D&D (2024) New leak looks real bad

[Vaalingrade]

WotC has thousands of detailed session reports from their playtesting network, is my understanding. Though thisbis probably just a galf-baked concept.

It would have to be a transcript level report to be useful in creating an interactive DM.

 

[Velderan]

So despite my little shadowplay earlier, there is a real nagging question about the AI DMs:

How are they being trained?

AI's as they exist now... aren't. They're not intelligent and sapient. They don't generate their own thoughts, they construct responses based on scenarios they've been fed previously.

That means, to get an AI DM, you need to feed it thousands of D&D sessions and adventures.

So... where are those games coming from?

I hope Mercer has the phrase "how do you want to do this?" locked up legally. lol

 

[Parmandur]

So we're now ignoring the FAQ they had posted on their site for years now?



And I'm sure you'll say they backed off revoking OGL 1.0a, except they didn't. They claim content already released will be fine for 6 months after the new OGL, which is not even remotely the same thing as "you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option".

That was corporate double talk then. That's what they do.

 

[Parmandur]

It would have to be a transcript level report to be useful in creating an interactive DM.

At thisbpoijt, thanks to Twitch and YouTube, they probably have that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So we're now ignoring the FAQ they had posted on their site for years now?



And I'm sure you'll say they backed off revoking OGL 1.0a, except they didn't. They claim content already released will be fine for 6 months after the new OGL, which is not even remotely the same thing as "you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option".

Again, the six month thing was part of the 2.0 leak. They haven't announced anything official yet, so the counter hasn't started. In principle though, you are spot on.

 

[innerdude]

when was this announced?

Not announced, that was me brainstorming what level of content availability would rise to the level of being worth $30 per month for a subscription.

In my view, pretty much anything less than what I proposed would fall significantly short of being "worth it" at $30 per month.

 

[eyeheartawk]

They probably should never have believed that? It was always a corporate trap.

Except it wasn't always?

If it were why would WOTC have tried the GSL back in 2008/2009 poison pill et al if it could just have done what they are doing now?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not announced, that was me brainstorming what level of content availability would rise to the level of being worth $30 per month for a subscription.

Darn, it didn't sound that bad, I was hopeing that was true.

In my view, pretty much anything less than what I proposed would fall significantly short of being "worth it" at $30 per month.

I am afraid it will fall in that "not worth it" stage

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except it wasn't always?

If it were why would WOTC have tried the GSL back in 2008/2009 poison pill et al if it could just have done what they are doing now?

They thought it was nonrevocable until someonne found out that the other open licensees have been updated and the OGL was not.

 

[Velderan]

Again, the six month thing was part of the 2.0 leak. They haven't announced anything official yet, so the counter hasn't started. In principle though, you are spot on.

Sure, but they didn't exactly go out of their way in their statement to clearly say that isn't still their intent with "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected". That's great for content now, but content well into it's development cycle but not yet released? Continued support for existing material? If you're trying to reassure people with a PR statement, a simple and clear "the OGL 1.0a is not going anywhere" is a much firmer stance than they chose to take.