OneDnD New leak looks real bad

[Vaalingrade]

WotC has thousands of detailed session reports from their playtesting network, is my understanding. Though thisbis probably just a galf-baked concept.

It would have to be a transcript level report to be useful in creating an interactive DM.

 

[Velderan]

So despite my little shadowplay earlier, there is a real nagging question about the AI DMs:

How are they being trained?

AI's as they exist now... aren't. They're not intelligent and sapient. They don't generate their own thoughts, they construct responses based on scenarios they've been fed previously.

That means, to get an AI DM, you need to feed it thousands of D&D sessions and adventures.

So... where are those games coming from?

I hope Mercer has the phrase "how do you want to do this?" locked up legally. lol

 

[Parmandur]

So we're now ignoring the FAQ they had posted on their site for years now?



And I'm sure you'll say they backed off revoking OGL 1.0a, except they didn't. They claim content already released will be fine for 6 months after the new OGL, which is not even remotely the same thing as "you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option".

That was corporate double talk then. That's what they do.

 

[Parmandur]

It would have to be a transcript level report to be useful in creating an interactive DM.

At thisbpoijt, thanks to Twitch and YouTube, they probably have that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So we're now ignoring the FAQ they had posted on their site for years now?



And I'm sure you'll say they backed off revoking OGL 1.0a, except they didn't. They claim content already released will be fine for 6 months after the new OGL, which is not even remotely the same thing as "you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option".

Again, the six month thing was part of the 2.0 leak. They haven't announced anything official yet, so the counter hasn't started. In principle though, you are spot on.

 

[innerdude]

when was this announced?

Not announced, that was me brainstorming what level of content availability would rise to the level of being worth $30 per month for a subscription.

In my view, pretty much anything less than what I proposed would fall significantly short of being "worth it" at $30 per month.

 

[eyeheartawk]

They probably should never have believed that? It was always a corporate trap.

Except it wasn't always?

If it were why would WOTC have tried the GSL back in 2008/2009 poison pill et al if it could just have done what they are doing now?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not announced, that was me brainstorming what level of content availability would rise to the level of being worth $30 per month for a subscription.

Darn, it didn't sound that bad, I was hopeing that was true.

In my view, pretty much anything less than what I proposed would fall significantly short of being "worth it" at $30 per month.

I am afraid it will fall in that "not worth it" stage

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except it wasn't always?

If it were why would WOTC have tried the GSL back in 2008/2009 poison pill et al if it could just have done what they are doing now?

They thought it was nonrevocable until someonne found out that the other open licensees have been updated and the OGL was not.

 

[Velderan]

Again, the six month thing was part of the 2.0 leak. They haven't announced anything official yet, so the counter hasn't started. In principle though, you are spot on.

Sure, but they didn't exactly go out of their way in their statement to clearly say that isn't still their intent with "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected". That's great for content now, but content well into it's development cycle but not yet released? Continued support for existing material? If you're trying to reassure people with a PR statement, a simple and clear "the OGL 1.0a is not going anywhere" is a much firmer stance than they chose to take.

 

[eyeheartawk]

They thought it was nonrevocable until someonne found out that the other open licensees have been updated and the OGL was not.

That's what I'm saying.

If it was always a trap, which is sprung by revoking it they would have done it then.

The fact that they didn't makes me think they likely didn't think they could.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's what I'm saying.

If it was always a trap, which is sprung by revoking it they would have done it then.

The fact that they didn't makes me think they likely didn't think they could.

Yeah people calling it a trap are being at the very least a bit over the top. IT is a Jerk move though to mess with peoples jobs with 0 notice (if the new leak of 6 months is true that is a little better)

 

[Bagpuss]

Protecting the brand  is about greed. The more control you have, the more money goes to you and not someone else.

If you don't want someone printing "White Power the RPG compatible with 5E" it's not just about greed.

 

[Velderan]

Yeah people calling it a trap are being at the very least a bit over the top. IT is a Jerk move though to mess with peoples jobs with 0 notice (if the new leak of 6 months is true that is a little better)

Eh, depending on the terms of the 6 months. I currently have two 5e Kickstarter project I'm waiting for fulfillment on. One ended in October 2020 and is expecting fulfillment this summer (they've released the PDF so no reason to doubt they're not on track with their timeline). The other ended November 2021 and is expecting fulfillment sometime later this year (sounds like they're still unsure on exact timeline). From my experience, it's not uncommon for a Kickstarter to take 2 years to fulfill so 6 months isn't exactly helpful in that portion of the market.

That's actually one of the main reasons I've stopped backing Kickstarter projects prior to this whole situation starting. In 2 years, we'll have 1D&D and who knows exactly what the hobby will look like then.

 

[eyeheartawk]

If you don't want someone printing "White Power the RPG compatible with 5E" it's not just about greed.

While that was certainly a consideration for WOTC, I doubt it placed very highly on the list compared to everything else.

 

[Amrûnril]

Well, that's the idea.

Once the OGL is revoked those VTTs and online tools without special agreements go away. I'd also wager that the ones that do have special agreements will be allowed to expire without renewing.

So yeah, if your thing is playing electronically to a large degree it'll be the only real choice.

Remember, it's not about adding value so much as eliminating choice.

Only to the degree that electronic play requires a platform with integrated rules. If you're willing to use a virtual tabletop that merely aims to replicate the capabilities of a physical tabletop, that doesn't need licensing from Wizards in the first place.

 

[overgeeked]

Only to the degree that electronic play requires a platform with integrated rules. If you're willing to use a virtual tabletop that merely aims to replicate the capabilities of a physical tabletop, that doesn't need licensing from Wizards in the first place.

Not really, no. Playdiplomacy and Backstabbr are both VTTs for a boardgame owned by Hasbro, Diplomacy. They exist because you cannot copyright the rules of a game, only their unique expression. This is likely why they dropped the VTT language from 2.0. Because they cannot legally stop VTTs that do not copy & paste their unique expression. This is also why Words With Friends can exist…because you cannot copyright the rules of Scrabble.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Not really, no. Playdiplomacy and Backstabbr are both VTTs for a boardgame owned by Hasbro, Diplomacy. They exist because you cannot copyright the rules of a game, only their unique expression. This is likely why they dropped the VTT language from 2.0. Because they cannot legally stop VTTs that do not copy & paste their unique expression. This is also why Words With Friends can exist…because you cannot copyright the rules of Scrabble.

Interesting possible wrinkle:

Hasbro eventually comes down and tells their subsidiary to cut it out?

Because if any of the OGL cases go to court and are decided against them, especially concerning a clear cut ruling that legally clears stuff like you mentioned above (because you can't copyright rules) that would be very bad for the long term interests of a company like Hasbro. It's better for them that this stuff exists in a legally grey area as it likely deters more attempts to make that sort of thing.

 

[Mallus]

Given that WoW's monthly pricing hasn't moved in more than a decade (it's currently too low) , and also requires a one-time $60 fee for the current latest expansion (and you get all the previous years content for free)...

That's a good point, and all the streaming video services have recently raised their subscription prices.

But $30 for a new service still strikes me as a bad price point, even for the highest tier. The kind of number that a lot of people will react emotionally towards, rather than rationally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but they didn't exactly go out of their way in their statement to clearly say that isn't still their intent with "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected". That's great for content now, but content well into it's development cycle but not yet released? Continued support for existing material? If you're trying to reassure people with a PR statement, a simple and clear "the OGL 1.0a is not going anywhere" is a much firmer stance than they chose to take.

I don't think they were trying reassure people. I think they were just trying to get them to shut up.