Coast is just a "Greatest Hits" compilation is pretty valid criticism.
That is an excellent way to phrase it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably unnecessary wall of text:
(rest of Faerun)
FORGOTTEN REALMS
(Sword Coast)
FORGOTTEN REALMS
REMEMBERED REALMS
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Against the Giants, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Tomb of Horrors and later Red Hand of Doom are all commonly considered masterpieces in their own way among the various people I've gamed with all over the planet.
I think I've heard "Tomb of Horrors is the worst module ever written" more frequently than any positive sentiment about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Against the Giants, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Tomb of Horrors and later Red Hand of Doom are all commonly considered masterpieces in their own way among the various people I've gamed with all over the planet.I think I've heard "Tomb of Horrors is the worst module ever written" more frequently than any positive sentiment about it.
To paraphrase Obi-Wan, it depends on your point of view.
It you are wanting/expecting a module that is fun, thrilling, has a strong narrative and a satisfying conclusion. It's astoundingly terrible.
If you are expecting a jaded, spiteful mess that requires players to claw every victory from pretty much certain death? Then it is a masterpiece. You just need to enter into it with the right expectations, and treat it like the pinnacle of Adversarial GM design it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I've never run Ghosts of Saltmarsh and can't comment on its quality, the fact that most 1st party content coming out of Wizards of the Coast is just a "Greatest Hits" compilation is pretty valid criticism.That is an excellent way to phrase it.
Yep, and I think when I was thinking of Ghosts of Saltmarsh I was also thinking of Yawning Portal which seemed to also steal liberally from past Greatest Hits and tried to shoehorn them into a gatherall of updated funtimes for those new players who missed out on the “hits” of the past.
Having a board of standards & practices for ORC is not something that any 3PP is going to get behind. I just don't see it. If that's a dealbreaker for you, then good luck finding a 100% ethical ecosystem to create stuff in.
And I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.
Sure, I was just making the point that the power of wallets and the power of oversight and control can be tricky things to contend with and neither come without peril. It’s choose your peril and try to sleep at night.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If youre a fan of "the wallet determines whats morally acceptable", wizards of the coast may well end up being the good guys in a couple of years.
Which seems like an odd outcome to even consider as a possibility.
Using Ghosts of Saltmarsh as a clarion call here seems silly. The Saltmarsh adventures are widely regarded as some of the best ever made. Several of the others were from Dungeon magazines that may be familiar to the fan base here, but many in the larger 5e community had probably never seen. They were well done updates, and one of the best gifts I've ever gotten was the spontaneous gift of the Beadles and Grim Silver box of that adventure from my brother - it was a favorite when we were kids.
Did you look at who was involved in that book? I see F. Wesley Schneider in that developer list. I see Kim Mohan as the lead editor. Those are venerable and respected names in this community - names we trust to love the game.
I don't trust Wizards right now. There's plenty to be critical of. But that book? It was gold.
While I've never run Ghosts of Saltmarsh and can't comment on its quality, the fact that most 1st party content coming out of Wizards of the Coast is just a "Greatest Hits" compilation is pretty valid criticism.
Yes, they're also supporting experimental stuff like Theros (also by F. Wesley Schneider, and I love it), but their bread and butter is mostly slapping a new coat of paint on Ravenloft, Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale. Their whole release slate this year was all pure nostalgia ('member Dragonlance? 'member Spelljammer?)
It's analogous to if Paizo put out maybe one new adventure every two years, and then kept re-releasing PF1 modules in PF2 in the interim.
Part of the whole controversy regarding OGL 2.0 is that it's the 3PP creators who've been making a lot of the adventures that have kept 5e going.
And I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again,...
Except that Spelljammer and Dragonlance content has been asked for by their consumers for a long time. Also, you didn't list Radiant Citadel which was very new and very different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that Spelljammer and Dragonlance content has been asked for by their consumers for a long time. Also, you didn't list Radiant Citadel which was very new and very different.
If you want to play 5e, nobody's stopping you you know.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's something to be said for encouraging fresh new content, but I myself am obsessed with the impossible dream of an Age of Worms PF2 conversion, so who am I to talk? Sometimes the old content is good and we want to play it with the editions we know. Nothing wrong with that, especially when it means you have the chance to update and tweak an old classic. Adaptation is its own art form.
Also, apropos of nothing, there's nothing wrong with liking 5e, nor with liking their latest content. The writers at WotC are not our enemies. They're amazing creators just like those at Paizo, and many are themselves from Paizo originally. Bashing WotC content has a lot of collateral damage versus simply continuing to support the boycott and criticizing WotC practices.