We won! (OGL)

[Arminius]

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

Thank you for that!

 

[migo]

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.

I've heard they're considering doing 3.5 under CC as well, and 5.1 under CC was put out quickly to show that what they're saying isn't empty talk. Presumably if 3.5 is also released under CC, that's enough to protect orphan OGL 1.0a products, because there's really no point in de-authorizing it if currently active publishers can just re-release it under CC.

 

[James Gillen]

I don’t care what anyone says about the OGL. It was one of the greatests gifts ever given to the hobby and the reason people were so up in arms about it being deauthorized were because it was such a precious commodity. Everyone talks about everything being open source now, but in the 90s that was unthinkable. No company is under any obligation to make anything open source, so it can’t be taken for granted what the OGL did.

And just think, if WotC hadn't spiked the punch, no one would have been looking at the fine print.

JG

 

[TJS]

I'll admit I don't dig much into the woes of 5e players, what were the complaints?

The most common complaints over the years have been these:

- CR and encounter design math doesn't work.
- Monsters are boring/ therefore combat is boring (especially I think for the DM - these complaints tend to come more from DMs than players).
- Rest schedule doesn't work very well.
- Lack of options for customising characters (this is probably the biggest player complaint).
- The game is too easy (which needs some digging into because in theory the GM can always up the dificulty, but nevertheless that's the complaint.)

There's more of course, but those seem to the most universal one. Other complaints such as too much magic in general are common but probably have just as many players who would disagree that it is a problem and would actively be opposed to any attempt to address it.

 

[Dammit Victor]

I've heard they're considering doing 3.5 under CC as well, and 5.1 under CC was put out quickly to show that what they're saying isn't empty talk. Presumably if 3.5 is also released under CC, that's enough to protect orphan OGL 1.0a products, because there's really no point in de-authorizing it if currently active publishers can just re-release it under CC.

Well, I will believe that when I see it. On other hand, I didnt believe this when I saw it, so that represents right good progress on Hasbro's part.

 

[migo]

Well, I will believe that when I see it. On other hand, I didnt believe this when I saw it, so that represents right good progress on Hasbro's part.

Yes. I would say it's plausible. They want to buy goodwill now, and if releasing 3.5 under CC will get them that good will, they would probably do it.

Because also, having released 5.1 under CC, they're not going to be able to go after a big publisher like Paizo. They can easily use 5.1 as the starting point and carefully re-word everything. It's only the small publishers, selling less than 50 copies on DTRPG, that WotC could really go after, and that won't do them any good.

 

[sharps54]

Yes. I would say it's plausible. They want to buy goodwill now, and if releasing 3.5 under CC will get them that good will, they would probably do it.

Because also, having released 5.1 under CC, they're not going to be able to go after a big publisher like Paizo. They can easily use 5.1 as the starting point and carefully re-word everything. It's only the small publishers, selling less than 50 copies on DTRPG, that WotC could really go after, and that won't do them any good.

Although PF1 is 3,5 OGL not 5.1 but I agree with Bunch they don’t care about the older stuff, this was all about One D&D and the virtual market place.

 

[Dammit Victor]

Although PF1 is 3,5 OGL not 5.1 but I agree with Bunch they don’t care about the older stuff, this was all about One D&D and the virtual market place.

They've been saying all over the place that they want D&Done to be the one version of D&D everyone plays. They don't care about that share of the market, but trying to limit all new D&D material to stuff based on 5th Edition tracks.

 

[Vile Traveller]

On the other hand, if they are going to put the 3.5E SRDs under CC it's hard to see why they haven't done it yet. It's 5 minutes' work, unless they're combing through them to take out stuff. Which would defeat the object of allowing 3PPs to just switch out the OGL for CC.

 

[Dammit Victor]

On the other hand, if they are going to put the 3.5E SRDs under CC it's hard to see why they haven't done it yet. It's 5 minutes' work, unless they're combing through them to take out stuff. Which would defeat the object of allowing 3PPs to just switch out the OGL for CC.

Not to mention, they obviously didn't take the time to remove anything from the CC 5.1 release.

 

[deflagratio]

The most common complaints over the years have been these:

- CR and encounter design math doesn't work.
- Monsters are boring/ therefore combat is boring (especially I think for the DM - these complaints tend to come more from DMs than players).
- Rest schedule doesn't work very well.
- Lack of options for customising characters (this is probably the biggest player complaint).
- The game is too easy (which needs some digging into because in theory the GM can always up the dificulty, but nevertheless that's the complaint.)

There's more of course, but those seem to the most universal one. Other complaints such as too much magic in general are common but probably have just as many players who would disagree that it is a problem and would actively be opposed to any attempt to address it.

I feel like the first and last go together. Because there's not really good guidance on combat design, GM's tend to skew towards easier encounters.

 

[Ronin]

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.

 

[EmperorNorton]

The most common complaints over the years have been these:

- CR and encounter design math doesn't work.
- Monsters are boring/ therefore combat is boring (especially I think for the DM - these complaints tend to come more from DMs than players).
- Rest schedule doesn't work very well.
- Lack of options for customising characters (this is probably the biggest player complaint).
- The game is too easy (which needs some digging into because in theory the GM can always up the dificulty, but nevertheless that's the complaint.)

There's more of course, but those seem to the most universal one. Other complaints such as too much magic in general are common but probably have just as many players who would disagree that it is a problem and would actively be opposed to any attempt to address it.

I would also add since I mentioned Spelljammer specifically: Honestly the quality of their books (even compared to whatever quality level you think they had before) has seriously gone down.

The 3 book set for Spelljammer doesn't even include rules really for... you know, ship to ship combat. One of the few things you would think would need some new rules.

 

[Bunch]

On the other hand, if they are going to put the 3.5E SRDs under CC it's hard to see why they haven't done it yet. It's 5 minutes' work, unless they're combing through them to take out stuff. Which would defeat the object of allowing 3PPs to just switch out the OGL for CC.

It is so little value to them they don't even discuss it. It's not where money is so it literally doesn't exist in their eyes. 85+% of their customers said if you change OGL 1.0a we won't but 6e and that's all they needed to here.

 

[carpocratian]

The most common complaints over the years have been these:

- CR and encounter design math doesn't work.
- Monsters are boring/ therefore combat is boring (especially I think for the DM - these complaints tend to come more from DMs than players).
- Rest schedule doesn't work very well.
- Lack of options for customising characters (this is probably the biggest player complaint).
- The game is too easy (which needs some digging into because in theory the GM can always up the dificulty, but nevertheless that's the complaint.)

There's more of course, but those seem to the most universal one. Other complaints such as too much magic in general are common but probably have just as many players who would disagree that it is a problem and would actively be opposed to any attempt to address it.

I have been running a 5E campaign for several years now. My biggest complaints about the system are:

- Characters regain all of their hit points after a night's sleep. That really changes the dynamics of things, in ways that I dislike.
- The game is overly complex in areas that don't need the complexity, and not detailed (or flexible) enough in areas where that would be beneficial.
- There are too many spells that do essentially the same thing. Some of the spell lists could be trimmed down quite a bit.
- There are too many spells that are overpowered for the levels of the characters that can get them.
- Spellcasters are still far, far more powerful than non-magic-using classes, particularly as you move up in level.
- The official monsters are nowhere near as diverse, interesting, and dangerous as they were in previous editions.

I have no problem adapting my game - via houserules and other things - to account for those issues. I have decades of experience as a GM, though. For people who are relatively new to GMing, or who aren't as comfortable changing things around, those things can really get in the way of the fun of GMing.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Another common complaint I've seen about 5e from its fans: Once you hit level 3 unless you are a caster and get to pick spells, pretty much every character progression choice from a mechanical standpoint is over.

 

[migo]

Another common complaint I've seen about 5e from its fans: Once you hit level 3 unless you are a caster and get to pick spells, pretty much every character progression choice from a mechanical standpoint is over.

That sounds like it was fixing a problem with 3.5, where you had to plan out your 'build' for 20 levels.

 

[EmperorNorton]

That sounds like it was fixing a problem with 3.5, where you had to plan out your 'build' for 20 levels.

I mean, you can plan builds in anything, but the main reason you had to plan your build in 3.x is because of massive feat trees and then prestige class requirements. So to qualify for things you had to take specific things at specific times etc etc.

The easy solution is just to... cut down on the giant piles of prerequisites for tons of stuff, not get rid of 95% of the mechanical customization in the game.

(PF2e you CAN preplan everything, but I've found it is really not necessary at all between the lack of tons and tons of prerequisites and the retraining rules, and it honestly has MORE decision points than 3.x/PF1e did in character leveling).

 

[FreeGamer]

The easy solution is just to... cut down on the giant piles of prerequisites for tons of stuff, not get rid of 95% of the mechanical customization in the game.

I think Fantasy Craft hit the sweet spot for me. Their PrC equivalents don't have too many prereqs, and the base classes are really good all the way through. Feat trees are a maximum of 3 feats deep, and every feat in the tree will give you something substantial that will be useful to you likely forever. (Also, it's really hard to make your character suck in FC; there are few, if any, "trap" options.) Planning your build is a thing you can do, but it's a lot less necessary, and non-optimal choices are a lot less punishing.

 

[Toadmaster]

It is so little value to them they don't even discuss it. It's not where money is so it literally doesn't exist in their eyes. 85+% of their customers said if you change OGL 1.0a we won't but 6e and that's all they needed to here.

I'd guess it is also because they are only concerned with what the 5E players were worried about. If you are concerned with 3.5 you are not the bulk of their customer base.

 

[Joseph Wolz]

If anything, this whole journey has reinforced for me I don’t really like D&D.

 

[Akrasia]

I have been running a 5E campaign for several years now. My biggest complaints about the system are:

- Characters regain all of their hit points after a night's sleep. That really changes the dynamics of things, in ways that I dislike.
- The game is overly complex in areas that don't need the complexity, and not detailed (or flexible) enough in areas where that would be beneficial.
- There are too many spells that do essentially the same thing. Some of the spell lists could be trimmed down quite a bit.
- There are too many spells that are overpowered for the levels of the characters that can get them.
- Spellcasters are still far, far more powerful than non-magic-using classes, particularly as you move up in level.
- The official monsters are nowhere near as diverse, interesting, and dangerous as they were in previous editions.

I have no problem adapting my game - via houserules and other things - to account for those issues. I have decades of experience as a GM, though. For people who are relatively new to GMing, or who aren't as comfortable changing things around, those things can really get in the way of the fun of GMing.

Based on my experience I have to agree with this list.

One thing that I like about Into the Unknown (a somewhat simplified, "old school" version of 5e) is that it addresses the first point: after a long rest characters recover their hit dice but still have to spend them in order to recover hit points.

I ran an Adventures in Middle-earth campaign a few years ago. It uses 5e as a base but radically reworks a number of elements of the game, e.g., the D&D magic system is removed entirely. It thereby fixes the "spellcasters rule all" problem. And in general, the system worked really smoothly. I could envision trying to use it for non-ME games in the future.

 

[TJS]

Like I said, those are the most common complaints I've seen.

They're not my complaints.

 

[Voros]

Another common complaint I've seen about 5e from its fans: Once you hit level 3 unless you are a caster and get to pick spells, pretty much every character progression choice from a mechanical standpoint is over.

That complaint is predicated on the notion of character progression via mechanical 'builds' that seems to have become popular with some during 3e. But I would guess for as many other players the PC-build mini-game is a tiresome distraction from more interesting parts of the game.

I've never heard any such complaint from new players to D&D, sounds like a 'problem' that is a result of the assumptions brought to the game from previous editions.

 

[TJS]

That complaint is predicated on the notion of character progression via mechanical 'builds' that seems to have become popular with some during 3e. But I would guess for as many other players the PC-build mini-game is a tiresome distraction from more interesting parts of the game.

I've never heard any such complaint from new players to D&D, sounds like a 'problem' that is a result of the assumptions brought to the game from previous editions.

Well no. New players aren't going to have this problem. Players who have been playing D&D for a while are going to have it.

 

[Voros]

I would also add since I mentioned Spelljammer specifically: Honestly the quality of their books (even compared to whatever quality level you think they had before) has seriously gone down.

The 3 book set for Spelljammer doesn't even include rules really for... you know, ship to ship combat. One of the few things you would think would need some new rules.

Don't believe everything you read online.

There are two pages of short and simple rules for ship-to-ship combat and all the ships are stated for combat. They do state that PCs are better off directly attacking ships with their own spells but each ship also comes equipped with weapons for ship-to-ship combat.

I assume those who make that claim have either never actually read it or find the rules insufficient. Looking for 2e era level of detailed combat rules I guess.

This is why I take anything I read online when it comes to 5e books with a huge grain of salt. Even the most cursory check with the actual text often reveals it is just not true. Loads of false claims out there.

 

[Voros]

Well no. New players aren't going to have this problem. Players who have been playing D&D for a while are going to have.

That is based on the assumption that all experienced players like the 3e PC mechanical build mini-game.

I have played a load of D&D and don't give a shit about PC builds. I find the whole build mini-game boring.

 

[TJS]

That is based on the assumption that all experienced players like the 3e PC mechanical build mini-game.

What on earth are you talking about? I've said that one of most frequent complaints about 5e is lack of ability to customise characters. I'm not assuming anything, people are saying it.

You also seem to be assuming that more options to customise characters means a 3e style mechanical build game which is not necessarily the case.

(And even if it did, the problem that the most direct solution to an issue may create new problems that are even worse is why you need good designers.)

 

[Voros]

A common issue these days I find is there is a contingent online who are dedicated to shitting on every 5e release regardless of what's in the actual book. Lots of outright false claims by people who haven't even read the book which then getted repeated by others with confirmation bias run rampant.

It makes it difficult to determine the stronger books from the weaker books when you have this constant background noise of nonsense or on the other end an uncritical fannish boosterism.

So sorting out the stronger books like the very good mega-dungeon The Dungeon of the Mad Mage or the sandboxy Ghosts of Saltmarsh from the weaker books becomes even more of a challenge than it should be.

 

[EmperorNorton]

That is based on the assumption that all experienced players like the 3e PC mechanical build mini-game.

I have played a load of D&D and don't give a shit about PC builds. I find the whole build mini-game boring.

This is a false dichotomy. There is something between "No choices after 3rd level" and "mechanical build mini-game".

In fact, D&D (outside of 3.x and 4e) is one of the few types of games that have historically HAD little choice mechanically as you gain experience. In most point based games you spend those points to raise what you want to raise for instance. In PbtA/FitD you choose which talent/whatever they want to call it to grab on "level ups"

The whole "you have everything selected the only thing left is to make numbers go up as you level" thing is pretty unique to a very small subset of games. So claiming anyone who wants something more than that is looking for 3.x minigame mechanical builds is... inaccurate in my opinion.

 

[Endless Flight]

I’m not a min-max person by any stretch of the imagination and I find 5E boring when it comes to choices. I like skill ranks, for instance.

 

[Bunch]

Don't believe everything you read online.

There are two pages of short and simple rules for ship-to-ship combat and all the ships are stated for combat. They do state that PCs are better off directly attacking ships with their own spells but each ship also comes equipped with weapons for ship-to-ship combat.

I assume those who make that claim have either never actually read it or find the rules insufficient. Looking for 2e era level of detailed combat rules I guess.

This is why I take anything I read online when it comes to 5e books with a huge grain of salt. Even the most cursory check with the actual text often reveals it is just not true. Loads of false claims out there.

Yeah I think the first thing I did withy boys is fight two ships against each other using the rules in the books
They aren't expansive but they work.

 

[Voros]

What on earth are you talking about? I've said that one of most frequent complaints about 5e is lack of ability to customise characters. I'm not assuming anything, people are a saying it.

You also seem to be assuming that more options to customise characters means a 3e style mechanical build game which is not necessarily the case.

(And even if it did, the problem that the most direct solution to an issue may create new problems that are even worse is why you need good designers.)

"Players who have been playing D&D for a while are going to have it."

I was responding to this statement. No, 'players who have been playing D&D for a while' are not going to 'have it' unless they are coming to the game with assumptions they aquired from 3e/4e and then only if they liked that aspect of the game.

That doesn't make them representative of anything other than themselves.

Complaints about D&D editions have existed for every edition, I'm not convinced that 5e had anymore of a flawed ruleset than any previous edition or even more complainers.

It is just the ubiquity of the net has given the complainers a bigger megaphone for their complaints.

Whenever I see extended kvetching about any rule set I think 'well, fix it or play another game.'

You'd think some people were chained to their D&D books the way they go on.

 

[Voros]

I’m not a min-max person by any stretch of the imagination and I find 5E boring when it comes to choices. I like skill ranks, for instance.

I'm not even a fan of a detailed skill system in D&D. I think the background tied to skill bonus option in 5e, taken from 13th Age, is by far the best fit for the system. Skills overcomplicate 5e for little gain imo.

 

[TJS]

"Players who have been playing D&D for a while are going to have it."

I think you are interpreting my statement that "Players who have been playing D&D for a while are going to have it." as "ALL players who have been playing D&D for a while are going to have it."

I was responding to this statement. No, 'players who have been playing D&D for a while' are not going to 'have it' unless they are coming to the game with assumptions they aquired from 3e/4e and then only if they liked that aspect of the game.

No I'm talking about players who have been playing D&D 5e for a while now. Not players from previous editions. Some people are on to their 3rd Cleric and wishing there was more to distinguish the Twilight Cleric from other types of cleric in play.

That doesn't make them representative of anything other than themselves
Complaints about D&D editions have existed for every edition, I'm not convinced that 5e had anymore of a flawed ruleset than any previous edition or even more complainers.

I think you're again arguing with some implication that is only in your head. Of course people had complaints about previous editions, that's why new editions were released over time that were different from the previous ones.

It is just the ubiquity of the net has given the complainers a bigger megaphone for their complaints.

Whenever I see extended kvetching about any rule set I think 'well, fix it or play another game.'

You'd think some people were chained to their D&D books the way they go on.

Wait? Didn't this come up because we were discussing why people were moving from D&D to a particular other game ie Pathfinder?

 

[Voros]

This is a false dichotomy. There is something between "No choices after 3rd level" and "mechanical build mini-game".

In fact, D&D (outside of 3.x and 4e) is one of the few types of games that have historically HAD little choice mechanically as you gain experience. In most point based games you spend those points to raise what you want to raise for instance. In PbtA/FitD you choose which talent/whatever they want to call it to grab on "level ups"

The whole "you have everything selected the only thing left is to make numbers go up as you level" thing is pretty unique to a very small subset of games. So claiming anyone who wants something more than that is looking for 3.x minigame mechanical builds is... inaccurate in my opinion.

I realize builds are part of some, perhaps many, games.

That as many if not more people don't care for them seems equally true.

I've never found 'this orange is not an apple' complaints about a rule set convincing. If a rule set doesn't have something you like, look for another rule set.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I realize builds are part of some, perhaps many, games.

That as many if not more people don't care for them seems equally true.

I've never found 'this orange is not an apple' complaints about a rule set convincing. If a rule set doesn't have something you like, look for another rule set.

Dude, you are arguing against things no one said, and also just making assumptions about tons of shit. Having some level over how your character progresses mechanically != "builds"

Being able to go "yeah, my character spent a lot of time firing guns this session, so I'm going to raise his gun skill with the xp I gained" isn't a build.

This desire to equate any amount of control over the skills their character gains as "builds" is weird.

Also, this was a response to people asking what complaints 5e players had about the game that we'd heard. That was one of the complaints I've heard from quite a few 5e players. It was literally the context of "yeah, I think people were getting tired and looking for a change anyway" so yeah, this whole "use another ruleset" was exactly what we were saying was happening.

 

[TJS]

This is a false dichotomy. There is something between "No choices after 3rd level" and "mechanical build mini-game".

I think there's three things going on in 5e. One is that the game gives a whole lot of stuff between levels one and five which keeps players excited about leveling up and on track. Then there's what i think of as the "Level 7 itch". At about that point players have pretty much got everything they need to establish their class, and there's often not much that exciting down the pipeline. At this point some players (of the more restless sort) start looking around and multi-classing. I don't think it's an accident that in 3e this was around the point where you would pick up a prestige class. It definitely feels like there's some room for some more character defining choices there. (I suspect that this has some connection to the lack of high level play in 5e also).

The other is spells. For some reason, they decided it was a good idea to make some spells too good for their levels. I can sort of see why they did this, in the case of Fireball they wanted it to live up to it's historical reputation, while other spells such as Bless or Shield are basically 4e style powers/class features disguised as spells, but it does crowd out a lot of room for PCs to have completely different spells from one character of a class to another, or to customise their spell list to fit their character (which is something I remember doing a lot in 2e).

The other thing is the lack of of weight for existing subclasse choices. The game lacks the follow through to make existing choices unique. Often they're a bunch of fluff with only fairly tenous and occasional mechanical effects. This seems actually easily addressable because most of the subclasses give extra spells - yet they never give unique spells, but only spell that already exist (often the ubiquitious Disguise Self and Misty Step). Why not make some entirely new spells to give the new subclass that actually fit and reinforce the theme of the subclass?

With Fighter types it's a bit harder, because the maneuver system was pushed off into the Battlemaster subclass, but if you pulled that out and made it more ubiquitious you could do the same thing for techniques.

 

[Voros]

Dude, you are arguing against things no one said, and also just making assumptions about tons of shit. Having some level over how your character progresses mechanically != "builds"

Being able to go "yeah, my character spent a lot of time firing guns this session, so I'm going to raise his gun skill with the xp I gained" isn't a build.

This desire to equate any amount of control over the skills their character gains as "builds" is weird.

Also, this was a response to people asking what complaints 5e players had about the game that we'd heard. That was one of the complaints I've heard from quite a few 5e players. It was literally the context of "yeah, I think people were getting tired and looking for a change anyway" so yeah, this whole "use another ruleset" was exactly what we were saying was happening.

Well we're obviously talking in circles.

My point was simply that the complaint about a lack of choice in mechanical build was coming from a specific set of assumptions about play and preferences from a specific subset of players.

That's it.

Not sure what you're getting worked up over.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Not sure what you're getting worked up over.

How about we not do this thing where when someone disagrees with what is being said, they are being "emotional" over it. I disagree with what you said. For many reasons. I stated those reasons. You also said things that seemed to ignore the context of people you know, moving to other systems, so I pointed that out. That isn't being emotional, that is disagreeing with your statements.

To be honest, your responses sounded very emotional to me, but I recognize that it is very easy to misunderstand tone in text, so I didn't respond by telling you that you were getting worked up. Cause that shit is condescending as fuck.