It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

Aldarc

Legend
If your game is different, why use OGL at all? Yes, back in 2001, it was the only available license... but today, just use CC.

I also don't think wotc tried to burn them all down. They tried to burn down a few specific ones, and porbably didn't mind all others catching fire too.
I believe we call that "gross negligence." But we should probably send WotC a Hallmark card, maybe with cash inside, thanking them for only trying to burn down some but not all fruit stands but then failing in their attempts to do so only because they were caught in the act. They make cards for that, right? ;)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Aldarc

Legend
Interesting... why would "you" want do that?
Whoever "we" is.
There is probably more fruitful discussion to be had than spending pages upon pages debating the use of "they" when talking about WotC or your quibbling with my use of pronouns here, preferrably in a way that didn't try to sidestep the main points I am making.
 

There is probably more fruitful discussion to be had than spending pages upon pages debating the use of "they" when talking about WotC or your quibbling with my use of pronouns here, preferrably in a way that didn't try to sidestep the main points I am making.

Maybe stop sarcasm or analogies yourself.
And don't attribute things to other posters.
Then we have a fruitful discussion. Although, the use of fruits in the analogies might make up for it.

So. Just want to make clear: I would not send them a thank you card with money in it. I would not even consider that.
I just buy their products if they seem worth the price to me, encouraging the designers to do more products I like.
 
Last edited:

Enrahim2

Adventurer
If your game is different, why use OGL at all? Yes, back in 2001, it was the only available license... but today, just use CC.

I also don't think wotc tried to burn them all down. They tried to burn down a few specific ones, and porbably didn't mind all others catching fire too.
OGL was not made and presented as a way to use and create D&D material. It was presented as a GPL like license tailored for tabletop RPGs. There went significant lawyer resources into trying to ensure it was as good a fit to the needs of the tabletop rpg community in general as possible.

Hence, what make most sense - publish under a tailored license the entire industry knows and respect, or under a licence mostly used for images, with little precedence for how to use with complex derived text products?
 

Hence, what make most sense - publish under a tailored license the entire industry knows and respect, or under a licence mostly used for images, with little precedence for how to use with complex derived text products?

That is a point. But OGL is 20 years old and it probably is not a bad idea to use a more modern one.
So, maybe ORC will be the one. Or stay with OGL 1.0a. Does not make a difference to me. But soon there will be enough to chose from.
 


teitan

Legend
If your game is different, why use OGL at all? Yes, back in 2001, it was the only available license... but today, just use CC.

I also don't think wotc tried to burn them all down. They tried to burn down a few specific ones, and porbably didn't mind all others catching fire too.
Or alternatively… why use the OGL and make your own OGL like some other publishers have. It’s not a situation where we need to have this one specific license out there.

I also don’t think (not directed at you at all) WOtC cares enough about it now, with releasing 5.1 into CC? Why would they care about the OGL when they released their money maker into the wild with a more open license? One they can’t control? If someone could explain why they would do that now other than as a “gotcha” i would actually appreciate it. The argument is the 1.0a needs enshrined to protect what’s in OGC now through it, well, what’s out there isn’t WOTC’s repsonsibility to preserve but if they don’t have a reason to revoke it, then what else is there? 5e revised, OneDnD, whatever, will have a compatibility license, like 3e. It will get a logo and everything they wanted from their new OGL will be in that. That’s the rub. That’s all that will happen because it’s all they needed to do just like they did with the D20 System Trademark License.
 

Or alternatively… why use the OGL and make your own OGL like some other publishers have. It’s not a situation where we need to have this one specific license out there.

I also don’t think (not directed at you at all) WOtC cares enough about it now, with releasing 5.1 into CC? Why would they care about the OGL when they released their money maker into the wild with a more open license? One they can’t control? If someone could explain why they would do that now other than as a “gotcha” i would actually appreciate it. The argument is the 1.0a needs enshrined to protect what’s in OGC now through it, well, what’s out there isn’t WOTC’s repsonsibility to preserve but if they don’t have a reason to revoke it, then what else is there? 5e revised, OneDnD, whatever, will have a compatibility license, like 3e. It will get a logo and everything they wanted from their new OGL will be in that. That’s the rub. That’s all that will happen because it’s all they needed to do just like they did with the D20 System Trademark License.

Ok. Somehow I misunerstood you. Or I could not follow at some point. But I think I agree.
 

We are used to a type of service, and then they wanted to change these. We complained because that wasn't the type of product we wanted to buy. There was a lot of noise in internet, but this was the market when they wanted to make money. Then they had to open the eyes.

It has been one of the worst mistakes in the history of D&D, maybe in the list of the five worst ones. But the industry still needs Hasbro/WotC. Thanks them the hobby is more popular than ever, and this is good even for the rest of publishers, including others with a different game system.

You have all the right to untrust them, but I warn you the resentment is not going to help at all. And I say from my own experience.
 

Imaro

Legend
They are not giving their product away for free. The SRD is not the PHB + DMG + MM. It is the bare minimum example of D&D so others can create D&D compatible content. Sure you can play a basic version of D&D with it, but the PHB contains a ton more information, so pretty much no one does, and WotC knows that.

It's funny you claim this seeing as how Mongoose Publishing was literally able to release their own PHB for 3.5 (at a cheaper price point) using the SRD and OGL. I would also note the numerous retroclones (literally WotC's previous games) as well as new games (many which are fantasy... Pathfinder) that have all been created using the SRD and OGL. But yeah I guess they aren't actually giving their product away.

As to expecting them to not revoke the OGL, damn right I expect them to, they told us for 20 years that it is irrevocable.

I didn't comment on revoking the OGL... I was speaking to whether the OneD&D SRD would be open, so I'm not sure what you are addressing here.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
How about in a year or so, after they've shown they can be trusted. Putting 5e into the CC isn't going to be terribly useful if it turns out that they are going to make One has it's own SRD and/or isn't actually compatible.


Except they didn't just remove access to the pears. They were also trying to stop people from having access to completely different trees--e.g., those companies who use the SRD but don't produce 5e/d20-based games, like Fate. And they wanted to disallow the use of animated assets on VTTs that weren't even owned by them, just so D&D players would have to use the D&D VTT (whenever that comes out), even though that would very likely cause those VTTs to lose so much money they might have to shut down or raise prices significantly for people who want to use them for non-D&D games.

And your "pear tree" analogy isn't quite as apt as you think anyway for another reason, because people have used that license to make many different games under their own companies. It would be more like if the people who picked the pears planted the pear's seeds and grew their own trees, using their own labor and on their own property, and then WotC tried to cut them all down, and also tried to burn down every fruit stand and grocery store so that the only place one could get pears was from them.
It is an imperfect analogy, as all analogies are, but it gets at the point that WotC was making a non-criminal move with their own property, so even if it was a dick move and dumb, it fits better than robbery, assault or murder as far as analogies for the situation go.
 

Imaro

Legend
It's amusing at this stage that people seem dead set on convincing folks that Wizards did nothing wrong.

If they actually had spent the last what 8 years of near uncontested position of power to actually develop an IP, where would they be now?

8 years, with the money printing titan of MtG at their back, and what development of the actual IP of "Dungeons and Dragons" has Wizbro done, if you remove all the 3PP, including CR? Where would Wizards be if they actually did their jobs?

Not fretting over a dry as bones SRD, I can tell you that much.
Wait... what? Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape... every single Magic the Gathering sourcebook (as well as the free PDF's they gave out) are all IP's they have developed for D&D. I don't even understand what you are claiming here...

Also couldn't we also claim that if the 3pp had spent the last 8 years designing their own proprietary systems as opposed to staying reliant on WotC's... they wouldn't be "fretting over a dry as bones SRD"?
 

Scribe

Legend
It is also interesting how people at this stage say that Wizards is never to be trusted again and that they are the most despicable companie out there.

Maybe the truth lies in the middle...

Then, I don't know what you want to try to say about: develop an IP.
Last I checked, they have an IP.
It is not their fault that it took that long to gain control of movie rights. Creating a great PC game also takes time.

8 years. What's their IP that they developed over the 8 years?

More content for Eberron was done out of house.

Ravenloft was retread or generic.

Feywild? Maybe?

DL is old, Planescape ignored, canon disavowed.

No characters, no novels, hardly anything that is a defined cohesive IP.

An SRD is not IP, and CR has done more to brand D&D, and it's not remotely close.
 

darjr

I crit!
All the people who thought the OGL 1.1 was a good idea. Who green-lit software development and instructioninal videos. Who had NDAs sent for secret meetings to get 3pp to sign oin. Who made some sweat heart deals for “favored” 3pp and who forced kickstarter to the table to negotiate (something we still dint know the full extent of) are all still there. All still in positions powerful enough to do something so terrible.

If you don’t mind I’m going to take a break from giving WotC my money. Maybe for a long time.

And before anyone asks, no I’m not asking for heads to roll. WotC will and can do whatever.
 

Scribe

Legend
Wait... what? Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape... every single Magic the Gathering sourcebook (as well as the free PDF's they gave out) are all IP's they have developed for D&D. I don't even understand what you are claiming here...

Also couldn't we also claim that if the 3pp had spent the last 8 years designing their own proprietary systems as opposed to staying reliant on WotC's... they wouldn't be "fretting over a dry as bones SRD"?

Considering the entire premise of the open SRD was to...not make it a proprietary system? To later pull the rug on everyone? For real?

Jesus.

Wheres the Planescape book? Wheres the Spelljammer book that isnt panned for how thin it is? Wheres the bulk of Eberron content? Hint: Its not printed by Wizards in 5e!

They coasted, for years now.
 

Imaro

Legend
Considering the entire premise of the open SRD was to...not make it a proprietary system? To later pull the rug on everyone? For real?

Jesus.

Which they didn't actually do... Jesus.

Wheres the Planescape book? Wheres the Spelljammer book that isnt panned for how thin it is? Wheres the bulk of Eberron content? Hint: Its not printed by Wizards in 5e!

They coasted, for years now.

So your problem isn't that they didn't have IP over the past 8 years like you claimed initially...it's that you personally didn't like the amount and also didn't like that they dropped a main sourcebook and then released it for other creators to develop their own products and sell (Honestly I'm not sure what your actual complaint is from the above). Fair enough, I enjoyed Ravenloft, I enjoyed the Eberron book, Spelljammer was meh and Dragonlance isn't my cup of tea so I chose not to buy those books... and, to answer your question as to where the Planescape book is... in my hands being enjoyed before the end of the year. ,
 

Scribe

Legend
Which they didn't actually do... Jesus.



So your problem isn't that they didn't have IP over the past 8 years like you claimed initially...it's that you personally didn't like the amount and also didn't like that they dropped a main sourcebook and then released it for other creators to develop their own products and sell (Honestly I'm not sure what your actual complaint is from the above). Fair enough, I enjoyed Ravenloft, I enjoyed the Eberron book, Spelljammer was meh and Dragonlance isn't my cup of tea so I chose not to buy those books... and, to answer your question as to where the Planescape book is... in my hands being enjoyed before the end of the year. ,

Yes, my complaint or criticism is that they have not actually developed anything in 5e.

They have actively decreased the canon and depth of their settings.

They have decreased the amount of setting support they officially release.

They have disavowed the actual IP/history of their settings.

There is no d&d IP, it's just generic fantasy.

The SRD is not a story, plot, or IP from which to develop a movie.

Heck other than the Drizzt stuff who has more novels recently, more streaming content, CR or D&D?
 

Imaro

Legend
Also also I’m not happy with the DnDBeyond proposition.

Yeah I'm the opposite of this. Right now I have the convenience of the encounter builder, my entire group 7 people plus me all have access to every book I've purchased as well as the convenience of the character builder and the ability to pull their sheet up on any mobile device at anytime as long as there is a wifi connection for $30 a book (one time fee of about $3-4) per person and the monthly DM sub. The value proposition for our group is insanely good. But I do get different strokes for different folks.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
All the people who thought the OGL 1.1 was a good idea. Who green-lit software development and instructioninal videos. Who had NDAs sent for secret meetings to get 3pp to sign oin. Who made some sweat heart deals for “favored” 3pp and who forced kickstarter to the table to negotiate (something we still dint know the full extent of) are all still there. All still in positions powerful enough to do something so terrible.

If you don’t mind I’m going to take a break from giving WotC my money. Maybe for a long time.

And before anyone asks, no I’m not asking for heads to roll. WotC will and can do whatever.
And that's fair.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top