|
Archives won't have to change the name, Archives will still be using the OGL for all the material that was released prior to the ORC.Maybe. Things that were published under Open License can probably continue to be hosted online as they are. Obviously new publications will be covered under ORC.
However, what I'm talking about is slightly different. The web page itself, has a widget that refers to the Deck of Many Things. Because it is a web page, I believe it may be considered as a "current publication". I'm not a legal expert or an expert in publishing, but if I were Paizo I would probably remove/change that reference since it's not to the published game item covered on OGL but to the web page button functionality. To me, it's a grey legal area that's best avoided.
Paizo doesn't own AoN.
It's true that Paizo dpesn't own AoN, but AoN did become the official PRD so there is some sort legal frame work that exist between the two (I assume). I don't know the exact nature of it. Again, it's a grey area.
But here's the thing, if you were in a legal grey area that might allow Hasbro/WotC to come after you in some way would you posture and say "This is allowed" all while having cease and desist letters sent to you and being taken to court where you have to defend yourself at your own expense (at least until the case is resolved) or do you change the name of the damn thing.
Paizo changing the kind of stuff they're going to publish clearly indicates they think it's not worth leaving Hasbro/WotC with even a hint of something their lawyers could chase after.
Leaving a silly joke on the website probably isn't worth entertaining such a risk for Rose-Winds LLC (Blake Davis) or Paizo regardless of the exact legal nature of their relationship.
Well, I wasn't talking about that and your post seemed to be in response to the conversation about the widget.
I agree that AoN doesn't need to worry about the rules (including items) covered under OGL that they host as a reference document only (or at least not at this time, but you never know with WotC previous attempt at overreaching). I was specifically talking the widget which falls into a grey area.
I'm pretty sure I had made that clear previously.
Not that you need rules to blow up your campaign. Anyone can just make that happen.The role of the Deck of Many Things in my experience has been pretty much limited to:
- The GM wants to blow up the campaign, but wants the players to feel like it was their fault.
- One-Shots.I've never played with the deck - just read through it. And yeah, I agree. I can only think of a few reasons why I would ever bring it into a game:
1) I don't want the players to feel like they have control over their characters.
2) I think they should make new characters.
3) I don't like the direction the campaign is going and want a new campaign focused on dealing with the results of this deck's existence or its effects on one or more of the party characters.
4) I want to be able to justify not being a GM for these players any more because they 'aren't willing to play along and take risks'.
I played ADnD and we used the Deck. It was definitely a lively instrument of chaos and energy. As a GM, I can think of a bunch of reasons to use such an item:
1) I want the players to feel like they have control over their characters, like being able to choose a card from the Deck of Many Things. Or using a Wand of Wonder.
2) I think they should make new characters whenever they want, either completely unrelated to events that occur from the players’ characters choosing from the deck or as a result of said actions. I want my players to know that their characters choices and actions have consequences.
3) I like the direction the campaign is going and am fine with it being refocused on dealing with the results of this deck's existence or its effects on one or more of the party characters.
4) I don’t need to be able to justify being a GM for these players based on whether or not they 'are willing to play along and take risks'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a fascinating exercise in creating sentences with opposite meanings. Now I am curious how you would justify any of those statements with the actual rules for the Deck of Many Things.
Because I can certainly justify mine.
If I bring in the deck, the players have a choice ... either don't draw any cards - at which point #4 and I can gripe and whine that they aren't willing to play along. Or they do draw some cards and #1 they get some rather high impact effects that they have no choice or control over.
There is about a 15% chance per card drawn that #2 one of them will either need to create a new character, or #3 the entire party is going to have to abandon the current campaign plot in order to rescue or revive the party member. If the party as a whole draws four cards, then the binomial distribution calculates the odds of drawing one of those 'you need a new character' cards at about a 50% chance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people enjoy gambling.
Some people enjoy gambling with very high stakes.
Some people enjoy savoring the possibility that they might gamble with very high stakes, whether they actually take the shot or not, just playing with the idea of it.
So....
I've never played with the deck - just read through it. And yeah, I agree. I can only think of a few reasons why I would ever bring it into a game:
1) I don't want the players to feel like they have control over their characters.
2) I think they should make new characters.
3) I don't like the direction the campaign is going and want a new campaign focused on dealing with the results of this deck's existence or its effects on one or more of the party characters.
4) I want to be able to justify not being a GM for these players any more because they 'aren't willing to play along and take risks'.
Here's the thing you miss. As a GM? Once you had the players a Deck of Many Things, it's no longer under your control. They are the ones who get to decide how many hits they want to take off of the chaos engine, or when... and then it's still out of your hands because you don't get to decide what they draw. It doesn't actually give up player agency at all. It gives up GM agency.
So if you're a GM who is strongly attached to the plots you've created and/or cares about being in control, then you're correct - the Deck of Many Things is really not for you. It's not meant for the kind of campaigns that you want to run, and it's probably not meant for the kind of players that you'd want at your table. That's true.
For other GMs, who enjoy running a bit more go-with-the-flow free-form, though? It can be cool. It can be fun, in ways that scratch that "gambling for extremely high stakes" itch without having anyone really hurt themselves in real life. For a grimmer game, you can introduce a Deck of Many Things into a situation where everything is Really Bleak, and give the players a devil's bargain of a chance to possibly draw enough power to pull themselves out of it. (That kind of game wouldn't be for me personally, but there are people who voluntarily play things like Morg Borg and Veins of the Earth, so it's not like the audience isn't out there.)
...and yeah... sometimes that means that you straight-up lose your character. That's true. That's what makes it high-stakes. If the horrible bad ends weren't a real possibility, then the deck wouldn't be nearly so compelling.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the Deck of Many Things would be fine for a rather specific kind of GM and players who all also enjoy this kind of game.
Glad it exists in the OGL for parties who enjoy this (a rather small demographic I think).
Not caring at all that it would not exist in the ORC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like a "random chance of a buff or debuff" item/artifact would be better if the extremes of the very good and very bad results were less dramatic.
Like "you need to make a new character now" probably should not be one of the options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like a "random chance of a buff or debuff" item/artifact would be better if the extremes of the very good and very bad results were less dramatic.
Like "you need to make a new character now" probably should not be one of the options.
There may be space for a less extreme version of the thing as well, but I can tell you that the chance of extreme good and bad options is a major part of the point of the artifact. That's what makes it interesting, it's what makes people care, and it's what gives it its value. If you're not into it, that's cool, but.... Neutering it would, in effect, be an effort to make it more palatable to the people who don't want it anyway.
So the Deck of Many Things would be fine for a rather specific kind of GM and players who all also enjoy this kind of game.
Glad it exists in the OGL for parties who enjoy this (a rather small demographic I think).
Not caring at all that it would not exist in the ORC.
I can't speak to the size of the demographic one way or the other... but Critical Role seems to have had fun with it, and I suspect that it was one of the more memorable bits of that show for those who follow it.
...and that's the trick here... because the Deck of Many Things is an entirely legitimate thing to copyright. Like, it's a meaningful (if perhaps somewhat niche) value-add to the system. I dot' think we get to have one in the ORC because that's the kind of stuff that you give up sometimes when you carve yourself away from existing copyright-infused IP.