Bob Worldbuilder debunks the Daggerheart license “scandal”

[Vael]

On a related note, how long would it take to create a DH class?

Depends. If you are using already existing domains, it's pretty quick. Already a bunch of homebrew classes filling the grid. Longer if you are creating additional domains.

 

[aramis erak]

I disagree. It’s what it should be going forward. The OGL debacle just showed us the way.

You don't have a right to use other people's things. That they license it should be more than enough; the OGL has created a whole class of self-entitlement-delusion individuals demanding everything be made available free. They are, fundamentally, thugs demanding Devs work for nothing.

it's not like companies haven't abused the OGL, either. Mongoose owes a significant portion of its initial success to just doing a different format relayout of the 3e SRD into a smaller size, and selling it cheap. It was purely plagiarism, but done within the term of the OGL 1.0a. They didn't add content value, only format value. And no copies sold benefitted the guys who wrote that text.

To me, that's fundamentally dishonest.

Pathfinder was not quite dishonest. If they'd pulled a Mongoose, and just reprinted the SRD, I'd find that offensive; they altered, added too, and adapted it quite a bit. But they still don't pay the guys who have the legal and moral right to expect compensation for their work.

The issue of copyright is that it's lasting way too long. In both the UK and US, copyright is there to encourage creation by giving a suitable period of exclusive economic use. That period is too long now, and is inhibiting creative use... but the demand for instantly releasing OGL is going the other way, literally moving to almost no exclusive use.

 

[darjr]

You don't have a right to use other people's things.

Darlington Press WANTS people to use their stuff.

Start there first.

 

[mamba]

You don't have a right to use other people's things. That they license it should be more than enough; the OGL has created a whole class of self-entitlement-delusion individuals demanding everything be made available free.

you have no right for it to be licensed that way, you have every right to ask for it however

WotC is not suffering because of the OGL / CC, all the content made under it for their game is benefiting D&D sales, that is why they created the OGL in the first place.

But they still don't pay the guys who have the legal and moral right to expect compensation for their work.

they waived that right, and they benefit from it indirectly, even if WotC does not get money directly. I see nothing wrong with that, if anything I consider it a smart decision on WotC’s part

 

[Thagdal]

I assume it is the fact the DP reserves the right to revoke the license, at which point you can no longer use it for new material (while the old material is ‘safe’ under it) and choose to either release an updated license or to just revoke it

After we had the irrevocable OGL, I guess people are nervous about ones that say they can be revoked right from the start

As a foundry user, I was a little annoyed at the white list section that originally prohibited fan made content like macros for foundry and favoured roll20. Users of less popular VTTs still are unable to freely make fan content for their VTT as far as I understand the license. .

 

[aramis erak]

Darlington Press WANTS people to use their stuff.

Start there first.

They set the terms they want. Use it or don't. Bitching about them not using your favored license? Take it up with their attorney... I'm certain it will be billed time...

you have no right for it to be licensed that way, you have every right to ask for it however

WotC is not suffering because of the OGL / CC, all the content made under it for their game is benefiting D&D sales, that is why they created the OGL in the first place.

The CEO of Wizards and the CEO of HasBro both disagree... and the proof of that is not just that they tried to cancel the OGL, but that they launched the DM's Guild (which WOTC gets a cut of everything therein, and takes your IP rights, too) and that they've both noted how "undermonetized" the D&D brand is.

Also interesting is the rash of departures, both voluntary and involuntary. Now, of course the mad Irishwoman yellow-jounalist known as Dungeons and Discourse is gloom and dooming over them, but she's got a point. The creative flight from WotC, and especially D&D branding, is pointing towards the Traditional HasBro "tired IP policy" - shut it down for a few years, maybe leaving one low effort mode going, then relaunch in 5-15 years. (her episode last week points out the history of retiring IP... but she overlooks that GI Joe and MLP both got licensed out to other game studios...)

If it were not for the fan blowup, we could have expected moving to only DM's Guild and it's far more restrictive license... and Wizards' getting a cut.

 

[mamba]

The CEO of Wizards and the CEO of HasBro both disagree...

I am not sure that they disagree that they benefit from the OGL material, changing the terms does not imply that they do not benefit, only that they wanted to squeeze out more.

Also, they can disagree and be wrong at the same time. Business people do not strike me as ones that generally understand the concept behind the OGL, unlike, say, the people who came up with it, who do agree with my take...

and the proof of that is not just that they tried to cancel the OGL, but that they launched the DM's Guild

the DMs Guild is no proof, it works very differently from the OGL in that you can use WotC's IP on the DMsG, something the OGL explicitly forbids. They are complementary, not competing

Also interesting is the rash of departures, both voluntary and involuntary. Now, of course the mad Irishwoman yellow-jounalist known as Dungeons and Discourse is gloom and dooming over them, but she's got a point.

that would be the first time, you lose me when you bring that abomination up as your source for anything. The only D&D YTer I tought YT to never propose

shut it down for a few years, maybe leaving one low effort mode going, then relaunch in 5-15 years

months after they just released the 50th anniversary edition? yeah, that tracks for the level of nonsense her channel regularly spouts

 

[bedir than]

They set the terms they want. Use it or don't. Bitching about them not using your favored license? Take it up with their attorney... I'm certain it will be billed time...

There are plenty of cases where companies change their stance after vocal pushback. The most relevant of these is when Wizards of the Coast released the 5e SRD in the Creative Commons.

Being vocal does in fact help

 

[thatOneLinuxDM]

As a foundry user, I was a little annoyed at the white list section that originally prohibited fan made content like macros for foundry and favoured roll20. Users of less popular VTTs still are unable to freely make fan content for their VTT as far as I understand the license. .

I think this is the main issue in my mind with the license, as a wannabe-small-time creator, I'm not interested in bespoke licenses or white lists which you have to contact them, for when 'better' alternatives exist. The main thing I've seen omitted from the 'debate' (such that it is) is that this license puts the onus on the small-time creator, rather than providing them with the freedom to create what they want, in the manner they want. It is a little ironic that WotC have gone CC now, which is objectively the better choice here.

 

[thatOneLinuxDM]

Accidental double-post, so I will say that I have played Daggerheart and enjoyed it, but it definitely doesn't scratch the same itch as D&D. I think it's a great introduction to TTRPGs for some people, clearly and unabashedly designed for streamers, and some players will prefer the improv-approach over the game approach for their style. This isn't a pop at the game itself, just a general disappointment in this specific company decision.