D&D 5E (2014) I still want D&D and Beyond, but...

[bedir than]

Chris Cocks had absolutely no RPG industry experience prior to becoming president of WotC 5 years ago. Current decision-making by him suggests he didn't learn anything about D&D in that period.

Not sure why you're focusing on Nathan Stewart, seems like a distraction given he was only VP of D&D very briefly and his career more about marketing than anything else - it seems very unlikely he's been closely involved with this decison-making.

Dan Rawson is VP of D&D, and he definitely has no RPG (or similar) experience.

Five years of experience running Wizards is more than most of the 3pp heads.
It also ignores that he's been a gamer for decades.

Stewart is the VP of Brand while Rawson is VP of Studio. Both would be involved in these decisions. Rawson's first credits started appearing a year ago. He has a long history of gaming.

Considering people who have extensive experience gaming non-gamers is very gate keepey

 

[gamerprinter]

The only thing I ever needed from any RPG is the books (and dice, etc.) While I've used the online SRD now and again. I don't even need that. Really, you can keep everything digital away from me, as unnecessary for any appreciate I need from any RPG. I play at a live table, I never need VTT, though as a pro cartographer I create VTT maps all the time for other people to use. I'm not Old School in editions or systems, but I am Old School in how I run my games, I don't do much different than my first game of D&D in 1977. I don't need online subscriptions of any kind. I buy when I need things, never when it gets first promoted. As a publisher, I create for all the digital content needs, because you guys seem to need them, but I don't need them at all.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Paizo said in their ORC announcement that they are willing to go to court against WotC over the OGL's irrevocable status.

So what product have still in print that would make a testcase. My understanding is that PF2 is somewhat removed from WoTC original material.
I kind of doubt that Wizards would sue over PF 2.

 

[Rabulias]

So what product have still in print that would make a testcase. My understanding is that PF2 is somewhat removed from WoTC original material.
I kind of doubt that Wizards would sue over PF 2.

Yeah I doubt Paizo is going to produce any new material for Pathfinder 1E, but they seem very supportive of the 3PPs that do make new stuff. There is also the Archives of Nethys site that has all the Pathfinder 1E rules, and while Paizo does not own it, I think they would come to their defense.

I am not familiar with Starfinder -- any players of that want to weigh in on how similar it is to Pathfinder 1E?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah I doubt Paizo is going to produce any new material for Pathfinder 1E, but they seem very supportive of the 3PPs that do make new stuff. There is also the Archives of Nethys site that has all the Pathfinder 1E rules, and while Paizo does not own it, I think they would come to their defense.

I am not familiar with Starfinder -- any players of that want to weigh in on how similar it is to Pathfinder 1E?

To be honest I an disappointed that no third party went all out in the defence of the OGL. I think that a third party victory on this would be of huge benefit or at least a put up or shut up challenge to WoTC.
While a separately administrated licence like the proposed ORC may encourage people using it to be more aggressive in its defence my concern here would be the nature of litigation in the US. I have said elsewhere on this, but legal rights you cannot afford to defend are of very little use to you.

 

[dave2008]

That's what de-auth does. If that doesn't happen then there's no de-auth

Sorry, but when you quote me quoting you it doesn't save your original quotes. So I can really respond with digging a little deeper and I just don't care to do that at the moment. I mean, it really boils down to we have to wait and see what WotC really puts out for public review.

 

[dave2008]

To be honest I an disappointed that no third party went all out in the defence of the OGL. I think that a third party victory on this would be of huge benefit or at least a put up or shut up challenge to WoTC.

When Paizo announced ORC they also said the were willing to go to court to defend the OGL. I don't think the can sue WotC, but if they print SF or PF2 (which is still under the OGL) products with the OGL and WotC sues them, they don't plan to settle.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The language they used doesn't indicate that 1.0a is changing. They, in fact, said the opposite.

They absolutely did not say the opposite. They said that existing products are safe from WotC's legal ravages. You still wouldn't be able to use the 1.0a to make anything new based on what they said.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Five years of experience running Wizards is more than most of the 3pp heads.

No, it absolutely is not.

Especially not at the huge distance from actual product and customers Cocks was at. Many 3PP heads have decades of experience and are much closer to the product.

It also ignores that he's been a gamer for decades.

So what?

Loads of people have been "gamers for decades" without know jack-all about gaming or the industry. Forums like this and reddit prove that conclusively every single day.

He has a long history of gaming.

Again, what absolute meaningless nonsense, and no he doesn't. The most he's claimed is he played D&D when he was a kid and is maybe playing D&D with his kids. That doesn't give him any kind of insight.

Considering people who have extensive experience gaming non-gamers is very gate keepey

LOL. LMAO.

ROFL.

Come off mate.

Trying to pull "STOP GATEKEEPING!!!" about a bunch of 1 percenter/upper-class Ivy League white men running a massive corporation is some next-level concern-trolling. Also, I'm pretty sure it's not "gatekeeping" to talk about someone's employment history lol.

 

[Maxperson]

I completely see why they are doing it, I even believe that they really are not concerned about the third party market as it currently exists they want to nail down the IP in the VTT and computer/net application space and in the broader performance space. The mistake was in my opinion, gunning for the current open content. If they closed the licence and issued OneD&D on a 5.2 SRD there would be some smoke, heat and a little fire but I think it would have died down.
The sad bit is that the OGL proved to be quixotic at the first real test. No one defended their rights under it but everyone ran for the exits.

If they were only worried about VTT, movies etc., then they could have put into OGL 1.1 that print media would remain untouched and 1.0a stuff would be grandfathered in. Made the new one irrevocable, and not put in the royalties thing. They went after the print stuff put out by 3PP as well.