Going Nuclear:1D&D

[MonsterEnvy]

Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. Thus includes online play, the movie, video games, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.

Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.

And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc.

For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else.

Just remember monetization means nothing good.

Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.

Nah, I care about D&D more than I care about anything else related to the OGL. It would be better for D&D overall if they don't go forward with 1.1 in it's current form, but that has not happened yet.

You are supporting what turns out to be a Bond villain level evil corporation, but you are free to continue doing so

Not really. In terms of Corparate greed this is fairly light.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Well there's a lot going on. Basically they seemingly want to nuke the OGL and force the larger OGL companies into paying royalties.

Said royalties are high enough to potentially kill off Kickstarter.

The royalties are not nearly high enough to kill off kickstarter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The royalties are not nearly high enough to kill off kickstarter.

Given the low profit margins on TTRPG stuff, paying 20% is a hell of a lot. It might not kill off Kickstarter the company, but it could easily kill TTRPG crowdfunding through KS, despite that being the best option on the market.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Given the low profit margins on TTRPG stuff, paying 20% is a hell of a lot. It might not kill off Kickstarter the company, but it could easily kill TTRPG crowdfunding through KS, despite that being the best option on the market.

20% for Revenue over 750k for things that use the OGL.

So if something made 750,001 the kickstarter would only owe wizards 20 cents. So yes that can turn into a lot of money, but it's not 20% of everything. Also not all TTRPGs uses the OGL.

I am also one of the people that doubts 1.1 will emerge in it's current form anyway.

 

[Retreater]

As worried, pessimistic, and frustrated as I am, I'm not going to stop my current 5E campaigns. I have one that is winding down anyway, and I'll let that one get to a suitable conclusion before I bow out as a DM. I'm at a 5th level of exhaustion running games as is.
The neighborhood teens for whom I run will likely want to stay with D&D after our current campaign ends. I'll present options, but I expect we'll stick with 5e. No need for me to purchase anything new - I got my last batch of stuff for Christmas gifts. That should hold me over.
I'm concerned that PF2's engine gets pulled from Foundry VTT, which is my third game. If that happens, well, I guess that's the end of PF2 for me. I can't find players in person, and if we can't play VTTs with the new license (and no other agreement is made), I guess that's the end.
What else am I not buying? Well, my nephew and I looked at minis today, and we didn't get any because D&D logo and all that. May or may not watch the movie - depending on what the family wants to do.
Personally, I'd rather take this opportunity to support 3PPs and indie developers - to see what else is out there - rather than focus on "sticking it to" Hasbro.

 

[Clint_L]

When you rush to the defense of IP rights consider your hypocrisy if you also use automobiles, airplanes, computers, windows and video on demand.

Yeah I don't believe protecting IP is a good thing. Conversly, good things happen when IP is stolen and made available to people for less.

So your slippery slope argument is that if you have ever indirectly benefitted from a theft, you have no right to ever object to theft again? Does that logic apply to all crimes?

Except, no, that doesn't work, because I believe that all the cases that you cited were in fact litigated by courts. So I don't believe that any of them were thefts, actually.

I'm lost. What point are you making? That might makes right and anyone should be able to take whatever they want? You think that is capitalism? I think you don't understand the foundational role that ownership rights and a consistent legal system play in capitalism. You seem to be confusing capitalism with anarchy.

Edit: And just to be clear, what you are advocating would not benefit the little guys at all. If we start trampling IP rights and other legal protections, it will be the mega-corporations that have the most power who will come in a loot what they like.

 

[Zardnaar]

Given the low profit margins on TTRPG stuff, paying 20% is a hell of a lot. It might not kill off Kickstarter the company, but it could easily kill TTRPG crowdfunding through KS, despite that being the best option on the market.

Yeah should have beenore clear but this

 

[Zardnaar]

"Thanks Disney"

Didn't mention names .

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I believe in capitalism, if I can take your idea and make it better for less money I should be allowed to. If you look at history many, many great things were brought to the public by stealing IP:

1. Henry Ford built the model T and refused to pay roalyties to the people who owned the patent for the automobile and brought autos to the masses.

2. Glen Curtiss refused to pay royalties to the Wright Brothers who had a patent on the airplane and made air travel viable.

3. Numerous small time computer manufactures stole IP from IBM to make computers viable for the consumer market.

4. Microsoft stole IP from Xerox to make Windows.

5. Echostar stole digital video recording technology from Tivvo paving the way for video on demand of live broadcasts.

When you rush to the defense of IP rights consider your hypocrisy if you also use automobiles, airplanes, computers, windows and video on demand.

Yeah I don't believe protecting IP is a good thing. Conversly, good things happen when IP is stolen and made available to people for less.

So, if person A puts in the money to research to develop a new product (including all the lines of research that didn't turn out successful), gets it certified and put through the safety checks, it is fine for company B to then start manufacturing and selling that project at a greater profit since they haven't had to pay for development?

Likewise it is fine for a larger company to pirate any artwork, music, novel settings that a person might create?

 

[Clint_L]

So, if person A puts in the money to research to develop a new product (including all the lines of research that didn't turn out successful), gets it certified and put through the safety checks, it is fine for company B to then start manufacturing and selling that project at a greater profit since they haven't had to pay for development?

Likewise it is fine for a larger company to pirate any artwork, music, novel settings that a person might create?

I don't think he fully thought through the implications of his statement.

I think that right now folks in general are getting more and more worked up over a situation on which we have very little reliable information. I am not going to take a strong position until I know what is going on.