|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Statement from Kobold Press:
Project Black Flag Update: Sticking To Our Principles
We want to start by saying thank you for all the outpouring of love and support this last week. Project Black Flag is sailing new waters toward its next destination, and we aim to continue to update you weekly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of boycotts: does anyone know if buying Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) or minis from the Icons of the Realm line (WizKids) will be giving some amount of money to WotC? I hope not, but if so I won't be spending money on either of those things from now on. Which I will find sad but necessary.You can safely bet your hat that literally anything that features the trademark dragon & image or otherwise directly references D&D is operating under a paid license and that at the very least the creator paid a hefty sum for the right to do so or are otherwise paying some % to WotC in royalties.
Indeed. Even under OGL 1.0 the brand name, trademarks, and other such things are considered Product Identity and are explicitly not Open Game Content.
Using the D&D name, logo, etc requires a separate license.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can make any concession they want, the only thing that is acceptable at this point is if they acknowledge the 1.0a OGL can not be revoked or "deauthorized"
Roll for Combat have already covered a bunch of it, a quick summary is:
X. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated.
A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL
1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason
whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the
revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels. B. Termination:
If the released version of the OGL has anything like this in it, every other concession is worthless because it gives Wizards the right to change it later, with a limited notice period and no recourse.
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
Bolded for emphasis. Tense is important. This statement translates to: "We are willing to leave the past in the past. We make no promises about your ability to operate commercially in the future."
Statement from Kobold Press:
Project Black Flag Update: Sticking To Our Principles
We want to start by saying thank you for all the outpouring of love and support this last week. Project Black Flag is sailing new waters toward its next destination, and we aim to continue to update you weekly.
Excellent news!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Working Conversation About the Open Game License.So many questions
** spoiler omitted **
tl;dr What is an "Executive Producer" in WotC and who is & Kyle Brink?
Message me if you have links to sites that answer any of these questions.
He does indeed.
I am definitely waiting for his video tomorrow.
I am not, unfortunately, surprised at all that the news that WotC has been giving everyone placebo surveys and intends to continue to do so. The computer games industry has seemed to rely on people venting angrily on steam forums or social media or something and then still buying the next release; this is just a more advanced form of that, focussing it to somewhere out of sight where it can be deleted quietly.
There does seem to be some confusion about the whole “survey reality” at WotC i.e DnDShorts claim that no-one reads them.
Apart from that, the latest statement is incredibly par for the course. “We’re sorry. We’ll do better. We’ll listen.” Etc etc. I can’t trust WotC to make a statement I believe let alone a license that is fair, equitable or irrevocable.
|
There does seem to be some confusion about the whole “survey reality” at WotC i.e DnDShorts claim that no-one reads them.Further comments and reading in from that post and from a former employee, they were talking about two different types of surveys, which caused the confusion.
Does that mean there's one type of survey they do read and one that they don't?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does that mean there's one type of survey they do read and one that they don't?There does seem to be some confusion about the whole “survey reality” at WotC i.e DnDShorts claim that no-one reads them.Further comments and reading in from that post and from a former employee, they were talking about two different types of surveys, which caused the confusion.
I could be mistaken, but my take-away from the commentary was that the multiple choice options were aggregated and used, but any text field for the public to type a response in their own words was a placebo and largely deleted.
The issue with the multiple choice selections is that while it allows easy processing of a lot of data... it falls int the "Garbage In - Garbage Out" problem.
Me: It's the only improvement over the 2014 cleric, and while blatantly lifted from PF2, it is still a good move. BUT it should be at 1st level as having to reinvent/re-equip your character at 2nd level is a giant PITA.
WotC:: "Your text will be ignored. Please click one of the four options"
Me: "Fine. I am satisfied overall." Click.
WotC:: "Thank you. We will now blindly aggregate your response and misconstrue its meaning at the next blog. Satisfaction was high, so everyone clearly wants this exactly how it is presented."
OR
Me: "Fine. I am unsatisfied overall." Click.
WotC:: "Thank you. We will now blindly aggregate your response and misconstrue its meaning at the next blog. Satisfaction was low. We believe that was because people are too stupid to handle a meaningful choice three levels in a row, so we have moved it to 5th."
It is possible to playtest and elicit feedback in a manner that is open, honest and gives the best opportunity for positive change to the game (Paizo's method works pretty well). Blind surveys that lazily throw up a list of class features and ask for satisfaction ratings, and yield no information back to the user aren't how you do it. That's just how to make it look like you're playtesting without having to actually engage with or listen to your audience...
... which by all accounts is exactly what happened with the 4E playtest.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
... which by all accounts is exactly what happened with the 4E playtest.
As a 4e playtester, whose group submitted 50-70 pages of feedback after each session of the playtest, I was later told at GenCon by WotC people that any playtest feedback that went against their preconceptions was largely ignored. Our group identified most of the issues the fan base ended up having with 4e and it was all tossed aside.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just finished film school recently, and we had a class on audiences and reception. For my final I did one of these kinds of surveys about the various new Star Trek series. I had an open response field at the end of it, and it was by far the most valuable part of the survey. I could find the outliers in the survey response (in my case, people who genuinely loved the new series) and see their reasoning. It was also great for pulling quotes to put in my paper and up the word count ;)
I only had about 300 responses to go through, not thousands, so I get them not wanting to read 50 pages of feedback from each person's playtest, but the multiple choice bits are great for picking out the extreme opinions and seeing why those opinions are extreme. My suggestion whenever doing one of those responses is to give strong opinions in the multiple choice, dont just be "somewhat" satisfied or dissatisfied, go to the extremes.
Love discovery and especially love strange new worlds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's method of detailed responses going into the specifics of a playtest and feedback is the only way to show transparency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's method of detailed responses going into the specifics of a playtest and feedback is the only way to show transparency.
Even that isn't perfect. Survey results - especially multiple choice questions - can be misinterpreted. And having one or two people reading through thousands of free-form response fields is not practical.
I think that is part of what happened with the PF2 Witch class and why it currently isn't well received.
Paizo's method of detailed responses going into the specifics of a playtest and feedback is the only way to show transparency.Even that isn't perfect. Survey results - especially multiple choice questions - can be misinterpreted. And having one or two people reading through thousands of free-form response fields is not practical.
I think that is part of what happened with the PF2 Witch class and why it currently isn't well received.
Oh yeah, plus paizo's method only self selects for the most dedicated fans to even get responses from. It's far far from perfect but there's only so much a publication company can be expected to do and I don't see any way to reasonably improve on Paizo's model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's method of detailed responses going into the specifics of a playtest and feedback is the only way to show transparency.Even that isn't perfect. Survey results - especially multiple choice questions - can be misinterpreted. And having one or two people reading through thousands of free-form response fields is not practical.
I think that is part of what happened with the PF2 Witch class and why it currently isn't well received.
It's worth noting a few things, first of which is that WotC isn't a small company, and wouldn't have 1-2 people reading responses if they genuinely wanted feedback.
Getting 5-6 full time staff - ideally interns to keep costs down - to wade through and compile responses would probably handle it.
I've participated in the One D&D surveys, and I've listened to their explanation of how they respond, and even before the leaks was not impressed.
The Cleric survey, for example, just throws every class feature into a list and says "Rate your satisfaction". There are no targeted questions about design choices. There is no "What level would you prefer subclasses to be granted" or "Do you like splitting out Holy Order from Domain?", or "What level would you prefer Holy Order?" etc
And when the responses come back, they look at aggregate satisfaction ratings, and construe a meaning from it:
The combination of obtuse questions and arbitrary interpretation just seems... disingenuous.
In the first playtest, they announced the highest scoring option was getting a feat at 1st level from your background - a feature that increased complexity at 1st level. Yet they also explain that they're pushing all the subclass choices to 3rd level because (at least in part) they don't want to overwhelm new players with choices. And no, there isn't a survey option to say "no we don't want this".
Edit: There is now some discussion online regarding the leak and exactly what it was attempting to portray. From the sounds of things... some of the comments are read - especially the outliers in all likelihood. That being said, my overall dissatisfaction with the surveys themselves (and I am not alone in this) still stands.
* I.e. don't lump the cleric, ardling, dragonborn, rules errata and revised spells into one big survey, because you'll get a lot of junk data from people clicking through.
** Typically with tallies hidden until you complete the survey
*** Comments would be publically visible at all times.
**** Having your audience be able to simply upvote an existing comment rather than type it themselves saves you and them a bunch of time and effort.
How was the kineticist playtest?
I completely missed it :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uhg... New Star Trek.
Really hope they get back to Cannon after the current Paramount "25%" different disaster is finished.
Cannon? Don't you mean photon torpedoes?
|
|
A Working Conversation About the Open Game License.So many questions
** spoiler omitted **
tl;dr What is an "Executive Producer" in WotC and who is & Kyle Brink?
Message me if you have links to sites that answer any of these questions.
Check LinkedIn with name and "wizards".
He comes from the computer games industry.
They call the DnD designers' team a studio. I feel it is computer games' parlance rather than TTRPGs, but I might be mistaken.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RollforCombat commentary on OGL 1.2
tl;dr -
OGL 1.0a is still being pulled going forward and they still assert they have the right to do so, but do not consider existing 1.0a content as being retroactively in violation
They're discussing CC licenses, but there are CC licenses that don't allow modification so who cares.
Even if 1.0a was permitted, they still control the SRD materials and they could rugpull on that later on, so why take the risk?
How much do Pathfinder and Starfinder books rely on SRD? If that gets yanked, does that mean no more owlbears in Pathfinder and magic missile gets renamed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're discussing CC licenses, but there are CC licenses that don't allow modification so who cares.
There are, but the 1.2 draft explicitly says they're licensing the core mechanics under a CC-BY license, which isn't one of them. That license very much does allow modification:
CC-BY: This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
(Contrary to what it says in the 1.2 draft, though, it's not technically true that "This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content." There is a limitation in that you're required to give them credit. But that's it.)
Their releasing their core mechanics under a CC-BY license (assuming that makes its way into the final version) is actually a good thing. But it's not nearly good enough to make up for their "Deauthorization of OGL 1.0(a)" shenanigans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Contrary to what it says in the 1.2 draft, though, it's not technically true that "This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content." There is a limitation in that you're required to give them credit. But that's it.)
There are in fact additional terms and limitations in Clause 6 and 7, including a Conduct clause, which would mean that if that Rick and Morty D&D splat was published under OGL 1.2 they could revoke it now that they've found out Justin Roiland has been indicted for felonies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are in fact additional terms and limitations in Clause 6 and 7.
They're only licensing the core mechanics under CC-BY. Only a few small selected sections of the SRD. Not the entire SRD. For instance, the general rules for monster types are licensed under CC-BY. The specific monsters are not.
If you only use the core mechanics (the part licensed under CC-BY), then you don't have to be under the OGL 1.2 at all, and none of its terms apply. The OGL—including Sections 6 and 7—only applies if you want to use more of the SRD beyond just the core mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much do Pathfinder and Starfinder books rely on SRD? If that gets yanked, does that mean no more owlbears in Pathfinder and magic missile gets renamed?
It's still an arguable point the extent which SRD content is even copyrightable. The original OGL is just Wizards saying "we won't attempt to sue you for using this stuff, and we will attempt to sue you for using that stuff." You can't copyright the words "magic" or "missile," or a game mechanic that does d4 force damage, or the concept of a wizard shooting out magical energy that unerringly hits an enemy. But if you combine all of them, is that copyrightable? Nobody knows.
So, depends on how ballsy Paizo is feeling. I'd guess they're going to err on the side of caution, given the card game renames the spell.
Note that the new license doesn't say anything about Open Game Content. So, if they actually can and do de-authorize the OGL 1.0a for WotC SRDs, all Open Game Content derived from any WotC SRD would be off-limits for new products.
You want to release a supplement for OSRIC or Pathfinder or Starfinder? Well, you can't just use the OGL 1.0a since it's deauthorized. And you can't just use the "OGL 1.2" because it has no provisions for use of Open Game Content. Hire a contract lawyer to navigate the provisions of the licenses and a copyright lawyer to navigate "derivative work" law, because all the safe harbors are closed to you.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are in fact additional terms and limitations in Clause 6 and 7, including a Conduct clause, which would mean that if that Rick and Morty D&D splat was published under OGL 1.2 they could revoke it now that they've found out Justin Roiland has been indicted for felonies.(Contrary to what it says in the 1.2 draft, though, it's not technically true that "This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content." There is a limitation in that you're required to give them credit. But that's it.)
The idea that the reason they're focused on deauthorising the OGL1.0a because they want to protect people from hateful content, yet still specifying that their license will only cover SRD5.1 and future releases not 3.0, 3.5 or Modern's SRD shows exactly what they are full of.
The sections of the 5E crd covered by 1.2 doesn't even have classes lol.
RollforCombat commentary on OGL 1.2
tl;dr -
OGL 1.0a is still being pulled going forward and they still assert they have the right to do so, but do not consider existing 1.0a content as being retroactively in violation
They're discussing CC licenses, but there are CC licenses that don't allow modification so who cares.
Even if 1.0a was permitted, they still control the SRD materials and they could rugpull on that later on, so why take the risk?
Roll of Law reviewing the recent OGL 1.2 drop.
Also a good review.
I was wrong the cc license doesn't cover classes in the latest wotc proposal
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much do Pathfinder and Starfinder books rely on SRD? If that gets yanked, does that mean no more owlbears in Pathfinder and magic missile gets renamed?
Just rename them disembowelbears and you're good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An analysis by DnD Shorts shows that WotC are paying attention yet still unable not to be completely diabolical.
Also very strange that yesterday DnD Shorts video talked a bit about a “new exposé” they were working on that would shed a very dark light (yeah, so what? It’s a dark…light) on the culture of WotC that we would see today. But in this latest video, there is absolutely no mention of it. It really rather seems as if his lawyers have told him to back off.
My main takeaway is that even people who are vociferous about the behaviour of WotC are all too ready to forgive given enough concessions are made and “go back to playing beloved DnD” because this is all too stressful. I keep saying it. WotC keep proving that they are inimical to the hobby, that they seek to monopolise, monetise and control the hobby. I’ll never trust them, nor buy their products. It’s the only way to be sure.
Also very strange that yesterday DnD Shorts video talked a bit about a “new exposé” they were working on that would shed a very dark light (yeah, so what? It’s a dark…light) on the culture of WotC that we would see today. But in this latest video, there is absolutely no mention of it. It really rather seems as if his lawyers have told him to back off.
He said this in a reply yesterday:
"I have sent the full exoposé for review by the WotC insiders I've been working with, so everything in there will be verified by multiple people. If they get back soon with the all clear, it should be out by the weekend."
So I'd imagine he's checking people's accounts multiple times' over, so that the debacle that he recently had on Twitter doesn't happen again.
EDIT: He also mentions the exposé is still coming this weekend at the very end of his latest video. So yeah, it's still coming I guess.
And I recall seeing a video from Treantmonk where he gave evidence that one of those insiders is unreliable, so DnD Shorts probably wants to get confirmation of his info from multiple sources that are more likely to be reliable.
And I recall seeing a video from Treantmonk where he gave evidence that one of those insiders is unreliable, so DnD Shorts probably wants to get confirmation of his info from multiple sources that are more likely to be reliable.
The issue is people presenting things as a black and white issue, when it reality is far more nuanced.
Wizards of the Coast has been putting up Unearthed Arcana with an attached survey for years, but as it's typically just playtesting some ideas the uptake on the survey has always been rather modest. Past employees have come out to say that huge parts of their job was reading said feedback, and using it to guide development.
Very recently, they've been using that format to post playtest material for "One DND", but the level of responses has been dramatically higher. Someone from in the team leaked to DnD Shorts that while the aggregate numbers from the multiple choice was counted, no one was reading the text responses, as well as their opinion on the reasons.
When Wizards announced they would be "playtesting" the OGL in the same format, DnD Shorts ran a PSA letting people know the limitations of that system, and that - frankly - it was mostly a move by Wizards to get the conversation out of public discourse and somewhere they could control (a sentiment echoed simultaneously by many lawyer-tubers).
... and then twitter exploded with past and present Wizards employees stating that they absolutely did read UA survey responses in full.
To DnD Shorts' credit, he went back to his source to clarify, and their response was:
TL;DR: DnD Shorts' point is spot on, even if there is more nuance to the inner workings of an enormous company over many years than can be easily expressed in one sentence.
Putting the OGL into a "playtest survey" is a PR stunt to try and quell public debate. That is all.
Also very strange that yesterday DnD Shorts video talked a bit about a “new exposé” they were working on that would shed a very dark light (yeah, so what? It’s a dark…light) on the culture of WotC that we would see today. But in this latest video, there is absolutely no mention of it. It really rather seems as if his lawyers have told him to back off.He said this in a reply yesterday:
"I have sent the full exoposé for review by the WotC insiders I've been working with, so everything in there will be verified by multiple people. If they get back soon with the all clear, it should be out by the weekend."So I'd imagine he's checking people's accounts multiple times' over, so that the debacle that he recently had on Twitter doesn't happen again.
EDIT: He also mentions the exposé is still coming this weekend at the very end of his latest video. So yeah, it's still coming I guess.
Thanks for the info Ezekeriu.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main takeaway is that even people who are vociferous about the behaviour of WotC are all too ready to forgive given enough concessions are made and “go back to playing beloved DnD” because this is all too stressful.
This is definitely the impression I got with some of the conversations I had about this on the D&D Reddit. There are a lot of people who are already to say this "doesn't matter", this "doesn't affect players/customers", that any opposition like the ORC "won't go anywhere", and that WOTC is "perfectly within their rights", this is "all going to fly", and "the complainers will get bored in a month and everything will go back to normal".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7182208/OGL-1-2-Feedback-Survey
Let WotC know what you think!
Done. They won't read it, but did it anyway just so that if they publish the results it will actually be representative.
The mortality clause is pretty insidious as it’s Hasbro who decides what counts as bigoted.
They were the same ones who published Curse of Strahd 5E which turned the Vistani back into racist caricatures of the Roma after earlier editions moved away from that characterization.
But they get to decide what counts as hateful.
The irony is palpable, yes.
My key points:
1) OGL 1.0a doesn't need to be revoked and the justification used is, frankly, a lie. OGL 1.0a still allowed avenues for removing offensive content, it just required more work from Wizards to enforce (which is a good thing).
2) Clause 6(f) must be deleted. It grants Wizards unilateral authority to terminate the license of anyone they deem offensive with no legal recourse.
3) Clause 9(d) cannot be left as-is, as it grants Wizards the right to void the entire license if any part of it cannot be enforced for any reason. Given this is a worldwide license, differences in law will occur, and this is simply an escape clause for WotC.
4) Restricting license to TTPRG, limited VTTs and SRD 5.1 is unacceptable. If WotC wishes to be a "good steward of the game", stop trying to destroy legacy edition content, and people's creativity with how they play D&D.
5) The VTT policy is vague and abusive. Allowing Wizards the sole purview to decide what can and cannot be considered a "VTT" based on whether they feel like it 'emulates the table' is a Damocles sword no one needs hanging over their heads.
Today it may be "don't show spell animations", tomorrow it could be "don't have special effects or sounds".
Not a lawyer and I may have missed something, but those are the big ones I could see
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an ENworld blog post about the latest(?) WotC/Hasbro position. I think Princessmaker explained it best in comment #7: "It looks like the lawyers took extra care to separate what parts of the SRD would make them lose a court case against the "you can't copyright game mechanics" and they just closed the rest of the SRD."