It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
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?

Oh ... I am going to have to SERIOUSLY quibble with the part I bolded.

If there were actual significant lawyer resources spent on the OGL, then someone should demand their money back. They basically copied and pasted an existing software copyleft license (running it through a spellcheck that created errors ... and they didn't even bother correcting the errors) and changed a few terms.

The OGL, in terms of a legal document ... is terrible. The only reason it is even barely cromulent is because it was borrowed from the software industry, and it has all sorts of provisions that don't fit together and terms that are undefined.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who say that there were extrinsic statements by WoTC and there was reliance on the custom in the industry. I have zero sympathy for anyone who says that the OGL was some sort of great legal document that people could rely just on the terms within it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

darjr

I crit!
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.
Naw. I’m back to “give me PDFs”

5e doesn’t need a character builder anyway.
 


Clint_L

Hero
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.
Ditto this! But in my case, because I run an educational D&D group they gave us every book up to Frostmaiden for free, and since most of our groups start out in one of my campaigns, currently more than 30 people have access to basically all of WotC's D&D books for 7 bucks a month, which I pay. So call it about 30 cents per month per student, for all of D&D.

Just on a personal level, I run 4 campaigns, and the encounter builder alone saves me hours some weeks.

And that is working as intended - there is no rule breaking, and WotC cheerfully gave us all that content because school group. So when folks are labelling them villains...there's other sides to that story.
 

They have actively decreased the canon and depth of their settings.
For me, this has been one of the main oddities of 5E's attitude to settings.

They've been peculiarly bad at selling people on what's cool about existing settings. The only two existing-setting books which were unqualifiedly "good" and sold the setting well were Eberron and Wildemount. I don't think it's any coincidence that both were created by the original authors of the setting, not WotC people.

SCAG was a rushed mess, and whilst it roughly serves its purpose, it is definitely not a book that is likely to sell one on how cool/special the FR is, and before anyone gets dismissive about that, I would say that can be done, and that indeed in 1E (Grey Box), 2E (FR Adventures) and 3E (errrr... the main FR book) it was done well. All of those had a kind of magic to them that made the FR feel distinct from "generic fantasy". SCAG is missing that. It's slapped together and slipshod, and lacks that spark of the weird that really enlivens fantasy settings (and that previous FR books did have). I kind of get it, because a lot about 5E's release looks super-rushed, and presumably it was a victim of this, but still.

VRGtR doesn't feel rushed out, but feels like it has to rush, because it doesn't have the page count to do what it's setting out to - which is really to both lay out a new vision of Ravenloft (and one I quite like), whilst also addressing horror in D&D in general, and also whilst creating a new (sadly failed) attempt approach race/species, and on top of all that, jamming in a totally needless and frankly not-very-good and not even that Ravenloft-y adventure (should have been a PDF or free on D&D Beyond). No part of what VRGtR is really done justice except maybe the mediocre adventure, and who knows, if that had more space maybe it'd have been better too. At least VRGtR touches on what makes Ravenloft special, but I really question how many DMs would feel like they should and could run Ravenloft from that. I suspect far more DMs have run Ravenloft thanks to Strahd than VRGtR.

Spelljammer is this whole thing taken to a new level, with equal-lowest page count, and the entire setting, all the new character rules (including several new and weird races and their whole deals!), and a bunch of ship combat rules, together with detailed ship plans, all jammed into 64 pages! A bizarre approach, and again, I don't think it really sells Spelljammer particularly well. Adding to the bizarreness is that part of the Bestiary is stuff that's clearly Dark Sun monsters with serial numbers filed off, and that the adventure is aimed at levels 5-8, and you're supposed to run the free adventure on D&D Beyond first, which is just mind boggling. Absolutely insane stuff. Surely if you're willing to force people to use Beyond to get a usable adventure you should be putting the 5-8 one there? Or putting both, and using those expensive real-book pages to detail the actual y'know, setting.

I don't think there's a lot of point covering the mini-settings attached to campaigns, but I will note it was pretty damn peculiar that Strixhaven went from a pretty edgy and cool setting in MtG to a setting so "comfy" that it makes Harry Potter look like a Cormac McCarthy novel by comparison. I don't think they've really fluffed any of the other MtG settings though MtG fans feel free to correct me.

I have zero sympathy for anyone who says that the OGL was some sort of great legal document that people could rely just on the terms within it.
Quite. Whilst it was clearly well-intentioned, we wouldn't have gotten into this whole mess if it had been better drafted. On the flipside, it might not have been as beneficial to the industry as it's possible that a more corporate approach might have convinced Dancey et al to back down on its generosity. Like a lot of important legal documents of history, it's kind of a mess.
 

And that is working as intended - there is no rule breaking, and WotC cheerfully gave us all that content because school group. So when folks are labelling them villains...there's other sides to that story.
And that's smart business for WotC: hook them while they're young and hope you develop a lifelong customer. I realize that might sound like a criticism given the way the word business is used here often, but it's not at all and is the exact type of strategy I wish they'd continue to focus on because it builds goodwill and grows their audience. Same thing with the free DDB giveaways: it gets people to make an account and poke around DDB to see what the platform has to offer while giving them some content to use for their game. Win-win.
 

Oh ... I am going to have to SERIOUSLY quibble with the part I bolded.

If there were actual significant lawyer resources spent on the OGL, then someone should demand their money back. They basically copied and pasted an existing software copyleft license (running it through a spellcheck that created errors ... and they didn't even bother correcting the errors) and changed a few terms.

The OGL, in terms of a legal document ... is terrible. The only reason it is even barely cromulent is because it was borrowed from the software industry, and it has all sorts of provisions that don't fit together and terms that are undefined.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who say that there were extrinsic statements by WoTC and there was reliance on the custom in the industry. I have zero sympathy for anyone who says that the OGL was some sort of great legal document that people could rely just on the terms within it.
IANAL and I gather from your posts you either work in legal or have a strong interest in it so let me ask a question. In 2023, the OGL 1.0a might not be regarded as a well written document but would it have been considered a good document in 2000 when it was published? I've seen people point out the word "perpetual" as generally being looked at differently in 2000 vs. 2023 as legal language has changed.
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
IANAL and I gather from your posts you either work in legal or have a strong interest in it so let me ask a question. In 2023, the OGL 1.0a might not be regarded as a well written document but would it have been considered a good document in 2000 when it was published? I've seen people point out the word "perpetual" as generally being looked at differently in 2000 vs. 2023 as legal language has changed.

Briefly, no.

Less briefly-

There are three separate issues that are going on. Given the huge amount of analysis already done, I will just analyze them each in turn very quickly.

First, there are procedures in the law to abandon or put IP completely in the public domain. And there are procedures that allow you to license IP to, say, one entity. The reason that we have seen these variations and issues and iterations with various licenses and contracts from the late 80s onward (original GPL was '88 or so, and based on prior licenses in the 80s) is that what is trying to be accomplished is actually kind of tricky because the law doesn't like things that are perpetual and irrevocable that somehow allow the grantor/offeror/licensor to retain some rights and are provided to the world. Combine that with jurisdictional issues and changes in the law and treaties and ... it's a thing. You try to make these short and simple documents, but it's a lot of work to make things simple that also hold up.

Second, and dealing with the first, these are new and as problems have become apparent these ideas have become iterated- the GPL was changed in 2007, for example, and CC licenses didn't even start until 2002 with v. 4.0 coming out a decade ago or so. The OGL was never updated, and was based off of some old software licenses.

Third, it's just badly written. It's just ... bad. They introduced stuff into the document to make it applicable for RPGs instead of software, and in so doing, made it less intelligible. So even ignoring the first two issues, it's just a poorly written document.
 

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.

I think therein lies the problem. It is not one, but a lot of IPs. They really wanted to not divide their own market.
And it did not hurt them.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top