| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Aug 2022 : 23:41:26
https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd
quote:
One D&D is the codename for the future of D&D and includes:
D&D Rules: We’re updating and expanding the rules of the game, and we’re looking for your feedback to help shape them.
D&D Beyond: The digital toolset joined the Wizards of the Coast family in 2022, and we want to make it even better.
Digital D&D Play Experience: Announced during Wizards Presents, D&D Digital is an immersive tabletop space that is in early development.
One D&D will take what we love from fifth edition and create an experience that is not only backwards compatible with the adventures and supplements you enjoy today but that will evolve the game for years to come. You’ll see updates to just about every facet of the game, from player classes to backgrounds and even to how we lay out books and present game information. Our goal is to improve on everything that has made D&D the best tabletop roleplaying game in the world. That’s where you come in.
The One D&D rules are in playtesting, with new books slated for release in 2024. Until then, we’ll drop new materials from them for you to dig into, roll with at your table, and turn inside-out at your local gaming store. We want to hear what you think so that we can make One D&D a critical success.
I guess Mystra's going to get nuked again...
Edit: Renaming the topic, to reflect that there's now a lot of chatter about the draconian new contract with Asmodeus GSL OGL.
Edit 2: Renaming the topic again, since WotC appears to have given up on getting rid of the OGL. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Irennan |
Posted - 27 Feb 2023 : 03:47:08
I wouldn't call it talent, but competence. You can (and should) study how to develop certain things, which includes lore. If they don't have anyone capable of that, then it means that no one in their group has ever touched any worldbuilding or storytelling course, and that's just weird, since they have many years of experience under their belt, and the game designer job often includes worldbuilding/story, or at very least interacting with those.
I honestly suspect they just don't see making lore as profitable/worth the hassle, and that's it. Granted, when they do make stories/lore, it's usually rehashed clichés, but still...
Personally, I do prefer systems that only give you mechanical representations of things, and then you decide how to use them in your setting of choice, or your own crafted setting. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 26 Feb 2023 : 20:33:49
You may be right Wooly. I generally like the 5E game mechanics (nice bridge between 1e/2e and 3e with a dash of what worked from 4e) and they generally create excellent adventures, but most of those are relatively lore light with one or two lore hooks that they work well, but not so much linkages to other bits of lore. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Feb 2023 : 19:44:23
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
So I finally realized the second thing that's irking me about 5.5E (aside from disliking the One D&D moniker). The first thing was the regression to 4E style mechanics without flavor text. Ugh, IMO, so afraid to offend anyone with flavor text it's avoided almost all together. This was the death of the ardling species. A fine concept, but with nothing to it. Honestly, most of the new races in 5E are the same, like harengons. They're rabbit people. OK, cool. But that's it, almost nothing about how they differ from humans aside from being able to jump better. I'm fine with giving lots of room for creativity, but this is a story telling game, and they are providing the framework for that storytelling. Each class and subclass is an archetype. It's okay to put some flavor on that meat. I think it's also okay to describe a standard culture for the individual species and at the same time note that culture is not monolithic and may not be the same in every campaign.
It's what I've been saying for a while: they don't create lore, anymore. I can't say whether it's because they're overly fearful of giving offense, or they simply don't have that particular brand of creative talent*, or a combination of the two. Though given the lore we have gotten in 5E, my money is on them simply not having that type of creative talent.
Also, I can't stand the name "Harengon" for the rabbit people. We have "hare," another name for rabbits right there, and the "here and gone" thing on top of that. If you go with the Latin classification for rabbits, you've got Lagomorpha and Leporidae to build on... So you could call them lagorans or lagoridae or something like that without it looking like the name was a bad joke that someone decided to run with.
*From what I've seen, creative talents go in a lot of directions. Some people are excellent at creating X but can't create Y. I recall one novel where an agent was discussing a book with a prospective author -- the agent said the guy was a bad writer of prose fiction, but one of the best authors of dialogue that he'd ever seen. I myself am weak on creating something new from scratch, but I can build on or modify someone else's ideas quite well. The current D&D design team may be very creative with creating game elements, but I don't see that they've any talent at all for working with lore. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 26 Feb 2023 : 18:40:02
So I finally realized the second thing that's irking me about 5.5E (aside from disliking the One D&D moniker). The first thing was the regression to 4E style mechanics without flavor text. Ugh, IMO, so afraid to offend anyone with flavor text it's avoided almost all together. This was the death of the ardling species. A fine concept, but with nothing to it. Honestly, most of the new races in 5E are the same, like harengons. They're rabbit people. OK, cool. But that's it, almost nothing about how they differ from humans aside from being able to jump better. I'm fine with giving lots of room for creativity, but this is a story telling game, and they are providing the framework for that storytelling. Each class and subclass is an archetype. It's okay to put some flavor on that meat. I think it's also okay to describe a standard culture for the individual species and at the same time note that culture is not monolithic and may not be the same in every campaign.
But the thing I realized today is that while I know there are things that don't work as well in 5E as they or gamers would like, they haven't articulated much of what those are, aside from high level things like noting that the PH ranger wasn't working for folks (balance wise I disagree, but flavor wise I get the changes to favored foe were unwelcome, and I think it's largely been fixed in Tasha's in any case) and people just don't play druids (but aren't necessarily complaining about them). OK, but the changes they are proposing are far more reaching than tinkering with the ranger and druid and adding a new condition or two. Some I can readily get. Spiritual weapon was too good for clerics to ever pass up, so needs tweaking, but why rebuild every class pretty much from scratch? That doesn't make sense to me. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 30 Jan 2023 : 20:25:06
From what I've been seeing going around, it means you can reference those things in your work, but you can't use stat blocks, images, etc. in the work. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 30 Jan 2023 : 16:31:52
Beholder and illithid are still protected by trademark law so I wouldnt use them if I were you.
You cannot copyright rules except in there entirety, but if you come up with a unique monster or character you can trademark those. I'm not sure what trademark law means but I suspect it means you cannot even mention them in the same context (a fantasy monster with many eyes) without permission. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Jan 2023 : 13:26:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Which does mean that you can use those names. They still didn't mention beholders, though...
Good question.
Can publishers using the (old) OGL use anything from the (new) SRD?
Can WotC still effectively control content by changing the contents of the SRD as they like without changing the license? Simply by "updating" from 5.1 to 5.1.1 or 5.1a or whatever?
If, for example, you publish successful and popular products based on something in the SRD (beholders or whatever), can they subsequently change the SRD so that beholders or whatever are no longer "open property"? Can Wizbro still use the SRD as an instrument for restricting or legally confronting competitors who use it? Can Wizbro require that you use their "new" OGL license if you use the their "new" SRD? |
| Asharak |
Posted - 30 Jan 2023 : 12:45:54
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Which does mean that you can use those names. They still didn't mention beholders, though...
Beholder is mentioned in two occurrences (pgs 216 & 254) as well as yuan-ti.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 30 Jan 2023 : 11:08:32
Which does mean that you can use those names. They still didn't mention beholders, though... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jan 2023 : 17:10:42
It's been pointed out by folks on Twitter that Strahd von Zarovich, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, Tiamat, gelatinous cubes, owlbears, and mind flayers are all mentioned in this new SRD, which WotC stuck in Creative Commons. (And I've searched the file and confirmed this)
It doesn't say "Strahd is a 157th level vampire" or anything, or provide stats, but he is listed by name, along with those other things. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 28 Jan 2023 : 05:12:16
Sometimes damage control isn't able to fix things.
The competing publishers are already forging their own open gaming license. There's no reason - including WotC's most heartfelt assurances - for them to abandon the effort and return to WotC's open gaming license. Wizbro has already proven that their licenses are treacherous, that there's a non-zero risk of them attempting (again) to revoke or alter the details of the agreement in the future.
I honestly think it doesn't matter anymore if Wizbro pushes their evil, greedy, controlling license out once the flames have burned down. Because they already burned the riches they wanted to take, there's nothing left for them to take but ashes. D&D is still eponymous with the entire gaming genre, people will still publish for it, people will still buy it. But a bad rep is hard to shake of in today's online world - especially since RPG gamers tend to congegrate, communicate, and read a lot - it'll haunt WotC indefinitely (until they can put out something so awesomely popular that it'll shuffle yesteryear's news down the list). Maybe having to settle for leftovers will make them lean and hungry enough to focus on delivering quality products again. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Jan 2023 : 03:57:52
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
A promising development, but it would be foolish for a 3PP to trust WotC ever again. If they want to keep developing products for 3E/5E, that's one thing, but following WotC down the "One D&D" path seems like a bad business decision.
Yeah, it's going to be a long time before anyone trusts WotC again -- especially since the leadership that made these decisions is still in place, and that drive for monetization remains.
I'd be surprised if we don't see, at the least, notable price increases for DNDBeyond, and I think we'll likely see some more "classic" settings get "revisited." And by "revisited," I mean more of the "we're taking this already done thing and doing absolutely nothing more than updating the game elements to 5E" -- like the new Dragonlance book. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 23:48:16
A promising development, but it would be foolish for a 3PP to trust WotC ever again. If they want to keep developing products for 3E/5E, that's one thing, but following WotC down the "One D&D" path seems like a bad business decision. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 22:47:30
Wow, the whole 5e SRD document going into Creative Commons is huge, I think. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 22:32:17
(and I'm renaming the topic again, since it appears the OGL 1.0a is going to be around for a while longer) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 22:27:54
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
So uh...
We might have just won.
I'm not convinced that they won't try some future shenanigans, but I'm very glad to see them backing off.
I have to wonder, though, if it was about the survey results, as they say, or if it was more because of 40000 cancelled DNDBeyond subscriptions and the unification of 3rd party providers behind the ORC.
I obviously have no proof to back it up, but it is my opinion that they're hoping to undercut the ORC and Project Black Flag, and thus keep people from flocking to other companies with their gaming dollars.
It is quite clear that the Wizardly exodus and the ORC were going to severely impact their monetization plans, perhaps to the point that a new OGL would be pointless. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 22:20:10
Hasbro are laying off 15% of staff in cost cutting exercises. That kind of thing never works because it also lowers productivity which then leads to more cost cutting.
Looks like hasbro are in real big trouble, maybe things could get very interesting if OGL flops and movie flops. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 21:20:38
quote:
Originally posted by Asharak
https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-will-no-longer-deauthorize-its-open-1850041837?rev=1674849859537&fbclid=IwAR2fKtV-Fq32iIqX3ZscGYWvcQSuF2WLIaJQBsciZV_285Udy656Gf0jTSg
Like what, to show its discontent and to make noise, in this case that pays.
Vox populi. |
| Asharak |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 21:10:12
https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-will-no-longer-deauthorize-its-open-1850041837?rev=1674849859537&fbclid=IwAR2fKtV-Fq32iIqX3ZscGYWvcQSuF2WLIaJQBsciZV_285Udy656Gf0jTSg
Like what, to show its discontent and to make noise, in this case that pays. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 20:25:01
So uh...
We might have just won. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 18:46:09
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Another sign of how pissed D&D fans are: Pathfinder sales are surging.
The Tweet linked in the article says "Additionally, we have run through what was an 8-month supply of our Pathfinder Core Rulebook in the last 2 weeks, and demand on our Beginner Boxes is surging too. We have already ordered another print run of the hardcover Core Rulebook, which will arrive in mid-April. "
I can personally attest to this. When they announced the sale for OGL support, I ordered two Beginner Boxes (one for me, one for my library) and they haven't processed to shipping yet.
Another of their Tweets says "We were inundated with many weeks' worth of orders. We have brought in additional hands to help with shipping, and are working overtime to send you your new print products as quickly as possible. We apologize for longer than normal ship times as we work through the queue." |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 17:05:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Another sign of how pissed D&D fans are: Pathfinder sales are surging.
The Tweet linked in the article says "Additionally, we have run through what was an 8-month supply of our Pathfinder Core Rulebook in the last 2 weeks, and demand on our Beginner Boxes is surging too. We have already ordered another print run of the hardcover Core Rulebook, which will arrive in mid-April. "
I can personally attest to this. When they announced the sale for OGL support, I ordered two Beginner Boxes (one for me, one for my library) and they haven't processed to shipping yet. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 14:34:13
Another sign of how pissed D&D fans are: Pathfinder sales are surging.
The Tweet linked in the article says "Additionally, we have run through what was an 8-month supply of our Pathfinder Core Rulebook in the last 2 weeks, and demand on our Beginner Boxes is surging too. We have already ordered another print run of the hardcover Core Rulebook, which will arrive in mid-April. " |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 27 Jan 2023 : 07:24:02
Hasbro as a company is not doing well.
Its share price is down 30% from a year ago and has been on a consistent decline for about 4 years. At the moment the share price is not much above low point of 54.
With such consistently low share price and with a gloomy outlook for the future, it would not be surprising if Hasbro did not survive the next few years. Even if Hasbro did survive, there is every chance it will have had to sell a number of assets to stay afloat (by which i mean provide mooooorrrrre bonuses for shareholders). In a global recession a company in trouble cannot afford to sit on IP that is not generating revenue, especially when shareholders can sue a company if they do not make them enough profits (i.e. in line with expectations or promises).
In such circumstances it is not unknown for companies to deliberately drive down a share price in order for shareholders to offload their shares to make a quick buck. Often this comes in the form of hiring incompetent directors that are renowned for running companies into the ground. Happened a lot in the 90s, "Run them into the ground Russo" was a more well known example of tech companies.
If this gamble on a DnD new edition and the movie etc does not pay off we could see some unexpected events in the years ahead for DnD. I certainly hope so. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 26 Jan 2023 : 23:49:25
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter really. The inevitable truth is that Dungeons and Dragons is nostalgic for millions around the world...
There will be a rise and fall in popularity...hells, it may even get shelved at some point for a while...but invariably it will be back and there will be those that play it.
It will never be let go by Hasbro...they will put it in a closet first and just bring it out later...so what we think and feel doesn't matter.
Personally, I won't ever buy another "new" D&D product. I will see the movie because it is a fantasy movie that has a couple of actors I happen to like and so on.
The game D&D is never going to be like it used to be. That is why it is the Old Grey Box for me. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 26 Jan 2023 : 23:26:41
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
if that VP isn't well-liked or respected by other VPs or people higher-up the food chain.
Since WotC's company culture is described as a "good old boys club", where people are often afraid to voice anything, it's honestly likely that there's friction between various teams. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Jan 2023 : 22:41:54
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Not that I'm entirely agreeing with TheIriaeban, but given the fact that I'm working for a company that has been acquired (twice, now) and is acquiring others, I can say that it is VERY possible Cao had no idea they were purchasing D&D Beyond.
Again, there's simply no way that a VP of a division is going to be excluded from knowing about an acquisition directly affecting that division. Either they're directly involved or they're kept in the loop because of their VP status, along with all the other VPs and divisional presidents.
I do think it is possible, if that VP isn't well-liked or respected by other VPs or people higher-up the food chain. His background is in video game design and has been building a virtual table top using the Unreal engine to produce a D&D game that looks like a MMORPG. Considering that they have been promising that since before 4th edition (way before his time even), they might be keeping him out of the loop from a lack of progress on the project.
From my own personal experience, just this week we had a major reorganization to the entire company and no one knew except for the couple of people rising in the ranks: not even HR knew about it. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 26 Jan 2023 : 20:49:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
snip
Well, we have your work experience saying that it's absolutely not possible, then we have Ashe's experience saying that it is, and the experience of the leakers also saying that it is. Then we have reports saying that lack of communication is a well known problem at WotC, to the point that certain teams are forbidden from communicating with certain other teams. And finally, we know that this company somehow managed to fall down 40% or so in a single year due to mismanagement, which implies that things aren't working like they should.
All I'm saying is that it's not something that a)you can exclude a priori, b)that's absolutely impossible, and c)from which you can evaluate a whole body of info without which we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and that includes the personal experiences of many workers. Moreover, as I've repeated countless times now, the report of Cao's bullying (which is what you have asked me) is the experience of a number of employees.
But as I've said, you're free to do whatever you want with the leaks. At this point I'm just asking you to not discount the experience of people who were forced to leave the company due to some a**hole throwing his weight around--especially when we've received other reports of similar nature (not specifically about Cao) from other people who have worked for WotC. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 26 Jan 2023 : 20:08:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Not that I'm entirely agreeing with TheIriaeban, but given the fact that I'm working for a company that has been acquired (twice, now) and is acquiring others, I can say that it is VERY possible Cao had no idea they were purchasing D&D Beyond.
Again, there's simply no way that a VP of a division is going to be excluded from knowing about an acquisition directly affecting that division. Either they're directly involved or they're kept in the loop because of their VP status, along with all the other VPs and divisional presidents.
This assumes a level of operational competence that we've seen that basically nobody at Wizards of the Coast possesses. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Jan 2023 : 16:01:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Not that I'm entirely agreeing with TheIriaeban, but given the fact that I'm working for a company that has been acquired (twice, now) and is acquiring others, I can say that it is VERY possible Cao had no idea they were purchasing D&D Beyond.
Again, there's simply no way that a VP of a division is going to be excluded from knowing about an acquisition directly affecting that division. Either they're directly involved or they're kept in the loop because of their VP status, along with all the other VPs and divisional presidents. |
|
|
