Dungeons and Drama

[Dezeroth]

I think this whole thing is a big ole ball of crap from WoTC, the only thing that might come out of it as good is people may try out other games and I've been doing my damnedest to point out Exalted and other White Wolf IP as possible alternatives for people to play or create content about

[Darksol-aeternium]

The problem this new CEO will have is the same one all the other capitalists have had with the game; it defies the usual marketing/profiteering methods they might apply. All her strategies for increasing market share are going to fall flat.

D&D doesn’t function like any of the video games that spawned from it. Despite adding all these online resources for the latest generations, D&D is not an MMORPG. They already tried that and it failed miserably. Org-games like Living Greyhawk and such don’t equate to the same thing and adding a subscription to those things just causes them to die out.

D&D is not an E-sport and has no E-sport mechanics. There are no professional teams, players, or tournaments, so there will never be huge moneymaking events to sell ad space to regardless of how much fame critical role has garnered. While there are always obsessive power-gamers, they do not function like competitive athletes and there isn’t a useful parallel because playing this game does not make you money.

Merch for D&D is only a secondary or tertiary concern, and that’s because the bulk of the game is in the minds of the players. There isn’t a real need for high-priced frivolities and accessories when you can play the game with just a copy of the core rules, a pencil and paper, and a base of creativity. Part of the beauty of the game is that you don’t need a computer, figurines, or a game-system to play it. Making any of those things required will only kill the game.

I knew I was right to not buy into 5th edition, they were overdue for trying to pull this kind of stunt AGAIN.

[Dezeroth]

The problem this new CEO will have is the same one all the other capitalists have had with the game; it defies the usual marketing/profiteering methods they might apply. All her strategies for increasing market share are going to fall flat.

D&D doesn’t function like any of the video games that spawned from it. Despite adding all these online resources for the latest generations, D&D is not an MMORPG. They already tried that and it failed miserably. Org-games like Living Greyhawk and such don’t equate to the same thing and adding a subscription to those things just causes them to die out.

D&D is not an E-sport and has no E-sport mechanics. There are no professional teams, players, or tournaments, so there will never be huge moneymaking events to sell ad space to regardless of how much fame critical role has garnered. While there are always obsessive power-gamers, they do not function like competitive athletes and there isn’t a useful parallel because playing this game does not make you money.

Merch for D&D is only a secondary or tertiary concern, and that’s because the bulk of the game is in the minds of the players. There isn’t a real need for high-priced frivolities and accessories when you can play the game with just a copy of the core rules, a pencil and paper, and a base of creativity. Part of the beauty of the game is that you don’t need a computer, figurines, or a game-system to play it. Making any of those things required will only kill the game.

I knew I was right to not buy into 5th edition, they were overdue for trying to pull this kind of stunt AGAIN.

yup, MMOs can't handle homebrew which is the cornerstone of any experienced player or storyteller experience in any tabletop game that I've ever played

the closest I've seen come close to that is the ability to mod RTS or 4X games

[TempleBuilder]

Skimming through the new draft OGL lead me to this line:

No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

That seems…interesting. I’m not exactly versed in law, but doesn’t that give Hazbro the ability attack anyone they don’t like? Since Hazbro solely defines what is hateful, or harassing, it means they can say anything is hateful, and take down others. Anyone have opinions on the matter?

Edit: Actually, I’m interested in seeing people’s opinions on this type of thing in general. Do y’all think most stuff like this in companies and media is a good thing, well intended but problematic, or completely unacceptable in all cases?

[Dataweaver]

I don't mind a “no hateful stuff” clause; but WotC/Hasbro shouldn't be the final arbiter on what that is; the courts should be the final arbiter. It's unlikely to make much of a difference, in that Hasbro is likely to win Court cases by default when the content provider finds that he can't keep up with their legal fees; but precisely because of that, they have no need to include a “you will promise not to challenge us in court” condition. In general, I'm against contracts that insist that the courts be kept out of it. It smacks of “we want to be free to do things that the Justice system might disapprove of”.

[AnubisXy]

Skimming through the new draft OGL lead me to this line:



That seems…interesting. I’m not exactly versed in law, but doesn’t that give Hazbro the ability attack anyone they don’t like? Since Hazbro solely defines what is hateful, or harassing, it means they can say anything is hateful, and take down others. Anyone have opinions on the matter?

Edit: Actually, I’m interested in seeing people’s opinions on this type of thing in general. Do y’all think most stuff like this in companies and media is a good thing, well intended but problematic, or completely unacceptable in all cases?

Yeah, that seems pretty questionable to me. Things like murder and drug use are "illegal". Vigilantism is illegal. Hell, at the most basic level, killing people and taking their stuff is illegal. If you wrote an adventure module about a cult that murders people, or gets people addicted to drugs, and the adventure calls for the PCs kill them and take their things, that would be a clear violation of the OGL and WotC could cut the company off.

This clause seems like a poison pill in the OGL that will give WotC the ability to cut off pretty much any company whenever they want because material that can be considered "harmful", "illegal" or "obscene" is fairly common in roleplaying products.

[Dataweaver]

I was already thinking that going forward, content creators should just cut ties to D&D and find reasonable alternatives that aren't trying to control them.

[TheStray7]

Skimming through the new draft OGL lead me to this line:



That seems…interesting. I’m not exactly versed in law, but doesn’t that give Hazbro the ability attack anyone they don’t like? Since Hazbro solely defines what is hateful, or harassing, it means they can say anything is hateful, and take down others. Anyone have opinions on the matter?

Edit: Actually, I’m interested in seeing people’s opinions on this type of thing in general. Do y’all think most stuff like this in companies and media is a good thing, well intended but problematic, or completely unacceptable in all cases?

How much time do you have? Because I could write a novel on this.

But to sum it up...the OGL is not the place for a morality license. That should be saved for a license that covers trademarks and trade dress. The OGL is and has always been a reference library for RPG source code. Putting a morality clause in the OGL is like putting one in an OS like Linux, and is an attempt to exert power over the industry, not protect people. Clauses like these are NEVER used to protect the vulnerable from hate and harm, and are, in fact, often used to CAUSE it. Just imagine this clause in the hands of someone like, say, Zak S. or Matt McFarland. If that sent a chill down your spine, then you know that this is not something that should be handed over lightly, with no oversight and no recourse.

[TempleBuilder]

How much time do you have? Because I could write a novel on this.

Plenty. Write as much as you want. I’m very interested.

But to sum it up...the OGL is not the place for a morality license. That should be saved for a license that covers trademarks and trade dress. The OGL is and has always been a reference library for RPG source code. Putting a morality clause in the OGL is like putting one in an OS like Linux, and is an attempt to exert power over the industry, not protect people. Clauses like these are NEVER used to protect the vulnerable from hate and harm, and are, in fact, often used to CAUSE it. Just imagine this clause in the hands of someone like, say, Zak S. or Matt McFarland. If that sent a chill down your spine, then you know that this is not something that should be handed over lightly, with no oversight and no recourse.

I see. I’ve never quite gotten a clear definition of what exactly the OGL actually was, so thank you. I guess it really does come down to control, as I can’t see an economic reason to attempt these changes. DnD only benefited from letting an economic ecosystem do its thing, as far as I can tell, except for control. But people want power I suppose. I guess what really throws me is how…transparent the attempts have been. Just…why? Is this on purpose? Are the draft writers incompetent?

Edit: While the focus on “morality” this time is a…poorly…hidden danger, it bothers me. I don’t know, it seems like every time I hear morality come up, the focus seems to alway be on who it can be used on to hurt.

[TheStray7]

Plenty. Write as much as you want. I’m very interested.

I see. I’ve never quite gotten a clear definition of what exactly the OGL actually was, so thank you. I guess it really does come down to control, as I can’t see an economic reason to attempt these changes. DnD only benefited from letting an economic ecosystem do its thing, as far as I can tell, except for control. But people want power I suppose. I guess what really throws me is how…transparent the attempts have been. Just…why? Is this on purpose? Are the draft writers incompetent?

Edit: While the focus on “morality” this time is a…poorly…hidden danger, it bothers me. I don’t know, it seems like every time I hear morality come up, the focus seems to alway be on who it can be used on to hurt.

I am working on the answers I plan to put in the survey for the 1.2, so I'll likely post a version of that here. It won't be very short.

WotC is banking on the fact that people who aren't really clued into the RPG industry won't know all the things about the OGL. It's pernicious and it's maddening. They think it's about WotC's content, when the OGL contains the d6 system, FATE, and half a dozen other systems as well.

The draft writers are bullies. They think they can leverage the power they hold over the industry by being the brand everyone associates with the hobby into a closed system, and they think they can't be challenged on it in a meaningful way. That's why they're trying to backpedal and lay traps now, instead of the brute force method they were trying at the beginning of this (which goes back at least as far as November of last year, when the first rumors of something being up started spreading among the content creator community). This is naked, malicious greed and an attempt to create a monopoly to protect what they see as the golden prize of a montiizable VTT, complete with no competition in the digital space. They want a system like MTG Arena mixed with WoW, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of why people play TTRPGs in the first place.

And yes. Focus on morality has always been used by the least moral as a club to beat people with. Like any other theoretically good idea, morality can be weaponized. It sucks, because freedom of expression can ALSO be weaponized, and there's frequently a one-two punch combo here.

[AnubisXy]

They want a system like MTG Arena mixed with WoW, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of why people play TTRPGs in the first place..

WotC has been pretty open that they're looking to implement AI Dungeon Masters into D&D Beyond. One of the biggest problems with TTRPGs is that you need someone to run the game. That takes a lot of time, investment and a learning curve. It's one of the biggest obstacles to getting new people into the hobby. So if you make a Virtual Table Top system with AI DMs that can run the game for people, you've made it a heck of a lot easier for people with moderate interest to play your game. And using AI DM's does turn the game into an experience more similar to WoW or MTG Arena.

So I don't think the target focus here is older players who have been playing for years, but new players who haven't tried yet, or people who might be interested but haven't been able to find a group to play with. I feel that WotC's belief is that the money they can make off of new players to the hobby (who don't realize that paying $30 a month for a subscription to D&D Beyond is crazy) will net them more money than they'll lose on older players who understand that they're being ripped off and that the hobby is being changed into a pale imitation of its former self.

[TempleBuilder]

I am working on the answers I plan to put in the survey for the 1.2, so I'll likely post a version of that here. It won't be very short.

Fine with me. I appreciate the effort you’ve taken to write this.

WotC is banking on the fact that people who aren't really clued into the RPG industry won't know all the things about the OGL. It's pernicious and it's maddening. They think it's about WotC's content, when the OGL contains the d6 system, FATE, and half a dozen other systems as well.

I knew it was foundational, but it really extends that far? Then their self destructive tendencies are much worse than I knew. Such upheaval will anger pretty much the entire hobby. How can anyone think they will benefit from controlling land if they burn and salt them in the process? And not just their property but everyone else’s in the hobby? Do they even realize what they are attempting? I just can’t understand.

The draft writers are bullies. They think they can leverage the power they hold over the industry by being the brand everyone associates with the hobby into a closed system, and they think they can't be challenged on it in a meaningful way. That's why they're trying to backpedal and lay traps now, instead of the brute force method they were trying at the beginning of this (which goes back at least as far as November of last year, when the first rumors of something being up started spreading among the content creator community). This is naked, malicious greed and an attempt to create a monopoly to protect what they see as the golden prize of a montiizable VTT, complete with no competition in the digital space. They want a system like MTG Arena mixed with WoW, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of why people play TTRPGs in the first place.

That…seems like such a fundamental misunderstanding of TTRPGs and those who play them that I can scarcely believe it. I mean…they have already sold the books. Pretty much anyone can play DND without engaging in their system, since the system the game runs is your brain. This isn’t like video games. People can stay playing their favorite TTRPG decades after it comes out. How can they not understand that?

[TempleBuilder]

WotC has been pretty open that they're looking to implement AI Dungeon Masters into D&D Beyond. One of the biggest problems with TTRPGs is that you need someone to run the game. That takes a lot of time, investment and a learning curve. It's one of the biggest obstacles to getting new people into the hobby. So if you make a Virtual Table Top system with AI DMs that can run the game for people, you've made it a heck of a lot easier for people with moderate interest to play your game. And using AI DM's does turn the game into an experience more similar to WoW or MTG Arena.

So I don't think the target focus here is older players who have been playing for years, but new players who haven't tried yet, or people who might be interested but haven't been able to find a group to play with. I feel that WotC's belief is that the money they can make off of new players to the hobby (who don't realize that paying $30 a month for a subscription to D&D Beyond is crazy) will net them more money than they'll lose on older players who understand that they're being ripped off and that the hobby is being changed into a pale imitation of its former self.

Oh…they want to turn DND into ZORK? That makes way too much sense. But why destroy everyone else in the process? Why can’t they just release this a part of their VTT? Do they or don’t they have confidence in it selling well? Because they have staked everything on it, and at least from my perspective, haven’t improved their odds of success in doing so.

In all of this, I feel bad for the writers and trusts and stuff. This can’t be fun, especially with the internet being the way it is. Hope the harassment and death threats are being kept as low as possible.

[Ragged Robin]

Skimming through the new draft OGL lead me to this line:



That seems…interesting. I’m not exactly versed in law, but doesn’t that give Hazbro the ability attack anyone they don’t like? Since Hazbro solely defines what is hateful, or harassing, it means they can say anything is hateful, and take down others. Anyone have opinions on the matter?

Edit: Actually, I’m interested in seeing people’s opinions on this type of thing in general. Do y’all think most stuff like this in companies and media is a good thing, well intended but problematic, or completely unacceptable in all cases?

Looks like a vague clause if they want to clamp down on something which is completely nuts and/or generates a moraI panic I don't think it's particularly viable and speaks of corporate mindset. Especially since "I stole fruit to feed starving children." or "mindflayers exist " Is covered under those definitions.

[TwoDSix]

D&D probably has a significantly larger proportion of players completely unwilling to GM than other systems, which significantly increases the desire for something like an AI GM (which as anybody who's played around with ChatGPT and AI Dungeon can tell you is going to lead to continuity issues with current tech). Considering there's a Professional DM market (which is a divisive topic in some circles) I can really see why WotC might see a market for 'you don't need a DM'.

Of course, GMless RPGs aren't anything new, but by my understanding they tend to be more cooperative than D&D or WoD.

I think there's also a strong desire to move people away from paper as much as possible, so if element X turns out to be problematic they can remove or change it and stop you from using v1.0. Which isn't always a terrible thing, I'd love it if Scion: Hero was updated to have gender shifting as an innate Scion power, but since developing serious eye issues I've learnt just how much harder it can be to read from a screen.