We won! (OGL)

[TristramEvans]

Fate was another incredibly annoying RPGnet Darling for a while

 

[robertsconley]

The biggest problem with 5e is that everything is treated as an object in a game rather than an object in a living world. As such it will never be immersive, will always feel fake and plastic.

This is not a system problem with 5E. I ran three campaigns with the system, two with the system as is. The third wil my own set of subclassses and less generous rest rules. Immersion was not an issue in any of them. The problem lies in how the system is presented over time by their team. 5e presentation had a strong start at the beginning but they lost it along the way.

 

[robertsconley]

I find this being accurate for many games, but if I push too hard, such as insisting bows need to be unstrung when in storage, or strings getting ruined when wet, I get a lot of pushback from the players who want to treat the game as a game, not like it's the world's most advanced physics engine. Not that I've ever strongly enforced things mentioned in this post, but I once played under a GM who did. Wasn't fun for me at all...

Having detailed system can be fun and some can be mind numbing. But the system isn’t the issue. It is how the system is used that is the problem and exist whether we are talking GURPS with all the books or one page Microlite20.

The solution is to make the setting of the final word on what the characters can or can’t do. The rules whether detailed or minimalist are just an aid not the arbiters of characters can do.

In practice is much of this amounts to adhering to “describe first, roll second.” If what described is covered by the rules then great use the rule. If it is not and it makes sense for the character to make the attempt, the craft a ruling.

 

[migo]

Who's taking the numbers that Wizards toss at us seriously?

First of all, they cite things that they didn't even ask me in their survey. Secondly Wizards told that upwards of 16k people answered their survey. Black Flag told me they got 21k answers to the call. How's that possible?! How could the elephant in the room get less people to answer to their outburst than a small fringe operator get? Thirdly, they told that the survey would be up for two weeks, and after only a few days later they announce results...

The survey had to be answered on DNDBeyond, right? The first thing that got WotC to pay attention was five-digit cancellation of subscriptions. So more people cancelled their accounts in protest than people who stayed on to still answer the survey.

I find this being accurate for many games, but if I push too hard, such as insisting bows need to be unstrung when in storage, or strings getting ruined when wet, I get a lot of pushback from the players who want to treat the game as a game, not like it's the world's most advanced physics engine. Not that I've ever strongly enforced things mentioned in this post, but I once played under a GM who did. Wasn't fun for me at all...

How did your GM enforce that? Did he say if you don't say the bow is unstrung, it gets damaged? Or did he say it's automatic and you have to take an extra round to string it if you have been surprised?

 

[TristramEvans]

The survey had to be answered on DNDBeyond, right?

No, it was just a link. I've never been to D&DBeyond.

 

[sharps54]

The thing is the 5.1 SRD being released under CC does NOTHING tho fix the issues that have been shown to exist with OGL 1.0a and the games that are under that sword of Damocles.

 

[pdboddy]

The thing is the 5.1 SRD being released under CC does NOTHING tho fix the issues that have been shown to exist with OGL 1.0a and the games that are under that sword of Damocles.

I see that you, too, are a person of culture. ;)

Yeah, we're not out of the woods yet, entirely. But I think we're as far as we're going to get, for now. Though if we could keep the pressure on WotC, we might get to total surrender.

 

[sharps54]

I see that you, too, are a person of culture. ;)

Yeah, we're not out of the woods yet, entirely. But I think we're as far as we're going to get, for now. Though if we could keep the pressure on WotC, we might get to total surrender.

Maybe, I definitely think we need to keep the pressure up but I also think anyone using the OGL should move away from it as soon as it is practicable.

The big concern of course would be the products that have been abandoned and no longer have anyone to update them.

 

[pdboddy]

The big concern of course would be the products that have been abandoned and no longer have anyone to update them.

I am sure there's something to be done, a proper update could be made retroactive somehow.

Though... no one to update means no one to be sued also, so unlikely for WotC to go after those products.

 

[sharps54]

I am sure there's something to be done, a proper update could be made retroactive somehow.

Though... no one to update means no one to be sued also, so unlikely for WotC to go after those products.

Maybe, the scary part is the wording of the statement that robertsconley shared from DrivethruRPG, the idea that Hasbro would pressure them to remove all products using the OGL doesn’t seem as outlandish after that

 

[TristramEvans]

The thing is the 5.1 SRD being released under CC does NOTHING tho fix the issues that have been shown to exist with OGL 1.0a and the games that are under that sword of Damocles.

Well it removes any material benefit to WotC to attempt to revoke the OGL 1.0a in the future, which is basically the best protection it can have without a court ruling.

 

[sharps54]

Well it removes any material benefit to WotC to attempt to revoke the OGL 1.0a in the future, which is basically the best protection it can have without a court ruling.

That sounds good but according to them the most important reason was to stop the OGL from being used to produce products containing bigotry and hate speech, it’s not about financial gain, it’s about the children!

Spoiler

No, I don’t honestly believe they care about those things either (aside from when the fan base complains)

 

[robertsconley]

Well it removes any material benefit to WotC to attempt to revoke the OGL 1.0a in the future, which is basically the best protection it can have without a court ruling.

The main reason I advocate for an OGL 1.0b with the provisions I mentioned is to provide more clarity. I don't think it is legally needed. But socially, we would be better off having it around. Without a OGL 1.0b, the point you raised will have to be "good enough". The next test will be whatever winds up competing against OneD&D aka Pathfinder versus 4e. If it is perceived to have cut into OneD&D (and the VTT) popularity then we will see if the claws are truly sheathed.

 

[Baulderstone]

That sounds good but according to them the most important reason was to stop the OGL from being used to produce products containing bigotry and hate speech, it’s not about financial gain, it’s about the children!

Spoiler

No, I don’t honestly believe they care about those things either (aside from when the fan base complains)

I did a research paper on the effect of advertising on children when I was back in school about ten years ago. Toy and game marketing to kids is based on using child psychology to create a sense of neediness and discontent in children that will result in what they call "nagging behavior" towards their parents, ideally resulting in the parents buying them what they want. They also do a lot of research into way to leverage children who already buy their toys into mocking children who don't have their toys.

Nobody cares less about the children than companies like Hasbro.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

This is not a system problem with 5E. I ran three campaigns with the system, two with the system as is. The third wil my own set of subclassses and less generous rest rules. Immersion was not an issue in any of them. The problem lies in how the system is presented over time by their team. 5e presentation had a strong start at the beginning but they lost it along the way.

D&D is always best if you limit yourself to just the core books. The supplements always jump the shark at some point.

 

[migo]

D&D is always best if you limit yourself to just the core books. The supplements always jump the shark at some point.

I find this depends on if the core books were complete. For instance Specialty Priests were hinted at in the 2e PHB, but weren't properly explained until you got to Legends & Lore or Faiths & Avatars. There are some things that really didn't get worked out until later either. For instance nobody I'm aware of speaks positively of AD&D 1e initiative. AD&D 2e didn't have anything better, but the initiative system in Player's Option: Combat & Tactics really is decent and straight-forward.

Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide was also a way better DMG than any version of the DMG itself that I've read.

Supplements that fix something that was broken, or expand on something that was incomplete are good. Supplements that just add on top of something that was fine to begin with are where you'll end up with problems.

 

[Endless Flight]

I like the diety books for the various editions but I don’t think I would ever used them. I just like looking at write-ups for folks like Zeus and Thor.

 

[JoeNuttall]

This is a short post to say that I was so blind sided by Hasbro's capitulation that I still don't know what I think on the subject, but I feel I'm missing out by not posting in this thread. I miss the simplicity of the old thread!

Regarding supplements I think the rule is the same as movie sequels - often the first one (Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Terminator 2) is good, but after that they invariably go downhill rapidly.

 

[AsenRG]

The only true RPG is Free Kriegspiel and the rest are all deviations.

A) True...
B) ... but we don't kinkshame here!

Ironically this whole experience has burned me out on not just 5e and WotC D&D but most of the OSR.

View attachment 55574

I think the whole thing has reinforced for me how unhealthily obsessed with D&D the hobby is.

Need a break from fantasy rpgs. Get a CoC or some other game up and running...

Well, I agree with your conclusion, in general.
So just get a break from fantasy RPGs, and get DG up and running, for example. IIRC, you liked it?

One of the things the guys touch on in 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.

"Distinguished" ain't exactly the word I'd use...but that's a remarkable list of movies that I've only heard rumours about. I guess I should be lucky they didn't shot them?
Would have been a bad idea.

Indeed, that's kinda the point of the OGL. From a Dancey interview at the time:

View attachment 55601

Well, he was right. Not necessarily thinking about the good of the hobby, but it worked exactly the way he predicted, didn't it?

Yeah this whole thing has made me start to question the wisdom of the OSR's whole approach.

The rulesets in the OSR have always been the least interesting bit to me but now I'm starting to wonder if the OSR isn't really just reinforcing the undue dominance of D&D in the hobby.

I used to think of the OSR as a kinda 'punk rock' for rpgs where people go back to the roots of the hobby and see how they can make it new again.

But punk rock ossified overtime and as The Who said 'meet the new Boss, same as the old boss.'

I think going forward for me the real punk rockers are those who move beyond D&D and yes, even fantasy, as the over-riding premise of the hobby.

I think we need more games inspired by the likes of Over the Edge and Delta Green, not more 'Not THAT D&D...Instead THIS D&D.'

...all I can say is, I'm glad you've reached those conclusions!

Yeah, I think there is the interesting question of what the most innovative of OSR people would have done if the OGL hadn't existed.

In all likelihood:
1) Some would have published the campaigns they're running under any kind of ruleset which...in some cases wouldn't have been the rulesets they used to run those adventures.
2) Some would have adapted it for 5e.
3) Some would have gone to other RPGs.
4) Some would have started their own games, which might have been great.
5) Some wouldn't have published anything, except for free on their blogs.

So overall, my expectations are that the lack of the OGL would have lead to more creativity and diversity in the hobby.
I expect that this surprises exactly nobody...

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.

So...Massive Damage Roll incoming, shares lose X value on a fail?

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.

Yeah.
And yet I expect that some people are going to stick to the OGL. After all, some people are prone to sticking to abusive partners, too, right? It's going to be different next time, right? (No. And I know it).

Yeah, I'm bitter, though not necessarily due to the situation. Actually, my own comparison bugs me, for personal reasons...

I appreciate the concerns of @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.

I suspect that might be overoptimistic...if you don't even reach a courtroom.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I am still pretty wary that this is over. I have a feeling there is language in the SRD CC that they put in knowing they can exploit it down the road, but they have also effectively tainted the OGL for a lot of people anyways so may have achieved what they were looking to do. I think when you think how unthinkable it was that they would deathorize, yet they did it. Then you think of how they planted in obvious clauses to control competition, then inserted clauses giving them control of other peoples IP (and had the audacity to say the possibility of exploiting these things never crossed their mind), it paints a picture of a company whose word is pretty meaningless and whose promises are very open to the interpretations of their legal team. Maybe this SRD thing is airtight. I don't know.

Either way for me, I think I don't need WOTC anymore. I've been playing a bit of DCC and quite like that. And I can always play 2E with my old books. There are other D&D adjacent games I am curious about and would rather give smaller companies my money at this point. I also do think the hobby would benefit from not having major players like WOTC and OBS dominate everything. So I am going to be spending my money with that as a consideration.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I did a research paper on the effect of advertising on children when I was back in school about ten years ago. Toy and game marketing to kids is based on using child psychology to create a sense of neediness and discontent in children that will result in what they call "nagging behavior" towards their parents, ideally resulting in the parents buying them what they want. They also do a lot of research into way to leverage children who already buy their toys into mocking children who don't have their toys.

Nobody cares less about the children than companies like Hasbro.

Next you will be telling me my health insurance company doesn't care about my health!

 

[Baulderstone]

I am still pretty wary that this is over. I have a feeling there is language in the SRD CC that they put in knowing they can exploit it down the road, but they have also effectively tainted the OGL for a lot of people anyways so may have achieved what they were looking to do. I think when you think how unthinkable it was that they would deathorize, yet they did it. Then you think of how they planted in obvious clauses to control competition, then inserted clauses giving them control of other peoples IP (and had the audacity to say the possibility of exploiting these things never crossed their mind), it paints a picture of a company whose word is pretty meaningless and whose promises are very open to the interpretations of their legal team. Maybe this SRD thing is airtight. I don't know.

Either way for me, I think I don't need WOTC anymore. I've been playing a bit of DCC and quite like that. And I can always play 2E with my old books. There are other D&D adjacent games I am curious about and would rather give smaller companies my money at this point. I also do think the hobby would benefit from not having major players like WOTC and OBS dominate everything. So I am going to be spending my money with that as a consideration.

There are more quality RPG books from the last 50 years than I can ever buy, and certainly more than I can ever play, and a lot of those are produced by great people. I have no idea why anybody would ever give the assholes at Hasbro another dime.

 

[Endless Flight]

I am still pretty wary that this is over.

 

[Baulderstone]

One war against one gaming community. They just wanted something to play. They never fought a battle they couldn't win.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

I have a feeling there is language in the SRD CC that they put in knowing they can exploit it down the road...Maybe this SRD thing is airtight. I don't know.

Not sure, but you may be confusing what the SRD is. The SRD is merely a document that contains information that has been released under a creative commons license. The SRD itself isn't a license, so you can't really exploit a loophole in it. The Creative Commons license is pretty safe as it's completely separate from WOTC.

 

[migo]

I have a feeling there is language in the SRD CC that they put in knowing they can exploit it down the road, but they have also effectively tainted the OGL for a lot of people anyways so may have achieved what they were looking to do.

There isn't. They didn't write the CC license, they used a neutral one they have no control over. Basically, the main things they were concerned about with the OGL is now out of their control. A major company like Paizo can just re-release anything using the 5.1 SRD under OGL with the CC license and keep going as if nothing had changed.

3.5 SRD is still OGL 1.0a only, and it would be nice of them to put it under CC as well. So anything sneaky they would have planned in the future would centre around the 3.5 SRD. That said within a couple years the industry should be able to re-adjust around just the 5.1 SRD under CC, and Wizards could only go after orphan products, which wouldn't be worth the blowback they would get.

 

[robertsconley]

I am still pretty wary that this is over. I have a feeling there is language in the SRD CC that they put in knowing they can exploit it down the road, but they have also effectively tainted the OGL for a lot of people anyways so may have achieved what they were looking to do.

The relevant point is this
from here

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt

Section 6
c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.

So if Wizards choose to stop distributing the 5.1-CC document, socially it will cause a lot of confusion and dismay. If you go googling about this issue with CC then you will run into a lot of commentaries that more about the older version (1.0 to 3.0) than 4.0 which directly addresses the issue.

Legally you should to be in the clear in continuing to share the SRD-5.1-CC and remix it.

But there is still a debate

Q: Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? A: No. Er... Sort Of? Maybe? - The Scholarly Kitchen

A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

And there is a handy list of all court cases involving Creative Commons. Nothing stands out as being on point for the hobby's situation.

CC Legal Database

This database contains case law and legal scholarship about CC licenses and the issues that relate to their enforceability and interpretation.

legaldb.creativecommons.org

 

[TristramEvans]

There are more quality RPG books from the last 50 years than I can ever buy, and certainly more than I can ever play, and a lot of those are produced by great people. I have no idea why anybody would ever give the assholes at Hasbro another dime.

Honestly, I just want their toys. I could care less what they do with D&D.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I'm trapped in Fantasy F'n Vietnam !

 

[BedrockBrendan]

The relevant point is this
from here

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt

So if Wizards choose to stop distributing the 5.1-CC document, socially it will cause a lot of confusion and dismay. If you go googling about this issue with CC then you will run into a lot of commentaries that more about the older version (1.0 to 3.0) than 4.0 which directly addresses the issue.

Legally you should to be in the clear in continuing to share the SRD-5.1-CC and remix it.

But there is still a debate

Q: Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? A: No. Er... Sort Of? Maybe? - The Scholarly Kitchen

A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

And there is a handy list of all court cases involving Creative Commons. Nothing stands out as being on point for the hobby's situation.

CC Legal Database

This database contains case law and legal scholarship about CC licenses and the issues that relate to their enforceability and interpretation.

legaldb.creativecommons.org

This is the sort of area I have in mind

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Not sure, but you may be confusing what the SRD is. The SRD is merely a document that contains information that has been released under a creative commons license. The SRD itself isn't a license, so you can't really exploit a loophole in it. The Creative Commons license is pretty safe as it's completely separate from WOTC.

I am not thinking about the CC itself. I am thinking more about how they managed to miraculously get their lawyers to target the term 'authorized' in the original OGL. And up until a little over a month ago, no one seemed to think that was possible (when the leak first happened people were very skeptical of those painting a worst case scenario, which ended up being real). So I'm just wondering if there is any language in any point of this process (and CC is not something I am hugely familiar with beyond my limited usage of Creative Commons stuff on wikipedia) that WOTC knows they can exploit in the same way. Maybe I am being paranoid. But I think given what just happened, a little paranoia is probably warranted.

For me though the bigger issue is why should I continue buying WOTC or continuing purchasing things that helps make WOTC a dominant player? After the business with the OGL (which they still haven't said they can't deauthorize) I don't feel like they are healthy for the hobby.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

D&D is always best if you limit yourself to just the core books. The supplements always jump the shark at some point.

At the very least, anything needs to be extremely optional. I found some of the extra stuff useful during the 2E era, but a lot of what made that work for me was the GMs curated it more. Post 2000s D&D there was more an atmosphere of 'if it's in an official book its fair game', and I found that often not only presented balance concerns, but really interfered with setting in a big way.

 

[TristramEvans]

Post 2000s D&D there was more an atmosphere of 'if it's in an official book its fair game'

Yeah, that seems to have gotten worse over time. I've seen 5e DMs be accused of all manner of things for saying they don't allow dragonborn or tieflings in their games.

 

[Akrasia]

Yeah, that seems to have gotten worse over time. I've seen 5e DMs be accused of all manner of things for saying they don't allow dragonborn or tieflings in their games.

Accused of what? Prejudice against imaginary species? Being killjoys? Or not wanting to cater to annoying whiny players who shouldn't be part of the relevant groups in the first place?


LOL, I don't allow dragonborn, tieflings, warlocks, sorcerers, etc. in my Greyhawk game. And I never will!
One benefit of playing with old friends: trust and shared tastes in what "belongs" in the campaign.

 

[robertsconley]

I am not thinking about the CC itself. I am thinking more about how they managed to miraculously get their lawyers to target the term 'authorized' in the original OGL. And up until a little over a month ago, no one seemed to think that was possible (when the leak first happened people were very skeptical of those painting a worst case scenario, which ended up being real). So I'm just wondering if there is any language in any point of this process (and CC is not something I am hugely familiar with beyond my limited usage of Creative Commons stuff on wikipedia) that WOTC knows they can exploit in the same way. Maybe I am being paranoid. But I think given what just happened, a little paranoia is probably warranted.

Well the company who made the OGL license tried to kill the OGL license. So that was bad enough before legally and socially. But compounding this is the fact the OGL is largely just a RPG thing.

With the CC, however there are other parties with a vested interest in ensuring it's validity. So we wouldn't be alone legally. Socially however

For me though the bigger issue is why should I continue buying WOTC or continuing purchasing things that helps make WOTC a dominant player? After the business with the OGL (which they still haven't said they can't deauthorize) I don't feel like they are healthy for the hobby.

We don't need them to make our own D&D happen and yes Wizards dominance is a problem.

 

[TristramEvans]

Accused of what?

Cheating, Gateeeping, "Not Playing Real D&D", etc...every manner of stupidity.

But, I mean, there was a guy arguing on Twitter yesterday that a DM can cause harm to their players by converting modules made for one game to another. So....the hobby is just full of idiots I guess.

 

[JAMUMU]

Yeah, that seems to have gotten worse over time. I've seen 5e DMs be accused of all manner of things for saying they don't allow dragonborn or tieflings in their games.

"You've made your own setting? Okay. It doesn't have everything the Forgotten Realms has in it? Not playing your shit setting then."

 

[Baulderstone]

I am not thinking about the CC itself. I am thinking more about how they managed to miraculously get their lawyers to target the term 'authorized' in the original OGL. And up until a little over a month ago, no one seemed to think that was possible (when the leak first happened people were very skeptical of those painting a worst case scenario, which ended up being real). So I'm just wondering if there is any language in any point of this process (and CC is not something I am hugely familiar with beyond my limited usage of Creative Commons stuff on wikipedia) that WOTC knows they can exploit in the same way. Maybe I am being paranoid. But I think given what just happened, a little paranoia is probably warranted.

The lesson here is Hasbro isn't shy about using legal intimidation against small businesses even if the argument if dubious. Don't use Hasbro licensing unless you have a legal department that can match them.

The D&D fad isn't going to last forever, so next time Hasbro tries something like this, the media might not see any click value in D&D stories. You can't count on the same level of hue and cry next time.

D&D is only of secondary interest to me, so I am unaffected, but people can keep feeding the wolf at their own risk.

 

[TristramEvans]

I am thinking more about how they managed to miraculously get their lawyers to target the term 'authorized' in the original OGL.

I mean, it was a shock to the community, but they've been working 20 years finding a way to get rid of the OGL, pretty much since Dancey left.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Accused of what? Prejudice against imaginary species? Being killjoys? Or not wanting to cater to annoying whiny players who shouldn't be part of the relevant groups in the first place?


LOL, I don't allow dragonborn, tieflings, warlocks, sorcerers, etc. in my Greyhawk game. And I never will!
One benefit of playing with old friends: trust and shared tastes in what "belongs" in the campaign.

The main argument I've seen (and this one goes back to 2e splats at least) boils down to "we are playing a game. This is in the official rules. So if you don't let me play official options it's against the rules".