# Ray Winninger comments on the OGL



## darjr (Yesterday at 1:31 AM)




----------



## darjr (Yesterday at 1:31 AM)




----------



## jerryrice4949 (Yesterday at 1:36 AM)

Very interesting though from the way he phrased it he does not sound like he has any inside knowledge of what WoTC is planning now.


----------



## Retreater (Yesterday at 1:37 AM)

I disagree. I think it is in the best interests long term. Take D&D away from Hasbro - they are irresponsible and disrespectful stewards of the industry leader. It is in better hands elsewhere.
It stinks in the short (and possibly medium) terms. 
But long term, I want to see some scorched earth at WotC and Hasbro.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Yesterday at 1:38 AM)

jerryrice4949 said:


> Very interesting though from the way he phrased it he does not sound like he has any inside knowledge of what WoTC is planning now.



Or he knows but is forbidden to say. His language is just a response to what is going on in the public domain, no more or no less.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Yesterday at 1:40 AM)

darjr said:


> View attachment 271994




Ray Winninger the hero D&D needs.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Yesterday at 1:45 AM)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Of he knows but is forbidden to say. His language is just a response to what is going on in the public domain, no more or no less.




 Exactly, carefully chosen language that doesn't violate any NDAs, I mean of course he knows the leak is real, it's not an accident he went from major D&D cheerleader to dead silence to gone at the same time this would have been developed. At least the mystery why he left has been answered as far as I'm concerned.

 At this point if WotC wants to fix this fire the current WotC President, and give the job to Ray Winninger, get on their hands and knees and beg him to come back if they have to, but right now, he's the only one who has the crediblity to fix this. Offering a huge raise, promotion, more power, anything it takes to come back.


----------



## bedir than (Yesterday at 1:52 AM)

Retreater said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the best interests long term. Take D&D away from Hasbro - they are irresponsible and disrespectful stewards of the industry leader. It is in better hands elsewhere.
> It stinks in the short (and possibly medium) terms.
> But long term, I want to see some scorched earth at WotC and Hasbro.



The same people who insist the couple dozen tens of thousand people who purchase 3pp will tell you that the company that grew the game to its greatest heights and acceptance in the general culture have disrespected the game


----------



## Minigiant (Yesterday at 2:07 AM)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Exactly, carefully chosen language that doesn't violate any NDAs, I mean of course he knows the leak is real, it's not an accident he went from major D&D cheerleader to dead silence to gone at the same time this would have been developed. At least the mystery why he left has been answered as far as I'm concerned.




It reads like a person who knows about who made the decisions to go with the OGL 1.1, his inaability to say who made the decision and who on the inside agrees with it, and his disagreement with it.

The moretime goes on, the more it sounds that there is a major separation between the creatives and the execs and what happened would happen with *any* gaming company if they were this big and publically traded.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Yesterday at 2:07 AM)

Retreater said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the best interests long term. Take D&D away from Hasbro - they are irresponsible and disrespectful stewards of the industry leader. It is in better hands elsewhere.
> It stinks in the short (and possibly medium) terms.
> But long term, I want to see some scorched earth at WotC and Hasbro.



Man you are so bitter.


----------



## Clint_L (Yesterday at 2:14 AM)

Retreater said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the best interests long term. Take D&D away from Hasbro - they are irresponsible and disrespectful stewards of the industry leader. It is in better hands elsewhere.
> It stinks in the short (and possibly medium) terms.
> But long term, I want to see some scorched earth at WotC and Hasbro.



The thing is, if someone is taking D&D away from Hasbro, it'll be someone like Disney or Comcast, not a mom and pop organization. I don't see a future where D&D is not in the hands of ever larger corporations.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Yesterday at 2:18 AM)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Ray Winninger the hero D&D needs.



He has been very nice and helpful every time I've reached out to him.  Then again, everyone with the initials RW is pretty awesome.  I have on good authority anyway...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Yesterday at 2:19 AM)

Clint_L said:


> The thing is, if someone is taking D&D away from Hasbro, it'll be someone like Disney or Comcast, not a mom and pop organization. I don't see a future where D&D is not in the hands of ever larger corporations.



Yeah.  If we can't get IP like Thundarr or Pirates of Dark Water (dead IPs for all intents and purposes) out of the hands of corporations, no way D&D will be.


----------



## payn (Yesterday at 2:19 AM)

Thanks Ray!


----------



## Retreater (Yesterday at 2:29 AM)

Clint_L said:


> The thing is, if someone is taking D&D away from Hasbro, it'll be someone like Disney or Comcast, not a mom and pop organization. I don't see a future where D&D is not in the hands of ever larger corporations.



Yes. This is moment in our hobby where we learn that we no longer matter, that we can't play the way we want, that content is packaged by a corporation that has no foundation in games anymore (when even WotC had connections to magic cards). 
And this is the time when many fans (like myself) realize that it's artists, creative minds, and those who have inspiration that we want to invite into our imaginations - those who fantasize about dragons more than dollar signs. 
D&D has lost its soul. I'm not going to sell my imagination, my hobby time, my precious moments with friends and family, to the highest bidder ... people who clearly can give a rat's behind about how we enjoy the game.


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 2:31 AM)

Retreater said:


> Yes. This is moment in our hobby where we learn that we no longer matter, t*hat we can't play the way we want*, that content is packaged by a corporation that has no foundation in games anymore (when even WotC had connections to magic cards).
> And this is the time when many fans (like myself) realize that it's artists, creative minds, and those who have inspiration that we want to invite into our imaginations - those who fantasize about dragons more than dollar signs.
> D&D has lost its soul. I'm not going to sell my imagination, my hobby time, my precious moments with friends and family, to the highest bidder ... people who clearly can give a rat's behind about how we enjoy the game.



Emphasis mine.
Bollocks.

Nobody controls how you play besides you.


----------



## Mallus (Yesterday at 2:33 AM)

Retreater said:


> This is moment in our hobby where we learn that we no longer matter, that we can't play the way we want, that content is packaged by a corporation that has no foundation in games anymore (when even WotC had connections to magic cards).



I understand emotions are running high right now, but how can WotC stop us from playing the way we want?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Yesterday at 2:34 AM)

Mallus said:


> I understand emotions are running high right now, but how can WotC stop us from playing the way we want?



They cannot


----------



## Minigiant (Yesterday at 2:36 AM)

Clint_L said:


> The thing is, if someone is taking D&D away from Hasbro, it'll be someone like Disney or Comcast, not a mom and pop organization. I don't see a future where D&D is not in the hands of ever larger corporations.



Yeah, it would take a cartoonish rich person to overpay for the D&D IP for it ever to not be under hands that aren't publically traded. But then you have a know problem.

What's happening to D&D could happen to any TTRPG IP. I tell yall right now. If Paizo ever becomes big and publically traded or bought by some entity that is: that free wiki is gone.

All you can hope that enough people stating disagreements with bad ideas like Ray can convince decisions like this before it's too late.


----------



## Scribe (Yesterday at 2:38 AM)

Minigiant said:


> Yeah, it would take a cartoonish rich person to overpay for the D&D IP for it ever to not be under hands that aren't publically traded. But then you have a know problem.
> 
> What's happening to D&D could happen to any TTRPG IP. I tell yall right now. If Paizo ever becomes big and publically traded or bought by some entity that is: that free wiki is gone.
> 
> All you can hope that enough people stating disagreements with bad ideas like Ray can convince decisions like this before it's too late.




All true, the root of the issue is, as per usual.

Greed, and being publicly traded.


----------



## Minigiant (Yesterday at 2:48 AM)

Scribe said:


> All true, the root of the issue is, as per usual.
> 
> Greed, and being publicly traded.



It's not even greed as much as the drive to please shareholders with higher and higher returns on investment.

The numbers I must sell at work only goes up. Never the same. Never down.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Yesterday at 2:53 AM)

And the recent history of Twitter tells the risks of a private individual rich enough to buy the IP.


----------



## Retreater (Yesterday at 2:55 AM)

Mallus said:


> I understand emotions are running high right now, but how can WotC stop us from playing the way we want?



Based on the threats of the OGL: deleting content, closing businesses, threatening VTTs, shutting down commentators, silencing fans on their messageboards. Want me to continue?


----------



## Justice and Rule (Yesterday at 2:57 AM)

Scribe said:


> All true, the root of the issue is, as per usual.
> 
> Greed, and being publicly traded.




Oh, it can happen with privately-traded companies. Did anyone say "Destroying the OGL" in the Elon Musk thread? This feels like the sort of "My playground, my rules" sort of thing that would have happened with someone like him if he bought D&D.


----------



## Remathilis (Yesterday at 3:19 AM)

Maybe one day we'll figure out that the existence of corporations is the biggest cause of human suffering and rightly destroy them once and for all.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Yesterday at 3:24 AM)

Well said Ray. Both nice and courageous at the same time!


----------



## theCourier (Yesterday at 5:18 AM)

Minigiant said:


> Yeah, it would take a cartoonish rich person to overpay for the D&D IP for it ever to not be under hands that aren't publically traded. But then you have a know problem.
> 
> What's happening to D&D could happen to any TTRPG IP. I tell yall right now. If Paizo ever becomes big and publically traded or bought by some entity that is: that free wiki is gone.
> 
> All you can hope that enough people stating disagreements with bad ideas like Ray can convince decisions like this before it's too late.



Oh dear god, Elon Musk is going to try and buy D&D


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Yesterday at 10:57 AM)

Well that clears up the previous discussion over whether Ray was involved with this and pretty much also clears up any "why he suddenly left" discussion too.

That's interesting because it means this plan cannot be more than a few months old.

Literally every single piece of evidence we have supports it being only a few months old (perhaps as little as three), but it's interesting to see it effectively confirmed here.


----------



## dave2008 (Yesterday at 11:16 AM)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well that clears up the previous discussion over whether Ray was involved with this and pretty much also clears up any "why he suddenly left" discussion too.
> 
> That's interesting because it means this plan cannot be more than a few months old.
> 
> Literally every single piece of evidence we have supports it being only a few months old (perhaps as little as three), but it's interesting to see it effectively confirmed here.



It seems that way. Does that make it better or worse? I makes me feel a bit better, but it makes Hasbro look even more inept IMO.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Yesterday at 12:01 PM)

dave2008 said:


> It seems that way. Does that make it better or worse? I makes me feel a bit better, but it makes Hasbro look even more inept IMO.



I mean, I don't see it as better or worse so much as, if it's something they rushed into, which strongly seems to be the case, they're probably less committed than if it was something planned for years.


----------



## Nikosandros (Yesterday at 12:15 PM)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I don't see it as better or worse so much as, if it's something they rushed into, which strongly seems to be the case, they're probably less committed than if it was something planned for years.



OTOH, if the new strategy has been proposed by the newly installed leadership, they might see it as a signature of their tenure and be extremely reluctant to drop it.


----------



## Ibrandul (Yesterday at 12:17 PM)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> Bollocks.
> 
> Nobody controls how you play besides you.



Yes and no.

I can keep running 5e in person with the material I already have in person forever, no changes.

But if WotC doesn’t change course, I highly doubt I’ll be able to run _any_ edition of D&D on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds once their current contracts with WotC expire.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Yesterday at 12:17 PM)

Nikosandros said:


> OTOH, if the new strategy has been proposed by the newly installed leadership, they might see it as a signature of their tenure and be extremely reluctant to drop it.



Exactly what I was going to say. Seen this too many times to count. Whichever of the new Microsoft MBAs came in and likely made this their "look at what good I can do for the company" initiative and now that it's all exploding they can't possibly let it fail. Alot of inertia to overcome internally then.


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 12:21 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I can keep running 5e in person with the material I already have in person forever, no changes.
> 
> But if WotC doesn’t change course, I highly doubt I’ll be able to run _any_ edition of D&D on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds once their current contracts with WotC expire.



I don't think that's true. The VTT language seems pointed at people without deals with WotC. Both Roll20 and FG have such deals.

But, hey, who knows what self destructive BS they came up with at whatever coke fueled manager's retreat spawned OGL 1.1.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Yesterday at 12:22 PM)

eyeheartawk said:


> Exactly what I was going to say. Seen this too many times to count. Whichever of the new Microsoft MBAs came in and likely made this their "look at what good I can do for the company" initiative and now that it's all exploding they can't possibly let it fail. Alot of inertia to overcome internally then.



I dunno.

My direct experience of corporate environments is limited to law firms, but from that and indirect knowledge of stuff at other law firms, if something is backfiring, failing, or just immediately going over budget and you're only three months in, you may see it as part of your "tenure" (Dan Rawson presumably does), but if there are people above you, they may well say "Time to drop it". I've certainly see stuff quietly dropped that was a few months or even a year old.


----------



## Nikosandros (Yesterday at 12:23 PM)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I dunno.
> 
> My direct experience of corporate environments is limited to law firms, but from that and indirect knowledge of stuff at other law firms, if something is backfiring, failing, or just immediately going over budget and you're only three months in, you may see it as part of your "tenure" (Dan Rawson presumably does), but if there are people above you, they may well say "Time to drop it". I've certainly see stuff quietly dropped that was a few months or even a year old.



Fair enough. We'll see what happens.


----------



## Ibrandul (Yesterday at 12:36 PM)

Reynard said:


> I don't think that's true. The VTT language seems pointed at people without deals with WotC. Both Roll20 and FG have such deals.
> 
> But, hey, who knows what self destructive BS they came up with at whatever coke fueled manager's retreat spawned OGL 1.1.



Surely those deals are term-limited—though I don’t think their expiration dates are public knowledge. And it’s evident the current WotC leadership intends not to renew them.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Yesterday at 12:37 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> Surely those deals are term-limited—though I don’t think their expiration dates are public knowledge. And it’s evident the current WotC leadership intends not to renew them.



I think that's a fair reading. Once WOTC's virtual tabletop is fully up and running, or close to, I wouldn't expect those agreements with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds to ever be renewed.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Yesterday at 1:04 PM)

eyeheartawk said:


> I think that's a fair reading. Once WOTC's virtual tabletop is fully up and running, or close to, I wouldn't expect those agreements with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds to ever be renewed.




This feels like part of the endgame with all this: a hard sunsetting of 5E to push people into 1D&D, as well as completely controlling the licensed version of your game on the VTT market. It's incredibly _*dumb*_, but it feels too coincidental for it not to be purposeful. Just an utter misread of the market and the audience.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Yesterday at 1:07 PM)

Nikosandros said:


> OTOH, if the new strategy has been proposed by the newly installed leadership, they might see it as a signature of their tenure and be extremely reluctant to drop it.




 If this was preposed by newly installed leadership, likely they won't be leaders for long.


----------



## jeffh (Yesterday at 1:10 PM)

Retreater said:


> Take D&D away from Hasbro



How? By what mechanism short of Hasbro ceasing to exist (not bloody likely) would this lead to Hasbro losing D&D?


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Yesterday at 1:14 PM)

Henadic Theologian said:


> If this was preposed by newly installed leadership, likely they won't be leaders for long.




Corporate execs fail upwards all the time. Never assign intelligence or good planning to corps, especially big ones.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Yesterday at 1:16 PM)

Retreater said:


> Yes. This is moment in our hobby where we learn that we no longer matter, that we can't play the way we want, that content is packaged by a corporation that has no foundation in games anymore (when even WotC had connections to magic cards).
> And this is the time when many fans (like myself) realize that it's artists, creative minds, and those who have inspiration that we want to invite into our imaginations - those who fantasize about dragons more than dollar signs.
> D&D has lost its soul. I'm not going to sell my imagination, my hobby time, my precious moments with friends and family, to the highest bidder ... people who clearly can give a rat's behind about how we enjoy the game.




I could be remembering wrong, but haven't you posted a lot about being done with 5e long before any of this blew up? I'm not white-knighting for WotC—not by any means...I hope it dies in a fire. But it seems like you've gone a different direction anyway, so how are they determining how you play?


----------



## eyeheartawk (Yesterday at 1:17 PM)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Corporate execs fail upwards all the time. Never assign intelligence or good planning to corps, especially big ones.



You're right. 

I think it's time


----------



## Ibrandul (Yesterday at 1:19 PM)

Henadic Theologian said:


> If this was preposed by newly installed leadership, likely they won't be leaders for long.



You would certainly think so, after the company has torched its relationship with _both _of its fandoms in the span of mere months.

On the other hand, they want _massively _more profit out of D&D. They’re not going to get it out of the people who are willing to leave them over this. They have a plan (which is obviously doomed to fail, but that’s irrelevant right now) to extract that profit from a different segment of their audience.

If you’re making a million bucks off of a thousand consumers, and you think that by completely transforming your business model you can make two million bucks off of just 800 of those consumers—by alienating the other 200—you go for it.

Especially if you fail the INT check to figure out that many of the 800 can’t consume your product without the 200.


Justice and Rule said:


> This feels like part of the endgame with all this: a hard sunsetting of 5E to push people into 1D&D, as well as completely controlling the licensed version of your game on the VTT market. It's incredibly _*dumb*_, but it feels too coincidental for it not to be purposeful. Just an utter misread of the market and the audience.



This has been a cause of concern for me since the announcement of 1D&D, of panic since the “fireside chat,” and now—for me—of acceptance and even excitement.

D&D is dead. Long live D&D!


----------



## jeffh (Yesterday at 1:26 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> If you’re making a million bucks off of a thousand consumers, and you think that by completely transforming your business model you can make two million bucks off of just 800 of those consumers—by alienating the other 200—you go for it.



I suspect the thought process is closer to making the 2 mil, or ideally more like 4-5 mil, off 20,000 consumers - i.e. a larger, individually less invested group. The mass market, basically. Those 20k will naturally have little overlap with the original 1k, I mean they couldn't possibly make up more than 5% of the new audience anyway, so what does it matter if they lose 200 or even 700 of those?

(All numbers are illustrative only and not necessarily meant to resemble the real ones.)


----------



## Mallus (Yesterday at 1:36 PM)

Retreater said:


> Based on the threats of the OGL: deleting content, closing businesses, threatening VTTs, shutting down commentators, silencing fans on their messageboards. Want me to continue?



I agree that WotC can make D&D less convenient to play than it is now. But they can't delete content from the physical books I own, shut down VTTs that don't integrate the rules (or doing anything at all to groups playing via tools like Discord and Zoom), silence people who are talking on platforms they do not own (have you noticed there'a a _lot_ of discussion about this online right now?), etc.

WotC can certainly do many consumer-unfriendly things. Like invalidate the digital purchases people like me made on sites like Roll20. Would be the first time I lost access to a digital material. But even that would only makes my current campaign slightly less easy to run.


----------



## Retreater (Yesterday at 1:58 PM)

Mallus said:


> shut down VTTs that don't integrate the rules



It's possible and a threat that they're positing. Technically, VTTs who don't sign 1.1 can't host rules sets, modules, etc., for any OGL content. That means if you're playing any edition of D&D, Pathfinder, etc., the VTT would be in violation and would be sent a C&D or sued. VTTs will have to pull that content - which is the lion's share of players (from what we've seen posted on Fantasy Grounds' and Roll20's reports. So losing something like 75% of their players (and paid customers) isn't going to bode well for these companies, right?
So, yes, they are planning on indirectly shutting down VTTs. Everything is going to the OneD&D VTT. And do you think they will allow other games to be played on that platform? 
They are trying to monopolize and crush the entirety of the industry.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Yesterday at 2:08 PM)

Retreater said:


> It's possible and a threat that they're positing. Technically, VTTs who don't sign 1.1 can't host rules sets, modules, etc., for any OGL content. That means if you're playing any edition of D&D, Pathfinder, etc., the VTT would be in violation and would be sent a C&D or sued. VTTs will have to pull that content - which is the lion's share of players (from what we've seen posted on Fantasy Grounds' and Roll20's reports. So losing something like 75% of their players (and paid customers) isn't going to bode well for these companies, right?
> So, yes, they are planning on indirectly shutting down VTTs. Everything is going to the OneD&D VTT. And do you think they will allow other games to be played on that platform?
> They are trying to monopolize and crush the entirety of the industry.



Yeah, a VTT where the largest game being played on it is CoC (not a dig, I love CoC, just going by pure numbers here) is likely not enough to sustain any of those businesses.


----------



## schneeland (Yesterday at 2:14 PM)

Retreater said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the best interests long term. Take D&D away from Hasbro - they are irresponsible and disrespectful stewards of the industry leader. It is in better hands elsewhere.
> It stinks in the short (and possibly medium) terms.
> But long term, I want to see some scorched earth at WotC and Hasbro.



I understand the sentiment. But instead of official D&D in other hands, I would rather like to see it cut back to normal a bit, while other publishers thrive - a successful Paizo, a growing Chaosium or a Free League Publishing that has stepped up would IMO be healthier for RPGs overall than just somebody else governing the fate of D&D.

And, to at least briefly connect this to the OP: even though I don't agree with everything that has happened to D&D under his direction, Mr. Winninger seems to genuinely care for RPGs, so it would be great if he was a part of that healthier RPG world.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Yesterday at 2:16 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I can keep running 5e in person with the material I already have in person forever, no changes.
> 
> But if WotC doesn’t change course, I highly doubt I’ll be able to run _any_ edition of D&D on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds once their current contracts with WotC expire.



Why? Do you mean you cannot run it at all or you cannot run it with current supplied vendor automation?


----------



## Minigiant (Yesterday at 2:18 PM)

eyeheartawk said:


> Exactly what I was going to say. Seen this too many times to count. Whichever of the new Microsoft MBAs came in and likely made this their "look at what good I can do for the company" initiative and now that it's all exploding they can't possibly let it fail. Alot of inertia to overcome internally then.



It's classic. People come in with a bad idea to stamp their name on it. Internally it's disliked. New folk ignore internal disgruntlement. Some of the old folk leave because of it. New ideas blows up in the new peoples faces. Attempt to salvage.  New ideas is altered or ignored to not admit error or company takes huge hit.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Yesterday at 2:21 PM)

Retreater said:


> It's possible and a threat that they're positing. Technically, VTTs who don't sign 1.1 can't host rules sets, modules, etc., for any OGL content. That means if you're playing any edition of D&D, Pathfinder, etc., the VTT would be in violation and would be sent a C&D or sued. VTTs will have to pull that content - which is the lion's share of players (from what we've seen posted on Fantasy Grounds' and Roll20's reports. So losing something like 75% of their players (and paid customers) isn't going to bode well for these companies, right?
> So, yes, they are planning on indirectly shutting down VTTs. Everything is going to the OneD&D VTT. And do you think they will allow other games to be played on that platform?
> They are trying to monopolize and crush the entirety of the industry.



That is pretty much unpoliceable,  and would probably fall afoul of EU privacy laws


----------



## darjr (Yesterday at 2:24 PM)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well that clears up the previous discussion over whether Ray was involved with this and pretty much also clears up any "why he suddenly left" discussion too.
> 
> That's interesting because it means this plan cannot be more than a few months old.
> 
> Literally every single piece of evidence we have supports it being only a few months old (perhaps as little as three), but it's interesting to see it effectively confirmed here.



The Kobold Press Twitter account for thier new rpg is from 2021.


----------



## Alzrius (Yesterday at 2:28 PM)

So, has anybody asked Scott Rouse and Linae Foster what they think of this whole OGL fiasco?


----------



## darjr (Yesterday at 2:31 PM)

Alzrius said:


> So, has anybody asked Scott Rouse and Linae Foster what they think of this whole OGL fiasco?



This. I’ve been wondering.


----------



## Nikosandros (Yesterday at 2:33 PM)

darjr said:


> The Kobold Press Twitter account for thier new rpg is from 2021.



Couldn't it be a re-purposed account? Unless the Kobolds are skilled clairvoyants...


----------



## payn (Yesterday at 2:36 PM)

Minigiant said:


> It's classic. People come in with a bad idea to stamp their name on it. Internally it's disliked. New folk ignore internal disgruntlement. Some of the old folk leave because of it. New ideas blows up in the new peoples faces. Attempt to salvage.  New ideas is altered or ignored to not admit error or company takes huge hit.



Person who implemented bad idea is praised and awarded for navigating the bad press and will of the customer and avoiding the crisis. Never minding that they created it in the first place.


----------



## Ibrandul (Yesterday at 2:42 PM)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Why? Do you mean you cannot run it at all or you cannot run it with current supplied vendor automation?



At minimum the latter, but the former is also a distinct possibility. Here's how it would happen:

In a world where (for example) Roll20 loses its "custom arrangement" with WotC, the WotC content (5e PHB, etc.) most likely just disappears.

In that world, if OGL 1.0(a) stands, Roll20 can still offer the OGC from the SRDs as preprogrammed automation—and Roll20 can offer 3rd-party content that fills in the gaps. For many players and DMs it would be a hassle, but I think that a lot of groups would continue playing on Roll20 with this reduced functionality rather than switch to WotC's VTT.

In a world where OGL 1.0(a) falls, Roll20 marketplace probably can't offer anything that natively is automated _specifically_ for 5e. ("But WotC doesn't own the mechanics" is a common counterargument that in my view seems very unlikely to prevail.) Roll20 would remain a robust VTT from a technical point of view, and you could code up whatever macros you want or use those coded by others, etc. But precious few of the groups currently playing 5e on Roll20 will be willing to do that.

Roll20 _probably _survives in those circumstances, primarily used as a platform for non-D&D games, with severely reduced profitability and a correspondingly reduced capacity to continue improving the platform by adding new features, etc. But with its revenue likely reduced by more than half, there's a nonzero chance it folds entirely.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 2:48 PM)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Man you are so bitter.



I think people have a right to be. I'm not, but I get it, and I kind of would be amused of a whole ecosystem of "point and laugh" channels pop up to highlight every failure WotC has, just like has happened for nerd pop culture from Hollywood and the comics companies, etc.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 2:52 PM)

Retreater said:


> Yes. This is moment in our hobby where we learn that we no longer matter, that we can't play the way we want, that content is packaged by a corporation that has no foundation in games anymore (when even WotC had connections to magic cards).
> And this is the time when many fans (like myself) realize that it's artists, creative minds, and those who have inspiration that we want to invite into our imaginations - those who fantasize about dragons more than dollar signs.
> D&D has lost its soul. I'm not going to sell my imagination, my hobby time, my precious moments with friends and family, to the highest bidder ... people who clearly can give a rat's behind about how we enjoy the game.



First time?

Flippancy aside, that's nonsense. WotC isn't coming to your table with attorneys telling you how to play. It's pretty easy to avoid all of this drama by just continuing to use all of your 5e material, and in fact, buying anything for it 3pp that you had your eye on. Most likely, you can get enough material to keep you gaming successfully for decades without needing anything else new from WotC.

It sucks to be a 3pp content creator, but it makes little difference to you as a player. Just keep playing the game you already have and ignore WotC completely. Heck, I've been doing that for years already. It really does work fine.


----------



## payn (Yesterday at 2:57 PM)

Desdichado said:


> First time?
> 
> Flippancy aside, that's nonsense. WotC isn't coming to your table with attorneys telling you how to play. It's pretty easy to avoid all of this drama by just continuing to use all of your 5e material, and in fact, buying anything for it 3pp that you had your eye on. Most likely, you can get enough material to keep you gaming successfully for decades without needing anything else new from WotC.
> 
> It sucks to be a 3pp content creator, but it makes little difference to you as a player. Just keep playing the game you already have and ignore WotC completely. Heck, I've been doing that for years already. It really does work fine.



It's a lot more difficult if you use VTT, but still possible.


----------



## Alzrius (Yesterday at 2:57 PM)

Desdichado said:


> First time?
> 
> Flippancy aside, that's nonsense. WotC isn't coming to your table with attorneys telling you how to play. It's pretty easy to avoid all of this drama by just continuing to use all of your 5e material, and in fact, buying anything for it 3pp that you had your eye on. Most likely, you can get enough material to keep you gaming successfully for decades without needing anything else new from WotC.
> 
> It sucks to be a 3pp content creator, but it makes little difference to you as a player. Just keep playing the game you already have and ignore WotC completely. Heck, I've been doing that for years already. It really does work fine.



You're not wrong, but at the same time I can't help but be mournful about all of the OGL stuff that probably would have been, but won't be made now. It's not just 5E material, either; for a lot of people who play OGL-based games, this marks the end of new material being made for their favorite RPG(s), all because WotC wanted to maximize profits. That's certainly reason to be upset.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Yesterday at 2:57 PM)

I just don't see how it's only NOW that WotC has lost its way.  Seems to me that HasbrotC has "lost its way" a number of times in the past.  And heck... it's not like TSR never screwed the pooch for their game or its players either.

Yeah, what's happening now sucks for a lot of people.  But let's not suggest that its the end times either-- somewhere down the line it's quite probable that D&D will return to form like it always seems to do.  Heck, all you'd need to do would be to show an 'Anti-GSL' person back in 2008 where the game was in the summer of 2022 to know that turnarounds can happen and that nothing is set permanent.


----------



## payn (Yesterday at 2:59 PM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I just don't see how it's only NOW that WotC has lost its way.  Seems to me that HasbrotC has "lost its way" a number of times in the past.  And heck... it's not like TSR never screwed the pooch for their game or its players either.
> 
> Yeah, what's happening now sucks for a lot of people.  But let's not suggest that its the end times either-- somewhere down the line it's quite probable that D&D will return to form like it always seems to do.  Heck, all you'd need to do would be to show an 'Anti-GSL' person back in 2008 where the game was in the summer of 2022 to know that turnarounds can happen and that nothing is set permanent.



It's not just D&D this time though, its the whole market thats effected.


----------



## Alzrius (Yesterday at 3:00 PM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I just don't see how it's only NOW that WotC has lost its way.



This is the first time they've lost other people's ways.


----------



## darjr (Yesterday at 3:01 PM)

Nikosandros said:


> Couldn't it be a re-purposed account? Unless the Kobolds are skilled clairvoyants...



Ruin makes a good argument but this may be evidence that negotiations have been going on for a while.

Or Kobold knew the direction of the breeze even back then.

Or just that they’d been working in pirate stuff anyway.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 3:02 PM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I just don't see how it's only NOW that WotC has lost its way.  Seems to me that HasbrotC has "lost its way" a number of times in the past.  And heck... it's not like TSR never screwed the pooch for their game or its players either.



Indeed. Going back to the launch of 3.5, when nobody on the development team thought that it was a good idea, but Hasbro wanted to pump profits. 4e's launch and the GSL was an even bigger debacle, obviously. It does seem that the magnitude of the debacles continues to grow over time, but ultimately, I strongly suspect that the magnitude of the debacle from the fan-facing perspective turns into a much bigger magnitude of debacle from Hasbro-facing, and they have to figure out how to save face while about facing. Just like they did with the launch of 5e after 4e's disappointing sales and non-existent GSL ecosystem.


----------



## overgeeked (Yesterday at 3:07 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I can keep running 5e in person with the material I already have in person forever, no changes.
> 
> But if WotC doesn’t change course, I highly doubt I’ll be able to run _any_ edition of D&D on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds once their current contracts with WotC expire.



No. You don’t need to buy the VTT support to play the game. You can run any RPG on any VTT just fine. All the official bells and whistles and art assets are _helpful extras_, not necessary components.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Yesterday at 3:09 PM)

payn said:


> It's not just D&D this time though, its the whole market thats effected.





Alzrius said:


> This is the first time they've lost other people's ways.



Well, I'd argue that the GSL screwed over and/or caused problems for a bunch of people who made D&D content and who didn't eventually transfer over to making Pathfinder content instead... but I suppose an argument could also be made that the 3PP Industry had already screwed itself over by cannibalizing itself and dropping the bottom out of 3E/3.5.

But what does it matter?  Whether this is all-new or just a larger version of an event that has occurred previously doesn't change what is happening or who this current situation is affecting, so fair enough.


----------



## Retreater (Yesterday at 3:12 PM)

Desdichado said:


> First time?



First time it's been this big and over-reaching. First time that I've let any corporation control as much of my hobby interests. First time I've been as dependent on VTTs and online tools to play the game (mostly thanks to the pandemic). 
I've been through the transitions from 2E to 3E, 3E to 3.5E, 3.5E to 4E to PF, then to 5E. 


Desdichado said:


> Flippancy aside, that's nonsense. WotC isn't coming to your table with attorneys telling you how to play. It's pretty easy to avoid all of this drama by just continuing to use all of your 5e material, and in fact, buying anything for it 3pp that you had your eye on. Most likely, you can get enough material to keep you gaming successfully for decades without needing anything else new from WotC.



Yeah, I've got plenty of material. What I won't have is the ability to actually play any of it. If VTTs shut down - that cuts into my gaming groups. If I can't recruit players because WotC has poo'ed on the community. That means that I will be playing by myself for those decades. 
They are killing off the industry, and we're all going to be outcasts again.


Desdichado said:


> It sucks to be a 3pp content creator, but it makes little difference to you as a player.



Hi there. I'm a 3pp content creator. :/


----------



## Clint_L (Yesterday at 3:12 PM)

Desdichado said:


> First time?
> 
> Flippancy aside, that's nonsense. WotC isn't coming to your table with attorneys telling you how to play. It's pretty easy to avoid all of this drama by just continuing to use all of your 5e material, and in fact, buying anything for it 3pp that you had your eye on. Most likely, you can get enough material to keep you gaming successfully for decades without needing anything else new from WotC.
> 
> It sucks to be a 3pp content creator, but it makes little difference to you as a player. Just keep playing the game you already have and ignore WotC completely. Heck, I've been doing that for years already. It really does work fine.



There's a lot to this. I'm not giving up D&D after more than four decades because of these shenanigans - I have a way longer history with the game than Hasbro does and have been with it through thick and thin. At the same time, in another thread we were working out what we spent on D&D in the last year, and less than 3% of my spending went to Hasbro/WotC. My games do not belong to them, and I have no intention of letting their decisions determine how I play D&D or any other game. That is completely up to me and my players.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Yesterday at 3:37 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> At minimum the latter, but the former is also a distinct possibility. Here's how it would happen:
> 
> In a world where (for example) Roll20 loses its "custom arrangement" with WotC, the WotC content (5e PHB, etc.) most likely just disappears.
> 
> ...



I suppose but the stubborn cuss in me would see me roll my own automation or play without automation. It might even be good for me to do the math in my head again.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Yesterday at 3:49 PM)

Alzrius said:


> You're not wrong, but at the same time I can't help but be mournful about all of the OGL stuff that probably would have been, but won't be made now. It's not just 5E material, either; for a lot of people who play OGL-based games, this marks the end of new material being made for their favorite RPG(s), all because WotC wanted to maximize profits. That's certainly reason to be upset.




Outside the D&D sphere its hardly impossible for them to republish sans OGL.  Its a nuisance, but I know of at least three people in the process of doing that right now.


----------



## Alzrius (Yesterday at 3:57 PM)

Thomas Shey said:


> Outside the D&D sphere its hardly impossible for them to republish sans OGL.  Its a nuisance, but I know of at least three people in the process of doing that right now.



I know that some are, but leaving aside questions of whether or not d20-based publishers (which can be a murky area, e.g. PF2) can just remove the OGL from their books and assert "this was never really derivative of the d20 rules! We just used the OGL for convenience!" (which strikes me as iffy), there are some games which are _unquestionably_ derived from them, and so can't simply scrub the OGL and carry on. I play PF1, and liked that some publishers were still making PF1 supplements; they can't just keep doing that sans the OGL without exposing themselves to legal risk.

Not to mention that companies which _do_ go that route will need to draft new compatibility licenses if they want other publishers to make stuff using their rules, which is at best a chore, and at worst can potentially lead us right back here in who knows how many years.


----------



## Mallus (Yesterday at 3:58 PM)

Retreater said:


> It's possible and a threat that they're positing. Technically, VTTs who don't sign 1.1 can't host rules sets, modules, etc., for any OGL content. That means if you're playing any edition of D&D, Pathfinder, etc., the VTT would be in violation and would be sent a C&D or sued. VTTs will have to pull that content - which is the lion's share of players (from what we've seen posted on Fantasy Grounds' and Roll20's reports. So losing something like 75% of their players (and paid customers) isn't going to bode well for these companies, right?



Oh they could certainly put Roll20 and similar services out of business. But I'm not sure what that gains WotC. I doubt the 5e players on Roll20 are going to appreciate being forced onto One D&D's VTT, even if their Roll20 digital purchases are ported over. 

My group would probably switch to pure Discord and Theater of the Mind, or a barebones VTT like Owlbear Radio. I don't think we would be outliers.


----------



## Umbran (Yesterday at 4:12 PM)

Scribe said:


> Greed, and being publicly traded.




It isn't like private ownership is magical.  Look at Twitter, for pity's sake.

Whenever money is involved, there's a chance for trouble.  If you don't want things going wrong, play a game nobody else buys.


----------



## Staffan (Yesterday at 4:13 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> Especially if you fail the INT check to figure out that many of the 800 can’t consume your product without the 200.



I would argue that that's an archetypal example of a failed Wisdom check.

Intelligence to figure out a loophole that lets you roll back the OGL.

Wisdom to realize that this will cause an enormous uproar in the fan base.

Charisma to apologize and walk it back.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Yesterday at 4:15 PM)

Umbran said:


> It isn't like private ownership is magical.  Look at Twitter, for pity's sake.
> 
> Whenever money is involved, there's a chance for trouble.  If you don't want things going wrong, play a game nobody else buys.




I mean ... no one is forced to play D&D. You can easily do your own FKR game. There are a lot of great and indie games available on, inter alia, itch.io

And no matter what happens here, you can still play your 5e game (or your B/X game) just like you want.


----------



## Scribe (Yesterday at 4:15 PM)

Umbran said:


> It isn't like private ownership is magical. Look at Twitter, for pity's sake.



Certainly true, private ownership is no promise that either the company will operate ethically either.

Especially not a propaganda machine like the social media hell sites.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 4:17 PM)

There's more going on that just WotC and the OGL. 3PP and the industry overall may like to have someone to point at and shriek, but the reality is pretty evident when looking at Hasbro's financials, which are driven by WotC and have been for years. The stock price has been steadily declining for over a year. They just got downgraded to sell by Bank of America, which will impact their ability to raise capital. Their debacle with Magic is making mainstream news, completely unrelated to the hobby news, because of the financial implications it has for investors in HAS stock. D&D has likely peaked, and likely it was long enough ago that WotC can see it. With rough economic headwinds in almost everyone's predictions, the contraction will probably get _way _worse before it gets better. It's easy to blame WotC, but none of those (well, most of those—one could make a case that WotC could have put out better products in the last couple of years or so and done better with the brand, but that's an argument for another discussion) but WotC has little ability to affect any of those factors. They're REACTING to the fact that they can see these factors, and many 3pps and fans can't or won't see them.

Ultimately WotC may well have made a terrible decision that will have long-term negative repercussions for the brand, as Winninger says in his statement. But that doesn't mean that 3pps weren't about to be in trouble anyway. Maybe in the long run it's best for _them, _if not for D&D as a brand, for them to forge their own path and become stronger and more self-reliant in the process.

Of course, that's making the assumption that WotC actually has the legal _right _(as opposed to legal _might_) to cancel the OGl, when it was specifically written with the assumption that they'd never be able to do so and D&D would be saved from exactly this kind of decision. But again; that's a different argument, that I'm sure has already been beaten to death in other threads.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Yesterday at 4:21 PM)

Alzrius said:


> I know that some are, but leaving aside questions of whether or not d20-based publishers (which can be a murky area, e.g. PF2) can just remove the OGL from their books and assert "this was never really derivative of the d20 rules! We just used the OGL for convenience!" (which strikes me as iffy), there are some games which are _unquestionably_ derived from them, and so can't simply scrub the OGL and carry on. I play PF1, and liked that some publishers were still making PF1 supplements; they can't just keep doing that sans the OGL without exposing themselves to legal risk.
> 
> Not to mention that companies which _do_ go that route will need to draft new compatibility licenses if they want other publishers to make stuff using their rules, which is at best a chore, and at worst can potentially lead us right back here in who knows how many years.




Notice I said "outside the D&D-sphere".  PF (both 1e and 2e) are inside the D&D-sphere, as are the other games usually called "D20" (which is not every game that uses a D20, just those derived fairly obviously from D&D).  This is absolutely a big problem for them.  But they aren't the whole of the hobby.

Your latter statement is obviously true, though its amazing how much of this would have been a non-issue if the word "irrevocable" had been used properly in the OGL.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 4:25 PM)

Retreater said:


> Yes. This is moment in our hobby where we learn that we no longer matter, that we can't play the way we want, that content is packaged by a corporation that has no foundation in games anymore (when even WotC had connections to magic cards).



I felt that way in 2017 when I couldn't find any 4e games and had to 100% move to 5e
I also felt that way back in early 2000s when New World of Darkness came out and I couldn't find mage or vampire games to play or run... but then V20 came out and M20 and I had games again... but then V5 came out and M5 is either out or coming out and they dried up again.


Retreater said:


> D&D has lost its soul. I'm not going to sell my imagination, my hobby time, my precious moments with friends and family, to the highest bidder ... people who clearly can give a rat's behind about how we enjoy the game.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Yesterday at 4:26 PM)

Mallus said:


> Oh they could certainly put Roll20 and similar services out of business. But I'm not sure what that gains WotC. I doubt the 5e players on Roll20 are going to appreciate being forced onto One D&D's VTT, even if their Roll20 digital purchases are ported over.
> 
> My group would probably switch to pure Discord and Theater of the Mind, or a barebones VTT like Owlbear Radio. I don't think we would be outliers.




Honestly, people have gotten (and this will probably come across as more insulting than intended--I'm certainly someone who can be lazy on occasion) lazy when it comes to how they use VTTs.  Nothing about a VTT requires the computer to handle the mechanics.  You can use one just to upload maps and shuffle tokens around and then do the rest of the game handling the way you always did.  At worst you might want a die roller where everyone can see it (and I wonder even if you want that, how many people bother to monitor die rolls that closely in-person, in which case why worry about it over the Net?

I've been using nothing but Maptool (and without macros) for some years now.  I get by.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 4:27 PM)

Scribe said:


> Certainly true, private ownership is no promise that either the company will operate ethically either.
> 
> Especially not a propaganda machine like the social media hell sites.



Indeed, let's look at Twitter. Since Musk's takeover, downloads and activity on Twitter as reported by independent analysts Apptopia and Sensor Tower, are up 23% since the month before Musk took over, and 42% since this time last year. And, as has been proved in numerous data drops from Twitter internal files, ethical and even criminal wrongdoing were rampant at Twitter. Whether anyone in Washington will actually bring any consequences to anyone because of that remains to be seen, but it's not a secret that Twitter before Musk was a disaster in many ways, and was hemorrhaging users and activity. I'm sure that there are people who loved the old twitter, and I'm sure that many of the people who post here are among those (I mean, the moderation strategy is basically the same, so no surprises), but from an objective standpoint as opposed to emotional one, it's pretty hard to say that Musk's twitter is worse than pre-Musk twitter. If nothing else, Musk buying Twitter may have nearly if not completely gutted any attempts to build alternate twitters, like Parler, or Truth Social. Gab, I think, has enough legs to not care, but all of the people who ran off to Parler or Truth Social in a huff were only too eager to run back to twitter and dance for the nuts over there.
Not 100% sure that this comparison that we're wandering into has any bearing on D&D or not. But I will point out that the Free League, for example, is free from this kind of corporate nonsense. Whatever else you may think about them, the designers actually play their own games.


----------



## Cadence (Yesterday at 4:28 PM)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean ... no one is forced to play D&D. You can easily do your own FKR game. There are a lot of great and indie games available on, inter alia, itch.io
> 
> And no matter what happens here, you can still play your 5e game (or your B/X game) just like you want.




So, following that, the next step obvious step is for WotC to yank the .pdf's of all the old rule books from sale.     

There can't be only ONE, if there are more, right?


----------



## hojulation (Yesterday at 4:34 PM)

eyeheartawk said:


> I think that's a fair reading. Once WOTC's virtual tabletop is fully up and running, or close to, I wouldn't expect those agreements with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds to ever be renewed.



If true, I wonder why they would have just announced that DMs Guild Community Created content is "officially unlocking" for Roll20? Seems like they may permit them to keep using D&D content, but I imagine the terms of the agreement with Roll20 (and Fantasy Grounds) will be different than the currently active agreements. So at that point it's on the VTT's whether they would continue to support D&D.


----------



## payn (Yesterday at 4:34 PM)

Thomas Shey said:


> Honestly, people have gotten (and this will probably come across as more insulting than intended--I'm certainly someone who can be lazy on occasion) lazy when it comes to how they use VTTs.  Nothing about a VTT requires the computer to handle the mechanics.  You can use one just to upload maps and shuffle tokens around and then do the rest of the game handling the way you always did.  At worst you might want a die roller where everyone can see it (and I wonder even if you want that, how many people bother to monitor die rolls that closely in-person, in which case why worry about it over the Net?
> 
> I've been using nothing but Maptool (and without macros) for some years now.  I get by.



Just filling out some character sheets can be a PITA and some of these tools like an SRD can make it a breeze. Its really about convivence and not about total restriction. Though, there is no distinction for some folks.


----------



## jerryrice4949 (Yesterday at 4:34 PM)

Desdichado said:


> Indeed, let's look at Twitter. Since Musk's takeover, downloads and activity on Twitter as reported by independent analysts Apptopia and Sensor Tower, are up 23% since the month before Musk took over, and 42% since this time last year. And, as has been proved in numerous data drops from Twitter internal files, ethical and even criminal wrongdoing were rampant at Twitter. Whether anyone in Washington will actually bring any consequences to anyone because of that remains to be seen, but it's not a secret that Twitter before Musk was a disaster in many ways, and was hemorrhaging users and activity. I'm sure that there are people who loved the old twitter, and I'm sure that many of the people who post here are among those (I mean, the moderation strategy is basically the same, so no surprises), but from an objective standpoint as opposed to emotional one, it's pretty hard to say that Musk's twitter is worse than pre-Musk twitter. If nothing else, Musk buying Twitter may have nearly if not completely gutted any attempts to build alternate twitters, like Parler, or Truth Social. Gab, I think, has enough legs to not care, but all of the people who ran off to Parler or Truth Social in a huff were only too eager to run back to twitter and dance for the nuts over there.
> Not 100% sure that this comparison that we're wandering into has any bearing on D&D or not. But I will point out that the Free League, for example, is free from this kind of corporate nonsense. Whatever else you may think about them, the designers actually play their own games.



Strangely you don’t mention the significant downturn in advertising dollars since Musk took over.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 4:36 PM)

jerryrice4949 said:


> Strangely you don’t mention the significant downturn in advertising dollars since Musk took over.



you mean the revenue and profit...

by some standards if your way of using the tool is better but the company makes less money that is a win (at least as far as I can tell with all the talk about monetized D&D being bad)


----------



## Cadence (Yesterday at 4:37 PM)

payn said:


> Just filling out some character sheets can be a PITA and some of these tools like an SRD can make it a breeze. Its really about convivence and not about total restriction. Though, there is no distinction for some folks.




The character sheets were the biggest things for my 13yo and his friends.

I was using standard art programs for the VTT during COVID.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Yesterday at 4:37 PM)

Cadence said:


> So, following that, the next step obvious step is for WotC to yank the .pdf's of all the old rule books from sale.
> 
> There can't be only ONE, if there are more, right?




I don't think it's about that.

If I had to hazard a guess, this is all about D&D as a brand. Pure and simple.

In a certain way, the existence of the OGL is a happy accident of a certain time and a certain place. For the most part, corporations don't want to allow open commercial licensing of their IP for a lot of very good reasons- not just competition, but also because it can seriously hurt the brand. Whether its a glut of weak products (such as the 2000s) or it's offensive products, there's a reason that, for example, Disney doesn't do open licenses.

Again, not to defend this move ... at all. But it's about getting and retaining control of a core brand. 

A lot of the things that make us gamers happy about the existence of the OGL (for commercial purposes) are not the same things that corporations, generally, like.


----------



## Haplo781 (Yesterday at 4:38 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> At minimum the latter, but the former is also a distinct possibility. Here's how it would happen:
> 
> In a world where (for example) Roll20 loses its "custom arrangement" with WotC, the WotC content (5e PHB, etc.) most likely just disappears.
> 
> ...



Oh no not Roll20

Anyways


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 4:44 PM)

jerryrice4949 said:


> Strangely you don’t mention the significant downturn in advertising dollars since Musk took over.



And strangely, you don't mention the Twitter Files. Equally strangely; is it bad for WotC to be grasping and go after every penny at any moral cost, but GOOD for Twitter to do so?

Look, it was probably a bad comparison anyway, and shouldn't have been made, and I shouldn't have jumped on to point out that it was a bad comparison and shouldn't have been made. Hopefully we can agree that Musk taking over twitter has barely any relevance to the idea of someone other than Hasbro taking over D&D, if any, especially as nobody is threatening to come buy D&D from Hasbro anytime soon.


----------



## Cadence (Yesterday at 4:45 PM)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I don't think it's about that.
> 
> If I had to hazard a guess, this is all about D&D as a brand. Pure and simple.
> 
> ...




I completely agree and was being mostly tongue in cheek based on your two example games being B/X and 5e.

While I don't see them pulling the classic B/X, 1e, 2e, whatever things.  Is there any reason at all they would leave the 2014 5e stuff up?  (Partially wondering if my son and his friends want to continue using 5e but not ONE if I should go get some used 5e PHBs for people who might join in the future).


----------



## eyeheartawk (Yesterday at 4:48 PM)

hojulation said:


> If true, I wonder why they would have just announced that DMs Guild Community Created content is "officially unlocking" for Roll20? Seems like they may permit them to keep using D&D content, but I imagine the terms of the agreement with Roll20 (and Fantasy Grounds) will be different than the currently active agreements. So at that point it's on the VTT's whether they would continue to support D&D.



The easy answer?

Their VTT is probably at least two years away. Why not do it?

Then, you can tell tell people, oh, you're DMs guild stuff that unlocked? That's over on DnDB VTT too now (or whatever they end up calling it).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Yesterday at 4:48 PM)

Cadence said:


> I completely agree and was being mostly tongue in cheek based on your two example games being B/X and 5e.
> 
> While I don't see them pulling the classic B/X, 1e, 2e, whatever things.  Is there any reason at all they would leave the 2014 5e stuff up?  (Partially wondering if my son and his friends want to continue using 5e but not ONE if I should go get some used 5e PHBs for people who might join in the future).




Well, who knows, right? Remember when Disney used scarcity as a weapon (pre-Disney+) by releasing movies from their vault only occasionally?

I wouldn't worry about 5e for a while simply because so many books were sold for so long that you'll likely be able to find PHBs and DMGs on the used book market, cheaply, for some time. But ... it wouldn't hurt to download the Basic Rules, would it?


----------



## Remathilis (Yesterday at 5:07 PM)

Desdichado said:


> Indeed, let's look at Twitter. Since Musk's takeover, downloads and activity on Twitter as reported by independent analysts Apptopia and Sensor Tower, are up 23% since the month before Musk took over, and 42% since this time last year. And, as has been proved in numerous data drops from Twitter internal files, ethical and even criminal wrongdoing were rampant at Twitter. Whether anyone in Washington will actually bring any consequences to anyone because of that remains to be seen, but it's not a secret that Twitter before Musk was a disaster in many ways, and was hemorrhaging users and activity. I'm sure that there are people who loved the old twitter, and I'm sure that many of the people who post here are among those (I mean, the moderation strategy is basically the same, so no surprises), but from an objective standpoint as opposed to emotional one, it's pretty hard to say that Musk's twitter is worse than pre-Musk twitter. If nothing else, Musk buying Twitter may have nearly if not completely gutted any attempts to build alternate twitters, like Parler, or Truth Social. Gab, I think, has enough legs to not care, but all of the people who ran off to Parler or Truth Social in a huff were only too eager to run back to twitter and dance for the nuts over there.
> Not 100% sure that this comparison that we're wandering into has any bearing on D&D or not. But I will point out that the Free League, for example, is free from this kind of corporate nonsense. Whatever else you may think about them, the designers actually play their own games.



You bring up a good point. Lots of people wanted to leave Twitter after Musk's ownership and the choices he made. Lots of noise was raised, and lots of people tried to move to alternatives like Mastodon, Hive and Post. But no clear winner has emerged that has dethroned Twitter, if for no reason other than inertia (no one wants to start again somewhere new) and familiarity (most Twitter users know how Twitter works, they aren't learning new systems to do what they were doing before.) And so Twitter survived Musk's antics for now. Some left, but not enough did.

Take what lessons you want from that and apply it to WotC's current situation. D&D will survive because it's got familiarity and inertia on its side. There is no clear alternative so those who want to leave will end up in different competing ecosystems. People may prefer to be in a different system, but there will be plenty who end up back in D&D because that's where other people are. 

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but if Twitter can survive Musk, D&D will survive this OGL flap.


----------



## Haplo781 (Yesterday at 5:14 PM)

Remathilis said:


> You bring up a good point. Lots of people wanted to leave Twitter after Musk's ownership and the choices he made. Lots of noise was raised, and lots of people tried to move to alternatives like Mastodon, Hive and Post. But no clear winner has emerged that has dethroned Twitter, if for no reason other than inertia (no one wants to start again somewhere new) and familiarity (most Twitter users know how Twitter works, they aren't learning new systems to do what they were doing before.) And so Twitter survived Musk's antics for now. Some left, but not enough did.
> 
> Take what lessons you want from that and apply it to WotC's current situation. D&D will survive because it's got familiarity and inertia on its side. There is no clear alternative so those who want to leave will end up in different competing ecosystems. People may prefer to be in a different system, but there will be plenty who end up back in D&D because that's where other people are.
> 
> I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but if Twitter can survive Musk, D&D will survive this OGL flap.



Ah, but Twitter is hemorrhaging money. And so too might the D&D brand, if people don't buy the new books/VTT MTX.


----------



## mamba (Yesterday at 5:14 PM)

GMforPowergamers said:


> you mean the revenue and profit...
> 
> by some standards if your way of using the tool is better but the company makes less money that is a win (at least as far as I can tell with all the talk about monetized D&D being bad)



that is certainly not the metric Musk is using however, he is after profit…

As to WotC, I haven’t seen anyone saying they are not allowed to increase sales and profit, the objection is with how they intend to do so


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 5:38 PM)

mamba said:


> that is certainly not the metric Musk is using however, he is after profit…
> 
> As to WotC, I haven’t seen anyone saying they are not allowed to increase sales and profit, the objection is with how they intend to do so



Yeah, it does seem like it's a lose lose though... you buy something you love and run it into the ground trying to make it what you wanted... fail. You have something everyone loves and take a step no one likes to get more money and control.. fail

I do recognize there is a happy medium, but I find it funny that profit and revenue is a way to measure success but if you get it 'the wrong way' it's just as bad... god knows I am as guilty as anyone of think it , just funny.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Yesterday at 5:49 PM)

payn said:


> Just filling out some character sheets can be a PITA and some of these tools like an SRD can make it a breeze. Its really about convivence and not about total restriction. Though, there is no distinction for some folks.



I also just use fillable PDF sheets, and I dare say for games more complicated than those typical for the D&D-sphere (at least at the start of character creation).

Again, nothing I didn't do face to face.

(Now, if you want to argue that even face to face its really good to have some automation, I think that's at least an argument, but its not how this is usually framed).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Yesterday at 5:54 PM)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yeah, it does seem like it's a lose lose though... you buy something you love and run it into the ground trying to make it what you wanted... fail. You have something everyone loves and take a step no one likes to get more money and control.. fail
> 
> I do recognize there is a happy medium, but I find it funny that profit and revenue is a way to measure success but if you get it 'the wrong way' it's just as bad... god knows I am as guilty as anyone of think it , just funny.



I think the best way to see it is that people consider the success of an RPG company (and to at least some extent, with a business that's measured in profit) a virtue--but its not the_ only_ virtue, and if its reached by methods they consider vices, the net result may not be viewed as a virtue at all.


----------



## mamba (Yesterday at 6:18 PM)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I do recognize there is a happy medium, but I find it funny that profit and revenue is a way to measure success but if you get it 'the wrong way' it's just as bad... god knows I am as guilty as anyone of think it , just funny.



if there were no wrong way, we wouldn’t need half the laws


----------



## schneeland (Yesterday at 6:19 PM)

Remathilis said:


> I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but if Twitter can survive Musk, D&D will survive this OGL flap.



I tend to agree. Inertia, or let's maybe call it habits are a big factor and big brands don't die easily.
However, just like pre-Musk Twitter was more enjoyable for me than post-Musk Twitter, I feel pre-OGL 1.1-D&D will fare better than post-OGL 1.1-D&D.


----------



## ilgatto (Yesterday at 6:42 PM)

Mallus said:


> I agree that WotC can make D&D less convenient to play than it is now. But they can't delete content from the physical books I own, shut down VTTs that don't integrate the rules (or doing anything at all to groups playing via tools like Discord and Zoom), silence people who are talking on platforms they do not own (have you noticed there'a a _lot_ of discussion about this online right now?), etc.
> 
> WotC can certainly do many consumer-unfriendly things. Like invalidate the digital purchases people like me made on sites like Roll20. Would be the first time I lost access to a digital material. But even that would only makes my current campaign slightly less easy to run.



Well said, I say. From a players-and-DM point of view, why would you let anything WotC says or does spoil your game? Isn't D&D about using some rule set and then your imagination? About adventures in the mind's eye rather than on some 1D&D-interwebbery? About rescuing fair maidens strapping lads pers lamps from the clutches of the evil dragon? About telling stories and living them as they develop? About living the lives of your PCs and sharing their fortunes and misfortunes? About friends enjoying themselves at the table?

In the words of one famous player:


----------



## Maxperson (Yesterday at 6:51 PM)

theCourier said:


> Oh dear god, Elon Musk is going to try and buy D&D



Well, we know that the first thing he would do is fire everyone at Hasbro and WotC, so there's that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 6:54 PM)

mamba said:


> if there were no wrong way, we wouldn’t need half the laws



my buddy jokes (I hope) all the time that he would be so rich if he didn't have to pay people to work in his store...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 6:55 PM)

Maxperson said:


> Well, we know that the first thing he would do is fire everyone at Hasbro and WotC, so there's that.



not to mention the broken clock theory states he will do something right one of these times...


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 6:56 PM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I just don't see how it's only NOW that WotC has lost its way.  Seems to me that HasbrotC has "lost its way" a number of times in the past.  And heck... it's not like TSR never screwed the pooch for their game or its players either.
> 
> Yeah, what's happening now sucks for a lot of people.  But let's not suggest that its the end times either-- somewhere down the line it's quite probable that D&D will return to form like it always seems to do.  Heck, all you'd need to do would be to show an 'Anti-GSL' person back in 2008 where the game was in the summer of 2022 to know that turnarounds can happen and that nothing is set permanent.



Yeah, I could see this being a continuation of the “even edition curse,” which will be recovered from in whatever they call the next iteration of the rules after 1D&D.


----------



## Ibrandul (Yesterday at 7:00 PM)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I could see this being a continuation of the “even edition curse,” which will be recovered from in whatever they call the next iteration of the rules after 1D&D.



"1" is not an even number. They _tried_ to evade the curse.

But the gods knew the edition's truename...


----------



## Haplo781 (Yesterday at 7:01 PM)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I could see this being a continuation of the “even edition curse,” which will be recovered from in whatever they call the next iteration of the rules after 1D&D.



Except that they're not calling it 6e, and if we're going off "every other edition" instead of the publisher's nomenclature, then 3.5 should have been cursed...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 7:03 PM)

Charlaquin said:


> “even edition curse,”



never heard of this before (although it reminds me of star trek although reversed)
the funny part is if I were to rank all of my favorite versions of D&D it would go 4e, 2e, 5e... so even numbers are awesome for me...


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 7:04 PM)

Haplo781 said:


> Except that they're not calling it 6e, and if we're going off "every other edition" instead of the publisher's nomenclature, then 3.5 should have been cursed...



Oh, good, yet another thread descending into "what's an edition?" I put on the popcorn.


----------



## Haplo781 (Yesterday at 7:05 PM)

Reynard said:


> Oh, good, yet another thread descending into "what's an edition?" I put on the popcorn.



There's also like 5 different flavors of Basic.


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 7:05 PM)

Haplo781 said:


> There's also like 5 different flavors of Basic.



oooh, the perennial question: are BECMI and RC D&D the same edition?


----------



## Haplo781 (Yesterday at 7:07 PM)

Reynard said:


> oooh, the perennial question: are BECMI and RC D&D the same edition?



What about the "New Easier To Master" box set?


----------



## ilgatto (Yesterday at 7:08 PM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I just don't see how it's only NOW that WotC has lost its way.  Seems to me that HasbrotC has "lost its way" a number of times in the past.  And heck... it's not like TSR never screwed the pooch for their game or its players either.
> 
> Yeah, what's happening now sucks for a lot of people.  But let's not suggest that its the end times either-- somewhere down the line it's quite probable that D&D will return to form like it always seems to do.  Heck, all you'd need to do would be to show an 'Anti-GSL' person back in 2008 where the game was in the summer of 2022 to know that turnarounds can happen and that nothing is set permanent.



Underlining by me

Or, for example, Scott Fulton way back in 1982:


----------



## Dausuul (Yesterday at 7:09 PM)

Alzrius said:


> This is the first time they've lost other people's ways.



Yeah, exactly.

If this had just been the announcement of GSL 2.0, that would have been a moment for rolling eyes, shaking heads, and snarky commentary. But everybody knew there was no guarantee that Wizards would release an SRD for 1D&D, any more than there was for 4E -- they had never made any such promises. In contrast, here they are breaking twenty years of very clear and explicit promises, and trashing peoples' livelihoods that were built on those promises.

Alhough there were a few particular companies that did get screwed over hard in the 4E transition -- and chief among them was Paizo. We all know how _that_ turned out. Here's hoping that history rhymes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 7:12 PM)

Reynard said:


> Oh, good, yet another thread descending into "what's an edition?" I put on the popcorn.





Reynard said:


> oooh, the perennial question: are BECMI and RC D&D the same edition?



my understanding is the anywhere from 13th to 17th edition would fit... maybe that was for 5e so somewhere between 14th and 18th?

this reminds me of legacy numbering on comics...


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 7:17 PM)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my understanding is the anywhere from 13th to 17th edition would fit... maybe that was for 5e so somewhere between 14th and 18th?
> 
> this reminds me of legacy numbering on comics...



I remember the Superman triangle numbers. Jesus...


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 7:24 PM)

Haplo781 said:


> Except that they're not calling it 6e, and if we're going off "every other edition" instead of the publisher's nomenclature, then 3.5 should have been cursed...



It’s a joke man, don’t overthink it.


----------



## ilgatto (Yesterday at 7:28 PM)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I could see this being a continuation of the “even edition curse,” which will be recovered from in whatever they call the next iteration of the rules after 1D&D.



The "even edition curse"!? Why, there's _*absolutely nothing*_ wrong with 2E and... 

Oh, wait.

I see what you mean.


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 7:37 PM)

ilgatto said:


> The "even edition curse"!? Why, there's _*absolutely nothing*_ wrong with 2E and...
> 
> Oh, wait.
> 
> I see what you mean.



And to be clear, I think 2e and 4e are both great rule systems. But they also both, for various reasons, lead to troubles for TSR and WotC.


----------



## ilgatto (Yesterday at 7:41 PM)

Charlaquin said:


> And to be clear, I think 2e and 4e are both great rule systems. But they also both, for various reasons, lead to troubles for TSR and WotC.



. Even then I seem to have missed the meaning of the "even edition curse"!


----------



## Maxperson (Yesterday at 7:49 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> "1" is not an even number. They _tried_ to evade the curse.
> 
> But the gods knew the edition's truename...



They even tried the use of "One" which has 3 letters to be doubly safe.  They should have read the rules on curses.  Curses are not so easily evaded.


----------



## Maxperson (Yesterday at 7:50 PM)

Reynard said:


> Oh, good, yet another thread descending into "what's an edition?" I put on the popcorn.



Pretty sure it's the opposite of sebtraction.


----------



## schneeland (Yesterday at 7:53 PM)

Ibrandul said:


> "1" is not an even number. They _tried_ to evade the curse.
> 
> But the gods knew the edition's truename...



Well, given how many Ex-Microsoft employees are at WotC and that there's the same curse, only with odd editions of Windows, now I imagine that after their probation period, every Microsoft employee has to choose:
Are they an even edition person? Then they get to stay at Microsoft and ruin the odd releases. Or are they an odd edition person? Then they get a job offer at WotC.
Naturally the inverse policy has to be implemented at WotC, so there's always enough head count available.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 9:21 PM)

Maxperson said:


> They even tried the use of "One" which has 3 letters to be doubly safe.  They should have read the rules on curses.  Curses are not so easily evaded.



However, unfortunate connotations to Sauron and the Rings, which have been comparisons that are too easy to resist this week.


----------



## Azzy (Yesterday at 10:07 PM)

overgeeked said:


> No. You don’t need to buy the VTT support to play the game. You can run any RPG on any VTT just fine. All the official bells and whistles and art assets are _helpful extras_, not necessary components.



Considering that all of Foundry VTT's support for D&D and OGL content is created and developed by 3rd-part creators, I wonder how this will play out for them.


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 10:49 PM)

Azzy said:


> Considering that all of Foundry VTT's support for D&D and OGL content is created and developed by 3rd-part creators, I wonder how this will play out for them.



Based on the leaked draft, Foundry is in the worst place if they don't have the same kind of direct deal with WotC that FG and Roll20 do.


----------



## Azzy (Yesterday at 11:28 PM)

Reynard said:


> Based on the leaked draft, Foundry is in the worst place if they don't have the same kind of direct deal with WotC that FG and Roll20 do.



I just don't get it, though, considering that there's no 1st-party Foundry support for D&D/OGL games. I could see going after the 3P creators of game system modules, but Foundry itself?


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 11:47 PM)

Azzy said:


> I just don't get it, though, considering that there's no 1st-party Foundry support for D&D/OGL games. I could see going after the 3P creators of game system modules, but Foundry itself?



But if the new OGL stands and says "no VTTs" then Foundry is probably going to have to take that stuff off their service,  I would think.


----------



## Thomas Shey (51 minutes ago)

Reynard said:


> But if the new OGL stands and says "no VTTs" then Foundry is probably going to have to take that stuff off their service,  I would think.




Depends how its being put on it; keep in mind Foundry is hosted by the user, not a central server.  I don't know how system support is managed, but if its done by using files at the user's end, hard to see how they'd have any real obligation to do anything about it.


----------



## Haplo781 (19 minutes ago)

Thomas Shey said:


> Depends how its being put on it; keep in mind Foundry is hosted by the user, not a central server.  I don't know how system support is managed, but if its done by using files at the user's end, hard to see how they'd have any real obligation to do anything about it.



Foundry won't be able to officially host the files but that won't stop people from distributing them over, say, Discord.


----------

