Search results

I should note, reading through some of the replies, is that the goal is always to bring digital (mostly) in-house. D&D digital products go back to (at least) 2e, and there have been many successes, but usually with TSR/WotC playing a limited role. Anyways, this is an idea that keeps getting...

THIS was 2e. It was this, or some core books that were slightly more coherent than 1e, but without the style.

To the group, with his mind...~we may go deeper and deeper, or try to finally make our exit~

Apparently that was exactly the thinking...in 1999. Which makes sense if you have played 3e.

It apparently may be hundreds of millions, as there is D&D beyond and the in-house competing VTT/MMORG mash up (which is very similar to past initiatives). And sure, the base is already and game has never been more successful, but its hard to get to 500 million.

Oh this is totally real. "This" being the inside story. You can't make up corporate nonsense like this. I was going to make a comment on "turning D&D into Roblox". And while the plan seems to be a "pay to create" model, at least you can then try to make Robux (sic) off your investment.

A version of D&D designed and marketed as a pen and paper game, but its really meant as a stepping stone to online play. To make this happen, certain rules are streamlined and standardized, but new options are added to make the most of the computer-based interface. Electronic demos and...

Your not wrong. There may be other solutions than encounter only balancing...making short rests easier, long rests harder, giving other boosts to short rest classes, and so on. 4E did have dailies and encounter powers for everyone, and this was less of a problem, but yes it could feel samey...

And I already disagree....Thats the problem with the big tent game. What I would want is just to fix obviously underpowered or overpowered options: Certain infamous feats, those spells no on ever takes, etc. Some help to the champion and monk. Get the monster math right for the core monsters...

A huge grey area. Thats fair. Though if you cite, say, OSRIC (Sic?), you use elements of WotC SRD under 1.2 also in OSRIC, and by design the Keepers of OSRIC shouldn't care, does it matter?

@estar what can't you produce under 1.2 that you would have done under 1? I understand not trusting WotC more generally, totally get that, but then this is all probably moot, you may just be team ORC. But otherwise, is there something you wanted to do and can't do under 1.2?

..... In general, with 1.2 you can make supplements exactly like before, and you can make a new rules-set, just like before. So I disagree on "prior editions". I think OSIRIC or OSE could take out one license and put in the other one. Whatever is from the SRD--and it really is just some...

This probably deserves its own thread, as we get closer to heart of darkness in this matter. I don't actually think this is about the Foundry specifically--as that remains a very niche VTT. But yes, it is absolutely about things like it and video games and WotC's ability to control digital content.

Well at least it looks like a license this time.

But now having read the draft, the Owlbear, with a capital O, is very prominent. At least this was over something important.

So this was really about the owlbear all along?

More on the record response here:

But there is the mystery of "what where they thinking"? We do know that they did offer better terms to several publishers...so it was a best a bargaining tool.

They have brought back the good WotC we have known in recent years. If only we didn't know about the bad WotC lurking in the shadows.

They have already changed them...but this one might take some persistence.