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

[FrogReaver]

Anything already published under OGL 1.0a remains valid and fine even according to Hasbro's terrible new license. Is anybody saying otherwise?

yes. almost everyone is uncertain about that point.

 

[Retreater]

I can play forever, and we use our own setting, but I have lost the will too currently. I reminds me of when I skipped 2e and 3e.

I hear ya.
I know I have posted a lot of angry, bitter comments on here the past couple days. I'm sure that doesn't help others who are searching for community right now. Your post puts that into perspective, so thank you.
A lot of us in the fandom are hurt. We see the revocation as a broken promise. It might seem silly to phrase it this way, but we've been in a relationship with Wizards for over 20 years. A lot of trust is gone.
The thing we should all do is work on our mental health. (For example: Find joy in other things. Allow ourselves to feel loss too. Give some distance to the hobby.) I'm not sure what will work for you, but don't take your mental needs lightly.
For me, I have a deep fear of isolation, being outcast. I have interpreted the leaks as WotC saying "we're too big to care about you anymore" and "the scene is moving on past you" and "you can forget about publishing now." If I get to play now, it's going to be a lesser game, a knock off, and who knows if I can find players.
Gaming is clearly a big part of all of us. We should look inside to see how this is affecting us.

 

[eyeheartawk]

yes. almost everyone is uncertain about that point.

I don't think so.

I haven't seen the concern about that particular point. I mean, why else would Morrus and a bunch of other publishers be rushing out unfinished product so it's "published" before the 13th then?

In any event, I don't want to derail the OP here too much. At the very least, if you have a physical copy of a game or a PDF saved locally there's nothing Hasbro can do to stop you in any reading of the news.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think so.

I haven't seen the concern about that particular point. I mean, why else would Morrus and a bunch of other publishers be rushing out unfinished product so it's "published" before the 13th then?

Because it's safer than trying to release them after the 13th - but that doesn't mean doing that is without this particular risk either.

In any event, I don't want to derail the OP here too much. At the very least, if you have a physical copy of a game or a PDF saved locally there's nothing Hasbro can do to stop you in any reading of the news.

Sounds good to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

(emphasis mine)

That's the thing, isn't it? You all got hooked on an amazing platform (DDB) that has tons of information, functionality and a great user interface. And then the startup company sold it, and now someone wants to make money.

The first hit is for free. After that...

This whole thing is another situation that can fall under "Love the Art, not the Artist".

The Art (in this case the DDB program) might be wonderful and a person might love it. But if the Artist was a schmuck, does that mean you have to give the Art up? Some people would say yes, others would say no. So it's going to come down to every individual's personal feelings on the matter.

But an important distinction here in this particular case is that the Artist isn't actually the person/people folks are mad at... it's the "Artist's Patron" they have a problem with (to continue using the metaphor). The Artists of DDB are all the people who design and program and work on the app, most of whom (if not all) we have no issues or problems with. So a person can still use DDB in acknowledgement of the work those Artists do if they want. Yes, it does mean putting gold in the pockets of the Patron (in this case WotC)... but if you don't, then you are also hurting the Artists who made the thing you love because that gold trickles down to them too.

So nothing is really that cut and dried about any of this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think Hasbro is doing this, not WotC.

I mean, there's not really a difference, especially with ex-Microsoft execs in charge of all parts. The specifics of the OGL 1.1 plan are likely down to Dan Rawson and his team, because he's supposed to be in charge of understanding D&D and handling that area of the business, and it seems to have appeared after he arrived. However, the instruction "MAKE MORE MONEY!!!" undoubtedly came from Hasbro. The OneD&D initiative is a Cynthia Williams thing, it seems (though some kind of new edition for 2024 was predicted loooooong before Feb. 2021 when she joined).

Also note that virtually all the plans for 1D&D are basically exaggerated/more extreme versions of the plans for 4E. So it's not like WotC doesn't have history here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This whole thing is another situation that can fall under "Love the Art, not the Artist".

There's no artist here, so that's not a good analogy.

This is a corporate product.

But an important distinction here in this particular case is that the Artist isn't actually the person/people folks are mad at... it's the "Artist's Patron"

No.

Even if we take the metaphor, the artist and his patron are the same exact person. You're also completely mixing your metaphor when you're suddenly talking about "artists" plural out of nowhere, when what you actually mean is "employees". The vast majority of whom have absolutely no creative role whatsoever, so calling them "artists" on any level is bizarre.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't think so.

I haven't seen the concern about that particular point. I mean, why else would Morrus and a bunch of other publishers be rushing out unfinished product so it's "published" before the 13th then?

In any event, I don't want to derail the OP here too much. At the very least, if you have a physical copy of a game or a PDF saved locally there's nothing Hasbro can do to stop you in any reading of the news.

As someone who is just starting in the industry:

There are 3pp who intend to pull their entire catalogue down after the 13th because the OGL 1.0a being "Deauthorized" may mean that all 3rd party content becomes 1.1a whether you publish something new or not. That Wizards is going to go after anyone and everyone who has anything published and steal their work if it's still being sold after the cutoff date.

Whether they actually -can- steal previously released work or not is a question. The chilling effect on the industry is not.

As for your trouble, Dave2008... I would suggest keeping D&D Beyond. And buying more WotC books over time to improve its functionality. And if people are willing to put their content onto DDB to become interns for Hasbro who -might- earn a little cash when the company isn't stealing their work, buy that, too.

But also, please, support your 3rd party publishers who have no real economic choice but to move on. And particularly keep an eye on A5e, which may get De-OGL'd. And if it does, it'll be D&D without the seal of approval of WotC and you can probably use it, too.

Personally I'm hoping we do get rid of the OGL for Level Up, and I get to produce tons of content for it, going forward. It'd be great to get to continue to talk to you about it, -and- continue talking about D&D stuff in general that you can also use in the system!

 

[FrogReaver]

There's no artist here, so that's not a good analogy.

This is a corporate product.

No.

Even if we take the metaphor, the artist and his patron are the same exact person. You're also completely mixing your metaphor when you're suddenly talking about "artists" plural out of nowhere, when what you actually mean is "employees". The vast majority of whom have absolutely no creative role whatsoever, so calling them "artists" on any level is bizarre.

I disagree. WOTC the corporation employees designers and artists. There is a difference in WOTC and their employees.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's no artist here, so that's not a good analogy.

This is a corporate product.

No.

Even if we take the metaphor, the artist and his patron are the same exact person. You're also completely mixing your metaphor when you're suddenly talking about "artists" plural out of nowhere, when what you actually mean is "employees". The vast majority of whom have absolutely no creative role whatsoever, so calling them "artists" on any level is bizarre.

Really? No Artists in computer programming? Interesting take.

I don't agree.