It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Retreater]

Last Sunday, I ran my first in-person 5e D&D game since this debacle started. There was a 13 year-old proudly showing off the PHB she got for Christmas, tabs placed for her class, spell list, etc. (she no longer has to borrow her older sister's copy). There was the 55 year-old dad with his two teenaged sons. They brought me a belated Christmas gift of D&D-branded minis as a thank you for being their DM. The dad was wearing his Tiamat-hoodie with the D&D ampersand. His sons, my wife, and my nephew were all showing off their new dice sets.
We had a great session (Original Adventures Reincarnated Isle of Dread, by Goodman - if you're interested). Had some good combats, found some great treasures, reached 5th level. For that 4 hour session, it was like there was no controversy - nothing but a good time among friends. Which is, ultimately, what this should all be about - and something we sometimes lose when we're raging on the Internet.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that logic does not follow.
A is bollocks.
B is probably the best answer. It does not mean I have lost trust. It means I make a sensible decision.
C depends... If I have a good alternative, which is always good I might opt into into this decision. But often there is not.
Yeah, this is the one closest to cnot trusting them" anymore. Biut actually it is not them that I trust anymore. I don't necessarily assume they tried to screw me over. I just don't have faith in their products.

That. If you* aren't checking to see if what you* are buying is worth what you are paying, that's on you*.

*General you

 

[Maxperson]

They're both trust.

If I can't trust the company to not screw me over, then I have no reason to buy from them.

From a consumer point of view, WotC can't screw you over. You can look at what they put out before you buy. I suppose if you pre-order you can get screwed, but that's your fault for buying sight unseen.

If I can't trust the company to make good products, then I have no reason to buy from them.

Same as above. No company is going to universally put out good products. People will like some and not others. Quality will be an issue at times. This is why you look at what you are getting before you buy it and/or look at consumer reviews.

 

[Umbran]

Why do you ask me not to derail and then go on with that line of conversation? I wanted to respect that request. Probably I mistook your normal voice for your mod voice...

Mod Voice usually comes announced with Mod Note: at the top, and always in red or orange color.

And I went on with it because there's a lot of threads on these boards, and I am a human, and can sometimes forget what got said where, and when. Mea culpa,

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I can understand there are serious reasons to untrust Hasbro. When you fail, you will need time to recover the lost trust. This happens here and everywhere.

But we should remember now Hasbro is not in its best economic moment, and this could mean to be acquired in the future by a bigger company. Do you want it? We can't know the possible changes in the game by order of that possible new owner. If this doesn't happen before, it is because it is a bad economic year for all the companies, and then it is not the best time for these to acquire other.

 

[ART!]

I think it's premature to write a post-mortem on this whole OGL debacle/kerfuffle/whatever.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it's premature to write a post-mortem on this whole OGL debacle/kerfuffle/whatever.

Yeah once we know what they're intending to do with 1D&D's SRD (or lack thereof) we can at least think that maybe we're done "for now", but that is yet to be seen.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it's premature to write a post-mortem on this whole OGL debacle/kerfuffle/whatever.

I mean, the fat lady sang when the rules were put into CC. The rest is outro from the orchestra while the audience files out.

 

[Imaro]

I think it's premature to write a post-mortem on this whole OGL debacle/kerfuffle/whatever.

So what exactly determines when to "write a post-mortem"?

Yeah once we know what they're intending to do with 1D&D's SRD (or lack thereof) we can at least think that maybe we're done "for now", but that is yet to be seen.

Why does what they choose to do with the 1D&D SRD determine anything? WotC didn't make any promises around this?

 

[ART!]

So what exactly determines when to "write a post-mortem"?

I trust people to judge that for themselves.

I was just saying that to me it very much feels too early.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why does what they choose to do with the 1D&D SRD determine anything? WotC didn't make any promises around this?

I agree they didn't make any promises. But it will tell us an awful lot about how WotC wants to be as a company in the future.

 

[Imaro]

I agree they didn't make any promises. But it will tell us an awful lot about how WotC wants to be as a company in the future.

I'm confused by this sentiment... Do we hold all ttrpg publishers to the standard of having to release their SRD's for open use? Or am I misinterpreting what you are getting at?

 

[Umbran]

I'm confused by this sentiment... Do we hold all ttrpg publishers to the standard of having to release their SRD's for open use? Or am I misinterpreting what you are getting at?

No, but then in market position, WotC is not just another publisher.

 

[Imaro]

No, but then in market position, WotC is not just another publisher.

I'm not sure this matters in so far as expecting them to give away the product they create for free on a continuous basis... So let me rephrase... do we expect all market leaders to continuously give away their product for open use?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm confused by this sentiment... Do we hold all ttrpg publishers to the standard of having to release their SRD's for open use? Or am I misinterpreting what you are getting at?

I'm saying that WotC will be telling us what they want for the future of D&D with how they licence 1D&D. You might want to take this all a bit less personally. It's not about "holding people to standards" or whatever. It's about listening when WotC tell you who they are. They've had a big moment here. They tried to do something entirely crazy. People yelled at them. WotC realized it was crazy, and completely stood down. The question is, what did they take from that? What did they learn from that?

I don't have any "demands" or "standards" I specifically want from the 1D&D SRD/licencing (if there even is licencing, if there isn't that's a whole other interesting message). But I want to know what they do before I say "Well, WotC went crazy but then they got it back together!". There's a huge range of different things they could do, different things they could learn.

If they want to make 1D&D a sort of locked-off system with a very tight licence, that's no skin off my nose, for example. But it'd be interesting. If they want to release the 1D&D SRD under CC/OGL 1.0a that's a huge statement, a gigantic one. I don't require it of them, but that would really be saying something. But those are only two in a myriad of possibilities.

No, but then in market position, WotC is not just another publisher.

Indeed.

On top of that, an awful lot of mid-range publishers, those closest to WotC in terms of success (though it's not very close!) do actually have SRDs and open licences, at least where possible.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure this matters in so far as expecting them to give away the product they create for free on a continuous basis... So let me rephrase... do we expect all market leaders to continuously give away their product for open use?

Well, by "all" we mean "There is only one market leader, who has, through their own previous action, created an entire sub-industry that has been around for decades, for whom a closed edition is a threat to their continued livelihood"

There is no other comparable company. So continuing to ask if we do this for all other comparable companies is actually a non-question.

 

[Umbran]

I'm saying that WotC will be telling us what they want for the future of D&D with how they licence 1D&D.

Well, I think they'll be telling us what they want with the combination of 1D&D license and design.

If 1D&D is really highly compatible, then functionally it may not matter if it is separately licensed. The 5.1 SRD may be sufficient for 3pp needs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, I think they'll be telling us what they want with the combination of 1D&D license and design.

If 1D&D is really highly compatible, then functionally it may not matter if it is separately licensed. The 5.1 SRD may be sufficient for 3pp needs.

Yes that's a good point re: compatibility. Very interested to see the next few playtest packets.

 

[Imaro]

Well, by "all" we mean "There is only one market leader, who has, through their own previous action, created an entire sub-industry that has been around for decades, for whom a closed edition is a threat to their continued livelihood"

There is no other comparable company. So continuing to ask if we do this for all other comparable companies is actually a non-question.

I was speaking to a comparison with other industries. Sorry if I didn't express that clearly

 

[Imaro]

I'm saying that WotC will be telling us what they want for the future of D&D with how they licence 1D&D. You might want to take this all a bit less personally. It's not about "holding people to standards" or whatever. It's about listening when WotC tell you who they are. They've had a big moment here. They tried to do something entirely crazy. People yelled at them. WotC realized it was crazy, and completely stood down. The question is, what did they take from that? What did they learn from that?

I don't have any "demands" or "standards" I specifically want from the 1D&D SRD/licencing (if there even is licencing, if there isn't that's a whole other interesting message). But I want to know what they do before I say "Well, WotC went crazy but then they got it back together!". There's a huge range of different things they could do, different things they could learn.

If they want to make 1D&D a sort of locked-off system with a very tight licence, that's no skin off my nose, for example. But it'd be interesting. If they want to release the 1D&D SRD under CC/OGL 1.0a that's a huge statement, a gigantic one. I don't require it of them, but that would really be saying something. But those are only two in a myriad of possibilities.

I'm not taking it personally, I'd argue that if you have expectations for WotC to release their OneD&D SRD as open content and they "are crazy" if they don't then that's taking it personally. I'm curious about the motivation behind this because I truly believe they have every right to do what they want. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a IMO was wrong because of the expectations and dependencies WotC had set up for it but if they choose to make a future product closed off... well for me at least it doesn't really have anything to do with what just happened. But you've made it clear that you weren't expressing that expectation only curiosity, which is why I asked initially if I was misinterpreting what you were getting at.