D&D (2024) What happens if One DnD fails?

[Greg Benage]

The problem with that is this: WotC wants/needs to break compatibility with existing VTTs, especially Foundry VTT. They can't do that if the game is as similar to 5e as you think it will be. Foundry is already out under the 1.0a. Foundry does not need to do JACK. If 6e is close enough? It will still work.

I agree with you about the real reasons for OGL 1.2, but I'm not tracking this move. Foundry presumably won't obtain/retain a license for any non-SRD material from WotC, and if they continue to use SRD 5 under 1.0a, WotC will presumably begin legal proceedings against them (starting with a C&D). From WotC's perspective, why do they need 1D&D to be incompatible with 5e?

It seems to me as though WotC needs to choose either the design incompatibility option or the OGL nuclear option to break D&D on competing VTTs, but they don't need to do both.

 

[Jer]

what tasty IP ? Hasbro seems to go the generic fantasy movie route, if even they do not believe in their IP, why would Disney?

Disney has plenty of fantasy IP already that they can mine. They just finished a first season of a Willow TV series and that's one of the least of their IPs. They could pretty easily create an expanded universe just using princesses and villains if they wanted to go that route.

I mean another one, beyond the Once Upon A Time TV series where they did exactly that.

 

[Dausuul]

(And since this would be the second time they've tried to make D&D huge, and the second time it's blown up in their faces, I doubt we'd see a third chance.)

5E was not a deliberate attempt to make D&D huge. It was created by a skeleton crew. They outsourced everything they possibly could, and committed to a slow publishing schedule, which has the effect of minimizing costs while maximizing the return from those costs.

There's a long essay by Ryan Dancey where he lays out the driving forces behind 4E, and the risk to D&D of being designated a "non-core brand." In his words, if that risk materialized, "best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content." And that's exactly what 5E had. From what I can see, it was the mothball edition, designed to put D&D on a shelf and leave it puttering along bringing in modest revenue with minimal support. I'm positive no one expected it to explode the way it did.

My hope is that after the current strategy crashes and burns (which I think is inevitable, regardless of whether the movie flops or soars), they will take a similar approach to D&D afterward. But I don't know if the suits will let go as easily this time.

 

[delericho]

5E was not a deliberate attempt to make D&D huge.

Indeed. I was referring to 4e, which was their attempt to turn D&D into one of their $100m core brands.

 

[ART!]

I can imagine a scenario where if OneD&D doesn't perform well (by whatever Hasbro's standards are) - and especially if the movie under-performs as well - they cut their losses and just farm out the various rights to various companies: Movies, tv, video games, boardgames, ttrpgs, novels, action figures, etc.

Corporations have weird ideas of what constitutes success, and with shareholders to please and corporate politics, this could go sideways for reasons and in ways that might baffle outsiders.

 

[Jer]

My hope is that after the current strategy crashes and burns (which I think is inevitable, regardless of whether the movie flops or soars), they will take a similar approach to D&D afterward. But I don't know if the suits will let go as easily this time.

The one thing in its favor is that folks can point to the growth that 5e had before they started meddling with it and say "look we can make this work, we did before, we just need more patience and more understanding of the market we're actually selling to to not make these kinds of mistakes again."

But on the other hand, asking execs at a company the size of Wizards to have "more patience" is like asking a toddler to not shove everything they find on the ground in their mouths. For many execs at that level thinking more than 4 fiscal quarters in the future is long term planning, and asking them to follow a plan that could take a decade to pay off is pointless - they'll be gone by then and it won't help them get the next job so why should they bother?

 

[Steel_Wind]

I agree with you about the real reasons for OGL 1.2, but I'm not tracking this move. Foundry presumably won't obtain/retain a license for any non-SRD material from WotC, and if they continue to use SRD 5 under 1.0a, WotC will presumably begin legal proceedings against them (starting with a C&D). From WotC's perspective, why do they need 1D&D to be incompatible with 5e?

It seems to me as though WotC needs to choose either the design incompatibility option or the OGL nuclear option to break D&D on competing VTTs, but they don't need to do both.

No, that is not how it works. Products previously released under 1.0a are lawful. They don't have to be removed and you can go right on selling them.

You arguably cannot make new derivative works, but Foundry doesn't have to for 5e. Provided there is a way to kludge compatibility using what they have out already? That will do.

If others create data files that will allow Foundry to work going forward with 6e? That's fine too from Foundry's perspective. (I am sure it isn't for WotC, but that is a different point).

I think you misunderstand what the effect of de-authorizing is. It only affects things not yet sheltering under the OGL 1.0a going forward. It does not make unlawful things already released. Those Thi g's already released may continue to be sold.

Accordingly, to get rid of that compatibility, structural changes are necessary for 6e. Importantly, those same changes are what 5.5e clones will try VERY Hard to avoid.

 

[Greg Benage]

No, that is not how it works. Products previously released under 1.0a are lawful. They don't have to be removed and you can go right on selling them.

You arguably cannot make new derivative works, but Foundry doesn't have to for 5e. Provided there is a way to kludge compatibility using what they have out already? That will do.

Could you elaborate on "new derivative works"? Wouldn't this include any files, modules or applications to "kludge compatibility" with 1D&D? It seems obvious on its face that this kind of thing would have to be "new," since 1D&D doesn't yet exist.

If others create data files that will allow Foundry to work going forward with 6e? That's fine too from Foundry's perspective. (I am sure it isn't for WotC, but that is a different point).

I'm not sure how much work "others" is doing here. Can Foundry legally support and make available to users files, modules and applications created by others that it wouldn't legally be able to create itself?

And if that's true, what would 6e accomplish other than making more work for whomever is creating these data files?

If "kludging compatibility" means users have to go into the files and make a bunch of manual changes, then WotC's design approach to 1D&D seems built-to-purpose. They're keeping the same frame, but they're making little changes to pretty much everything in the frame. From their perspective, that probably creates enough friction to give their VTT a decided advantage where 1D&D is concerned. On the other hand, anything that automates these tasks would seem to be obviously "new material," and Wizards will have revoked their offer for new material under 1.0a long before any of us will actually know what 1D&D looks like.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Could you elaborate on "new derivative works"? Wouldn't this include any files, modules or applications to "kludge compatibility" with 1D&D? It seems obvious on its face that this kind of thing would have to be "new," since 1D&D doesn't yet exist.

No, a "kludge" is something the user does, typically by entering the data themselves, or by obtaining the data from another source to input into the program.

It's evident from your question you have never used Foundry (at least for 5e). Foundry VTT only supports the 5.1 SRD. There is a LOT of data missing from the 5.1 SRD. Not only are there some important classes and feats missing (Battle Master being the most common) but the 5.1 SRD does not include a large number of spells.

So there are three ways to get this data in to a given Foundry install. Those methods are:

1) Hand key it all, or at least, via copy+paste, and then insert the proper mathematical formula that the game uses to make the to hit/damage result in the game correct. Some people do this with some feats when they are first starting out with Foundry - but it tends not to last long. This is a huge pain in the ass, especially the formula part which is beyond the ability of many users to accurately enter. So they instead soon move to method 2 or 3, below.

2) Get the missing data from DDB. The DDB data only works for something you already own on DDB. Moreover, the software shim to do this is not something Foundry created, rather, it is something a user of Foundry created and maintains on a Patreon (Mr. Primate's DDB Importer). That patreon has 10,000+ paying users per month! Does this harm WotC? No it does not. WotC has earned all of those sales on products available on DDB which have a marginal sales cost of approaching ZERO. Accordingly, WotC has made literally millions of dollars off of this "misuse" of DDB by Foundry users using Mr. Primate's DDB Importer. WotC makes more money than Foundry off of Foundry because of this.

Critically, DDB doesn't just give people the text, it also often gives them the underlying math, too. And when it doesn't Mr. Primate's DDB I does. And it works for Adventures, monsters, and items, too (if you own the book on DDB, that is).

3) Steal the data Mr. Primate's DDB Importer gets by obtaining it from DDB - and then installing it without the user needing to access DDB directly with a paid account to get it. The so called "plutonium" add-on for Foundry does this. Plutonium is difficult to install and it breaks constantly, largely because Foundry goes out of its way to break it so that they can appear to be "good guys" and not "bad guys" to WotC and stream people towards Mr. Primate's DDB Importer and buying things off of DDB. Is Foundry as motivated to keep up with regularly breaking Plutonium in view of recent developments? You tell me. In fairness, Plutonium was initially popular in 2020, but its use since that time has dwindled to the point of rarity. It was also distributed on The Trove, and as that got (mostly) shut down in terms of uploading to it, it's somewhat harder to find and WAY harder to update.

• Is this lawful for Foundry to do? Yes.
• Is this illegal for Foundry to do? No.
• Is Mr. Primate's DDB Importer lawful? No, it is a violation of the terms of service of DDB.
• Does WotC have any damages by reason of the breach of their TOS? No. To the contrary, it has enriched them, which is why they allow it to continue.
• Is Mr. Primate's DDB Importer illegal? No.
• Is Plutonium lawful? No
• Is Plutonium illegal? Yes.
• Is the fact that Plutonium is illegal (criminal piracy) make Foundry a party to the offence? No. That's something a user does, it isn't something Foundry does -- indeed, Foundry has, hitherto, gone out of its way to break it whenever it can. So far, at least.

I'm not sure how much work "others" is doing here. Can Foundry legally support and make available to users files, modules and applications created by others that it wouldn't legally be able to create itself?

Yes, when it comes to supporting a user created file.
Yes, when it comes to supporting a community module.
No, when it comes to making illegal files available to users. And to be clear, they do not do so now.

And if that's true, what would 6e accomplish other than making more work for whomever is creating these data files?

Reliability and ease of use. Plus, most people would rather not engage in crimes if they can avoid it. They like gaming and just want to game in the way that they want to - and they'll happily pay to do it, too.

Foundry, DDB, and Mr. Primate's Importer are all truly excellent digital products. Sadly, that degree of excellence can be lost in all of this.

If "kludging compatibility" means users have to go into the files and make a bunch of manual changes, then WotC's design approach to 1D&D seems built-to-purpose. They're keeping the same frame, but they're making little changes to pretty much everything in the frame. From their perspective, that probably creates enough friction to give their VTT a decided advantage where 1D&D is concerned. On the other hand, anything that automates these tasks would seem to be obviously "new material," and Wizards will have revoked their offer for new material under 1.0a long before any of us will actually know what 1D&D looks like.

Well that would depend on who is making and distributing that "new material", wouldn't it?

 

[Greg Benage]

Yeah, this is more or less what I was expecting. I don't know if DDB can "break" #2 on their end, but in any case, if you have to purchase the content on DDB, Wizards is probably just fine with that. It seems to be their objective, in fact. Maybe they start charging extra for data exporting functions once they have their own VTT up and running. For #3, it seems likely that Wizards would take more aggressive action against the data pirates. In any case, this is already illegal, so it doesn't seem likely to be driving any license or game design changes.

Which seems to leave #1, and again, the current design approach seems well suited to make this as big a PITA as possible. If there are a gazillion little changes to species, backgrounds, classes, subclasses, feats, spells, and monsters...that sounds like a lot of data entry work.