D&D 5E Podcast on the current state of 5e

[Tony Vargas]

If 5e fails to offer an OGL, indy companies will have no choice but to reuse - and reinvent the 3e OGL.

This is already happening. At Free RPG Day, there was a '5E' ("...for the Fifth Edition of the First RPG...") adventure published under the 1.0 OGL.

 

[Jester David]

I understand it's not what you want, but it's a lot more than the nothing you claimed.

I never claimed there was nothing. Read my post again. I acknowledge the existence of the fan site kit but say it fails. And it does. On every level and even basic functionality. We'd actually be better off with nothing then than trap.

If you still are afraid to post fan stuff...then why are you still posting fan stuff? I mean you say you live in fear of a cease and desist, but you're still posting it.

Because making homebrew content brings me joy and is one of the ways I consume a game system. Because making homebrew content is how I learn the nuances of a game system and its balance, forcing me to learn the language and look at how elements are designed. Because sharing the content gives people other ways to enjoy the game and I want people to enjoy 5e. Because posting content attracts feedback forcing me to reexamine how I approach the rules, making me a better writer.

And because I'm not about to let fear dictate how I live my life or enjoy the game.

That doesn't mean not being afraid wouldn't be preferable.

It seems like they stance they've taken is sufficient to get people to post fan stuff, including you, who claims to be afraid to do it. I mean...who exactly is stopped from posting fan stuff if even they guy who voices a fear (based on really very little) is doing it?

It took me a while. I posted my first background weeks after the Basic Rules launched. Almost a month. And that was safe due to parody/Fair Dealings. I waited months after that to slowly move onto monsters and then other small things.
I want to post more. I'd love to post NPCs or variant monsters rather than new monsters. I would love to post an adventure or two, as there's such a demand for small modular adventures. But caution keeps me from posting. Caution and fear keeps me from supporting the community more.

It's not even asking for much. Loose guidelines for where the line is. What material we're allow to quote and what material we're allowed to copy and what material we're allowed to reference.
If writing an adventure, can copy a monster statblock? Or reference a monster by book/page? Or do we have to limit ourselves to custom monsters? Can it be set in a published world or does it have to be homebrew?
Is it permissible to make new subraces? For PHB races or just Basic? Ditto classes.
How should updating adventures from older editions be handled? Just statblocks? Statblocks and advice? Personal use or shared? How about updating monsters/ classes/ campaign settings?

Just knowing what I can do and what I can't would be lovely. Freeing. And I think that's true for a lot of people.

WotC is a litigious company. They have a reputation for lawsuits and sending out C+Ds like candy. They're not as bad as TSR but that's like saying Jupiter is light compared to the sun. You don't want to get on WotC's bad side. I'd avoid it if I could.

 

[Dire Bare]

The 5e OGL is necessary because people who create high-quality D&D products deserve the option of receiving money for their efforts.

An OGL for 5E would be awesome, and I think beneficial to fans, third-party publishers, and WotC. But necessary? No, it isn't.

While it would benefit WotC to have a working relationship with the third-party publishing industry (IMO), WotC doesn't owe them anything at all. If you want to make high-quality D&D compatible products without a solid legal license to do so, no, you don't "deserve" money for your efforts. If it's money you are after, you are better off spending your time in other pursuits.

 

[Dire Bare]

As someone who did not enjoy 4e, I can say I felt alienated by the decision to end an edition I liked for one I did not. And choosing to change the game to attract a new audience while expecting the existing one to just following along without checking if that's what they wanted seems like the company's fault.
It may or may not have been a majority who felt abandoned, but was a pretty sizable minority.
And I hardly think my expectations were unrealistic, especially since they managed to blow them away with 5e.

You felt this way too? It seems a lot of people forgot that WotC pretty much told us they were willing to lose us to change the game. I remember interviews with Andy Collins that made it sound like the people that didn't like 4E were just being stubborn and didn't like change.

A lot of folks were put off by 4E D&D, and didn't feel that the rules and/or cosmology really spoke to the classic D&D experience. WotC published something they did not care for. Okay.

But WotC did not insult, alienate, or disrespect the fans. WotC made a business, and an artistic, decision that was arguably a bad call. I will never be able to understand the fans who took that as a personal attack, who felt disrespected or alienated. I felt the same way during the edition wars after the 3E launch, as there were similar complaints from "alienated" fans. I just don't get it.

When 4E first came out, I was pretty excited and dove into the new edition. The fresh take on the rules was exciting, and I liked a lot of the changes to create a "tighter" cosmology. But, overtime, the 4E rules soured on me as each class felt to "samey". And while I still dug some of the specific cosmology changes (love the Eladrin/Elf/Drow thing), other changes seemed unnecessary and pulled too far away from that classic experience. Eventually, my "allegiance" moved back to 3.5E, at least until 5E was released, which is my new hotness. Looking back, I do feel that WotC made a mistake pulling 4E too far away from the classic experience in both rules and cosmology and that led to a further fracturing of the fan base.

But at no time did I feel insulting, alienated, disrespected, or anything other than "not served". My only response was to stop purchasing 4E titles and refresh my 3.5E campaign. No stress, no angst, no worry.

 

[Jester David]

A lot of folks were put off by 4E D&D, and didn't feel that the rules and/or cosmology really spoke to the classic D&D experience. WotC published something they did not care for. Okay.

But WotC did not insult, alienate, or disrespect the fans. WotC made a business, and an artistic, decision that was arguably a bad call. I will never be able to understand the fans who took that as a personal attack, who felt disrespected or alienated. I felt the same way during the edition wars after the 3E launch, as there were similar complaints from "alienated" fans. I just don't get it.

When 4E first came out, I was pretty excited and dove into the new edition. The fresh take on the rules was exciting, and I liked a lot of the changes to create a "tighter" cosmology. But, overtime, the 4E rules soured on me as each class felt to "samey". And while I still dug some of the specific cosmology changes (love the Eladrin/Elf/Drow thing), other changes seemed unnecessary and pulled too far away from that classic experience. Eventually, my "allegiance" moved back to 3.5E, at least until 5E was released, which is my new hotness. Looking back, I do feel that WotC made a mistake pulling 4E too far away from the classic experience in both rules and cosmology and that led to a further fracturing of the fan base.

But at no time did I feel insulting, alienated, disrespected, or anything other than "not served". My only response was to stop purchasing 4E titles and refresh my 3.5E campaign. No stress, no angst, no worry.

We're taking about feelings of betrayal. That's emotion, and by definition emotions don't make sense. (Insert appropriate Star Trek quotation here.)
Some people feel betrayed when comics change their status quo, when a TV show kills a character, when a wrestler makes a heel turn, a novelist takes a relationship in an unexpected direction, or a band changes their sound.
When something you're emotionally invested in changes in a way you don't like it feels like a personal slight.

As for the 4e rule set change, they *did* rather disrespect the fans, not caring what the existing fan base wanted in favour of a younger MMO crowd. There was a serious lack of feedback and communication. You can replace "4e rule set" in that sentence with "cosmology" or "Forgotten Realms" or "Pantheon". As whole they prioritized their own preferences assuming what they liked and wanted was similar to the larger fan base. Telling people what they want rather than asking is pretty darn disrespectful and dismissive.

Now, for creative endeavours this is different. George RR Martin doesn't owe us anything and can do whatever he wants to his characters. It's his world.
But something like D&D is much more collaborative and shared. The Realms belongs as much to its fans as WotC (and in the case of Sembia or the location of the RPGA Living City campaign, it belongs more to the fans).

And there was the video at the launch that poked fun at the past editions, laughing at things people loved. And the general attitude of insulting the past edition to sell the current edition. That wasn't particularly respectful of people's feelings either.

 

[Dire Bare]

We're taking about feelings of betrayal. That's emotion, and by definition emotions don't make sense. (Insert appropriate Star Trek quotation here.)
Some people feel betrayed when comics change their status quo, when a TV show kills a character, when a wrestler makes a heel turn, a novelist takes a relationship in an unexpected direction, or a band changes their sound.
When something you're emotionally invested in changes in a way you don't like it feels like a personal slight.

As for the 4e rule set change, they *did* rather disrespect the fans, not caring what the existing fan base wanted in favour of a younger MMO crowd. There was a serious lack of feedback and communication. You can replace "4e rule set" in that sentence with "cosmology" or "Forgotten Realms" or "Pantheon". As whole they prioritized their own preferences assuming what they liked and wanted was similar to the larger fan base. Telling people what they want rather than asking is pretty darn disrespectful and dismissive.

Now, for creative endeavours this is different. George RR Martin doesn't owe us anything and can do whatever he wants to his characters. It's his world.
But something like D&D is much more collaborative and shared. The Realms belongs as much to its fans as WotC (and in the case of Sembia or the location of the RPGA Living City campaign, it belongs more to the fans).

And there was the video at the launch that poked fun at the past editions, laughing at things people loved. And the general attitude of insulting the past edition to sell the current edition. That wasn't particularly respectful of people's feelings either.

Sure, it's somewhat natural to feel upset when something you love changes in ways you don't care for. When the first Highlander sequel was released in the theatres, me and a buddy drove hours to a larger town that was carrying the film. We drove home in somewhat a state of shock. But feeling 'betrayed" isn't the same thing as actually being "betrayed". And it behooves us to rationally distinguish between the two. The folks who made Highlander 2 did not betray me or the Highlander fandom at large, but that night, it sure felt like it. But I got over it, because I knew that no one had actually done anything to me, they just made a movie that was disappointing.

D&D is certainly more interactive for its fans than a book series or movie franchise, but the same difference applies. During each edition change, if the new edition changed the game in ways you didn't care for, it's natural to feel disapointed and upset. But rational to realize that no harm or malice or neglect was given, just choices you didn't care for.

There was NO disrespect from the designers of 3E towards earlier edition fans. There was NO disrespect from the designers of 4E towards earlier edition fans. There was NO cartoon that disrespected fans of earlier editions . . . yeah, I watched that same cartoon that lightly poked fun at D&D and it was hilarious and in NO WAY intended as an insult to fans.

You felt betrayed. You were not betrayed. Rational discussion begs an understanding of the difference. I doubt we'll convince each other to shift our positions, and I think we're starting to come around on the treadmill here, so I'm out. I respect your opinions and feelings, I just don't understand them or feel that they contribute to a useful discussion about D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

WotC is a litigious company. They have a reputation for lawsuits and sending out C+Ds like candy.

Ha, this is a joke right? This is so far from reality it's got to be a joke.

 

[Raith5]

But at no time did I feel insulting, alienated, disrespected, or anything other than "not served". My only response was to stop purchasing 4E titles and refresh my 3.5E campaign. No stress, no angst, no worry.

I have the exact same feelings as this with regards to 5e. My primary role-playing group really liked 4e and dont see the kind of options and depth that we want in 5e so far. I am certainly not taking this "personally" and I am playing a bit of basic 5e, but the release schedule is not installing much confidence that more advanced "modules" are going to come from WOTC or another OGLish approved source. From this perspective I dont understand why they are so secret squirrel about their future plans.

 

[the Jester]

The Realms belongs as much to its fans as WotC (and in the case of Sembia or the location of the RPGA Living City campaign, it belongs more to the fans).

No, it absolutely does not. No more than Westeros belongs to Martin's fans, or Middle-Earth to Tolkien's, or Star Trek belongs to all the Trekkies out there.

 

[Jester David]

There was NO disrespect from the designers of 3E towards earlier edition fans. There was NO disrespect from the designers of 4E towards earlier edition fans. There was NO cartoon that disrespected fans of earlier editions . . . yeah, I watched that same cartoon that lightly poked fun at D&D and it was hilarious and in NO WAY intended as an insult to fans.

I didn't mean the cartoons, I meant this video: https://youtu.be/sbbqMoEwDqc
The one where they sell 4e by not talking about 4e but just mocking D&D's history.

You felt betrayed. You were not betrayed. Rational discussion begs an understanding of the difference. I doubt we'll convince each other to shift our positions, and I think we're starting to come around on the treadmill here, so I'm out. I respect your opinions and feelings, I just don't understand them or feel that they contribute to a useful discussion about D&D.

You realize this is a little like telling someone they shouldn't be offended by something?