Don't Give Ground

[Steel_Wind]

If Hasbro/WOTC carries out the legally dubious attempt to kill OGL 1.0a I'm done as a customer. I've enjoyed buying all the hardcovers and playing each new edition since 1979, but the company lying about the intent and purpose of the OGL to kill the open gaming commons is too much to abide.

I think you are done then. I believe this clever satirical passage from "How the Grinch Stole D&D" on reddit posted earlier this week is accurate:

"The Wizbro had been caught by this tiny Gamer daughter
Who’d got out of of bed for a cup of cold water
She stared at the Wizbro and said “WoTC, why
“Why are you taking our OGL? WHY?”

But, you know that old Wizbro was so smart and so slick,
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick
“Why, my sweet summer child,” the executive lied,
“There’s racisms on this OGL that I just can’t abide
“So I am taking it home, to Seattle, my dear,
“I’ll fix it up there. Then I’ll bring it back here.”

And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head.
And he got her a DDB survey, and sent her to bed.
And when Cindy-Lou Player went to bed with her survey,
He went to his attorney, and deauthorized the real OGL anyway."

This is where we are. And no, I don't think this "Grinch's heart" is growing in any manner, let alone anytime soon.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They already did for me, in 2008.

They just need to release it from its GSL prison.

I would rather the next edition pull heavly from (and fix and rework) that edition, but I would settle for a good supported retro clone

Have you seen Orcus?

 

[mamba]

I would rather the next edition pull heavly from (and fix and rework) that edition, but I would settle for a good supported retro clone

Have you seen Orcus?

Ok, all this 4e talk makes me curious, the ‘original’ 4e or the 4e Essentials, which do you prefer? I sat out that edition (was not in TTRPGs at all), it looks like Essentials is a bit of rowing back towards the other editions though.

 

[Haplo781]

Ok, all this 4e talk makes me curious, the ‘original’ 4e or the 4e Essentials, which do you prefer? I sat out that edition (was not in TTRPGs at all), it looks like Essentials is a bit of rowing back towards the other editions though.

The non-martial e-classes were fine. The Mage was even a better wizard. And Essentials added a lot of great feats and items.

 

[Matt Thomason]

At the same time, I don't think WotC is meaningfully persuadable at this point. This isn't a negotiation, this is just a PR performance now. There's a BIG difference between the two.

This. I see no way to fight. I only see a new route ahead for myself, to rebuild, away from the mess of OGLs of any version.

I do not have the power to force them to change their mind on the things that are necessary for me to keep working under the OGL. They do, or they don't.

I do not have the money for a legal fight over something I believe I'm allowed to do but which they object to.

I do not see any worth to agreeing to 1.2 in its current form, only the opposite.

So they go that way, myself and potentially 1500+ other creators another way. It's not about revenge, it's not about anger (despite there being plenty of that), it's about incompatibility.

 

[Enrahim2]

They would be wrong (except that is not what everyone analyzing the situation has concluded). Hasbro is trying to control the digital tooling space for graphics intensive Dungeons and Dragons simulators. Which is their own IP. That is not remotely the same as trying to control all of VTT space. Another company could make their own VTT all day long, for example, and as long as they aren't using Hasbro's IP, Hasbro couldn't say "boo" about it. That is not a monopoly.

(I said  almost everyone, so you dont contradictates me)
Your statement had been right if the ttrpg space had been balanced with several similarly viable systems for digital tooling to cater to. However it is the fact that this is not the case that makes wizards move arguably a bid at  effective monopoly.

It is not clear if any of the current commercial VTTs would be able to handle the blow of loosing the majority of their current customers (if we assume the available roll20 statistics is representive). Also locking in customers in one market into a single choice in a different market appear to be the kind of stuff that antitrust authorities like to sniff at.. (as the systems market and the vtt market currently are currently quite independent)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok, all this 4e talk makes me curious, the ‘original’ 4e or the 4e Essentials, which do you prefer? I sat out that edition (was not in TTRPGs at all), it looks like Essentials is a bit of rowing back towards the other editions though.

I like the mix of the two. I LOVE the basic 4e, but I think some essentials work well hand in hand with it

 

[Velderan]

Yes, I will share those conversion notes and PF2 Statblocks when complete.

Looking forward to that.

I had planned a DL1-14 5e conversion, but since we're still winding down our current 5e campaign I'm probably going to put that idea to the side and run the PF2e Beginner Box adventure with some follow-ups folks in the PF forum suggested to help learn running the game. I still very much so want to run DL1-14 for my group so just running a PF2e conversion would check that block for me.

 

[Clint_L]

(I said  almost everyone, so you dont contradictates me)
Your statement had been right if the ttrpg space had been balanced with several similarly viable systems for digital tooling to cater to. However it is the fact that this is not the case that makes wizards move arguably a bid at  effective monopoly.

It is not clear if any of the current commercial VTTs would be able to handle the blow of loosing the majority of their current customers (if we assume the available roll20 statistics is representive). Also locking in customers in one market into a single choice in a different market appear to be the kind of stuff that antitrust authorities like to sniff at.. (as the systems market and the vtt market currently are currently quite independent)

That's just not how a monopoly is defined. If you're hoping for legislative anti-trust intervention on this issue, you are not going to get it, is my point. It's not a useful strategy. Better to focus efforts on something attainable.

 

[Velderan]

That's just not how a monopoly is defined. If you're hoping for legislative anti-trust intervention on this issue, you are not going to get it, is my point. It's not a useful strategy. Better to focus efforts on something attainable.

And even if you're wrong (which I don't think you are), it would likely take YEARS for the government to do anything meaningful which is far too late for whatever potential damage OGL1.0a no longer being an option causes. Kinda seems silly to think it's an option imo.