# D&D General Going Nuclear:1D&D



## Zardnaar

Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. This includes online play, the movie, video games, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions. 

  Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related. 

 And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc. 

 For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else. 

 Just remember monetization means nothing good.

Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.


----------



## aco175

Maybe you can summarize the several threads going on about all the problems wit the new OLG and whatnot.  I seemed to have lost interest trying to keep up with the whole "He said, she said."


----------



## Zardnaar

aco175 said:


> Maybe you can summarize the several threads going on about all the problems wit the new OLG and whatnot.  I seemed to have lost interest trying to keep up with the whole "He said, she said."




Tldr: WotC bad Screw em.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Zardnaar said:


> Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. Thus includes online play, the movie, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.
> 
> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.
> 
> And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc.
> 
> For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else.
> 
> Just remember monetization means nothing good.
> 
> Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.



And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?


----------



## FrogReaver

Demetrios1453 said:


> And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?



Why don't you support it?


----------



## Zardnaar

Demetrios1453 said:


> And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?




 Opt in feel free to do whatever you like. You do you.


----------



## mamba

Demetrios1453 said:


> And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?



You are supporting what turns out to be a Bond villain level evil corporation, but you are free to continue doing so


----------



## aco175

Zardnaar said:


> Tldr: WotC bad Screw em.



Nothing against you, but this seems appropriate at this point. I have a healthy distrust of big government and large corporations, but you need to give more than this.


----------



## Zardnaar

aco175 said:


> Nothing against you, but this seems appropriate at this point. I have a healthy distrust of big government and large corporations, but you need to give more than this.
> 
> View attachment 271613




 Well there's a lot going on. Basically they seemingly want to nuke the OGL and force the larger OGL companies into paying royalties. 

 Said royalties are high enough to potentially kill off Kickstarter.


----------



## Steel_Wind

aco175 said:


> Maybe you can summarize the several threads going on about all the problems wit the new OLG and whatnot.  I seemed to have lost interest trying to keep up with the whole "He said, she said."



"They" haven't "said" anything. *Yet.* Still, the leaks of internal documents from within  WotC (at least one of their employees was not happy with what he/she/they were reading and leaked it to the media) suggests there is some unpleasant maneuvering ahead with the OGL 1.1.

Draft document(s) created by lawyers for discussion with management is not the same thing as announcing a decided course of action. We will see what WotC will announce, if anything, concerning the OGL soon enough.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

If the version we have seen in leaked excerpts is the actual final OGL 1.1 to be publicly released next week, it seems to me remarkable that WotC incinerating fan good will over on the MtG line didn’t dissuade them from doing the same with D&D’s fan base.

But I have been itching for an excuse to start my group using Worlds Without Number and get going on a Dark Sun conversion.


----------



## Nikosandros

Steel_Wind said:


> "They" haven't "said" anything. *Yet.* Still, the leaks of internal documents from within  WotC (at least one of their employees was not happy with what he/she/they were reading and leaked it to the media) suggests there is some unpleasant maneuvering ahead with the OGL 1.1.
> 
> Draft document(s) created by lawyers for discussion with management is not the same thing as announcing a decided course of action. We will see what WotC will announce, if anything, concerning the OGL soon enough.



From this post, I have strong confidence that what we've seen is not an internal draft.


----------



## Zardnaar

AdmundfortGeographer said:


> If the version we have seen in leaked excerpts is the actual final OGL 1.1 to be publicly released next week, it seems to me remarkable that WotC incinerating fan good will over on the MtG line didn’t dissuade them from doing the same with D&D’s fan base.
> 
> But I have been itching for an excuse to start my group using Worlds Without Number and get going on a Dark Sun conversion.




 Often wondered if non D&D Darksun would work specifically D6.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Demetrios1453 said:


> And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?



Do you care about the many people who may be actually harmed via losing their livelihood from the fallout?

Their kids can't eat the memes @aco175 so generously donated.


----------



## Tazawa

Demetrios1453 said:


> And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?




You should care. The OGL provides a large number of benefits to consumers even if they do not generate content. 

1. It increases the amount of gaming material available to you. Do you like to play D&D but have a specific interest that WotC’s offerings don’t address? There’s likely an OGL product that covers it.
2. Do you like new ideas in your gaming? The OGL offers a very easy entry point for new talent.
3. Most importantly, it provides competition that keeps prices lower and prevents WotC from creating a walled garden. Do you like to have a choice as to what VTT you can use?

The OGL has been enormously beneficial to everyday gamers, even if it is not immediately obvious. And it has also been enormously beneficial to WotC—without it, they would not be in their dominant position in the marketplace.

Getting rid of the OGL will harm both gamers and WotC.


----------



## Clint_L

Tazawa said:


> The OGL has been enormously beneficial to everyday gamers, even if it is not immediately obvious. And it has also been enormously beneficial to WotC—without it, they would not be in their dominant position in the marketplace.




I agree with the first statement.

I do not necessarily agree with the second. And I know it is almost taken as a given on this forum that the OGL has been vastly beneficial to WotC, but that is very, very hard to prove. D&D has been a dominant player in the RPG market since it created the RPG market in the 70s, and it has a huge reservoir of cultural awareness that no other RPG can even approach. The OGL did not create that.

The second statement may be true, but on the other hand, it might be the case that the OGL has not produced a ton of money for WotC. In fact, when I looked at my own D&D-related spending for the past year, less than 3% of it went to WotC. Hasbro are not irrational. They are looking at a lot more numbers than we are and making their decisions accordingly. They might turn out to be wrong, but that is not a forgone conclusion.

Edit: with regards to the OP, I think it is easy for folks who are not really fans of D&D 5e to call for boycotts. I'm not that fussed about what I've learned, thus far. For one thing, I don't really know anything yet. For another, I don't think it's terrible for Hasbro to ask for royalties on people making a lot of money off their IP. That's pretty normal behaviour, and I don't boycott all the other media companies who ask for royalties to use their IP (basically, all of them). It comes down to how it is implemented and whether I think Hasbro/WotC is being egregious. I have a lot of goodwill towards them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Tazawa said:


> You should care. The OGL provides a large number of benefits to consumers even if they do not generate content.
> 
> 1. It increases the amount of gaming material available to you. Do you like to play D&D but have a specific interest that WotC’s offerings don’t address? There’s likely an OGL product that covers it.
> 2. Do you like new ideas in your gaming? The OGL offers a very easy entry point for new talent.
> 3. Most importantly, it provides competition that keeps prices lower and prevents WotC from creating a walled garden. Do you like to have a choice as to what VTT you can use?
> 
> The OGL has been enormously beneficial to everyday gamers, even if it is not immediately obvious. And it has also been enormously beneficial to WotC—without it, they would not be in their dominant position in the marketplace.
> 
> Getting rid of the OGL will harm both gamers and WotC.




Before going nuclear, lets see what happens...
... maybe they come to senses.

And then: I have not found OGL Material that I personally liked so much that I wanted to use it immediately
 Even the things that were praised like tome of beasts...
I also want to see the movie and I want it to be a success. Wouls bw a shame if it  will be the last one if it as good as it looks.
So. Hopefully wotc might even bw pressured by paramount to not do something stupid.
It is not the first time a movie tanked bwcause of a boycot.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I'll still see the movie (if the word is that it lives up to the trailer), because it looks enjoyable and I don't think the angry D&D fans willing to boycott over OGL-related inside baseball are enough to send a meaningful message in regard to a major motion picture. If the movie is dependent of active D&D players it's already a failure.

But I was already pretty unhappy with the direction (and lack thereof) of OneD&D, and while I'm not super invested in the OGL controversy it has probably soured me enough to not bother with the eventual grudging purchase I would have made of the OneD&D core books (assuming they have actual books and not some sort of subscription plan).


----------



## Tazawa

Clint_L said:


> I agree with the first statement.
> 
> I do not necessarily agree with the second. And I know it is almost taken as a given on this forum that the OGL has been vastly beneficial to WotC, but that is very, very hard to prove. D&D has been a dominant player in the RPG market since it created the RPG market in the 70s, and it has a huge reservoir of cultural awareness that no other RPG can even approach. The OGL did not create that.
> 
> The second statement may be true, but on the other hand, it might be the case that the OGL has not produced a ton of money for WotC. In fact, when I looked at my own D&D-related spending for the past year, less than 3% of it went to WotC. Hasbro are not irrational. They are looking at a lot more numbers than we are and making their decisions accordingly. They might turn out to be wrong, but that is not a forgone conclusion.
> 
> Edit: with regards to the OP, I think it is easy for folks who are not really fans of D&D 5e to call for boycotts. I'm not that fussed about what I've learned, thus far. For one thing, I don't really know anything yet. For another, I don't think it's terrible for Hasbro to ask for royalties on people making a lot of money off their IP. That's pretty normal behaviour, and I don't boycott all the other media companies who ask for royalties to use their IP (basically, all of them). It comes down to how it is implemented and whether I think Hasbro/WotC is being egregious. I have a lot of goodwill towards them.




I agree that the second statement is hard to prove. The biggest impact of the OGL has been through network effects, which are very hard to directly measure through revenue. But I also work in marketing and know how amazingly powerful being regarded as the default rule system is and how much goodwill can impact the bottom line.

With regards to WotC being paid for their IP, they definitely are. If you want to publish on DMs Guild, you pay 25% royalties to reference their game world, characters, etc. WotC in turn, pays royalties when the they use other people’s IP in their books (Critical Role, Stranger Things, etc.)

The IP in the game rules, of course, is slightly different. Everyone always says that game mechanics can’t be copyrighted, and it is true. But RPG rules are in kind of a gray area where it is unsure where the pure game mechanics and the copyrightable content overlap. The OGL was a truce—people wouldn’t take each other to court over game mechanics and could concentrate on developing the really valuable aspects of IP (characters, stories, etc.).

All of that will end if WotC is successful revoking the OGL. It will become too expensive for third parties to Kickstart D&D content. No new ‘Critical Roles’ will choose D&D. No innovative new writers will risk losing control of their IP and will not choose to support D&D.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

If the OGL1.1  goes the way the worst-case scenarios have outlined the edition and Pathfinder wars during the 4e era are going to look like a walk in the park.  

Hasbro should look at what Star Wars fandom ended up doing to Star Wars 9 and the Solo movie box office before proceeding.  Everytime D&D is brought up in any context on any website, there will be a bunch of folks diving in to hate on it. I can promise this is what is next if most of what has been highlighted so far goes through.


----------



## DND_Reborn

The OGL doesn't matter at all to me because the next iteration of D&D doesn't matter to me. I'm sure sometime over the next few years I'll either convert my group to AD&D, find a different group that plays AD&D, or stop playing D&D completely and maybe just make my own game. The longer I've been playing the more I've realized you really don't need anything but imagination (and dice help, of course  ).


----------



## mamba

Benjamin Olson said:


> I'll still see the movie (if the word is that it lives up to the trailer), because it looks enjoyable and I don't think the angry D&D fans willing to boycott over OGL-related inside baseball are enough to send a meaningful message in regard to a major motion picture. If the movie is dependent of active D&D players it's already a failure.



certainly not with that attitude 

Enjoy the movie


----------



## Nikosandros

At the moment, I'm no longer planning to see the D&D movie. Not because I have delusions that this would be significant to WotC, but rather because  all that's been going on has soured me on it.


----------



## Zardnaar

Nikosandros said:


> At the moment, I'm no longer planning to see the D&D movie. Not because I have delusions that this would be significant to WotC, but rather because  all that's been going on has soured me on it.




 I was on the fence. Wasn't gonna rush out but what in reviews and word of mouth (primarily ENworld). 

If true I won't be seeing it.


----------



## Uller

I have been away from the boards for a long time and came back just to see what folks are saying.  I have already stopped buying WotC products so there isn't much I can do to change that now.  This "leak" was likely a trial balloon and they decide the feedback is too negative they will pull a Paypal and claim it was a leaked draft or something.

I doubt it will stand....In another forum someone pointed out that Knights of the Old Republic is built on d20 Modern using the OGL 1.0.  Disney owns it.  I don't see them saying "Sure, Hasbro.  We'll stop selling KotOR or literally give it to you to publish under 1.1."



Zardnaar said:


> Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. Thus includes online play, the movie, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.
> 
> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.
> 
> And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc.
> 
> For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else.
> 
> Just remember monetization means nothing good.
> 
> Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I 100% support someone that willing and knowingly choosing to do this, but I don't think it's for me. I may not go to 1D&D and this isn't HELPING, but I wont be boycotting.

Having said that you have to do it right. Don't play old editions, don't talk up old editions and fun times. Take a game, almost ANY game that isn't WotC AND isn't a variant D&D (may I suggest TORG, or Savage Worlds) and play that. Talk that up and teach that to new gamers... and every few months TELL Wotc/Hasbro "I have X disposable income for gaming and instead of YOU it is going to this other game"


----------



## Zardnaar

GMforPowergamers said:


> I 100% support someone that willing and knowingly choosing to do this, but I don't think it's for me. I may not go to 1D&D and this isn't HELPING, but I wont be boycotting.
> 
> Having said that you have to do it right. Don't play old editions, don't talk up old editions and fun times. Take a game, almost ANY game that isn't WotC AND isn't a variant D&D (may I suggest TORG, or Savage Worlds) and play that. Talk that up and teach that to new gamers... and every few months TELL Wotc/Hasbro "I have X disposable income for gaming and instead of YOU it is going to this other game"




If we'll as long as WotC is getting 0 money I don't think it matters if it's D&D or off brand D&D.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

aco175 said:


> Maybe you can summarize the several threads going on about all the problems wit the new OLG and whatnot.  I seemed to have lost interest trying to keep up with the whole "He said, she said."



1. WotC doesn't want anyone to know anything until it's too late to change tracks.
2. Multiple reputable sources (albeit unfamiliar to _me_) report WotC is trying to "de-authorize" the current OGL.
3. The new "OGL" is open in name only. Harsh limits, _mandatory royalties_ after certain income thresholds, and worse.
4. _This is a leak_. WotC has said they'll make a formal statement on the 13th.
5. Per the leak, WotC will try to force all existing licensees to make a decision to switch to the new license..._within one week of release._
6. Hence, if there is even a CHANCE this is real, we have to make our voices heard *NOW.* There won't be enough time if we wait.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

GMforPowergamers said:


> I 100% support someone that willing and knowingly choosing to do this, but I don't think it's for me. I may not go to 1D&D and this isn't HELPING, but I wont be boycotting.
> 
> Having said that you have to do it right. Don't play old editions, don't talk up old editions and fun times. Take a game, almost ANY game that isn't WotC AND isn't a variant D&D (may I suggest TORG, or Savage Worlds) and play that. Talk that up and teach that to new gamers... and every few months TELL Wotc/Hasbro "I have X disposable income for gaming and instead of YOU it is going to this other game"



Alternatively?

Play 4e.

Find sources for its rules and information. By definition, none of those sources are official WotC stuff anymore because they've already deleted everything, even the digital tools. It's the forgotten edition as it is, and it's the edition 5e ran away from as fast as it gorram could. Any books you find today will almost surely be second-hand, it's been over a decade since most of them were last printed. WotC doesn't see a dime, but you're still playing D&D and telling them: "I _would_ play YOUR product, if you weren't such @$$#*£€$."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Zardnaar said:


> If we'll as long as WotC is getting 0 money I don't think it matters if it's D&D or off brand D&D.



$0 direct money can still be BILLIONS indirectly. 

I have freinds that don't read comics, they don't support marvel or DC and until the MCU was in phase 2 or 3 they couldn't have told you what company made what superhero... but they bought superman shirts and watched movies and cartoons. They (and millions or billions maybe) others keep those idea's those concepts the IDEA of superman or spiderman or even Ironman and venom alive and in our minds.

My mom could not on a bet tell the difference between Babylon 5, Star Trek or Star Wars... BUT she would never guess B5, she would TRY to figure out if it was star trek or star wars... I even had her once call star gate star trek.  She ALSO calls Vampire and TORG "D&D"

if you help make the IP itself good and in minds eyes (by running or talking about it) you are helping keep D&D as a property valuable.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> Alternatively?
> 
> Play 4e.
> 
> Find sources for its rules and information. By definition, none of those sources are official WotC stuff anymore because they've already deleted everything, even the digital tools. It's the forgotten edition as it is, and it's the edition 5e ran away from as fast as it gorram could. Any books you find today will almost surely be second-hand, it's been over a decade since most of them were last printed. WotC doesn't see a dime, but you're still playing D&D and telling them: "I _would_ play YOUR product, if you weren't such @$$#*£€$."



I love 4e so I 100% support the idea... but I still think I should be fair and point out as long as it's D&D it is advertising D&D...


----------



## EzekielRaiden

GMforPowergamers said:


> $0 direct money can still be BILLIONS indirectly.
> 
> I have freinds that don't read comics, they don't support marvel or DC and until the MCU was in phase 2 or 3 they couldn't have told you what company made what superhero... but they bought superman shirts and watched movies and cartoons. They (and millions or billions maybe) others keep those idea's those concepts the IDEA of superman or spiderman or even Ironman and venom alive and in our minds.
> 
> My mom could not on a bet tell the difference between Babylon 5, Star Trek or Star Wars... BUT she would never guess B5, she would TRY to figure out if it was star trek or star wars... I even had her once call star gate star trek.  She ALSO calls Vampire and TORG "D&D"
> 
> if you help make the IP itself good and in minds eyes (by running or talking about it) you are helping keep D&D as a property valuable.



I mean...isn't that the goal? We want the property itself to still exist. We just don't want it to exist in this crappy, awful way.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I love 4e so I 100% support the idea... but I still think I should be fair and point out as long as it's D&D it is advertising D&D...



Believe me, you shouldn't be "advertising" 4e if you're using the types of resources that would enable you to play it. There's a reason discussion of that sort of thing is banned on the forums. It's, properly speaking, illegal.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean...isn't that the goal? We want the property itself to still exist. We just don't want it to exist in this crappy, awful way.



yes and no... because as you keep D&D alive, you make WotC money indirectly. They make tie ins with Stranger things and rick and morty and make a (hopefully) blockbuster movie... because it IS the game... you need to take that away make it LESS well known, LESS the only TTRPG everyone knows...



EzekielRaiden said:


> Believe me, you shouldn't be "advertising" 4e if you're using the types of resources that would enable you to play it. There's a reason discussion of that sort of thing is banned on the forums. It's, properly speaking, illegal.



I mean I own the books... so how is it illegal to use them?


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean...isn't that the goal? We want the property itself to still exist. We just don't want it to exist in this crappy, awful way.



I am not so sure about that. Seems we either have the crappy version or none at all. At that point I opt for none, so someone else can take over the TTRPG market (or several grow bigger, either is an improvement over WotC by then / now).


----------



## EzekielRaiden

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes and no... because as you keep D&D alive, you make WotC money indirectly. They make tie ins with Stranger things and rick and morty and make a (hopefully) blockbuster movie... because it IS the game... you need to take that away make it LESS well known, LESS the only TTRPG everyone knows...



All of those things already exist and will already make huge amounts of money no matter what I do (though the film could still flop.) The Stranger Things tie-in has existed forever at this point, and I guarantee you WotC made most of the money they're going to make from it already. The film is due to release sometime this year, and whether or not I play a D&D-derived game in the next eight months, especially if I use an out-of-date edition, isn't going to change its sales except (possibly) negatively. Me choosing to play a 4e D&D game with four other people (wherein I tell them, "Please don't buy any WotC products, they've done a Very Bad Thing and we don't want to reward that") is in no way "advertising" nor supporting these other things. I don't watch Stranger Things, and it was already unlikely that I would watch the film (as I have heard some things that bother me about it.)



GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean I own the books... so how is it illegal to use them?



Reread what I said. I wasn't talking about _books_.



mamba said:


> I am not so sure about that. Seems we either have the crappy version or none at all. At that point I opt for none, so someone else can take over the TTRPG market (or several grow bigger, either is an improvement over WotC by then / now).



I thought the point of boycotting was to encourage change, not to burn things to the ground.


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> I thought the point of boycotting was to encourage change, not to burn things to the ground.



I am not expecting change, if we get it, even better


----------



## aco175

EzekielRaiden said:


> I thought the point of boycotting was to encourage change, not to burn things to the ground.



Isn't that how it always starts.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> I thought the point of boycotting was to encourage change, not to burn things to the ground.



THe thread name is going Nuclear...


----------



## Charlaquin

Demetrios1453 said:


> And for those of us who don't give two figs about the OGL? Which you might find to be a surprising amount?



I mean… If you enjoy Pathfinder, FATE, Mutants and Masterminds, SWSE, or basically any rpg with a core mechanic of rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number, or even just appreciate that such games exist, you should care about the OGL, because none of them would exist without it.

EDIT: Or if you like 3rd party D&D supplements, those also need the OGL to exist.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> I mean… If you enjoy Pathfinder, FATE, Mutants and Masterminds, SWSE, or basically any rpg with a core mechanic of rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number, or even just appreciate that such games exist, you should care about the OGL, because none of them would exist without it.



where I worry about mutants and masterminds... I have to disagree.

TORG (orginal) and Rifts both had rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number in 2e era (late 80s early 90s)


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> where I worry about mutants and masterminds... I have to disagree.
> 
> TORG (orginal) and Rifts both had rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number in 2e era (late 80s early 90s)



I mean, obviously not _every single system_ that involves that is OGL, but a significant amount are, which is why I said “pretty much any” rather than “literally any.”


----------



## EzekielRaiden

GMforPowergamers said:


> THe thread name is going Nuclear...



Which is a metaphor.


----------



## grimslade

I will wait until the 13th to decide when WotC releases to the public. IF it is close to what has been reported/leaked, I will not spend another dime on WotC/Hasbro products, including the movie. I will finish my DM duties to a couple on-going public campaigns at the local library and will pack up my D&D stuff for good. This leaked OGL 1.1 is cartoonishly evil and will represent a huge step backwards for the promotion of the game. Again, I will wait to make my decision when I see the released OGL.


----------



## Malmuria

Clint_L said:


> with regards to the OP, I think it is easy for folks who are not really fans of D&D 5e to call for boycotts. I'm not that fussed about what I've learned, thus far. For one thing, I don't really know anything yet. For another, I don't think it's terrible for Hasbro to ask for royalties on people making a lot of money off their IP. That's pretty normal behaviour, and I don't boycott all the other media companies who ask for royalties to use their IP (basically, all of them). It comes down to how it is implemented and whether I think Hasbro/WotC is being egregious. I have a lot of goodwill towards them.




The implication of the leak is that paizo would have to either stop publishing new pathfinder material (because it uses OGL 1.0) or switch to OGL 1.1 and start paying wotc royalties _and_ give wotc control over paizo IP.  You’re ok with that?   It’s the idea that wotc could “revoke” a license thats been used for 22 years, and used in good faith, that has people upset.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> I love 4e so I 100% support the idea... but I still think I should be fair and point out as long as it's D&D it is advertising D&D...




What you do at your own table at home isn't advertising, especially if you are playing a legacy edition that they aren't selling things for anyway.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> What you do at your own table at home isn't advertising, especially if you are playing a legacy edition that they aren't selling things for anyway.



Yup.  I'm not letting this disgusting thing that's happening stop my Level Up games.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Fans: Why can't we ever get a good D&D movie?
Also Fans, Movie coming out: Boycott Hasbro!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> What you do at your own table at home isn't advertising, especially if you are playing a legacy edition that they aren't selling things for anyway.



yes and no. 

You go to a friends house with 4 other friends, don't tell anyone what you are doing, and leave and never speak of it until next game is the CLOSEST you get to not keeping it in the public eye (but players come and go players become DMs someday and bring in new players)

MORE likely you sit down with 4-6 friends joke around talk about gaming and play... when you are there most likely those closest to you know it's D&D night (again unless you keep it secret, or lie) and the idea of "Oh I know someone that plays D&D"  spreads slowly. 
Now if 1 group does this will it mean anything... I doubt it, we are at butterfly wings here... but it 3% of the playerbase CHANGES to other things if instead of D&D night they call it TORG night, or Vampire night, or what ever... and when people say "Like D&D?" (and they will) correct them "Only the same way a poker night and a monopoly night are the same cause the are both games, this is ______" that is a VERY minor hit to Wotc. 

Now if you splinter that 3% over 11 game systems no 1 of them is getting a big boost, but all 11 get a minor boost and WotC/D&D take a minor hit.

This isn't the only way. It's not what I am going to do. It is however the only way to not enhance the IP...

Someone said they run a D&D gaming club at school. Changing to Level Up or Pathfinder might feel good, but they are still variants of D&D. Changing to Rifts gaming club is a much bigger blow then changing to (insert 3rd party variant that is still D&D) or (insert previous edition).

IT's like "Sticking it to marvel" by not reading any more spiderman or avengers comics... and watching spiderman and the avengers on Disney plus, or going to see the new Deadpool and Wolverine movie.  You moved your money from 1 part of Disney to another... and if you still walk around with your iron man and or spider man shirt on, you keep the IP in everyone's mind and enhance the brand some small bit.

We know what Hasbro wants... they actually told us. The IP for D&D. If the movie and a new cartoon and some comics and those toys all sell well they don't care that we are playing pathfinder... just that we still call ourselves D&D players and make D&D as a brand, as an IP stronger.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Sacrosanct said:


> Fans: Why can't we ever get a good D&D movie?
> Also Fans, Movie coming out: Boycott Hasbro!



WotC didn't have to do this to make a good movie.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Yup.  I'm not letting this disgusting thing that's happening stop my Level Up games.



nor am I saying you have to. I'm not even saying you HAVE to give up on WotC (I know you are though) I am just informing that the idea of D&D is what they care most about.


----------



## Zardnaar

Sacrosanct said:


> Fans: Why can't we ever get a good D&D movie?
> Also Fans, Movie coming out: Boycott Hasbro!




Tbh I don't care about a D&D movie. Still haven't seen the 2000 one.


----------



## FrogReaver

I just realized the 1/13/23 is a Friday.  Friday the 13th.  Isn't that wonderful!


----------



## LordEntrails

Zardnaar said:


> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related.



No thanks. I won't.


Zardnaar said:


> Just remember monetization means nothing good



Yea... no, I don't agree.


Zardnaar said:


> Opt in feel free to do whatever you like. You do you.



Thanks for the permission?


mamba said:


> You are supporting what turns out to be a Bond villain level evil corporation, but you are free to continue doing so



ROFLMAO
I agree on one thing, Bond is fiction, so is the statement that WotC is an evil corporation.


Zardnaar said:


> they seemingly want



Don't we ask people on this forum not to make statements for other people? Why do people feel it is appropriate to assume they know what WotC is going to do in the future and state it as if their opinions are fact?


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> Yup.  I'm not letting this disgusting thing that's happening stop my Level Up games.




I'm currently running Wild Beyond the Witchlight for my home group.  If the license stinks, I'll let that come to its natural end, and then probably cancel my DDB subscription and not buy the OneD&D rules.

I was going to buy OneD&D out of curiosity, but I have enough 5e D&D materials for three or four campaigns already stacked up.  And my players will probably want not-D&D for the next campaign anyway.  Walking away won't be all that difficult.


----------



## ECMO3

Zardnaar said:


> Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. Thus includes online play, the movie, video games, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.
> 
> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.
> 
> And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc.
> 
> For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else.
> 
> Just remember monetization means nothing good.
> 
> Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.



Boycotting is not the best way.  Just deal with them like we did TSR from the 90.  Have small time independents pirate everything.

Sure other big corporations like Kobold Press and Paizo will suffer for  this, but that will open the door for a lot more from less established and offshore corporations.


----------



## Zardnaar

ECMO3 said:


> Boycotting is not the best way.  Just deal with them like we did TSR from the 90.  Have small time independents pirate everything.
> 
> Sure other big corporations like Kobold Press and Paizo will suffer for  this, but that will open the door for a lot more from less established and offshore corporations.




 Well I've got around 400 D&D items on the bookshelves. I'll just use them.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Sacrosanct said:


> Fans: Why can't we ever get a good D&D movie?
> Also Fans, Movie coming out: Boycott Hasbro!



I mean, if the company is doing something crappy, voting with your wallet is the only real means you have for dealing with it.

Had I the disposable income, I would probably donate to some kind of legal defense fund to get this issue addressed too. Because it's BS and Hasbro/WotC should know that.


----------



## Zardnaar

LordEntrails said:


> No thanks. I won't.
> 
> Yea... no, I don't agree.
> 
> Thanks for the permission?
> 
> ROFLMAO
> I agree on one thing, Bond is fiction, so is the statement that WotC is an evil corporation.
> 
> Don't we ask people on this forum not to make statements for other people? Why do people feel it is appropriate to assume they know what WotC is going to do in the future and state it as if their opinions are fact?




 Should be clear this is just an opinion. 

 I'm not gonna lecture you over what you do or what you think is right. 

 It's WotC IP my money. You can do whatever you like with your money.


----------



## ECMO3

Clint_L said:


> I don't think it's terrible for Hasbro to ask for royalties on people making a lot of money off their IP.




I don't think it is terrible to ask, but I also don't think it is terrible for people to simply steal Hasbro's IP when they do ask for royalties.


----------



## LordEntrails

Zardnaar said:


> Should be clear this is just an opinion.
> 
> I'm not gonna lecture you over what you do or what you think is right.
> 
> It's WotC IP my money. You can do whatever you like with your money.



Agreed


----------



## LordEntrails

ECMO3 said:


> I don't think it is terrible to ask, but I also don't think it is terrible for people to simply steal Hasbro's IP when they do ask for royalties.



So you don't value the concept of IP? You only follow the rules when they work for you, but not against you?

EDIT: I'm out of this thread. as I catch up with it I realize it's not the type of discussion I'm going to spend my time on. I find it really sad the stances that some folks are justifying.


----------



## Umbran

LordEntrails said:


> Why do people feel it is appropriate to assume they know what WotC is going to do in the future and state it as if their opinions are fact?




One - he said "_seemingly"_.  That's not a statement of fact, but a statement of what appears, to him, to be the case.

Two - the leak seems pretty real, and it specifically includes revocation of what we know as the OGL.  If the leak was largely incorrect, WotC staying silent for a week would be a surprisingly bad tactical choice.  A simple statement of, "Folks, we had already decided to not use those terms, and we're setting up to make our plan more clear to you - that should be ready in a week," would be far better public relations.


----------



## mamba

Sacrosanct said:


> Fans: Why can't we ever get a good D&D movie?
> Also Fans, Movie coming out: Boycott Hasbro!



bad timing ?


----------



## FrogReaver

LordEntrails said:


> So you don't value the concept of IP? You only follow the rules when they work for you, but not against you?



I don't know that I agree with IP protections extending to a product that is for all intents and purposes being buried by a company.  It's the current law.  I don't advocate breaking it, but I don't think the law should be that way.


----------



## mamba

LordEntrails said:


> Don't we ask people on this forum not to make statements for other people? Why do people feel it is appropriate to assume they know what WotC is going to do in the future and state it as if their opinions are fact?



because they basically told us ?


----------



## Malmuria

What IP is being “protected” is very nebulous and has not been tested in court. Are the six ability scores IP? Hit dice? etc. Part of the reason this hasn’t been tested is that TSR and now Hasbro has more money to throw at legal fees in a protracted battle.  I don’t see how using the legal system to bully competitors is ethical (and so its hard to be concerned about someone photocopying the phb, which people have done since the beginning of the hobby)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Malmuria said:


> What IP is being “protected” is very nebulous and has not been tested in court. Are the six ability scores IP? Hit dice? etc. Part of the reason this hasn’t been tested is that TSR and now Hasbro has more money to throw at legal fees in a protracted battle.  I don’t see how using the legal system to bully competitors is ethical (and so its hard to be concerned about someone photocopying the phb, which people have done since the beginning of the hobby)



ONce upon a time we ALMOST got that when TSR sued Mayfair games. 
Mayfair had a bunch of books called Role Aids, and they were basicly add ons to 1e/2e. Infact I could argue they had the 1st prestige class Role Aids' Archmage: A Conversion for OD&D


----------



## ECMO3

LordEntrails said:


> So you don't value the concept of IP? You only follow the rules when they work for you, but not against you?
> 
> EDIT: I'm out of this thread. as I catch up with it I realize it's not the type of discussion I'm going to spend my time on. I find it really sad the stances that some folks are justifying.




I believe in capitalism, if I can take your idea and make it better for less money I should be allowed to.  If you look at history many, many great things were  brought to the public by stealing IP:

1. Henry Ford built the model T and refused to pay roalyties to the people who owned the patent for the automobile and brought autos to the masses.

2. Glen Curtiss refused to pay royalties to the Wright Brothers who had a patent on the airplane and made air travel viable.

3. Numerous small time computer manufactures stole IP from IBM to make computers viable for the consumer market.

4.  Microsoft stole IP from Xerox to make Windows.

5. Echostar stole digital video recording technology from Tivvo paving the way for video on demand of live broadcasts.

When you rush to the defense of IP rights consider your hypocrisy if you also use automobiles, airplanes, computers, windows and video on demand.

Yeah I don't believe protecting IP is a good thing.  Conversly, good things happen when IP is stolen and made available to people for less.


----------



## Zardnaar

ECMO3 said:


> I believe in capitalism, if I can take your idea and make it better for less money I should be allowed to.  If you look at history many, many great things were  brought to the public by stealing IP:
> 
> 1. Henry Ford built the model T refused to pay roalyties to the people who owned the patent for the automobile and brought autos to the masses.
> 
> 2. Glen Curtiss refused to pay royalties to the Wright Brothers who had a patent on the airplane and made air travel viable.
> 
> 3. Numerous small time computer manufactures stole IP from IBM to make computers viable for the consumer market.
> 
> 4.  Microsoft stole IP from Xerox to make Windows.
> 
> 5. Echostar stole digital video recording technology from Tivvo paving the way for video on demand of live broadcasts.
> 
> When you rush to the defense of IP rights consider your hypocrisy if you also use automobiles, airplanes, computers, windows and video on demand.
> 
> Yeah I don't believe protecting IP is a good thing.  Conversly, good things happen when IP is stolen and made available to people for less.




 I think IPs a good idea for a certain amount of time eg 10-20 years or whatever. 

 Multi generational not so much.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Zardnaar said:


> I think IPs a good idea for a certain amount of time eg 10-20 years or whatever.
> 
> Multi generational not so much.



"Thanks Disney"


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Zardnaar said:


> Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. Thus includes online play, the movie, video games, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.
> 
> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.
> 
> And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc.
> 
> For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else.
> 
> Just remember monetization means nothing good.
> 
> Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.



Nah, I care about D&D more than I care about anything else related to the OGL. It would be better for D&D overall if they don't go forward with 1.1 in it's current form, but that has not happened yet.



mamba said:


> You are supporting what turns out to be a Bond villain level evil corporation, but you are free to continue doing so



Not really. In terms of Corparate greed this is fairly light.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Zardnaar said:


> Well there's a lot going on. Basically they seemingly want to nuke the OGL and force the larger OGL companies into paying royalties.
> 
> Said royalties are high enough to potentially kill off Kickstarter.



The royalties are not nearly high enough to kill off kickstarter.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

MonsterEnvy said:


> The royalties are not nearly high enough to kill off kickstarter.



Given the low profit margins on TTRPG stuff, paying 20% is a hell of a lot. It might not kill off _Kickstarter the company,_ but it could easily kill _TTRPG crowdfunding_ through KS, despite that being the best option on the market.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

EzekielRaiden said:


> Given the low profit margins on TTRPG stuff, paying 20% is a hell of a lot. It might not kill off _Kickstarter the company,_ but it could easily kill _TTRPG crowdfunding_ through KS, despite that being the best option on the market.



20% for Revenue over 750k for things that use the OGL.

So if something made 750,001 the kickstarter would only owe wizards 20 cents. So yes that can turn into a lot of money, but it's not 20% of everything. Also not all TTRPGs uses the OGL.

I am also one of the people that doubts 1.1 will emerge in it's current form anyway.


----------



## Retreater

As worried, pessimistic, and frustrated as I am, I'm not going to stop my current 5E campaigns. I have one that is winding down anyway, and I'll let that one get to a suitable conclusion before I bow out as a DM. I'm at a 5th level of exhaustion running games as is.
The neighborhood teens for whom I run will likely want to stay with D&D after our current campaign ends. I'll present options, but I expect we'll stick with 5e. No need for me to purchase anything new - I got my last batch of stuff for Christmas gifts. That should hold me over.
I'm concerned that PF2's engine gets pulled from Foundry VTT, which is my third game. If that happens, well, I guess that's the end of PF2 for me. I can't find players in person, and if we can't play VTTs with the new license (and no other agreement is made), I guess that's the end.
What else am I not buying? Well, my nephew and I looked at minis today, and we didn't get any because D&D logo and all that. May or may not watch the movie - depending on what the family wants to do. 
Personally, I'd rather take this opportunity to support 3PPs and indie developers - to see what else is out there - rather than focus on "sticking it to" Hasbro.


----------



## Clint_L

ECMO3 said:


> When you rush to the defense of IP rights consider your hypocrisy if you also use automobiles, airplanes, computers, windows and video on demand.






ECMO3 said:


> Yeah I don't believe protecting IP is a good thing. Conversly, good things happen when IP is stolen and made available to people for less.




So your slippery slope argument is that if you have ever indirectly benefitted from a theft, you have no right to ever object to theft again? Does that logic apply to all crimes?

Except, no, that doesn't work, because I believe that all the cases that you cited were in fact litigated by courts. So I don't believe that any of them were thefts, actually.

I'm lost. What point are you making? That might makes right and anyone should be able to take whatever they want? You think that is capitalism? I think you don't understand the foundational role that ownership rights and a consistent legal system play in capitalism. You seem to be confusing capitalism with anarchy.

Edit: And just to be clear, what you are advocating would not benefit the little guys at all. If we start trampling IP rights and other legal protections, it will be the mega-corporations that have the most power who will come in a loot what they like.


----------



## Zardnaar

EzekielRaiden said:


> Given the low profit margins on TTRPG stuff, paying 20% is a hell of a lot. It might not kill off _Kickstarter the company,_ but it could easily kill _TTRPG crowdfunding_ through KS, despite that being the best option on the market.




 Yeah should have beenore clear but this


----------



## Zardnaar

GMforPowergamers said:


> "Thanks Disney"




 Didn't mention names .


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

ECMO3 said:


> I believe in capitalism, if I can take your idea and make it better for less money I should be allowed to.  If you look at history many, many great things were  brought to the public by stealing IP:
> 
> 1. Henry Ford built the model T and refused to pay roalyties to the people who owned the patent for the automobile and brought autos to the masses.
> 
> 2. Glen Curtiss refused to pay royalties to the Wright Brothers who had a patent on the airplane and made air travel viable.
> 
> 3. Numerous small time computer manufactures stole IP from IBM to make computers viable for the consumer market.
> 
> 4.  Microsoft stole IP from Xerox to make Windows.
> 
> 5. Echostar stole digital video recording technology from Tivvo paving the way for video on demand of live broadcasts.
> 
> When you rush to the defense of IP rights consider your hypocrisy if you also use automobiles, airplanes, computers, windows and video on demand.
> 
> Yeah I don't believe protecting IP is a good thing.  Conversly, good things happen when IP is stolen and made available to people for less.



So, if person A puts in the money to research to develop a new product (including all the lines of research that didn't turn out successful), gets it certified and put through the safety checks, it is fine for company B to then start manufacturing and selling that project at a greater profit since they haven't had to pay for development?

Likewise it is fine for a larger company to pirate any artwork, music, novel settings that a person might create?


----------



## Clint_L

Cap'n Kobold said:


> So, if person A puts in the money to research to develop a new product (including all the lines of research that didn't turn out successful), gets it certified and put through the safety checks, it is fine for company B to then start manufacturing and selling that project at a greater profit since they haven't had to pay for development?
> 
> Likewise it is fine for a larger company to pirate any artwork, music, novel settings that a person might create?



I don't think he fully thought through the implications of his statement.

I think that right now folks in general are getting more and more worked up over a situation on which we have very little reliable information. I am not going to take a strong position until I know what is going on.


----------



## delericho

Zardnaar said:


> Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. Thus includes online play, the movie, video games, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.
> 
> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.



Given that D&D is now a lifestyle brand, I don't think a boycott will really hurt them - as long as you remain engaged with D&D in any form, you're helping them.

So you'd need to stop playing any edition (switch to another game entirely, and obnoxiously correct anyone who refers to it as 'D&D'). And only ever speak about D&D in a negative light.

The one thing most likely to hurt them is to consistently refer to the upcoming movie as a "crappy remake" - as far as possible, tie it to the cinematic abomination of the 2000's. (It helps that the director of that one is credited as a producer here.)

The problem being, of course, that to be successful you would need to damage the brand, and that may not be desirable.

*One last thing:* I do think any talk of "going nuclear" is still premature. It's just about possible, although unfortunately I think unlikely, that WotC will reverse course on this. So I would be inclined to wait until Friday before doing anything drastic.


----------



## Zardnaar

delericho said:


> Given that D&D is now a lifestyle brand, I don't think a boycott will really hurt them - as long as you remain engaged with D&D in any form, you're helping them.
> 
> So you'd need to stop playing any edition (switch to another game entirely, and obnoxiously correct anyone who refers to it as 'D&D'). And only ever speak about D&D in a negative light.
> 
> The one thing most likely to hurt them is to consistently refer to the upcoming movie as a "crappy remake" - as far as possible, tie it to the cinematic abomination of the 2000's. (It helps that the director of that one is credited as a producer here.)
> 
> The problem being, of course, that to be successful you would need to damage the brand, and that may not be desirable.
> 
> *One last thing:* I do think any talk of "going nuclear" is still premature. It's just about possible, although unfortunately I think unlikely, that WotC will reverse course on this. So I would be inclined to wait until Friday before doing anything drastic.




 Well the lifestyle brand is pixie dust and wishes atm. 

  Probably should have included if true in OP.


----------



## Stormonu

I intend to do what I've kept doing for years.  Buy what I like and not buy what I don't.  I don't have any loyalty to the company, just to the product as far as it meets my needs.

I've already said multiple times I'm not going to a new edition.  If that is what OneD&D becomes, I won't be picking it up.   If it remains the "same edition" but none of it grabs my fancy, I won't buy it - and will probably cancel my Beyond subscription if the content is no longer of any use.  If WotC stops 3rd party creators, I'll just make my own.  In the end, I have enough content already to last me for the next two or three lifetimes. 

D&D has been wonderful that they've opened their system up for others to play in, but it hasn't always been that way - and a lot of other games aren't open like D&D.  Not having 3pp won't stop me from buying D&D product if it's good, but a lot of 3pp has been better than WotC's of late, so WotC would have to up their game if they want my money.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

ECMO3 said:


> Boycotting is not the best way.  Just deal with them like we did TSR from the 90.  Have small time independents pirate everything.
> 
> Sure other big corporations like Kobold Press and Paizo will suffer for  this, but that will open the door for a lot more from less established and offshore corporations.



*Mod Note:*

Piracy or advocating piracy is not permitted on ENWorld.


----------



## Nefermandias

Zardnaar said:


> Gonna phrase this as politely as I can. Specifically I'm advocating burning 1D&D down to the ground and all the D&D branding. This includes online play, the movie, video games, new edition everything. If you play MtG you can make your own decisions.
> 
> Essentially boycott everything WotC/D&D related. If you're feeling motivated throw in Hasbro and MtG related.
> 
> And do it across all forms of social media, reddit, YouTube etc.
> 
> For me last time around it was Paizo this time around it's Kobold Press and everyone else.
> 
> Just remember monetization means nothing good.
> 
> Crush the 1.1, see them crumble before you, and to hear the lamentations of their CEO.



No.

What you mean by "last time around it was Paizo" ? I stuck with 4e back then, it is in fact my favorite version of the game by a huge margin. I will stick with the new 2024 edition now too.

I'm sure there's plenty of people away from the internet who feels the same. So, hard nope. I will keep playing Dungeons and Dragons just like one been doing since the 90s.

By the way, people keep putting Kobold Press on a high pedestal, but personally I find their Tome of Beasts atrocious. No 3pp for me and my table. Thank you.


----------



## Zardnaar

Nefermandias said:


> No.
> 
> What you mean by "last time around it was Paizo" ? I stuck with 4e back then, it is in fact my favorite version of the game by a huge margin. I will stick with the new 2024 edition now too.
> 
> I'm sure there's plenty of people away from the internet who feels the same. So, hard nope. I will keep playing Dungeons and Dragons just like one been doing since the 90s.
> 
> By the way, people keep putting Kobold Press on a high pedestal, but personally I find their Tome of Beasts atrocious. No 3pp for me and my table. Thank you.




 I cared about Paizo last time around this time I don't in terms of I use their product and want them to do well. 

 Nevertheless I want them to hang around subject to anything self inflicted they do.


----------



## Jadeite

@Nefermandias :
If 4e is your favorite edtion by a huge margin, why would you play 1D&D instead of it?


----------



## Nefermandias

Jadeite said:


> @Nefermandias :
> If 4e is your favorite edtion by a huge margin, why would you play 1D&D instead of it?



Because I want to?

Do you only ever listen to your favorite song? Do you only ever eat your favorite food? What kind of question is that? What are you trying to prove?

B/X is my second favorite, BTW. That doesn't stop me from playing 5e too.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Nefermandias said:


> Because I want to?
> 
> Do you only ever listen to your favorite song? Do you only ever eat your favorite food? What kind of question is that? What are you trying to prove?



I'm not the person you replied to, so I can't speak for them. But at least for me, those comparisons are flawed because a game _system_ is not a single experience, it is a spectrum of possible experiences. It's not a single song, heck it isn't even a single _band_, it's a genre. It's not a single dish, or even a common ingredient, it's a _cuisine_. There are nigh-infinite variations within "4e D&D"--or any edition, it's nothing special about 4e. We've had people explicitly say that already with regard to 5e, that the material they already have is more than enough to keep them going for years and years.



Nefermandias said:


> B/X is my second favorite, BTW. That doesn't stop me from playing 5e too.



I mean, I wouldn't expect it to. But if there's something that has become negative about a given thing, one would think that switching to one's favorite (once it makes sense to do so) would be a reasonable response. Moreso than fully sticking to the now-problematic thing regardless of the problem, I mean.


----------



## Nefermandias

EzekielRaiden said:


> I'm not the person you replied to, so I can't speak for them. But at least for me, those comparisons are flawed because a game _system_ is not a single experience, it is a spectrum of possible experiences. It's not a single song, heck it isn't even a single _band_, it's a genre. It's not a single dish, or even a common ingredient, it's a _cuisine_. There are nigh-infinite variations within "4e D&D"--or any edition, it's nothing special about 4e. We've had people explicitly say that already with regard to 5e, that the material they already have is more than enough to keep them going for years and years.
> 
> 
> I mean, I wouldn't expect it to. But if there's something that has become negative about a given thing, one would think that switching to one's favorite (once it makes sense to do so) would be a reasonable response. Moreso than fully sticking to the now-problematic thing regardless of the problem, I mean.



Yes, but I don't see anything negative about One D&D. I don't know how this conversation got to this point.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

At this point in time I just want Foundry/Forge, Chaosium and Pinnacle to survive the upcoming chaos in good shape so my digital table can keep on gaming in our favorite systems.

What I'm more worried about is a dysfunctional economy that keep repeating destructive cycles. Passionate small company create something great. Gets bought up by a larger company that still make a descent product and communicate with consumer base. Gets devoured by Megacorp shark that naughty word on consumers to maximize profit for a short period, while the product get turned to fecal matter and flushed down the toilet. Rince and repeat. It's both sad and depressing.


----------



## Jadeite

Nefermandias said:


> Because I want to?
> 
> Do you only ever listen to your favorite song? Do you only ever eat your favorite food? What kind of question is that? What are you trying to prove?
> 
> B/X is my second favorite, BTW. That doesn't stop me from playing 5e too.



I certainly won't listen to a certain song or eat certain food, just because it's the newest version (in fairness, I usually avoid food that's too old, but that says more about the viability of food analogies than my personal taste).
If I lose interest in a certain game, I usually switch too something more different than just another edition. And there are tons of games I have yet too play (even though I own quite a few books for some of them).


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Nefermandias said:


> Yes, but I don't see anything negative about One D&D. I don't know how this conversation got to this point.



One D&D is, in part, being updated _in order to_ make people adopt the new license.

Just like how 4e happened, in part, in order to make creators switch to the GSL. And in so doing, 3PP for 4e became almost nonexistent, with Green Ronin and ENWorld being the only two publishers of 4e 3PP I've ever heard of.


----------



## Nefermandias

EzekielRaiden said:


> One D&D is, in part, being updated _in order to_ make people adopt the new license.
> 
> Just like how 4e happened, in part, in order to make creators switch to the GSL. And in so doing, 3PP for 4e became almost nonexistent, with Green Ronin and ENWorld being the only two publishers of 4e 3PP I've ever heard of.



Sure, I won't pretend to know what their reason for releasing One D&D is. I don't really care either. 
3pp content don't affect my game in any way and I just wanted to point out that this might be the case for a lot of people out there.


----------



## Jadeite

Nefermandias said:


> 3pp content don't affect my game in any way



But it does. Fourth edition would not have been made the way it was without 3rd party products like Iron Heroes. And 5e's Spellcasting is rather similar to that of Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Just because you ignore third party material doesn't mean that it won't merge with the main branch to be enjoyed (or disliked) by you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

delericho said:


> Given that D&D is now a lifestyle brand, I don't think a boycott will really hurt them - as long as you remain engaged with D&D in any form, you're helping them.
> 
> So you'd need to stop playing any edition (switch to another game entirely, and obnoxiously correct anyone who refers to it as 'D&D'). And only ever speak about D&D in a negative light.
> 
> The one thing most likely to hurt them is to consistently refer to the upcoming movie as a "crappy remake" - as far as possible, tie it to the cinematic abomination of the 2000's. (It helps that the director of that one is credited as a producer here.)
> 
> The problem being, of course, that to be successful you would need to damage the brand, and that may not be desirable.
> 
> *One last thing:* I do think any talk of "going nuclear" is still premature. It's just about possible, although unfortunately I think unlikely, that WotC will reverse course on this. So I would be inclined to wait until Friday before doing anything drastic.



yeah that is about how you hurt them... if that is what you want. 

This isn't a major thing you HAVE to do. I am not sure that enough will even think of it to make it matter, HOWEVER I do feel that we should keep everyone who WANTS to send a message to know this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jadeite said:


> @Nefermandias :
> If 4e is your favorite edtion by a huge margin, why would you play 1D&D instead of it?



I'm not him but I have told this before and will again... I am not surrounded by others wwho love 4e. I have friends that want to play 3e or 2e or PF or other games... 5e is none of our 1st choices but it is the edition we can all 'put up with' someone else called it the 'compromise edition'


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not him but I have told this before and will again... I am not surrounded by others wwho love 4e. I have friends that want to play 3e or 2e or PF or other games... 5e is none of our 1st choices but it is the edition we can all 'put up with' someone else called it the 'compromise edition'



You know, there's at least a dozen heavy posters here who love 4e.  You folks ever think of getting an online game together?


----------



## FormerLurker

There's some problems with this idea.

First, boycotting D&D also means not playing, as that's an advertisement for their game. It's not enough if you're still playing with content you own, as you're still recruiting people to play that game and telling people you play D&D. You need to find another game and hype that.

Second... D&D pretty much _IS_ the tabletop industry. According to ICv2 in 2014, RPGs were a $15 million dollar industry. They were up to $35 million by 2015 and $45 million in 2016. By 2021 they were $105 million! Some of that was Kickstarter but a lot was D&D. Something like 70-80% of the money in RPG sales likely comes from D&D, and removing that by "burning 1D&D down to the ground" will rapidly contract the hobby. Game stores will take a massive hit. No D&D pretty much reduces the entire industry to irrelevancy. Without the biggest name in gaming bringing in new players, this will become a greying hobby. Dying.


----------



## Composer99

1) The 4e Discord is active and usually has around a half-dozen LFG posts on the go at any given time. So finding people to play 4e, if you're willing to play online, is eminently doable.

2) Apropos of the main thread topic, io9 received a leaked copy of the entire new "OGL" and Linda Codega wrote about it at Gizmodo. We also have Tweets from Kickstarter and more recently Griffon's Saddlebag regarding the veracity of the new "OGL". (The OGL -- Just What's Going On?)

WotC has locked up most official talk with NDAs so that's as good as it gets.

If a complete OGL leaked to a journalist isn't "good enough" (keeping in mind Codega has a source to protect), I'm not sure what to say.


----------



## Velderan

FormerLurker said:


> Game stores will take a massive hit. No D&D pretty much reduces the entire industry to irrelevancy. Without the biggest name in gaming bringing in new players, this will become a greying hobby. Dying.



For those who buy their D&D stuff at their FLGS, keep this bit in mind. Whatever you normally spend on D&D material has to become other purchases or your FLGS may not last if enough people cut off their spending suddenly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> You know, there's at least a dozen heavy posters here who love 4e.  You folks ever think of getting an online game together?



I have considered it, but most of my gaming right now is more 'with the friends I want to keep touch with'.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Velderan said:


> For those who buy their D&D stuff at their FLGS, keep this bit in mind. Whatever you normally spend on D&D material has to become other purchases or your FLGS may not last if enough people cut off their spending suddenly.



yes, always you should go this week and every few weeks to a local gaming store and buy games or supplies for the game there (I spent a lot of money more then I needed to over the years supporting the ones that were near me, but they went out anyway)


----------



## aco175

Velderan said:


> For those who buy their D&D stuff at their FLGS, keep this bit in mind. Whatever you normally spend on D&D material has to become other purchases or your FLGS may not last if enough people cut off their spending suddenly.



My FLGS does not carry that much 3PP books and such.  Not buying the core things from them will hurt this 'little guy' as much as the other 3PP people are trying to save.  I think everyone would like to support both, but looks like people might have to choose which one they want to feed.


----------



## Velderan

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes, always you should go this week and every few weeks to a local gaming store and buy games or supplies for the game there (I spent a lot of money more then I needed to over the years supporting the ones that were near me, but they went out anyway)



Same sadly. I had a FLGS 5 minutes from my house that was part of a small local chain that used to hold a copy of the alt cover books for me on release and after years of shopping there eventually knew what kind of minis I would buy so they'd call me when they received new stuff they knew I was looking for. The mall they were in is pretty much a ghost town now, so they closed last spring due to a lack of foot traffic in the mall which sucks. I have a couple other options within 20-30 minutes drive, so still trying to figure out which store I like.


----------



## Retreater

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes, always you should go this week and every few weeks to a local gaming store and buy games or supplies for the game there (I spent a lot of money more then I needed to over the years supporting the ones that were near me, but they went out anyway)



I've been getting minis, paints, and dice. Stuff that isn't specific to D&D.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> You know, there's at least a dozen heavy posters here who love 4e.  You folks ever think of getting an online game together?



I love 4e, but I don't love it enough to put up with the hassle of playing online.


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> I love 4e, but I don't love it enough to put up with the hassle of playing online.



Fair enough.  I just hear a lot of people around here singing 4e's praises, so I was wondering if anything could come of that.  People should be able to play the games they like.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Micah Sweet said:


> You know, there's at least a dozen heavy posters here who love 4e.  You folks ever think of getting an online game together?



I tried, a while back. It didn't end up going very well (I suspect just some personality mismatch with some of the players.) We got through a single adventure and then didn't meet back up again.


----------



## Random Task

Clint_L said:


> I do not necessarily agree with the second. And I know it is almost taken as a given on this forum that the OGL has been vastly beneficial to WotC, but that is very, very hard to prove. D&D has been a dominant player in the RPG market since it created the RPG market in the 70s, and it has a huge reservoir of cultural awareness that no other RPG can even approach. The OGL did not create that.



I'm trying to think of a situation where the originating company benefited from clones, and I am coming up blank.  It's a little different with WOTC because some of this stuff is add ons to the core WOTC game, but people could have made a lot of that without needing an OGL.


Charlaquin said:


> I mean… If you enjoy Pathfinder, FATE, Mutants and Masterminds, SWSE, or basically any rpg with a core mechanic of rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number, or even just appreciate that such games exist, you should care about the OGL, because none of them would exist without it.



 You could have used that core mechanic without knowing anything about an OGL.


----------



## TwoSix

EzekielRaiden said:


> I tried, a while back. It didn't end up going very well (I suspect just some personality mismatch with some of the players.) We got through a single adventure and then didn't meet back up again.



Not a shock, most of the people on here are highly literate in various games and also highly opinionated.  Not enough "go along to get along" players of the kind you need to keep a group cohesive.


----------



## Charlaquin

Random Task said:


> You could have used that core mechanic without knowing anything about an OGL.



Hypothetically, sure, and as mentioned previously, there are _some_ non-OGL games that use such a mechanic. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of d20-based games are published under the OGL, and if it went away would likely either have to shut down, or be significantly re-worked. So, again, if you like Pathfinder, M&M, SWSE, FATE, d20 Modern, OSE, or most other d20-based games, you should care about the OGL because their existence relies on it.


----------



## Michael Linke

If D&D really has the mainstream exposure and interest we think it does, then nothing that communities like this can do will stop Hasbro.  For every one person on enworld ready to boycott D&D over OGL worries, there are probably 100 people who are interested in D&D cause of Stranger Things, or cause they heard an actor they like was into it and have literally no idea what an OGL is and can't understand why a company like Paizo should have any right whatsoever to make content directly inspired by D&D.


----------



## Michael Linke

Charlaquin said:


> Hypothetically, sure, and as mentioned previously, there are _some_ non-OGL games that use such a mechanic. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of d20-based games are published under the OGL, and if it went away would likely either have to shut down, or be significantly re-worked. So, again, if you like Pathfinder, M&M, SWSE, FATE, d20 Modern, OSE, or most other d20-based games, you should care about the OGL because their existence relies on it.



The OGL was intended as a safe harbour.  You can put out games that use those mechanics, and you don't have to make any effort whatsoever to prove that you arrived at the idea independently, because the license stipulates that it's totally ok to just borrow the idea anyway.
It is a worry for games that previously used the OGL.  It's hard for a game to say "We came up with this on our own" when there are prior editions that say otherwise by reprinting the OGL.


----------



## Princessmaker

Michael Linke said:


> If D&D really has the mainstream exposure and interest we think it does, then nothing that communities like this can do will stop Hasbro.  For every one person on enworld ready to boycott D&D over OGL worries, there are probably 100 people who are interested in D&D cause of Stranger Things, or cause they heard an actor they like was into it and have literally no idea what an OGL is and can't understand why a company like Paizo should have any right whatsoever to make content directly inspired by D&D.



They can have D&D and sell it to the masses, I'll just keep playing Fantasy Roleplaying Games in my basement as always.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

EzekielRaiden said:


> Alternatively?
> 
> Play 4e.
> 
> Find sources for its rules and information. By definition, none of those sources are official WotC stuff anymore because they've already deleted everything, even the digital tools. It's the forgotten edition as it is, and it's the edition 5e ran away from as fast as it gorram could. Any books you find today will almost surely be second-hand, it's been over a decade since most of them were last printed. WotC doesn't see a dime, but you're still playing D&D and telling them: "I _would_ play YOUR product, if you weren't such @$$#*£€$."




I could not bring myself or anyone in our group to play that edition again. Sorry.


----------



## Vaalingrade

The mainstream exposure is coming from precisely the people worried about this move.

And if they're going to shackle and brainbox the IP the way the OGL 1.1 demonstrates, the next Stranger Things won't come because it won't be worth doing anything with D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> Hypothetically, sure, and as mentioned previously, there are _some_ non-OGL games that use such a mechanic. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of d20-based games are published under the OGL, and if it went away would likely either have to shut down, or be significantly re-worked. So, again, if you like Pathfinder, M&M, SWSE, FATE, d20 Modern, OSE, or most other d20-based games, you should care about the OGL because their existence relies on it.



Fate is the one I don't ever remember to look into but isn't that 2d6 not d20?
Mutants and Masterminds I wonder if they could roll with another edition change to remove the bits of D&D left after taking stats down from3-18 to -1 to +5  I am not sure they even have AC anymore.


----------



## Charlaquin

Michael Linke said:


> The OGL was intended as a safe harbour.  You can put out games that use those mechanics, and you don't have to make any effort whatsoever to prove that you arrived at the idea independently, because the license stipulates that it's totally ok to just borrow the idea anyway.
> It is a worry for games that previously used the OGL.  It's hard for a game to say "We came up with this on our own" when there are prior editions that say otherwise by reprinting the OGL.



Moreover, it avoids the headache of having to litigate where the line is between game mechanics and their presentation. Sure, rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number is pretty clearly a game mechanic and can’t be copyrighted. But are ability scores and skill proficiencies mechanics, or specific presentations of the mechanic of adding a number to the d20 roll? What about mechanics that are intrinsically tied to a narrative element, like rules for darkness, light, and vision? Is dwarves being able to see in the dark a game mechanic? It quickly becomes a huge can of worms, so the OGL exists in part to avoid having to hash that out in a courtroom by just saying, “we’ll let you use anything in this reference document, as long as you acknowledge this is open game content.”


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> The mainstream exposure is coming from precisely the people worried about this move.
> 
> And if they're going to shackle and brainbox the IP the way the OGL 1.1 demonstrates, the next Stranger Things won't come because it won't be worth doing anything with D&D.



Stranger things and Big Bang theory and any other 'nerd' exposure needs to choose to make a fake TTRPG or take D&D if they want to communicate that through nerdom... because nobody would get "Tonight is Rifts night"

Having said that I get mad enough at nerd culture on TV shows not getting it... I am watching an older show called Scorpion and one of the nerds role plays... they HAVE to all dress in character to play, they ALL are 30 something losers who can't talk to women, they talk in nerdy code and voice in front of people and weird them out... and when they went to the renfair for that guys birthday the ren fair was full of weak nerd stero types...  My fiance asked if my games ever were like that and I said "I had women in my second campaign, and 80% of campaigns up until covid... some of the players of the game were 'playas' some were 'jocks' and none of us grew up to be adults like that..." when they got to the ren fair and criminals showed up I lost it... "Dude I promise you those criminals would get beat the hell up... don't mess with Rennieys"


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> Fate is the one I don't ever remember to look into but isn't that 2d6 not d20?



Might be, I haven’t actually played it. But the relevant detail is that it’s published under the OGL.


----------



## Michael Linke

GMforPowergamers said:


> Fate is the one I don't ever remember to look into but isn't that 2d6 not d20?
> Mutants and Masterminds I wonder if they could roll with another edition change to remove the bits of D&D left after taking stats down from3-18 to -1 to +5  I am not sure they even have AC anymore.



Fate in no way resembles any edition of D&D.  You roll six-sided dice with + and - signs on them, and you're totally a net positive or net negative result.


----------



## Shardstone

Lots of fanciful and some rude ideas in this thread.

Hasbro won. There's no way a bunch of grognards and a handful of older Millennials can have a boycotting campaign against international Hasbro. Hasbro is able to revoke the OGL specifically because it doesn't need it anymore. For those of us like myself, who are young and just jumped into the 3PP studio space, this is an unmitigated disaster with no easy answer. For the vast majority of D&D's audience, however, this means literally nothing. 

Tiktok won't care. Not frfr. Insta won't care. The news won't care for too long. This'll all blow past, some companies will have a unique deal, some companies will fight back, but in the end, Hasbro has won. That's all there is to it.

Maybe the revocation will be proven false in court 1-4 years from now. Doesn't matter, that's 1-4 years smaller studios like myself are destroyed in. Maybe this causes 1D&D to crash and a new D&D with a new OGL pops up. Doesn't matter that'll take at least 3-5 years minimum, long enough for smaller studios to still die.

Even if they walk it back, you'd have to be "too big to fail" to risk staying in, and it'd be a huge risk since WotC have now shown their true colors.

3PP/Indie D&D ends with a largely uncaring whimper. As it goes.


----------



## Random Task

Charlaquin said:


> Hypothetically, sure, and as mentioned previously, there are _some_ non-OGL games that use such a mechanic. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of d20-based games are published under the OGL, and if it went away would likely either have to shut down, or be significantly re-worked. So, again, if you like Pathfinder, M&M, SWSE, FATE, d20 Modern, OSE, or most other d20-based games, you should care about the OGL because their existence relies on it.



I think the games that need WOTC SRD  and IP are clearly more affected than others (like Pathfinder).  For instance I'm not sure why FATE is on the OGL at all, it's probably just for use as a license for others to publish FATE products, because I'm not sure what they're taking from WOTC D&D properties.


Charlaquin said:


> What about mechanics that are intrinsically tied to a narrative element, like rules for darkness, light, and vision? Is dwarves being able to see in the dark a game mechanic?



There are plenty of non-OGL games that are much older than the OGL that have those tropes, so I doubt you'd be able to do much with those kinds of narrative elements.


----------



## Michael Linke

My understanding after a quick read is that Fate publishes under the OGL only as a way of allowing other publishers to create third party supporting products for Fate.  Fate itself doesn't need the OGL, and doesn't derive anything from D&D or any SRD.  If the OGL stopped working the way wanted it to, they could come up with an alternative license to empower companies that want to keep making Fate compatible material.


----------



## Waller

Charlaquin said:


> Might be, I haven’t actually played it. But the relevant detail is that it’s published under the OGL.



No, the Fate System Reference Document is _shared_ using the OGL (and CC). An important distinction. There's no OGL in the actual Fate rulebook. It's not published under the OGL.


----------



## Charlaquin

Random Task said:


> I think the games that need WOTC SRD  and IP are clearly more effected than others (like Pathfinder).  For instance I'm not sure why FATE is on the OGL at all, it's probably just for use as a license for others to publish FATE products, because I'm not sure what they're taking from WOTC D&D properties.



Often, it’s just to cover the bases. If you’re doing something that looks kinda, sorta D&D-ish in some way, it’s often safer to just use the OGL to be safe. Or at least, that has been the case.


Random Task said:


> There are plenty of non-OGL games that are much older than the OGL that have those tropes, so I doubt you'd be able to do much with those kinds of narrative elements.



They were just examples. Point is, the old chestnut that “you can’t copyright game mechanics” isn’t the ironclad defense a lot of people think it is, because there is no legal precedent for where game mechanics ends and presentation begins in the context of RPGs, where the mechanics and the narrative are often tightly linked together. Without the OGL, it becomes a huge risk to publish anything that might look a bit like D&D to a judge who has never played an RPG in their life. And that pretty much means if you like any fantasy roleplaying games that aren’t D&D, or any d20-based non-fantasy RPGs, chances are there’s a game you like that wouldn’t exist without the OGL.


----------



## Charlaquin

Waller said:


> No, the Fate System Reference Document is _shared_ using the OGL (and CC). An important distinction. There's no OGL in the actual Fate rulebook. It's not published under the OGL.



Alright, my mistake I guess. My actual argument still stands.


----------



## Malmuria

Nefermandias said:


> Do you only ever listen to your favorite song? Do you only ever eat your favorite food? What kind of question is that? What are you trying to prove?




Yeah variety is key. That’s why I enjoy 3p content and a variety of games.  I also like b/x—in fact I’ve been running an Old School Essentials campaign using b/x compatible osr adventures. They use the ogl. If wotc asserts a monopolistic position, all that variety is at the risk of going away.  And then, when it comes to dnd, you really will only be listening to the same song and eating the same food.


----------



## Charlaquin

Shardstone said:


> There's no way a bunch of grognards and a handful of older Millennials can have a boycotting campaign against international Hasbro.



Not with that attitude, anyway! 

In all seriousness though, while you’re probably right, using “not enough people will participate in the boycott for it to be successful” as a reason not to participate in a boycott is a lot like not voting because you don’t think your candidate is going to win anyway. It’s contributing to the very problem that it’s using to justify itself. Will me refusing to buy WotC products actually hurt WotC in any measurable way? No, probably not. But I sure as hell don’t want to be one of the people _helping_ WotC.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Michael Linke said:


> Fate in no way resembles any edition of D&D.  You roll six-sided dice with + and - signs on them, and you're totally a net positive or net negative result.



thank you... that and Fudge are game I always say I am going to read and try and then don't for no reason...


----------



## Stormonu

@Shardstone - Hasbro hasn't "won" any more than Sony did during the PSP2 to 3 switch.  If they have cut out 3pp players, all their doing is shooting themselves in the foot the way Atari did back with the 2600 and Nintendo did with the NES when they tried to reign in 3pp.


----------



## Random Task

Stormonu said:


> @Shardstone - Hasbro hasn't "won" any more than Sony did during the PSP2 to 3 switch.  If they have cut out 3pp players, all their doing is shooting themselves in the foot the way Atari did back with the 2600 and Nintendo did with the NES when they tried to reign in 3pp.



Apple definitely won reining in the Power PC clone era.


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> Stranger things and Big Bang theory and any other 'nerd' exposure needs to choose to make a fake TTRPG or take D&D if they want to communicate that through nerdom... because nobody would get "Tonight is Rifts night"



Don't underestimate how much pop culture can teach people about things and influence demand.

Big Bang Theory had an episode where they played an MtG knockoff. The fans tried to find out what the game was, and when they learned it didn't exist _they made one_.

If they had an episode about Rifts, more people would have known about Rifts.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> Don't underestimate how much pop culture can teach people about things and influence demand.
> 
> Big Bang Theory had an episode where they played an MtG knockoff. The fans tried to find out what the game was, and when they learned it didn't exist _they made one_.
> 
> If they had an episode about Rifts, more people would have known about Rifts.



Yes but we the players need to get Rifts to the writers rooms attention... that is why I say pick another game and go full hog salesman mode telling everyone it's the greatest new nerd thing.

(again it doesn't have to be rifts but I wouldn't mind if it was)


----------



## Scribe

Well, I ended up buying a PF book. There's little we can do but make noise against the behavior we dont like, and support other companies.


----------



## Nefermandias

EzekielRaiden said:


> I tried, a while back. It didn't end up going very well (I suspect just some personality mismatch with some of the players.) We got through a single adventure and then didn't meet back up again.



For me there's also the problem that 4e isn't really good to be played online, contrary to what most people believe. It's so much easier to play 5e if you're going to use a VTT. 

Physical minis+dungeon tiles+power cards is the way to go.


----------



## Composer99

Can't say that's been my experience, but I have a DM with a subscription to roll20 and we've been aggressive about macros for our powers, so fair enough!

Apropos of the real topic, I'ma go buy a PF2 book - core rules probably - from my FLGS on Tuesday (they're closed Mondays).


----------



## Charlaquin

Nefermandias said:


> For me there's also the problem that 4e isn't really good to be played online, contrary to what most people believe. It's so much easier to play 5e if you're going to use a VTT.
> 
> Physical minis+dungeon tiles+power cards is the way to go.



For real! For all the accusations of it being videogamey, 4e is way harder to play virtually than in-person with battle mat and tokens!


----------



## Zardnaar

Charlaquin said:


> For real! For all the accusations of it being videogamey, 4e is way harder to play virtually than in-person with battle mat and tokens!




 I thought it was an advanced form of the old D&D miniatures game. 

 Has some influence I suppose from video games eg encounter powers are essentially cooldowns. 

 Apart from that ...


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> For real! For all the accusations of it being videogamey, 4e is way harder to play virtually than in-person with battle mat and tokens!



Huh. I guess I wouldn't see much of a difference as long as you're using a map. Of course 4E wasn't set up for TotM, but as for the rest I'm not sure what difference it would make.


----------



## Nefermandias

Oofta said:


> Huh. I guess I wouldn't see much of a difference as long as you're using a map. Of course 4E wasn't set up for TotM, but as for the rest I'm not sure what difference it would make.



Because of all the forced movement, terrain powers and the way encounters were built, it's rather cumbersome to replicate on a VTT. Also, it's nice to have your cards in your hands. 

It's hard to explain, but 4e was a very tactile experience. 

Now with 5e you can just Google something like "evil temple battlemap", drag into roll 20, put 2d6+3 cultists and one lich in it and you are probably good to go. This approach just doesn't work with 4e.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Nefermandias said:


> For me there's also the problem that 4e isn't really good to be played online, contrary to what most people believe. It's so much easier to play 5e if you're going to use a VTT.
> 
> Physical minis+dungeon tiles+power cards is the way to go.



I very much disagree with that. If you can get your powers coded up in Roll20, 4e is extremely smooth. It's why I am so sad they never actually made an official 4e VTT. If they had, a LOT of the problems with it would have disappeared.


----------



## Charlaquin

Nefermandias said:


> Because of all the forced movement, terrain powers and the way encounters were built, it's rather cumbersome to replicate on a VTT. Also, it's nice to have your cards in your hands.
> 
> It's hard to explain, but 4e was a very tactile experience.
> 
> Now with 5e you can just Google something like "evil temple battlemap", drag into roll 20, put 2d6+3 cultists and one lich in it and you are probably good to go. This approach just doesn't work with 4e.



Exactly


----------



## payn

EzekielRaiden said:


> I very much disagree with that. If you can get your powers coded up in Roll20, 4e is extremely smooth. It's why I am so sad they never actually made an official 4e VTT. If they had, a LOT of the problems with it would have disappeared.



At the moment, many games seem too difficult for VTT. I blame that largely on the lack of custom built modules available for folks. VTTs can do anything, and do it well, but you have to find it or code it yourself. Most folks seem to lack the know how and/or the time to do it themselves. Thats understandable, though the notion that it "just doesn't work on VTT" seems to be a handwringing of the fact.


----------



## Oofta

Nefermandias said:


> Because of all the forced movement, terrain powers and the way encounters were built, it's rather cumbersome to replicate on a VTT. Also, it's nice to have your cards in your hands.
> 
> It's hard to explain, but 4e was a very tactile experience.
> 
> Now with 5e you can just Google something like "evil temple battlemap", drag into roll 20, put 2d6+3 cultists and one lich in it and you are probably good to go. This approach just doesn't work with 4e.



I guess I just don't see it.  I never had character sheets online when I did VTT for 5E.  It's not like I check their sheets when we're playing in person either.  I'd probably allow players to move tokens for forced movement and environmental factors wouldn't be any different. 

With a bit of effort I'm sure someone would figure out a way to handle some of the overhead like ongoing conditions as well.

Not that it matters now, I have no plans on going back to VTT if I can help it.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

payn said:


> At the moment, many games seem too difficult for VTT. I blame that largely on the lack of custom built modules available for folks. VTTs can do anything, and do it well, but you have to find it or code it yourself. Most folks seem to lack the know how and/or the time to do it themselves. Thats understandable, though the notion that it "just doesn't work on VTT" seems to be a handwringing of the fact.



It's been like six years since I last touched the Roll20 4e character sheet code stuff, but once you got the hang of it it was actually extremely powerful. I'm almost certain that a user-friendly front end could have been coded for it. And if the VTT had actually been designed for it from the ground up, all the better. Forced movement would have been a vital feature of any such thing (and should be perfectly easy to program on the whole, since you only move integer numbers of squares.) Heck, automatic forced movement for stuff that doesn't require user-selected placement (e.g. an AoE push effect) could probably be handled automatically, and a really good VTT would let you rewind turns or rounds with the click of a button.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Nefermandias said:


> For me there's also the problem that 4e isn't really good to be played online, contrary to what most people believe. It's so much easier to play 5e if you're going to use a VTT.
> 
> Physical minis+dungeon tiles+power cards is the way to go.



yes I agree 4e is much better in person and 5e is the easier of the two to play on a VTT... funny, its the video game edition


----------



## payn

EzekielRaiden said:


> It's been like six years since I last touched the Roll20 4e character sheet code stuff, but once you got the hang of it it was actually extremely powerful. I'm almost certain that a user-friendly front end could have been coded for it. And if the VTT had actually been designed for it from the ground up, all the better. Forced movement would have been a vital feature of any such thing (and should be perfectly easy to program on the whole, since you only move integer numbers of squares.) Heck, automatic forced movement for stuff that doesn't require user-selected placement (e.g. an AoE push effect) could probably be handled automatically, and a really good VTT would let you rewind turns or rounds with the click of a button.



Absolutely. I think many folks don't think things can work on a VTT because they don't want to use it in the first place. That's fine for a preference but its not a fact of capability.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Zardnaar said:


> I thought it was an advanced form of the old D&D miniatures game.
> 
> Has some influence I suppose from video games eg encounter powers are essentially cooldowns.
> 
> Apart from that ...



I mean the funny part is those video games were influenced by those games, then the evolution of those games get said to be copping them...

It's like people that say Tolkien is so cliché and paint by numbers all fantasy has X Y and Z... but those became cliché AFTER he wrote that.


----------



## Nefermandias

payn said:


> Absolutely. I think many folks don't think things can work on a VTT because they don't want to use it in the first place. That's fine for a preference but its not a fact of capability.



That's probably right, but I guarantee it's not the case for my group. I am very comfortable with Roll20, my account is almost 9 years old and I have Pro subscription. 

Our current 5e game makes extensive use of API scripts, dynamic lighting and all those nice resources you can find on the Roll20 community. 

For instance, we have automation for turn tracking, applying damage, showing colored auras around the tokens to track HP, we use SmartAoE to automatically place effects, roll saving throws and apply conditions... My script library is currently running dozens of scripts and we make really good use of macros.

Even with all that, I still believe that 5e is so much easier to run online compared to 4e. Maybe just my personal opinion though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Oofta said:


> Huh. I guess I wouldn't see much of a difference as long as you're using a map. Of course 4E wasn't set up for TotM, but as for the rest I'm not sure what difference it would make.



useing a battle map is cool, but it's not THAT hard to run TotM but I can't imagine filling out a roll20 character sheet for 4e... I'm going to create a 4e game and try to make 3 pregens and see how hard it is.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> I very much disagree with that. If you can get your powers coded up in Roll20, 4e is extremely smooth. It's why I am so sad they never actually made an official 4e VTT. If they had, a LOT of the problems with it would have disappeared.



yeah... it's codeing all those powers I think is going to be the sink.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Nefermandias said:


> That's probably right, but I guarantee it's not the case for my group. I am very comfortable with Roll20, my account is almost 9 years old and I have Pro subscription.
> 
> Our current 5e game makes extensive use of API scripts, dynamic lighting and all those nice resources you can find on the Roll20 community.
> 
> For instance, we have automation for turn tracking, applying damage, showing colored auras around the tokens to track HP, we use SmartAoE to automatically place effects, roll saving throws and apply conditions... My script library is currently running dozens of scripts and we make really good use of macros.
> 
> Even with all that, I still believe that 5e is so much easier to run online compared to 4e. Maybe just my personal opinion though.



dude we should start a separate roll20 thread (maybe a nice sunny break from all the doom and gloom)


----------



## payn

GMforPowergamers said:


> useing a battle map is cool, but it's not THAT hard to run TotM but I can't imagine filling out a roll20 character sheet for 4e... I'm going to create a 4e game and try to make 3 pregens and see how hard it is.



Ever use Foundry? I know you are not fond of PF2, but its similar to 4E and it works like a charm. Not many PF fans will even use Roll20 anymore.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

payn said:


> Ever use Foundry? I know you are not fond of PF2, but its similar to 4E and it works like a charm. Not many PF fans will even use Roll20 anymore.



Do you know if it has 4e integration options? The main draw of R20 at this point is that someone already made a programmable character sheet (and, at least for me, I was able to code up all my powers to work nearly automatically.)


----------



## Vaalingrade

The universe knows I'm boycotting. 

Walked into one of our FLGS's and they had a copy of the alt cover of Eberron: Rising From the Last War and a deal on the Brother's War booster boxen. Not that they care, but I got my year-end bonus Friday and WotC lost an easy $200.

I bought Beast Boy Loves Raven and a couple of Teen Titans trades at the comic shop next door instead to reward DC for formally killing the Snyderverse instead.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

payn said:


> Ever use Foundry? I know you are not fond of PF2, but its similar to 4E and it works like a charm. Not many PF fans will even use Roll20 anymore.



no, when covid hit we went Roll20, and still don't fully understand how to use it... but more and more it is looking like it will be VTT for a while at least.


----------



## payn

EzekielRaiden said:


> Do you know if it has 4e integration options? The main draw of R20 at this point is that someone already made a programmable character sheet (and, at least for me, I was able to code up all my powers to work nearly automatically.)



I don't know offhand, but would be surprised if there wasnt.
Edit: there is indeed a 4E module.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

payn said:


> I don't know offhand, but would be surprised if there wasnt.
> Edit: there is indeed a 4E module.



Cool, I went looking and came up empty (the search function is...not the best.) Send me a link if you can. Perhaps this is a purchase in my future.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> Cool, I went looking and came up empty (the search function is...not the best.) Send me a link if you can. Perhaps this is a purchase in my future.



if it has 1/2 the functionality that roll20 has for 5e but for 4e I might have to get into it.


----------



## payn

EzekielRaiden said:


> Cool, I went looking and came up empty (the search function is...not the best.) Send me a link if you can. Perhaps this is a purchase in my future.



Take a look here.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

payn said:


> Take a look here.



Danke. I went looking for "4e" which is likely why I didn't find this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

payn said:


> Take a look here.



that looks intresting...


----------



## payn

GMforPowergamers said:


> that looks intresting...



VTTs all take a bit of getting used to and when you have a ton of files its hard to switch around. I will say though that every person I know that's gone to Foundry has not switched back.


----------



## Mirtek

Zardnaar said:


> Said royalties are high enough to potentially kill off Kickstarter.



D&D Kickstarters or really Kickstarter itself? Has it become so depend on D&D projects? Has been ages since I backed/purchased anything via Kickstarter


----------

