We won! (OGL)

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Bunch said:
Pathfinder 2 is like 400+ pages. Buying the book is the easiest part. Reading it, understanding it and playing take the work. People I find are lazy and will go the easy route which is back to 5e.
WotC did one smart thing which is to see the actual dollars not just cease coming to them but flow to a sufficiently strong competitor. They stemmed the damage as soon as that info came out. Maybe coincidence with other internal discussions and maybe just luck but it's timed right to minimize permanent damage.

I wish Paizo and everyone else luck and hope this diversifies the hobby but I think for now WotC has applied a tourniquet.

The next challenge will be what happens with 6e. If they don't make big enough changes will people take that time to switch to PF2 given they have the book and need to learn a new system (potentially)?
Click to expand...
I mean, the main PF2e book is the PHB+DMG combined and is 640 pages. 5e PHB and DMG are 320 pages. It isn't that much different.
 
Sable Wyvern Sable Wyvern , “I just think that, logically, if the general community response turned out to be, "Too late, fuck you!" then that's potentially unhelpful.”

I don’t know, it would suck for WotC employees but it would send a clear message to other companies. I know people think that has already happened it just wait until next quarter when the numbers of RPG sales and games on VTTs doesn’t change and 5E remains the dominate force in the hobby and reflect how long term this victory really is. Especially considering that the OGL still has a poison pill in it.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I mean, the main PF2e book is the PHB+DMG combined and is 640 pages. 5e PHB and DMG are 320 pages. It isn't that much different.
Click to expand...

Well that is twice the size so not sure that qualifies as not that much different. But as we've discussed before just number of pages doesn't mean much, wordcount is more meaningful in that regard.

But even that only suggests how complex the ruleset is and from what I've recall from when I checked out PF1e, it is significantly crunchier than 5e. I haven't checked out PF2e and know you're a fan but not sure anything I've heard about 2e would change my mind.

I already think 5e D&D is too crunchy as an intro to the hobby, I don't think PF would be an improvement.
 
Voros said:
Well that is almost exactly twice the size so not sure that qualifies as not that much different. But as we've discussed before just number of pages doesn't mean much, wordcount is more meaningful in that regard.

I haven't checked out PF2e and know you're a fan but when I checked out PF the convoluted ruleset was way too much for me, not sure anything I've heard about 2e would change my mind. I already think 5e D&D is too crunchy as an intro to the hobby, PF would not be an improvement.
Click to expand...
PF2e crb is BOTH the PHB and DMG and is 640 pages. 5e is also 640 pages, 320 pages in each book. It is the same amount of pages, just in one book instead of 2. PF2e is a slightly more complex game, but personally I think it is actually easier to run than 5e.

Also, I hate PF1e with a passion. Quite like PF2e, it is a very different game. PF1e was just built on top of the rotting corpse of 3.5 which was already just a bunch of systems thrown together in a cludgy way. Then PF1e added more and more cludge all on top of it. PF2e is a streamlined system. Not saying it is light, but it is streamlined in the sense that it has a core framework that everything works off of, and everything is logical to that framework.
 
One thing that needs to be factored in is that WotC has done a lot of damage to it's reputation.

To some extent I think they'd been taking that damage anyway, bleeding out a bit at a time, due to the perceived quality of their more recent products. Now they just took a whole lot at once.

Everything they do is going to be seen through that lens now. People are going to be asking more whether playtest feedback is really being listened to, and whether One D&D really has any point at all from a gameplay perspective.

They're also likely to be increasingly feeling they can voice existing issues they've had for a while in public to an audience that is likely to be more receptive and less inclined to close fanboy ranks.
 
EmperorNorton said:
PF2e crb is BOTH the PHB and DMG and is 640 pages. 5e is also 640 pages, 320 pages in each book. It is the same amount of pages, just in one book instead of 2. PF2e is a slightly more complex game, but personally I think it is actually easier to run than 5e.

Also, I hate PF1e with a passion. Quite like PF2e, it is a very different game. PF1e was just built on top of the rotting corpse of 3.5 which was already just a bunch of systems thrown together in a cludgy way. Then PF1e added more and more cludge all on top of it. PF2e is a streamlined system. Not saying it is light, but it is streamlined in the sense that it has a core framework that everything works off of, and everything is logical to that framework.
Click to expand...

Yeah I recall and trust your opinion on PF2e, just can't bring myself to actually check it out these days with my level of fantasy rpg burnout (okay, I'll make an exception for Swords of Serpentine, which does look awesome).
 
TJS said:
One thing that needs to be factored in is that WotC has done a lot of damage to it's reputation.

To some extent I think they'd been taking that damage anyway, bleeding out a bit at a time, due to the perceived quality of their more recent products. Now they just took a whole lot at once.

Everything they do is going to be seen through that lens now. People are going to be asking more whether playtest feedback is really being listened to, and whether One D&D really has any point at all from a gameplay perspective.

They're also likely to be increasingly feeling they can voice existing issues they've had for a while in public to an audience that is likely to be more receptive and less inclined to close fanboy ranks.
Click to expand...

D&D has always had a rough relationship with the most committed core of the hobby.

Doubt this will be the blow to kill (or even seriously hurt) the dragon.

 
Last edited:
I'm still done with D&D and anything directly WotC, but I'll admit that they've done enough that I'm not going to boycott hasbro as a whole, and I'll probably still buy Transformer toys, which I wasn't going to before.
 
Yes, it would be nice to be able to buy new Peppa Pig stuff for my kid without feeling guilty. (Or any kid…no, not for my personal collection. Not that there would be anything wrong with that. Peppa is awesome.)
 
Arminius said:
Yes, it would be nice to be able to buy new Peppa Pig stuff for my kid without feeling guilty. (Or any kid…no, not for my personal collection. Not that there would be anything wrong with that. Peppa is awesome.)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't feel guilty, in the realm of corporate misbehaviour this doesn't rise to the level of a misdemeanor.

And I'll use any excuse to post this joke from White Lotus.

 
Before WotC’s retreat, I never thought there was any prospect of removing D&D or D&D-by-another-name from the core of the hobby. Just as with the 4e debacle.

I suppose my relative distance from the hobby right now colors my non-reaction, but I’m happy the retroclones and other SRD-based stuff can continue unimpaired, along with potentially orphaned games. I have minimal interest in 5e itself or other games that take a similar approach (3e, 4e, PF, 13th Age) but I wish the players of those games well.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I mean, the main PF2e book is the PHB+DMG combined and is 640 pages. 5e PHB and DMG are 320 pages. It isn't that much different.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily see it being two books combined as a plus. This is sort of counter intuitive but a large book seems like a good value and looks oppressive if you just want to make a character and play.

So I can either read this 640 PG tomb to understand a new game( not really but you have to figure out what you can skip and what you need to learn) or I can revert to what I know.

Why did they pick it up? 6o play D&D because D&D's owners are behaving like dicks. Why still put the effort in if the owners aren't being dicks anymore? Less reasons.
 
I think a lot of people who went out and bought Pathfinder may have been toying with it for a time.

I've spoken with 5e players who had been talking with interest about Pathfinder for a while before this all blew up.

There is some frustration with 5e among many members of it's player base, especially after all this time. So for many, I think this recent kerfuffle was likely the prod they needed. (Especially as the recent playtest 6e documents don't really show any effort at grappling with the deeper issues players are having.)

I think for many Pathfinder 2 looks like it may solve some of the issues they are having (which are difficult of balancing encounters, boring combats, and lack of player options - at a certain point you start to notice that one Cleric in 5e is much like another unless you make an effort to play suboptimally).

I suspect however, that many of these players will still bounce of Pathfinder for it's complexity, but I may be wrong (and kind of hope I am, even though it doesn't really interest me).
 
TJS said:
I think a lot of people who went out and bought Pathfinder may have been toying with it for a time.

I've spoken with 5e players who had been talking with interest about Pathfinder for a while before this all blew up.

There is some frustration with 5e among many members of it's player base, especially after all this time. So for many, I think this recent kerfuffle was likely the prod they needed. (Especially as the recent playtest 6e documents don't really show any effort at grappling with the deeper issues players are having.)
Click to expand...
This matches my experience as well. Go to any D&D focused area and look at the responses to a lot of the latest books like Spelljammer. People were already getting annoyed with WotC before this.
 
robertsconley said:
The OGL 1.0a
Wizards have stated they will leave the OGL 1.0a in place.


However, one result of the last few weeks was the microscope that the OGL 1.0a was placed under. To avoid the problem of orphaned works. And to avoid impact on third parties who use the OGL to support other RPGs like Legend, Cepheus and the OSR. There needs to be an authorized OGL 1.0b released by WoTC.

The two provisions that are needed are

  • That Section 4, Grant and Consideration of the OGL incorporates the term irrevocable.
  • That Section 1, Definitions, Includes a definition of authorization that states it refers to any license that has been officially released for use by third parties by Wizards. That license can not be deauthorized once released.
Click to expand...
What they did was the minimum they could do. They won't spend the expense to amend it, and won't give it over to a foundation that might care for it. What does that say to me? They're kicking the can down the road.

This wasn't necessarily a victory- it was a temporary cessation of fire. Though I suppose since they're releasing the entirety of the SRD 5.1 to CC which is protected they might have no intent of revisiting.
 
CC seems like a major step but I am not an IP lawyer, and as robertsconley robertsconley (I think) noted, the 3.5 SRD is the basis of some games and is only currently OGL 1.0a.

One thing I don’t get from Rob’s summary above is how an irrevocable 1.0b would help with orphaned games. I mean if they are orphaned who is going to revise them to include 1.0b? It seems without that, distribution of those games would have to rely on arguments that 1.0a is sufficient—which is pretty much the opinion of everyone. But would a 1.0b help people who want to write new material for 1.0a systems? (Any more than CC for the SRD already would?)

Alternatively could a 1.0b be written so as to not only be irrevocable but also to effectively do the same for 1.0a at least from the standpoint of WotC?

(Edit: clarity)
 
Last edited:
Arminius said:
CC seems like a major step but I am not an IP lawyer, and as robertsconley robertsconley (I think) noted, the 3.5 SRD is the basis of some games and is only currently OGL 1.0a.

One thing I don’t get from Rob’s summary above is how an irrevocable 1.0b would help with orphaned games. I mean if they are orphaned who is going to revise them to include 1.0b? It seems without that, distribution of those games would have to rely on arguments that 1.0a is sufficient—which is pretty much the opinion of everyone. Would a 1.0b help people who want to write new material for 1.0a systems? (Any more than CC for the SRD already would?)

Alternatively could a 1.0b be written so as not only be irrevocable but also to effectively do the same for 1.0a at least from the standpoint of WotC?
Click to expand...

The principle is that anything released under any authorized version of the OGL is open to use under all authorized versions, so that an irrevocable 1.0b would allow people to use anything released under 1.0a as well. This was believed to be the motive for 'deauthorizing' the OGL 1.0a, rather than just making OGL 1.1/2.0 more constrained--people could take anything released under the new OGL and use it under 1.0a.
 
chuckdee said:
What they did was the minimum they could do. They won't spend the expense to amend it, and won't give it over to a foundation that might care for it. What does that say to me? They're kicking the can down the road.

This wasn't necessarily a victory- it was a temporary cessation of fire. Though I suppose since they're releasing the entirety of the SRD 5.1 to CC which is protected they might have no intent of revisiting.
Click to expand...
It seems like one of two rationales.

1. Just fucking forget it, it's not worth the blowback, leave the old shit alone.
2. Just shut up about it, everyone will forget and then we can strike, MUAHAHAHAHHAA!!
 
What’s the benefit of an irrevocable OGL?

Why can’t Hasbro make a new OGL that is supposedly irrevocable and then later declare that deauthorised?

It may not stand up in court but the mere threat of having to go to court was successful in getting people to abandon the OGL.

That’s why the ORC license controlled by a nonprofit is needed now.
 
Arminius said:
CC seems like a major step but I am not an IP lawyer, and as robertsconley robertsconley (I think) noted, the 3.5 SRD is the basis of some games and is only currently OGL 1.0a.

One thing I don’t get from Rob’s summary above is how an irrevocable 1.0b would help with orphaned games. I mean if they are orphaned who is going to revise them to include 1.0b? It seems without that, distribution of those games would have to rely on arguments that 1.0a is sufficient—which is pretty much the opinion of everyone. Would a 1.0b help people who want to write new material for 1.0a systems? (Any more than CC for the SRD already would?)

Alternatively could a 1.0b be written so as not only be irrevocable but also to effectively do the same for 1.0a at least from the standpoint of WotC?
Click to expand...
The key for the orphaned publications is if anyone wants to base work off one of those. With a 1.0b that is truly irrevocable and not able to be invalidated, at any time in the future, one would be able to take such orphaned content, and make something new with it, and use the 1.0b license. The 1.0b license could also make it clear anything licensed with the 1.0a license may be licensed under the 1.0b license irrevocably. I.e. maybe 1.0b could effectively make 1.0a truly irrevocable. As I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the ins and outs, but it does seem a 1.0b would be a good thing.
 
sharps54 said:
Also they have released the 5.1 SRD, what about the 3.5 SRD? Is that needed for OSR games or is the 5.1 good enough?
Click to expand...
OSR games can be written using the 5.1 but most were written with the 3.5 and full CYA legal compliance would require going over them with a fine-toothed comb to make sure they didn't use something only found in the 3.5... before changing the attribution and republishing them as CC-BY. In practical terms, I don't think you could add up the entire OGL 1.0a/SRD 3.5 market to something Hasbro cares about unless you included Paizo, and Paizo is the reason we'll never see SRD 3.5 released under CC or any new Hasbro OGL.

SRD 5.1 is good enough to make a new clone of any version of TSR D&D, but it's a lot of hassle to make sure that SRD 3.5 old clones are actually based in the law instead of trusting in Hasbro's benign indifference. PF1 material is basically 100% orphaned works as long as the OGL 1.0a is considered unreliable, while Paizo's PF2 and hopefully most 3PP PF2 material is almost certainly going to be republished under the ORC license with a new SRD.
 
TJS said:
What’s the benefit of an irrevocable OGL?

Why can’t Hasbro make a new OGL that is supposedly irrevocable and then later declare that deauthorised?

It may not stand up in court but the mere threat of having to go to court was successful in getting people to abandon the OGL.

That’s why the ORC license controlled by a nonprofit is needed now.
Click to expand...
The call was to have a 1.0b that is irrevocable AND makes it clear what was meant by "authorized," to effectively future proof anything that happened to be under the 1.0a license.
 
I think by making the 5.1SRD cc it removes the need to alter 1.0a to insert the term "irrevocable" because it removes any motivation for Wizards to try to revoke it again in the future. There simply would be no benefit to them
 
ffilz said:
The call was to have a 1.0b that is irrevocable AND makes it clear what was meant by "authorized," to effectively future proof anything that happened to be under the 1.0a license.
Click to expand...
Yes. Fine but the issue remains the same. Legal contract protection against the major corporation is only going to help you if you’re prepared to go to court.

Otherwise they just need to state the license is no longer valid (in all this business it was left to others to speculate what their legal case would be - they never bothered to explain why they felt they had the power to revoke the OGL - they left that to others to speculate about)
 
I appreciate the concerns of TJS TJS but—perhaps overoptimistically—I have to think there is some level of clarity under law, prior cases, and contract where judges would simply slap down an attempt by a deep-pocketed corporation to engage in barratry.

Edit: maybe I’m using “barratry” wrong. I just mean that the system can’t be so bad that any rich entity can just take away your stuff via groundless lawsuits on settled matters.
 
Last edited:
David Johansen said:
Drivethru POD? As a retailer I consider it blasphemy and desecration of the sacred products...errr...I mean texts...yeah, defilement thats it!
Click to expand...

I personally look forward to a future where all retail book stores are PoD, and you can just get anything you want printed and bound.

Then have a concurrent collector's market, that is just leatherbound books made of the highest possible quality.
 
They could make a 1.0b license that is as irrevocable as Creative Commons license and make it clear that the 1.0a is also irrevocable. The argument can't they just sue you anyways is worthless at that point unless you think can't Hasbro just sue me for violating their IP when I've never made anything but I played with my GI Joe toys wrong in their opinion is a valid criticism to buying GI Joe toys. Yes, in America anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but a baseless lawsuit is still a baseless lawsuit and not something I would worry about.
 
TristramEvans said:
I think by making the 5.1SRD cc it removes the need to alter 1.0a to insert the term "irrevocable" because it removes any motivation for Wizards to try to revoke it again in the future. There simply would be no benefit to them
Click to expand...
Exactly, Wizards has no reason to make an OGL 1.0b. They said they are leaving 1.0 a alone and they have no reason to do anything with the 3.5 SRD now.

This whole thing was an unforced error. They could have gotten what they wanted without revoking anything.
 
I'm one of those who thinks they only really wanted to get rid of 1.0a so they could got forward with a 5.1e/6e that was backwards compatible w 5e and deauthorized VTTs. Having lost that convincingly in the court of public opinion(in part due to the failure to truly understand all that takes advantage of 1.0a OGL) they will take alternate plans and honestly they don't care at all about anything pre 5e. They never have. All they wanted was things dealing with 5e and beyond.
 
Bunch said:
I'm one of those who thinks they only really wanted to get rid of 1.0a so they could got forward with a 5.1e/6e that was backwards compatible w 5e and deauthorized VTTs. Having lost that convincingly in the court of public opinion(in part due to the failure to truly understand all that takes advantage of 1.0a OGL) they will take alternate plans and honestly they don't care at all about anything pre 5e. They never have. All they wanted was things dealing with 5e and beyond.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way. I think 4e taught them that edition wars are bad, so instead of having one, they’d just screw everyone over first
 
Well this certainly explains the choice of hold music when I called WOTC this morning to find out the latest gossip.




Bunch said:
I still can't get folks to play Rocky & Bullwinkle with me. They freak out when I show them the hand puppets
Click to expand...

The hand puppets go on your hands, that might help.

CRKrueger said:
One of the things the guys touch on in robertsconley robertsconley video is that companies are simply retreading IPs across all entertainment.

Creative endeavors can’t be headed by non-creative people. When were the greatest movies (and greatest current IPs) created? In the New Hollywood era, where directors were given their head. Yes, there were mad excesses and some spectacular failures, there were also Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Alien, Terminator, Predator,etc ie…all the properties the film industry wants to keep retreading. Part of the problem is, these movies were so good, they created the Blockbuster concept, where suits want grand slam home runs from every movie without hiring the talent to do it and letting them do their thing.

What happens when you let the person do their thing? MCU

What happens when the studio controls everything, or worse, gets people who are interested in a modern cultural deconstruction of the subject material with no understanding or love for it? Well, the list is long and distinguished.
Disney Star Wars
Amazon LotR
Netflix Witcher
Half of post-Avengers Marvel.
Etc.
Click to expand...

There was an interview with John Cleese, and he credited Monty Python happening, because at the time the execs at the BBC only cared about results. They hired the right people, trusted them to do their jobs then the execs went off to the pub.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top