Café de Nuit

Five wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:16 pm$30 bucks a month if I want to share my homebrew? I don't even pay that kind of dough for Netflix, Prime, or Disney Plus for my family. Two of those for about the same I guess. Still, $360 a year for...what exactly?

It's rumoured to be $30 for the highest tier. We don't know what the lower tiers will cost.
It's very likely they'll be $5 and $10 tiers but the $30 tier has perks and exclusive content, perhaps also being more akin to the old magazines.

I got the core books (and bunch of other WotC books that were questionable buys; gave up after RL though; KS is solid enough though), and together with the forever imaginations of others like me (imagination runaways) that's all I need.

Great that 5E has minimal game go time online, especially compared to 2E and other RPGs, but that's just a bonus. It's not essential. Not really down with paying for books twice, then paying again to be able to use them with others. Especially not for that extra extra markup to share homebrew. In that sense, they're still trying to make money off of others' imaginations...greasy man. All the rest is fixin's as I see it. Corpo Wizard alchemy. Turn imagination into gold. Heh

Can't they include a redeemable code in the printed core books for consumers to punch in as VIPs and at least check the place out before they commit? 6 month subscription per book. Something. Anything. Earn our money. Don't just stick your hand out or bank on maxing kid's credit cards (or nicking their folks').

Business is business, but theft is theft.

WotC seem to be in a similar place now that Games Workshop where a few years ago: it's being ran by someone who doesn't understand the business and is trying to milk it for money.

GW was ran by a guy who thought putting the prices of the models up and churning out new editions was the way to go and the fanbase reacted poorly. Now GW is ran by someone who knows and understands the game and the fans, and the company is now worth more to the British economy than the whole of the fishing industry (a random fact I found out during the Brexit arguments, but that's a different terrible economic discussion for another day).

WotC is being ran now by people who only care about money, and short term profits over long term. It's what you see in the MMO market at the moment (here's a nice video explaining that). In the short term, they may make a profit, but the long term fallout is they will lose that consistent stream of income they had for quick boost now. It's untenable and I think we'll see WotC collapse in a similar manner to TSR 20 years ago.

Big news today, as they're starting the OGL "playtest" https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-st ... l-playtest

With the big twist news that the basic rules elements are now under a Creative Commons license!

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a- ... me-license

Soooo... those more legally literate from me, how do you see this? I think WotC is listening and they are taking steps back. Or it could be smoke and mirrors and I failed my will save and now I am trapped in the illusion, OMG I may be trapped in a Maze spell and I keep failing my intelligence checks! Please get me out! GET ME OUT!!!!

... or simply explain in plain words what is happening with OGL 1.2

Nice optics/turnabout, but is any OGL truly necessary?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/b ... p-creators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-ga ... explained/

Thing that strikes me is article 6 (f):

"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."

I get it from a certain quality control standpoint, but with "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.", there is no arbiter to definition of terms. They can use this umbrella statement-lockdown and pull the rug out on any products that may exist or delve in the between realms of fantasy and real life, or, those areas where some people, sometimes, like to drag stuff from one side to the other.

A setting with evil orcs, or drow, or any "born evil" species (old school fantasy/D&D tropes); misanthropic or less than legal bands of gypsies with mercenary morals (old school movie/Ravenloft trope); slavery/slave trade in general (most fantasy ever published/Dark Sun)...it's all open to context, but at the same time it's prime ground for certain people to rant and rage "foul". None of those things, on their own as fantasy setting injections of flavour, are hateful to any living beings but they can certainly be viewed by some as just that, outside of intended or even stated context.

Game settings (such as Dark Sun) and classic literary tales (such as Robert E Howard) both use slavery in a somewhat fundamental sense, yet never "said" anything to support the practise of slavery in real life. Dark Sun is actually about fighting (or hiding from/surviving) the slavers (Sorcerer-Kings), and Conan is as anti-establishment/pro freedom as you can find in fantasy. The original Shadowrunner. Heh.

Seriously though, with a tool like this, a sometimes-maybe (hyper) sensitivity reader over your shoulder...just as some people like to blur and drag real life to others' fantasy games, WotC can (or even be pressured to) blur, drag, and blend business to others' fantasy games.

Like I said, I get it to a point, but it needs definition. It's so vague, and you'll have to agree to anything WotC comes up with ("drow are make-believe, we made them up, but they depict real life black people. You are hurting the black community with your evil drow kingdom. You're shut down."), should they notice your work and target you for deactivation.

Combine both topics in this post and I think I'd opt for true creative freedom, and not sign nothing. Just so happens that I don't make a dime on my D&D, but thst's besides the point. It's the principle of the matter.

Rejoice, friends!

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-og ... ve-commons

While I’m still supporting Paizo’s ORC and Kobold Press’ Project Black Flag, this is a pretty good victory.

It looks good. But do let's stay alert.

Rock of the Fraternity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:52 pm It looks good. But do let's stay alert.

That’s the plan Rock, but it’s at least a good sign. Wait and see is still in effect but my Friday got a little bit better!

A good result at the end. 6E will have more onerous terms but that is okay, because WotC is not changing the rules mid game.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/beholde ... ns.694856/

In the 5.1 SRD that just got released into the Creative Commons is a bunch of IP including Count Strahd von Zarovich, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, the City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire. The BEHOLDER is also specifically referenced by name in the Deck of Illusions, and Mind Flayers and Slaad are also referenced--at least by name--repeatedly in the document.

Le Noir Faineant wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 5:38 am https://www.enworld.org/threads/beholde ... ns.694856/

In the 5.1 SRD that just got released into the Creative Commons is a bunch of IP including Count Strahd von Zarovich, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, the City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire. The BEHOLDER is also specifically referenced by name in the Deck of Illusions, and Mind Flayers and Slaad are also referenced--at least by name--repeatedly in the document.

This was clearly in error. You get the right to use the word "Strahd", but only out of context. If you try it in context, you'll get a nasty lawsuit.

Yeah, but it would be hilarious if it weren’t an error lol. Poor Azalin and Drakov malding in the corner that their names aren’t in the SRD Creative Commons document.

Le Noir Faineant wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 5:38 amhttps://www.enworld.org/threads/beholde ... ns.694856/

In the 5.1 SRD that just got released into the Creative Commons is a bunch of IP including Count Strahd von Zarovich, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, the City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire. The BEHOLDER is also specifically referenced by name in the Deck of Illusions, and Mind Flayers and Slaad are also referenced--at least by name--repeatedly in the document.

Which means the names are open, but the stats are still closed. But you can't copyright names anyway and WotC still retains the trademark, so it doesn't really change anything.

Five wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:24 pmI get it from a certain quality control standpoint, but with "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.", there is no arbiter to definition of terms. They can use this umbrella statement-lockdown and pull the rug out on any products that may exist or delve in the between realms of fantasy and real life, or, those areas where some people, sometimes, like to drag stuff from one side to the other.

As I've said elsewhere online, this clause would have been worrisome if they weren't everywhere.
Paizo has a similar statement for their Community Content licence. Kickstarter and DriveThru can pull content if they want. PayPal can close your account. Heck, this forum has a vague policy on hateful conduct and we'll ban without appeal if we decide someone is toxic.

It sounds worrying, but even if WotC had added it, the clause would likely never have been used. And if it was, it'd likely be the result of a major Twitter upset and calls from people to ban a racist or sexist or homophobic book. Because it's not like WotC has a team monitoring small companies for offensive content. The only way they'd find out about a racist book would be public outrage.

If you're curious why D&D and WotC wanted to start "censoring" and having the ability to revoke the OGL, I can explain it in one big image:



Those are books I'm currently adding to my library at work. D&D is really, really trying to become an All Ages brand like Marvel and accessible in Middle Schools and up.

Imagine if Marvel comics had released a license that let anyone publish a comic book using some of their characters and release them in comic stores. Beside their official comics on the shelf.
You can bet they'd want to be able to restrict certain content to prevent kids buying a book they think is official but isn't...