Jump to content

DnD OGL 1.1 Creator Crisis - an Ultimately Good Thing or a Bad Thing for TTRPGs?


The Anti-Targ

Recommended Posts

Paizo, in collaboration with a bunch of other publishers, has announced they're creating a new open license, the Open RPG Creative license (ORC). 

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License

It's a pretty long statement, but the key bit (after a bunch of slamming WOTC) is:

Quote

 

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.

The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Paizo has not name checked Critical Role. I wonder if they will jump on or if they've got themselves a bespoke licensing deal with WOTC. Just because OGL 1.1 is a shit show doesn't mean a big property like Critical Role can't negotiate much better terms with WOTC. With Paizo et al really breaking away completely with this move WOTC really needs to bring big guns like Critical Role closer to them to re-establish momentum for 5e / One DnD.

Another business who is pretty big on 5e right now are Viva La Dirt League. TTRPG isn't their main thing because they will always remain a pop culture sketch comedy troupe. That's mostly where their fanbase is, but they have a pretty decent following for their Epic NPC DnD campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I see Paizo has not name checked Critical Role. I wonder if they will jump on or if they've got themselves a bespoke licensing deal with WOTC. Just because OGL 1.1 is a shit show doesn't mean a big property like Critical Role can't negotiate much better terms with WOTC. With Paizo et al really breaking away completely with this move WOTC really needs to bring big guns like Critical Role closer to them to re-establish momentum for 5e / One DnD.

I assumed the money flowed the opposite direction in that relationship, with WOTC paying CR as a sponsor of the show. Although maybe those ads are just deducted from the cost of what CR owes WOTC. I dunno.

But either way I imagine a lot of money's at stake there, and CR is very tied up in D&D. I wonder how what percentage of fans, of CR or D&D as a whole, actually know about all this yet. Because there's a long history of D&D fans dropping off actual play shows that try transitioning to other systems. So jumping ship would not be a decision to take light lightly for CR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

I assumed the money flowed the opposite direction in that relationship, with WOTC paying CR as a sponsor of the show. Although maybe those ads are just deducted from the cost of what CR owes WOTC. I dunno.

But either way I imagine a lot of money's at stake there, and CR is very tied up in D&D. I wonder how what percentage of fans, of CR or D&D as a whole, actually know about all this yet. Because there's a long history of D&D fans dropping off actual play shows that try transitioning to other systems. So jumping ship would not be a decision to take light lightly for CR.

IIRC CR started on Pathfinder then moved to 5e. Though I guess most of their fanbase only know them as playing 5e. There is some speculation in the content creator community that CR is going to jump off DnD and the current god killer arc to campaign 3 would more or less mean CR no longer has any creative connection to WOTC other than using the 5e rules. WOTC might pay CR a fair bit as a sponser, but CR is probably now big enough that it can get other sponsors, not even related to TTRPGs and be financially fine.

I am watching with interest to see where CR goes. In terms of my interest in CR itself for entertainment it makes no difference to me, but the wider TTRPG context of where CR goes (stay with DnD, go it alone, join the ORC collective) is what's interesting to me. I like the Linux Foundation concept, so I would be pleased if CR joined the ORC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, he switched to 5e because Pathfinder 1e was much crunchier than 5e, which made it less suitable for streaming, and also because D&D simply has a substantially bigger fan base.

I've read claims that Pathfinder 2e is better on crunch, but still crunchier than 5e, and I've seen people opine that CR would have a problem with it still (something about multiple attacks was mentioned).

I suppose Paizo is going to work on 3e, but trying to make it crunch-light just in hopes of luring CR seems kind of absurd, as they may leave behind the fans who actually like its crunchiness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to think that CR, if they drop 5e, will develop its own system, and if they feel so inclined will join ORC, or not. I don't think ORC is going to be Pathfinder 1, 2...e, but a repository of all sorts of TTRPG componentry which people can play mix and match to get the right kind of system for them, and then create adventures and worlds around it.

It will be an interesting experiment in whether many creators will be able to prosper from a common set of tools. It'll be all about attracting a paying audience, whether it's selling adventures or getting people to watch you play the adventures you create. I guess the Unity engine in video games is a similar case of free tools and lets see what you can make of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This to me is more about DND beyond and how much Hasbro paid for it. They want to neuter the VTT competition and force people to play in their playground where they will do all the usual shitty game company monetization. So their targets are stuff like Foundry, Kobold Fight Club, roll20, etc. Get as many players and force them to use beyond and then sell players skins, battle passes, etc. aka not that much different from something like Roblox another shitty company ethics wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like they walked back a lot of it after massive backlash from the community. Not like I trust them they’re likely trying to find some time to spin this into something that allows them to make their corporate shareholders happy but not piss off their users.

https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-ogl-license-wizards-of-the-coast-wotc-1849985196

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good article on the rollback:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/amid-widespread-backlash-dd-maker-scales-back-open-license-changes/

Quote

 

The updated version of the OGL also will "not contain... any royalty structure," WotC writes, despite draft language calling for a 25 percent royalty on annual revenues above $750,000. The now-removed royalty language was "designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content" and wasn't intended "to impact the vast majority of the community," the company writes. "However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1."

WotC says it will also not claim a "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license" on fan-created content under the OGL, as suggested in the leaked draft update. That language was "intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities," the company writes. Using that drafted provision as "a means for us to steal work," as some in the community feared, "never crossed our minds," WotC writes.

 

That said I think there is still some major damage done and you'll find this might be the start of the exodus away from WotC because they've lost the trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ran said:

As I understand it, he switched to 5e because Pathfinder 1e was much crunchier than 5e, which made it less suitable for streaming, and also because D&D simply has a substantially bigger fan base.

I've read claims that Pathfinder 2e is better on crunch, but still crunchier than 5e, and I've seen people opine that CR would have a problem with it still (something about multiple attacks was mentioned).

I suppose Paizo is going to work on 3e, but trying to make it crunch-light just in hopes of luring CR seems kind of absurd, as they may leave behind the fans who actually like its crunchiness. 

Combat in 5E is a major pain in the backside and, as far as I can tell from watching the streams, is noticeably slower than 3E, although also "more tactical" (one of those vague statements that means anything). Unless Pathfinder made major changes to the way 3E combat worked (which I don't believe it did), I can't see it being any worse. The main improvements - well, the main changes - made from 3E to 5E were ditching the skill system, removing one of the major time-consuming elements of character creation and levelling up, in favour of a vaguer and more universal system (which also seems to have had the unintended - ? - side effect of de-emphasising puzzle-solving and skill use over combat), and overhauling the Challenge Rating system by bringing in the advantage/disadvantage system.

Also, D&D has a substantially bigger fanbase now than Pathfinder, but that was very much not the case in 2015, just a few months after 5E came out when Critical Role made the transition. D&D only really stormed past Pathfinder and re-established itself in the period 2016-17, thanks (it is commonly cited) to Stranger Things and (ironically?) Critical Role. I've even seen the suggestion that Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition on mobile, which gets discounted by "proper" video game players, also did gangbuster numbers which helped drive the D&D name.

Pathfinder also only just released 2E. There's zero chance of them going to 3E. The most they'll do is a mildly revised 2E with the OGL designation dropped. 2E as it stands is already compliant with not having to use the OGL.

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm inclined to think that CR, if they drop 5e, will develop its own system, and if they feel so inclined will join ORC, or not. I don't think ORC is going to be Pathfinder 1, 2...e, but a repository of all sorts of TTRPG componentry which people can play mix and match to get the right kind of system for them, and then create adventures and worlds around it.

It will be an interesting experiment in whether many creators will be able to prosper from a common set of tools. It'll be all about attracting a paying audience, whether it's selling adventures or getting people to watch you play the adventures you create. I guess the Unity engine in video games is a similar case of free tools and lets see what you can make of it.

ORC is going to include multiple systems. Kobold Press's Black Flag universal RPG system is going to be part of ORC and I assume Pathfinder 2E will as well. I think they're probably reaching out to Modiphius to bring their Worldbuilders 2d20 idea on stream, and Pinnacle for the Savage Worlds open licence. Savage Worlds would be a major feather in their cap because it already has so many games in different genres working for them.

For CR, I think there's a reasonable chance they'll switch to Savage Worlds: Pathfinder. Their most popular non-D&D stream is their Deadlands side-campaign using the same engine, and, despite bloody GMing the thing on and off for twenty-five years, I was impressed how fast and smooth they were able to run it, especially the card-driven combat system. Very impressive. SW:P already highly favours narrative over number crunching but the combat system is robust enough to allow for epic showdowns if necessary for the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Combat in 5E is a major pain in the backside and, as far as I can tell from watching the streams, is noticeably slower than 3E, although also "more tactical" (one of those vague statements that means anything).

I actually find combat in 5E to be too-streamlined and quick-paced. There's usually only a couple good options for any character to do, and the concentration mechanic dramatically decreases the likelihood of spellcasters doing unique and fun things (e.g,, in my current campaign as a sorcerer, my best option almost always is to twin-cast Haste on our two front-liners and then stand back tossing fireballs). And the way the action economy works, most combat encounters as-written seem to usually be total pushovers unless the DM soups them up; either adding extra enemies or creating new legendary actions for bosses.

I've never played Pathfinder 1E on the tabletop, but based on my experiences with the Owlcat video games (which I adore), it kinda seems like tracking everything would be a nightmare without a computer doing the heavy lifting. So I don't necessarily want that. But it would be nice to have more crunch than what D&D 5E offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Combat in 5E is a major pain in the backside and, as far as I can tell from watching the streams, is noticeably slower than 3E

That's just the players being slow at decision making and planning ahead/thinking through their own turns whole others are acting imo. It's been a while since I watched but I used to find it funny how some people's turns would go by in a snap and others would take forever. Same at tables I've played at - regardless of the complexity of their character class/build there's always usually at least one person who manages to drag out a turn that should be sub 30 seconds of dice rolling into a 10 minute Q&A. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parhfinder 2s combat Wert is very much more streamlined compared to pf1/3e. It is still tactical but it plays a lot quicker now. But there are rules for everything just much simpler ones. DND 5s issue is that too much of the rules aren’t spelled out. So it’s left to GMs to adjudicate and argue with the players on table rules. Unless you’re talking about PF1 and yes that’s just as broken as 3e just with ten more years of content.

Other main thing with pf2 compared to both 5e and pf1 is that it’s a more balanced game. 5e player mastery is very much around bonus and free actions and the classes that abuse these are way stronger. As well as whomever can reliably invoke advantage. (Paladin, sorc, etc) PF1/3e very much has its own set of balance problems. (Casters vs martials mainly) PF2 has put martials in a more equitable zone to casters. Regardless this for me as a GM makes pf2 much easier to run than pf1 or 5e because I don’t have to invent rules or cater to one player breaking the party and there is an expectation that players are of similar capability in a broad sense. I can also run adventures as written or lift encounters from written adventures into my campaign because I know they’re going to reasonably work unlike the mess that is 5e/3e/pf1.

For something like CR I don’t think PF2 would be an issue (you mentioned multiple attacks but 5e has that with bonus and free actions plus martials get extras by default) but since they’ve gone through the two biggest issue 5e has for a DM (house ruling things WotC didn’t cover and balancing the party to similar power levels) I don’t see any reason why they’d change unless it was in their financial interest too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to io9 today, "five figures" worth of people had terminated their D&DBeyond subscriptions in the last few days, so probably tens of thousands of people.

The D&DBeyond service hit 10,000 subscribers in 2017. The service allegedly has "10 million users," although that's not the same thing as 10 million subscribers (Beyond serves as a standard shop as well), especially as that would be about a third of the total number of people who've played D&D of any stripe since 1974.

Apparently the cancellations sent shockwaves through WotC and they were left floundering for a response, their tepid non-apology being the result.

Also, Paizo seem to have picked up an absolute ton of sales over the last week as well, and the P2 core rulebook is very difficult to find (in the UK at least) as a result, whilst a few weeks ago it was freely available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that looking at it from one angle is the reason we have 5e is because WOTC tried to pull similar restrictive shit with 4e, got backlash, Pathfinder was born and WOTC realised it was potentially / probably going to lose the system war. So they pulled out 5e got DnD re-popularised, possibly beyond their wildest dreams, and then looked to try to rinse and repeat the 4e OGL cancellation stunt, albeit trying to kill the OGL it dead retrospectively as well this time. Only because the internet is an even bigger thing now they got crapped on even before they could carry out their dastardly plan. If WOTC hadn't had basically the same evil scheme in mind with 4e, what would the TTRPG landscape look like today I wonder?

The attitude that had WOTC try this trick with 4e and also now almost certainly still exists within Hasbro if not WOTC. So I don't think so I don;t think protestations of innocent intent and misinterpretation can be trusted. The one thing I think you can trust is that Hasbro and WOTC realise they can't play the players for fools, and that they have permanently allowed several alternatives to take a bigger share of the market so that while DnD may continue to be the biggest TTRPG, it is much diminished and will never again be the dominant TTRPG. Which means the only way they will be able to pull this stunt again is if they are able to convince everyone to forgiver and forget. I don't see that happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping Legal Eagle would do a video, and he has a very interesting take.

He thinks there is very little that WOTC can claim for from people who make original content and only utilise the DnD rules without directly replicating the System Reference Document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The one thing I think you can trust is that Hasbro and WOTC realise they can't play the players for fools, and that they have permanently allowed several alternatives to take a bigger share of the market so that while DnD may continue to be the biggest TTRPG, it is much diminished and will never again be the dominant TTRPG. Which means the only way they will be able to pull this stunt again is if they are able to convince everyone to forgiver and forget. I don't see that happening.

D&D was in an equally dominant position in both 1991 and 2008 and it lost its market domination in both cases, slipping to 3rd in the sales rankings in the latter case and considerably lower in the former case (although there was a 1-2 year period in which they were barely putting out any product at all, so that's more understandable).

That could happen again. The sales figures in the TTRPG market are not that massive (although they have increased over the years), the success comes from the absurd margins that WotC put on their products (although rising prices are not helping anyone). Especially if you take away the core book surplus: the PHB outsells the core book from any other RPG by something like 7-1, but the average additional sourcebook is only something like 2-1, and their insistence on high print runs for every single book is actually not helpful (an awful lot of that boasted D&D 5E sales product is sitting on store shelves or in warehouses). Other RPGs struggle to keep their stuff in print, but that's good in the sense that they actually sell their stuff, it's not clogging up the inventory somewhere and will probably end up being remaindered or going back to WotC for a refund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 1:28 PM, Werthead said:

Combat in 5E is a major pain in the backside and, as far as I can tell from watching the streams, is noticeably slower than 3E, although also "more tactical" (one of those vague statements that means anything).

This is simply not true in any conceivable fashion of reality, though I guess it may vary depending upon the ability to remember various, minor bonuses and modifiers and do quick math on anything and everything. But 5E being more tactical than 3E is just flat out not true.

In fact, many of the complaints of 5E are that it is specifically nowhere near as tactical and that it does not have as many options and choices as both PF1/3E. 5E significantly limits the number of spelled out rules for players to engage in and leaves many of the "options" up to DM fiat and ad hoc rulings (which certainly carry their own problems) but it does reduce the number of times you may have to look up what the exact modifier for "charging across a frozen pond while wielding a vorpal axe on a Tuesday" is. YMMV on which you prefer. Honestly, having DM'd all three systems, I go back and forth on it many times.

5E characters, OTOH, have many more options at lower levels compared to similarly leveled characters in 3E/PF. As levels increase, those options decrease as 3E/PF characters have access to many more skills, feats, magic items, spells, and class abilities. All of these are significantly reduced in 5E with feats being fewer in number but more impactful, spells being significantly limited with the spell casting system and concentration, and magic items being limited by the attunement system. 5e MAY BE a bit slower at the lowest levels, but that does not last long, IMO. 3E/PF characters fairly quickly attain many, many different options which can have a variety of effects both in an out of combat and it devolves into an utter mess at mid to high levels.

5E high level play is certainly not... uh... great or good even. The CR system is wonky at the best of times, but it doesn't collapse upon itself at the slightest gust of wind spell like 3E/PF. It is playable and it functions, though not well. Still, it didn't make me want to kill myself like when I DM'd high level campaigns in 3E and PF was an utter fucking nightmare at equivalent levels.

Ultimately it comes down to preference. Some work better when everything is spelled out explicitly and clearly and others will find making on the spot rulings much more preferable. I er towards the former but the latter I don't mind all that much as long as the ruling framework is there.

Quote

Unless Pathfinder made major changes to the way 3E combat worked (which I don't believe it did), I can't see it being any worse.

Not really no. Pathfinder smoothed out many of the rougher edges of 3E but also added a ton of new rules content and crunch. Classes are much more developed and robust in PF which can significantly slow down play but also gives more options to players. Result is that it is a tighter, better, but slower and more tactical system.

Quote

The main improvements - well, the main changes - made from 3E to 5E were ditching the skill system, removing one of the major time-consuming elements of character creation and levelling up, in favour of a vaguer and more universal system

This is not entirely true. The skill system is still there, but it was largely lifted from 4E IIRC. It functions much the same way, you pick your skills at character creation and the ones you pick increase in ability at set points rather than investing ranks at each level. The skill rank system is gone, but skills do still exist. 

PF again significantly improved the skill system over 3E and I do prefer it over the vague abstractness of 5E. Picking skills at each level and creating a weird mish-mash of what you were good at doing was fun, if not a bit time consuming.

Quote

(which also seems to have had the unintended - ? - side effect of de-emphasising puzzle-solving and skill use over combat),

Again, this not true. In fact this is also a complaint that AD&D players had about 3E/PF "back in the day" in that having a skill called "Diplomacy" or "Search" (with explicitly spelled out rules governing both of their uses) significantly deemphasized role-play and puzzle solving in favor of rolling a die. Which is... not true for those editions either.

Quote

and overhauling the Challenge Rating system by bringing in the advantage/disadvantage system.

Challenge Rating and disadvantage/advantage have nothing to do with each other. The former is for encounter construction and balance and the latter is for action resolution. They do not interact.

In fact, CR has not changed all that much, it's still just as inaccurate as it was in 3E/PF. Disadvantage/Advantage, OTOH, is honestly a very elegant system, assuming you don't mind a level of abstraction on certain resolutions. It works rather well and speeds up play quite a bit.

The problem? It's very, very abstract and deemphasizes some amount of tactical thinking.

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's interesting that looking at it from one angle is the reason we have 5e is because WOTC tried to pull similar restrictive shit with 4e, got backlash, Pathfinder was born and WOTC realised it was potentially / probably going to lose the system war. So they pulled out 5e got DnD re-popularised, possibly beyond their wildest dreams, and then looked to try to rinse and repeat the 4e OGL cancellation stunt, albeit trying to kill the OGL it dead retrospectively as well this time. Only because the internet is an even bigger thing now they got crapped on even before they could carry out their dastardly plan.

Honestly, WotC trying an "again but more!" approach to the OGL as they did with 4E is just... bafflingly stupid. Like, they created their most direct competition as a result of their actions on the OGL/GSL back in 4E and they thought they should try again but with a MORE draconian and restrictive license? It's the same sort of idiotic thinking that drives conservative Republicans each election cycle to proclaim that they lost because they weren't conservative enough.

Just, completely idiotic decision making all around.

Quote

If WOTC hadn't had basically the same evil scheme in mind with 4e, what would the TTRPG landscape look like today I wonder?

Considering that only a portion of the backlash to 4E was due to the GSL, I don't think it would be much different. The rules of 4E were very controversial and it's possible that Paizo or another company may have decided to overhaul or stick with 3E instead of going forward with the new edition, albeit at a later date. I know Paizo developed Pathfinder primarily as a direct response to the vague and restrictive GSL, but I'm not sure 4E's design philosophy would've gelled well with theirs. It's certainly possible Pathfinder still becomes a thing under such a scenario, although later on and maybe not as successful and maybe 4E limps on for a couple more years before losing steam.

If Pathfinder is not a thing, it's quite possible CR never becomes a thing and maybe the eventual 5E never quite takes off. And perhaps, if 4E doesn't fail as spectacularly as it did, 5E might not be the "return to tradition" version it ended up being and is more of an iteration on 4E.

Quote

The attitude that had WOTC try this trick with 4e and also now almost certainly still exists within Hasbro if not WOTC. So I don't think so I don;t think protestations of innocent intent and misinterpretation can be trusted. The one thing I think you can trust is that Hasbro and WOTC realise they can't play the players for fools, and that they have permanently allowed several alternatives to take a bigger share of the market so that while DnD may continue to be the biggest TTRPG, it is much diminished and will never again be the dominant TTRPG. Which means the only way they will be able to pull this stunt again is if they are able to convince everyone to forgiver and forget. I don't see that happening.

The real test, IMO, is going to be how OneD&D does after this. Some of the potential changes in OneD&D might end up being kinda controversial. Marry that with the backlash to the OGL 1.1 and if One&D falls a bit flat, well, who knows? It's possible PF2 (or 3) rises to the top again or some other derivative system does, but considering the market share D&D currently has, I'm not sure that's really possible. Maybe we see a situation where there's a bit more parity between the various players with D&D being less of a dominant power house.

As for me, I just finished DMing a game that finished off at 20th level last year and we started up a new game just before the whole OGL drama unfurled and I have another game I'm DMing that just reached 10th level so I think I'm stuck with 5E for a while at least for now. OneD&D is going to be the test, I think. If it ends up being bad, maybe I might convince the players to move to a different system. That said, I have been mostly positive on some of the changes released so far

Right now there's not much interest in moving on to a different system amongst my players and I'm honestly not very keen on going back to running a more rules heavy system like PF1 (I would happily play such a game, but fuck DMing that again) unless it's a very, very limited campaign (ie 1-6 or 1-10 at most). I might spend some time checking out PF2, but that has been out for a couple of years now and if Paizo is working on another edition, I might just wait and see.

It would be nice to have something in my back pocket if OneD&D shits the bed, but my players are a mix of vets and newbies and the vets are very much "D&D/d20 only" players and the newbies haven't really played anything else but might be more amenable to something different. Maybe I can finally get some use out of those Warhammer books I own, but I fear anything we switch to will need to be some sort of derivative of D&D unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...