What's Past is Prologue: Understanding the OGL Licensing Controversy in Light of the 3e/4e Transition

[payn]

Backwards compatibility is a PR goal. Changing it enough to force you into the walled garden is a monetization goal.

Guess we'll see which one wins out.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I pick the one with the knife.

 

[Umbran]

Backwards compatibility is a PR goal. Changing it enough to force you into the walled garden is a monetization goal.

Guess we'll see which one wins out.

Backwards compatibility is at least as much a User Experience and Marketing goal as it is PR.

Marketing is not PR, by the way. Marketing is telling you reasons why you should buy the new product. PR is managing your image after a debacle over your planned license terms.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think one thing the 3D VTT will cause is a bit of a "system shock" for a lot of WotC purist groups. Because a lot of people are running rules in slightly "alternative" ways, that they're often very sure is the "right" way, and the 3D VTT is going to show them what WotC thinks is the "right" way, and I'll be interested to see how many people go "Oh, haha, we were doing it wrong!" (even when they weren't) and how many go "Goddamnit, this is not okay!".

I gave you a like, but couldn't not QFT as well. If Wizards was smart, they'd leave the rules out of it and just focus on making the VTT as pretty and accessible as possible. A VTT with beautiful 3D graphics that truly reduced prep time would be a godsend for everyone. Let people use it for whatever they want to use it for; it's all money in the bank. As soon as you start hard-coding rules into it you are taking a pickaxe to the dam.

Also unlike 3E and 4E, 5E was built on an absolute morass of optional rules, "The DM may...", and generally DM-resolved situations which is part of why 5E was a success (in allowing people to do what they thought was right, not what some rulebook demanded), and I'm uncertain how well a more regimented 3D VTT designed for accessibility is going to cope with that. I'll also be interested to see if 1D&D changes from 5E DM-side and makes some stuff more prescriptive and less "may".

You're my new goddamn hero.

Been saying this ever since Jeremy Crawford took over. Dude does not appear to have a handle on the vision of D&D5. Deeply concerned that we're looking at the second coming of D&D3.5.

 

[Haplo781]

Worth noting that modern consoles are increasingly looking at ways to get mods on to them, and I know at least a few games have them. Also PC gaming's success relative to console game has increased vastly over the last decade. In 2013 you could be forgiven for thinking PC gaming was probably on the way out. Not so by 2018, let alone now. Ironically PCs have also got better at making games just be "download and play" though.

I think one thing the 3D VTT will cause is a bit of a "system shock" for a lot of WotC purist groups. Because a lot of people are running rules in slightly "alternative" ways, that they're often very sure is the "right" way, and the 3D VTT is going to show them what WotC thinks is the "right" way, and I'll be interested to see how many people go "Oh, haha, we were doing it wrong!" (even when they weren't) and how many go "Goddamnit, this is not okay!". Also unlike 3E and 4E, 5E was built on an absolute morass of optional rules, "The DM may...", and generally DM-resolved situations which is part of why 5E was a success (in allowing people to do what they thought was right, not what some rulebook demanded), and I'm uncertain how well a more regimented 3D VTT designed for accessibility is going to cope with that. I'll also be interested to see if 1D&D changes from 5E DM-side and makes some stuff more prescriptive and less "may".

Protip: natural language and optional rules don't play nice with VTTs

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Been saying this ever since Jeremy Crawford took over. Dude does not appear to have a handle on the vision of D&D5. Deeply concerned that we're looking at the second coming of D&D3.5.

Yeah that's an interesting point.

One of the major reasons we stopped playing 3.XE was that the game tried to define every possible situation, and ended up with a "rule for everything", something PF1 doubled down on (looking at you stairs handedness penalties). But doing this didn't make the game better - not even as a "simulation". It just made us need to look things up way more and roll more dice (usually with tons of penalties).

4E backed off from this a bit, weirdly enough, with Page 42, Skill Challenges and so on. And where it did go detailed rules, it was to a specific end - a tactical combat game. Not everyone loves that but there was some actual cost-benefit.

With 5E, one of the nice things is it's a bit more relaxed and DM-guided and open-minded. Jeremy Crawford often comes out with his understandings of the rules, and the collective D&D community often laughs him off the stage (you should hear how the 5E reddit talks about his SA lol!). I don't think he minds, and sometimes he even acknowledges that his take might be a bit weird (albeit other times he's mystified when basically no-one agrees with him). His Sage Advice is just as terrible as Sage Advice in 2E, but even easier to ignore, because we're not teenagers now lol.

But goddamn, if that was translated to a VTT? I mean I don't think he'll personally come and enforce his vision - though I suspect any fraught rules implementations might go to him - instead we'll have dozens of unnamed Jeremy Crawfords making their own choices about how certain rules work, and I'm sure Crawford and Perkins will see some of that, but no way all of it, and even if they did, Crawford's takes are often wack. It'll be the closest to the "Rules Police" we're likely to ever see.

Now it is possible they'll go for something much looser, but that's antithetical to accessibility and mass-market appeal I'd suggest. Most people using this will want it to "just work", esp. they'll be paying a subscription. They don't want to fiddle around the way you need to in Roll 20 or whatever. It's also likely they'll have an override so the DM can create arbitrary checks, apply arbitrary damage/healing/movement and so on, but are they going to do that every time an ability you understand one way and Crawford understands another way goes off? What of house rules? I'll be impressed if they can make anything sane out of that.

 

[Incenjucar]

Protip: natural language and optional rules don't play nice with VTTs

Optional rules could with a toggle, but yeah, "natural language" and automation don't work. This could of course just be a low-function battle mat and not an automated system.

 

[eyeheartawk]

One of the major reasons we stopped playing 3.XE was that the game tried to define every possible situation, and ended up with a "rule for everything", something PF1 doubled down on (looking at you stairs handedness penalties

I stopped reading the Shadowrun 5E core book after reading 4 pages dedicated to how an explosion travels from to room.

 

[Scribe]

The other option that I think is more likely is that this is about control.

Control, and suppression if not outright removal of anyone deemed as competitive. Grotesque, really.

 

[Haplo781]

Optional rules could with a toggle, but yeah, "natural language" and automation don't work. This could of course just be a low-function battle mat and not an automated system.

That doesn't play nice with microtransactions