Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies

[ENHenry]

keftiu wrote:

Hasbro's really speedrunning the process of setting all the goodwill they earned with 5e on fire during this edition change. It's kind of impressive.

That’s the part that has me flummoxed. Who in their right mind would think this and some of their other recent moves were good ideas? My guess is lack of institutional knowledge has led to the new c-suite officers to think “ well, this is stupid, let’s remove it.”

When exactly did these individuals leave Microsoft, again? Recall that prior to about 2010, Microsoft was super-hostile to open source, before Satya Nadella and a lot of other people started seeing its benefits. I wonder if any of these people were part of the Steve Ballmer “open source is poison!” Crowd?

Not really any way to know, I’m just speculating.

[Dancing Wind]

Belafon wrote:

I am a very cynical person, and on top of that have had conversations with (though am not friends with) people who make a living in corporate legal gray spaces. In particular the space of “we know what we are proposing is legally wrong, but not wrong enough that we could be disciplined for trying it.” And what they do is try to make the cost-benefit analysis from the viewpoint of anyone they are taking advantage of come down to “we would probably win in court, but even if we did it isn’t worth the effort it would take. Let’s just accept what they are offering.” Think of health insurance horror stories you have heard.

From that viewpoint, it’s worth it for Hasbro to try to push the boundaries. Because there is a huge set of roadblocks to be thrown up to encourage settling and acceptance.

1) Who has the money to fight this in the first place? Paizo and maybe a couple of other companies.
2) If a lawsuit is filed, we can file for a preliminary injunction forbidding them from using the OGL while the lawsuit is ongoing. Don’t know if we will get the injunction but if we do, we win. There’s no way they can survive for the years we can drag this lawsuit out if they aren’t publishing. They will have to settle.
3) If we don’t get the injunction, we start a laborious discovery process. Whatever we can do to drag this out and hike up their legal costs.
4) After a month or so, once it’s clear this is going to take a while, we propose a settlement. We drop the lawsuit, they publicly agree to accept the terms of the 1.1 OGL. In a contract covered behind an NDA we privately agree not to require any money from them(or just a pittance), regardless of how much they make.
5) This is actually what we’ve been after all along! Once Paizo and a few other big publishers have publicly accepted 1.1, we’ve reset the expectation and everyone will agree to 1.1. Thanks to the NDA’d contracts we aren’t making money off the big ones (for now) but we have set that bar for everyone else AND for the future OGL 1.2.
6) They aren’t dummies, they can see how this plays out. Most likely the big guys will go straight to negotiations.
7) Our real worry is some little guy fighting “on principle.” But if we can delay that confrontation a few years, we can point at the precedent of the 1.1 license being in use for a while and agreed to by all these entities.

That's my theory as well. Lawyers have been at work for weeks hammering out separate licensing agreements with (at least) Paizo, and probably other companies that have an actual staff payroll.

The leaked document is simply one of their negotiation tools.

[kyrt-ryder]

Belafon wrote:

The people who come up with these plans are the real-life equivalent of RPG “rules-lawyer” players.

Please don't lump rules lawyers in with this sort of excrement.

[Jon_Danger]

I mean this all comes down to legally can you unathorize something that is irrevocable?

Unauthorizing OGL 1.0a is functionally identical to revoking the license. So is it even something they can legally enforce?

[David knott 242]

The OGL is not irrevocable because there is a way for it to be revoked from someone who violates its terms and fails to fix the problem in a certain period of time. This revocation does not affect anyone else.

I have seen conflicting opinions as to whether it is even possible for WotC to de-authorize any version of the OGL in general by saying so in a new license that was never used by most of the people or companies that would be affected by that de-authorization, or whether the specific rules about license termination are the only way to "revoke" the license.

[Dancing Wind]

Jon_Danger wrote:

I mean this all comes down to legally can you unathorize something that is irrevocable?

Hasbro executives think D&D is "undermonetized". They want to earn more money on their intellectual property.

Right now, they are trying to recover more royalties from people who have licensed their IP under the original OGL

What this all comes down to is "does Hasbro have a way to force Paizo to re-negotiate the licensing agreement that they have relied on for the past 20+ years".

They don't need to win the legal argument if they can financially force Paizo to the bargaining table for the new negotiations. Even if that force is just a threat to Paizo's income stream that may or may not be decided against Hasbro years in the future, long after Paizo has gone out of business.

[Coridan]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I really don't see Paizo doing that. Lisa and those who are still there from the magazine days I think still remember the fear when they lost those licenses and weren't sure what was going to happen next for all of them. I don't think they want the company to ever be dependant on Hasbro/WotC again.

So your belief is that they would accept the new version of the OGL rather than negotiate better terms?

Or is your belief that they will be the paladins leading the fight for retaining the old OGL, even as Hasbro cuts off all their income?

I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.

[John Lance]

At the end of the day, I'm just making popcorn and sitting back to watch the fireworks. I have an entire bookshelf full of Pathfinder 1E books (and about 10 APs that I haven't even touched yet), so I'm good on D20 content for the home game I GM for the next decade or two. WOTC could shut down every creator in sight and it wouldn't change my game one iota.

But there are some good OGL memes being generated by this whole debacle, so there's that....

[Dancing Wind]

Coridan wrote:

I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.

Here's what Paizo has actually said about what they're going to do

Quote:

Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation.

[Edward the Necromancer]

So, I have found a take on the new OGL HERE.

As for my own personal thoughts...

Worst case scenario is that Paizo has to publish a Pathfinder 3e with changes the wording of a few things (Feats are called abilities for example), maybe stop using the stat table, mostly little things to avoid it being OBVIOUS how much influence Pathfinder takes from DnD.

[Eeveegirl1206]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Belafon wrote:

The people who come up with these plans are the real-life equivalent of RPG “rules-lawyer” players.

Isn’t that what all Lawyers are supposed to do? At least corporate lawyers. Figure out loopholes so they can save 0.2 cents by dumping toxic waste in the ocean.

Please don't lump rules lawyers in with this sort of excrement.

It still isn’t good because even if Pazio can continue smaller companies without the resources to fight against Hasbro’s legal team.

They should be challenged in court by people with resources instead of SLAPs on small companies.

Because if you learn more about Critical Legal Theory you would understand that the laws are made by powerful and rich people so that they keep being powerful and rich.

[Coridan]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.

Here's what Paizo has actually said about what they're going to do

Quote:

Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation.

That's them declining to comment until A - Wizards actually announces what they intend to do (remember this is just a leak) and B - They have (several) meetings with their attorneys to discuss the situation. That's a statement of nothing at the moment.

[kyrt-ryder]

Eeveegirl1206 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Belafon wrote:

The people who come up with these plans are the real-life equivalent of RPG “rules-lawyer” players.

Isn’t that what all Lawyers are supposed to do? At least corporate lawyers. Figure out loopholes so they can save 0.2 cents by dumping toxic waste in the ocean.

Please don't lump rules lawyers in with this sort of excrement.

It still isn’t good because even if Pazio can continue smaller companies without the resources to fight against Hasbro’s legal team.

They should be challenged in court by people with resources instead of SLAPs on small companies.

Because if you learn more about Critical Legal Theory you would understand that the laws are made by powerful and rich people so that they keep being powerful and rich.

I am in agreement. IMO the best result for the industry at large would be for Paizo to participate in this fight and WotC to get their asses handed to them in court.

AFAIK, they have the strongest case by far, not exactly a guarantee but quite close.

Problem is the time and finances required to wage that war, and whether or not Paizo is prepared to do it.

[Xyxox]

Coridan wrote:

Dancing Wind wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.

Here's what Paizo has actually said about what they're going to do

Quote:

Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation.

That's them declining to comment until A - Wizards actually announces what they intend to do (remember this is just a leak) and B - They have (several) meetings with their attorneys to discuss the situation. That's a statement of nothing at the moment.

I would point out, Paizo benefits from third party creators who use OGL 1.0a licensing to create products compatible with Pathfinder 2E, so they have more skin in the game than simply cutting a deal with Hasbro. Abandoning OGL 1.0a could have an impact on Paizo's bottom line regardless of what sort of a deal they can cut with Hasbro.

[Wizard Level 1]

Some discussions here about how Paizo could just rename everything and call it their own (strength becomes brawn, dexterity becomes quickness, etc). But they can't. If you take a piece of published material and republish it, it's plagiarism. If you take a piece of published material, use a thesaurus on all or most of the words and publish it, it's still plagiarism. Copywright doesn't just protect words and the way in which words are written but the ideas in those words.

Paizo could make the case that the rules they have in PF2 are so different that it constitutes a different game entirely with only some similarities.

But WOTC can make the case that PF2 is built off of the 3e rule set and that, despite how it is written or presented, it is still the D20 3e rule system.

Either way it seems to lead to a messy and potentially long court case.

I'm less worried about Paizo, and more worried about how viciously OGL 1.1 goes after VTT's. We might see them shutting down or running at significant reduced capacity without support for our favorite TTRPG as soon as a week after the new OGL goes live. I'm worried about all the great work being done with PF2 modules for Foundry. All that could be shut down while this OGL gets dragged through the courts.

This isn't going to destroy Paizo, but it will destroy so many other creators, many who have built their livelihood around content creation.

[Eeveegirl1206]

Xyxox wrote:

Coridan wrote:

Dancing Wind wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.

Here's what Paizo has actually said about what they're going to do

Quote:

Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation.

That's them declining to comment until A - Wizards actually announces what they intend to do (remember this is just a leak) and B - They have (several) meetings with their attorneys to discuss the situation. That's a statement of nothing at the moment.

I would point out, Paizo benefits from third party creators who use OGL 1.0a licensing to create products compatible with Pathfinder 2E, so they have more skin in the game than simply agreeing with Hasbro.

It’s almost like the way the American legal system is set up is directly in support of big companies who can afford legal expenses or something.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.

Here's what Paizo has actually said about what they're going to do

Quote:

Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation.

... well, yeah. Wizards of the Coast is being even quieter than that. It's legal jargon for "we don't want to run our mouth until we know exactly what our plan of attack is going to be for this situation". It's like how you don't ever talk to the cops without a lawyer present. Why take pointless risks when being silent for the short term costs nothing?

[Castinus Fulvio]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Belafon wrote:

I am a very cynical person, and on top of that have had conversations with (though am not friends with) people who make a living in corporate legal gray spaces. In particular the space of “we know what we are proposing is legally wrong, but not wrong enough that we could be disciplined for trying it.” And what they do is try to make the cost-benefit analysis from the viewpoint of anyone they are taking advantage of come down to “we would probably win in court, but even if we did it isn’t worth the effort it would take. Let’s just accept what they are offering.” Think of health insurance horror stories you have heard.

From that viewpoint, it’s worth it for Hasbro to try to push the boundaries. Because there is a huge set of roadblocks to be thrown up to encourage settling and acceptance.

1) Who has the money to fight this in the first place? Paizo and maybe a couple of other companies.
2) If a lawsuit is filed, we can file for a preliminary injunction forbidding them from using the OGL while the lawsuit is ongoing. Don’t know if we will get the injunction but if we do, we win. There’s no way they can survive for the years we can drag this lawsuit out if they aren’t publishing. They will have to settle.
3) If we don’t get the injunction, we start a laborious discovery process. Whatever we can do to drag this out and hike up their legal costs.
4) After a month or so, once it’s clear this is going to take a while, we propose a settlement. We drop the lawsuit, they publicly agree to accept the terms of the 1.1 OGL. In a contract covered behind an NDA we privately agree not to require any money from them(or just a pittance), regardless of how much they make.
5) This is actually what we’ve been after all along! Once Paizo and a few other big publishers have publicly accepted 1.1, we’ve reset the expectation and everyone will agree to 1.1. Thanks to the NDA’d contracts we aren’t making money off the big ones (for now) but we have set that bar for everyone else AND for

...

Fully agree - good summary

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think an angle worth considering here is that when it comes to third party publishers, all press is good press. A lengthy lawsuit is obviously bad for them overall, but the chance to drag WotC's name through the mud while elevating their own has to be at least a mitigating factor. If this does come to a lawsuit between WotC and a coalition of publishers, it may not go the way WotC is hoping--not just because they'll lose, but because it's an absolutely poisonous PR situation that could go on for months. Like November 2021 on steroids.

Which is, by the way, a good reason to keep sounding the alarm. Even as an optimist, I think it's critical that we be loud about this. Punish WotC as brutally as possible. Make sure every corner of the TTRPG sphere hears about this. Especially if you know the kinds of 5e players who basically ignore everything not 5e. Make a fuss and kick up some dust.

Companies can be pressured into backtracking. A lot of people thought the November 2021 outcry wouldn't amount to anything, either.

[kyrt-ryder]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Companies can be pressured into backtracking. A lot of people thought the November 2021 outcry wouldn't amount to anything, either.

What was that about?

[Kobold Catgirl]

That was the whole incident where a lot of employee mistreatment allegations came to light against Paizo. It created a gigantic furor on the forums, and I'm only referencing it in a neutral sense to get across that the TTRPG industry is small and things can boil over into real chance if the community gets loud enough. I bought my second UPW hoodie last month. :)

[pres man]

I would recommend phrasing all discussion about Hasbro and not WotC. I think most people believe this is coming from Hasbro corporate, thus if you want to try to start a PR campaign, it should be towards Hasbro and not WotC.

[keftiu]

pres man wrote:

I would recommend phrasing all discussion about Hasbro and not WotC. I think most people believe this is coming from Hasbro corporate, thus if you want to try to start a PR campaign, it should be towards Hasbro and not WotC.

WotC is part of Hasbro. The two aren't meaningfully-distinct entities.

It's not like WotC hasn't stepped on plenty of rakes on its own before this point; see the multiple allegations in recent years of mistreatment from POC staff or the entire Mike Mearls/Zak S disaster.

[kyrt-ryder]

pres man wrote:

I would recommend phrasing all discussion about Hasbro and not WotC. I think most people believe this is coming from Hasbro corporate, thus if you want to try to start a PR campaign, it should be towards Hasbro and not WotC.

There was once a time where that distinction was worth making.

But at this point the administration [for the most part, may still be a few honorable people involved] of WotC has been molded into exactly that sort of margins over morals type of corporation Hasbro wants them to be.

[Dancing Wind]

If you only want to attract the attention of the ttrpg community, then focusing on WotC is smart.

If, however, you'd like to leverage a larger consumer community, then it's better to identify the larger entity, Hasbro.

"Why should I care? I don't have anything to do with Wotc" can be converted to "Hasbro? Oh, I can put pressure on them through my purchase of XXX Hasbro line of toys and entertainment products.

The decisions aren't being made at the WotC executive level. They're being made at the Hasbro executive level. So you want to have the entire Hasbro consumer base pressuring Hasbro.

[kyrt-ryder]

Valid points Dancing Wind, thanks.

[pres man]

Normies don't know what WotC is, but most, especially those with kids will know what Hasbro is. A PR storm that makes the Hasbro brand look bad is going to have more wide spread effect than one that effects only WotC.

Edit: What they said above.

[E-div_drone]

The Nightgaunt wrote:

Now here's the fun question. Multiple lawsuits or a big class-action?

Why stop there? I'm in the process of drafting a form letter for people to send to their applicable law maker. If enough US gamers can get the attention of congress, we could potentially get a congressional investigation on the basis of enforcement of contract law and anti-monopoly laws. I'm not even close to a lawyer, just an angry nerd, so if one of you guys beat me to putting together a legal letter to bombard congress critters with, or put together a better one than mine after I finish, I'll get on every Discord forum, FB page, etc. that I can and push it.

Keep in mind, the implication of this as a precedent for contract law and licensing agreements is huge, and affects huge swaths of western business.

[Coridan]

Most likely it's whoever in charge of WotC wanting to impress their bosses in Hasbro. This happens a lot in game studios where a studio head will be in a meeting with the big boss (like EA) and the big boss starts singing the praises of one branch who brought in x money with microtransactions and live services, them goes to the other studio head "so what have you guys got coming up" and the guy who heads a studio known for epic single player RPGs then comes up with Anthem on the spot

[E-div_drone]

Hey. Crazy idea I just had. What is Hasbro's main area? Toy production. What do they produce most of those toys under? License. How about we start looking up all the companies that license them to make toys, and ask them to threaten to do them as they plan to do to others, should they get it to stick. After all, that is what the business sector has to worry about if this precedent is allowed to stand.

[Thebazilly]

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Copywright doesn't just protect words and the way in which words are written but the ideas in those words.

This is incorrect in many cases. Knitting patterns, recipes, and game mechanics (and I'm sure many other procedure-based forms of communication) are all un-copyrightable. The only thing in them protected by copyright is the specific choice and order of words.

[keftiu]

E-div_drone wrote:

Hey. Crazy idea I just had. What is Hasbro's main area? Toy production. What do they produce most of those toys under? License. How about we start looking up all the companies that license them to make toys, and ask them to threaten to do them as they plan to do to others, should they get it to stick. After all, that is what the business sector has to worry about if this precedent is allowed to stand.

There's a world of difference between an open source-adjacent publishing license in a niche sector and contracted brand deals between major corporations. They aren't really equivalent at all.

People fired up about this need to understand how impossibly small an industry the non-WotC tabletop hobby is. Nobody with power outside of it is going to care about this, mostly because it's bad to little guys.

Not to say it isn't horrible or shouldn't be fought tooth and nail... but keep some perspective, folks.

[JoelF847]

Xyxox wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

In a completely not-surprising turn, WotC just forbid any discussion of OGL 1.1 on the official D&D Discord.

They really want to burn the bridge they are standing on, I'm having the feeling that some boomer exec who doesn't understand the hobby came down on Wizards and told them to shift things up and get rid of that Paizo thing, this will be a fun catastrophe to watch.

As a wise man once said: "you couldn't even boycott Chik-fil-a". Hasbro can expect a month of whining from their community at most, and after that if the court case goes well for them it'll be business as usual with more taken off the top.

Boycotting Ender's Game as a movie DESTROYED it as a cinematic universe. It bombed at the box office and ended any hope of additional movies, because of a boycott.

The same could eb done with a certain movie that is close to release...

Ender's Game the movie was affected by being a pretty bad movie and adaptation way more than it was by the boycott.

[Opsylum]

keftiu wrote:

The fuller comment on the investor's call was that they want players to spend as much as DMs do. That's a scary thought.

Catching up on this nightmare. Where was this investor's call talked about? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. Been a long day.

Also, don't make much, but I'll support Paizo financially in whatever way I can if/when they take Hasbro to court for this treachery.

[Xyxox]

JoelF847 wrote:

Ender's Game the movie was affected by being a pretty bad movie and adaptation way more than it was by the boycott.

Given the history of D&D movies, this one is more likely to bomb than not, anyway.

[keftiu]

Opsylum wrote:

keftiu wrote:

The fuller comment on the investor's call was that they want players to spend as much as DMs do. That's a scary thought.

Catching up on this nightmare. Where was this investor's call talked about? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. Been a long day.

Also, don't make much, but I'll support Paizo financially in whatever way I can if/when they take Hasbro to court for this treachery.

This news broke about a month back here, before the current OGL fiasco began.

[Kobold Catgirl]

keftiu wrote:

There's a world of difference between an open source-adjacent publishing license in a niche sector and contracted brand deals between major corporations. They aren't really equivalent at all.

People fired up about this need to understand how impossibly small an industry the non-WotC tabletop hobby is. Nobody with power outside of it is going to care about this, mostly because it's bad to little guys.

Not to say it isn't horrible or shouldn't be fought tooth and nail... but keep some perspective, folks.

What she said. Trying to expand the issue to Hasbro as a whole is just going to dilute things. You aren't going to get nearly enough non-gamers to care about this, so focus on WotC as an arm of Hasbro. Boycotts need to be precise or they fizzle out.

Xyxox wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

Ender's Game the movie was affected by being a pretty bad movie and adaptation way more than it was by the boycott.

Given the history of D&D movies, this one is more likely to bomb than not, anyway.

Hey, the first movie is a classic so-bad-it's-good flick (though I hate that term) and the second movie is honestly a flawed delight that's really fun to watch. The second movie feels like D&D game, and some of the effects are creative. I like the barbarian/rogue relationship. The "Oona" scene is a classic, too.

Instead of watching the new D&D movie, let's all plan to rewatch the old one/s. Or maybe The Gamers; that's always a decent time. Ghibli's The Castle of Cagliostro also really feels like a D&D campaign to me (you know, the kind where one PC is super interested in the plot and everyone else is sort of goofing around but along for the ride), so maybe it goes on the list, too.

I obviously do not endorse pirating the new film, though, as that's illegal.

[LandSwordBear]

The new movie looks absolutely terrible. Precisely the kind of endeavour people who don’t understand the genre or the fanbase would…cook up in a backyard lab to satisfy their goonbossez.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I haven't looked at it, but I've heard comparisons to the MCU. Honestly, that's just not what D&D is to me. A D&D movie shouldn't be a big-budget highly-polished epic. It should be about rescuing Snails from the pits of hell, as was promised to us twenty-two years ago.

>:(

Also, if the movie isn't about an incompetent and extremely queer found family of societal misfits who refuse to take the story seriously for the first two acts, what's even the point?

[willfromamerica]

It’s not really a “D&D movie” from the looks of it. It’s a generic big-budget action-adventure fantasy movie with a side of MCU humor set in the Forgotten Realms.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I will say that the character names look pretty accurate. "Simon the Sorcerer" is absolutely a D&D character's name. But yeah, I'm skipping it for now.

Wanna bet they do the names and then have a character hang a dumb self-aware lampshade about it? There's no way a movie comparable to the MCU is gonna pass up the chance to ruin its own joke.

[12Seal]

What an absolutely disgusting mess this is. I sincerely hope Paizo and the like have what it takes to win a legal fight over keeping 1.0a in effect.

And that WotC chokes on the ashes of 1.1 as it burns and all the decent 3rd party creators jump ship.

[mikeawmids]

I would be wary of kickstarting anything D&D related until this fiasco is resolved. I've just cancelled my pledge for MrRhexx's Sands of Doom, as I imagine a lot of these 3P creators have not accounted for Hasbro/WotC suddenly coming after a big piece of their revenue.

There are a few others where my pledge has already been paid that I now worry about being fulfilled, but I guess I'll just have to ride that wave.

Good luck to Paizo dealing with this malicious and directed attack.

I do wonder if it is a coincidence this issue has arisen shortly after Paizo started re-releasing it's own AP's under the 5e rule set. Considering the terminology of the new OGL, ie: "subsidising our competitors", I wonder if maybe Paizo brought this doom upon themselves by poking the bear.

[Andy Brown]

Totally dumb, half-asleep thought:
Wasn't there a big thing a while back about Hollywood stars playing D&D?
How could that be turned into "do you really want to be connected with this?"

[Eeveegirl1206]

Coridan wrote:

Most likely it's whoever in charge of WotC wanting to impress their bosses in Hasbro. This happens a lot in game studios where a studio head will be in a meeting with the big boss (like EA) and the big boss starts singing the praises of one branch who brought in x money with microtransactions and live services, them goes to the other studio head "so what have you guys got coming up" and the guy who heads a studio known for epic single player RPGs then comes up with Anthem on the spot

This sounds exactly what happened when corporate busy bodies who know nothing of the industry decide they want to increase profits.

I hope this fails.

That 1980s cartoon had way more DND feels than this generic movie. They should bring back it.

Or Record of the Locosss which was a DND campaign.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

They should make a movie where characters break straight-facedly shout stuff like, "I am Throan Thunderbeard, Stone Dwarf Cleric level 6, and I cast flame shield!" or "I will disable this trap, I have the Master Burglar feat!".

This way, at least some of the middle-aged fans would feel like this is a true D&D movie that respects their feelings (but just some, others would launch into a war over which edition of the game is being depicted and why all other editions are insults to the game and killed Gary Gygax).

[Eeveegirl1206]

willfromamerica wrote:

It’s not really a “D&D movie” from the looks of it. It’s a generic big-budget action-adventure fantasy movie with a side of MCU humor set in the Forgotten Realms.

Yes it looks so generic and Hollywoodized like that Giver movie.