Not sure. It's not like they got rid of already converted ones. They just aren't allowing certain new classic modules. I wonder if someone is negotiating a license and trying to have the rights to PDF/electronic distribution. Something people repeatedly complain is missing from the Goodman Games reprints
Are people purchasing these classic modules? Or are they just community?
Purchasing. FG I believe has a setup where a person can do a conversion, get a portion of the revenue while FG and WotC get a portion as well. I don't know the ratios. As I understand it that a guy did the conversions for two modules on spec (or possibly FG request) only to get turned down on approval from WotC.
They have a setup. Still working for all publishers and all systems except d&d classic. Still works for 5e. No clue about 4e.
Hell if I know. I DIY stuff into Roll20.
Interesting. But that strategy fails on one area. You can't copyright rules. Only the expression. So someone can keep incorporating the rules of One D&D into all the existing VTTs. That's what Fantasy Grounds has been doing for decades with 3.x,4.0 and prior to a licensing deal with WotC 5.0
Ok but how does that justify the decision to shut down support for AD&D 1&2e products on FG? Is the thinking those buyer are going to come over? By the logic you presented those older modules would also require some conversion to use with 5e which seems to exclude them from being worth worrying about.
The limit isn't SRD only but it does exclude WotC specific IP.
I wouldn't compare it to TSR vs Mayfair. I'd compare it to WotC vs OSR more.
The OSR is built on limiting your use to the SRD - a requirement to qualify for claiming the safe harbor of the OGL. To go outside of the SRD is to use the Mayfair model of depending upon a judge agreeing your use is fair use. People/companies with assets at risk don't put them at risk for the marginal return of using non-SRD content.
I think I need to understand what you're talking about by "limited to the SRD" because from what I'm think people have been blowing past "just the SRD" for two decades now and WotC has no hope of stuffing that back into a bottle.
Ok so we're on the same page as far as what the OGL limits you to. I think you are looking way too far back in history to make a comparison. The most recent and relevant history to me is 3.X to 4E transition. Large number of people came in to D&D, invested large sums of money into the system and then unceremoniously said "We're invalidating you and there's nothing you can do. Join our onerous system or suck eggs!" (look at the original third party open license to 4e for that) The response was Paizo. That certainly thrived and still does. The lesson there might be for the various VTT's to create a knock off 5e and get Paizo to publish adventures for it. Solves a lot of 2nd stringers issues. I mean Frog God Games seems to be stepping up with 5e modules. Are we at another one of those odd points where a decision to try and grab it all creates a stronger competitor than just continuing to allow licensing. I dunno. I mean that takes a lot of effort by someone and I don't know if anyone is up for it but it would be interesting if Roll20, FG, Frog God Games and Paizo got in a room and said how can we take this and use it to our advantage.
I think WOTC learned their lesson here, because they aren't duplicating the 3E/4E transition. One D&D isn't supposed to be a departure from a mechanical system many people like, but instead entirely backwards compatible with it. Instead of pushing a fan base off a cliff, they're slowly transitioning the ruleset over time in increments. There won't be any large fan base lacking access to the basic system they desire to run games in, for someone to waltz in and unlock for them.
I mostly agree with you except the schism wasnt totally the rules changes in the 3.x-4x transition. It was also investment and control changes. The 3.x tossed away the investment players had made in books in the 2000 era. I wouldnt be totally surprised to see in the last two years much of the investment was made in digital purchases. A large percent will have been in D&D Beyond. That's a group that's largely going to be indifferent to a VTT change if all their assets move over which I think they will. I'm a FG guy. Others are Roll20 & Foundry. All those people are getting the same experience as the transition from 3.x to 4. All my money spent becomes less useful if I can't find players and quality premade adventures on my preferred VTT. I'm certainly biased since I've been using FG since 2008. I want to play more than just D&D5e so I'll stick with it. I own most of this in both Hardcopy and on FG. I'm not buying it a 3rd time. It seems weird to alienate me as a fairly loyal and spending customer but it's a business decision.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said above, but this is one area where we diverge. I don't think the GMs are the whales. I think the players are. I know a lot of GMs who glumly use Roll20 even though they hate it, because there's more players willing to use it than FG or Foundry. So if I were designing a VTT, my priority #1 would be to make it so the players didn't want to play anywhere else. And I would be very confident the GMs would eventually follow.
So depends on how you define whales I suppose. Players outnumber by a good amount so sales of player facing items will sell more dollars but dollars per person I suspect a GM is by far the whale. I can see your strategy of making it very player focused but if you forget the GM focus you end up at a frat party with no booze. I'm guessing the ones using Roll20 are trying to play something other than 5e because I'd be a bit surprised if you couldn't find enough 5e players on any of the major VTTs. Ultimately you have to have enough of each. All I need in 2-6 players. That doesn't seem too hard to find for any VTT.
Doom in terms of other VTTs and their ability to exist.
Also all of this assumes that the OneVTT technical team is actually competent. The explicit support of a rule set and adventures are nice but it is Dwarven Forge nice. It not necessary to the basic functionally of a VTT just as DF is not necessary for a face to face session to work. The result is that if OneVTT sucks people are not going to make the shift or return to the VTTs that do not suck.
Absolutely this. However, considering there is an actual development team behind it and WoTC has been bringing in former Microsoft and Xbox people into key leadership roles, It's likely a safe assumption that it's going to work at launch. If the need to go live without full functionality, I feel like they could get away with not coding in abilities for 11th-20th level in the beginning, but they would need to get that out the door fast.
How is this any different than development teams Wizards or Hasbro used in the past? It not like this team ever produced anything in the past. It is in the same boat as any other startup.
I believe this development team is part of the D&D Beyond team, who have delivered successful products. The other major difference is that in the previous attempts, WoTC and Hasbro were game and toy companies who would license out their IP and not have a lot of in house development. They have been running software development teams since they took over MGT Online. Also, Game engines, especially Unity, have come a long way in usability and 3rd party components. WoTC has been working to grow there talent on that side of the business and I personally believe they bought D&D Beyond because they've already proven to WoTC that they could build the VTT in addition to the proven value of the platform to in person play. So the biggest difference from previous attempts is that it's not a product being done through a 3rd party and WoTC now has the leadership and experience to properly run a software company combined with improvements in game engines that makes it even easier to build them.
That sounds a lot like what senior management would say. VTTs are not a technology- they're a use of technologies to make a product. Without the benefit of OSS, they have a lot to pick from in terms of requirements and UX, but not the underlying code and performance tweaks on said code. It's all green field development work, and they'd be best served by taking their time and treating it as such.
