OneD&D, and OGL v1.1

[Nylanfs]

In case people weren't aware there had been some "controversy" about the OGL and OneD&D (henceforth referred to 5.5e by me) the last couple of weeks. This was largely pushed by rumormongers trying to drive click bait YT videos. Note: The OGL v1.0 & v1.0a are perpetual and irrevocable.

But it does seem that WotC are going to attempt to release an updated OGL and SRD with 5.5e. I'm not seeing any reason at this point why somebody would choose to create material under the v1.1 license, but we also haven't seen the text, or if there is going to be a big enough carrot to accept the license.

I do see that it is going to flatly disbar PCGen from using the license, because they are defining the OGL v1.1 as ONLY covering print and static media (PDF's, epubs, etc). PCGen uses the LGPL for the code engine, but all the data files are plain text and human readable and 100% in compliance with the OGL. So them saying that the OGL only applied to print and pdf's is incorrect. I have a feeling they are conflating some details from the OGL and the old d20 STL, which did only cover print and pdf's


First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

WotC press release
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d

A fairly long EnWorld forum post about the pres release, where it shows even after 22+ years, people still don't understand the OGL
https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-announces-ogl-1-1-revised-terms-royalties-and-annual-revenue-reporting.693973/


Note: I am very sure that Doug and John are aware of the news, and I'm also 98% certain they won't (and shouldn't) comment because of various NDA's and legal agreements they have with WotC.

[LordEntrails]

I find it interesting, but until we actually see the text of the document, it's really just speculation. And as you pointed out, a lot of fear mongering to drive clicks and views.

The only point I like to refresh is since they say that OneD&D will be backwards compatible, I see no reason why people will not be able to continue using the 1.0 and 1.0a licenses to publish OneD&D content. If it's compatible, then it's compatible going forward too.

The whole point about "static" electronic files is interesting, but I'm not sure their is legal precedence or definition of such. After all, a Hero Lab file is just as static as a PDF is. i.e. they don't change until something changes them. And both can be changed by computer programs if designed to do so. (Folks tend to think that once a PDF is created it can not be changed, but that is far from the truth. Even password protected PDFs can easily be changed.) I don't know what they are trying to get at here, and their example of an NFT certainly doesn't fit their earlier categorization of non-static.

Anyway, when they release the text of 1.1 it will be interesting to read.

[esmdev]

I think they are trying to say no making movies and video games 'based on the worlds most monetized role-playing game' unless we pre-approve you to give us money. :)

[Valyar]

Nothing good comes out of Hasbro and corporate greed. I expect them to try to pull the worst attempts to squeeze money, put paywalls and restrict access and try to get away with. Lets remember the 4e fiasco.
Now they see backlash and probably things will not be that dire, but I guess time to finally move on.

[devinlc]

Note: The OGL v1.0 & v1.0a are perpetual and irrevocable.

Except a leaked copy of 1.1 shows that it entirely revokes 1.0. So much for perpetual and irrevocable.

[damned]

I dont believe they can revoke earlier licenses. They can release new licenses but products released under license X are released under license X.


9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

[devinlc]

Check the many YouTube videos addressing this issue. One, a lawyer, send to think they may be able to do so.

[LordEntrails]

Check the many YouTube videos addressing this issue. One, a lawyer, send to think they may be able to do so.
If you prefer to read than watch, here's what I assume is a similar legal view: https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyone-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192

[damned]

Lawyers can argue both sides of any case.
Thats what lawyers do.

[TMO]

I'm not a content creator so I'm somewhat oblivious to the fallout of the OGL 1.1 but I have been watching YouTubers discuss this with interest. I have yet to find anybody simply engaging in clickbait and everyone is taking a measured approach with their speculation. My main concern is OneD&D itself. The trend of the new rules and push toward digital gaming has greatly disinterested me and for the first time since the introduction of D&D Next and D&D Fifth Edition, I am choosing not to continue buying every product that comes out (which means hardbound, D&D Beyond, and FG). I think I'm what would be considered a "whale" and very soon I'll become a barely more than a guppy. Old School and independent products are now becoming very interesting to me.

[esmdev]

I'm not a content creator so I'm somewhat oblivious to the fallout of the OGL 1.1 but I have been watching YouTubers discuss this with interest. I have yet to find anybody simply engaging in clickbait and everyone is taking a measured approach with their speculation. My main concern is OneD&D itself. The trend of the new rules and push toward digital gaming has greatly disinterested me and for the first time since the introduction of D&D Next and D&D Fifth Edition, I am choosing not to continue buying every product that comes out (which means hardbound, D&D Beyond, and FG). I think I'm what would be considered a "whale" and very soon I'll become a barely more than a guppy. Old School and independent products are now becoming very interesting to me.

There are a lot of great alternatives.

[damned]

A big and successful D&D seems to be good for the industry in that in brings more players in. Nothing else has the lure or familiarity or brand recognition to newcomers or outsiders that D&D has. But after that - it is bad that half or more of all RPG dollars go to 5E and 5E products.

[Jeeshman]

I dont believe they can revoke earlier licenses. They can release new licenses but products released under license X are released under license X.

OGL 1.0 states, "4. Grant and Consideration. In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." (Wizards of the Coast, System Reference Document 5.1, at 2.) A 'perpetual' license has no express end date but may be revoked in the future. An 'irrevocable' license can't be revoked. Since the OGL 1.0 doesn't state the license is 'irrevocable' and only 'perpetual,' they can revoke it. (Source: me. My day job is practicing law.)

The section you quoted muddies the water a little because it doesn't explain what an 'authorized' version is, but WotC will likely say OGL 1.0 is no longer "authorized" due to revocation of the license.

According to Gizmodo, language in OGL 1.1 states as follows: “[This license] only allows for creation of roleplaying games and supplements in printed media and static electronic file formats. It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes. You may engage in these activities only to the extent allowed under the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or separately agreed between You and Us.” Unless they create a separate OGL specifically for virtual tabletops, this language plus the revocation of OGL 1.0 creates a serious problem for Roll20 and the like. I assume FG will enter a separate agreement if it's going to offer the new content in the same manner as it did with the 5E WotC publications.

[damned]

Fantasy Grounds doesnt use the OGL for the vast bulk of its D&D products. The vast bulk of the D&D products are licensed directly from WotC. SmiteWorks have a license or contract or an agreement directly with WotC/Hasbro. That is for 5E and 2E.

[Nylanfs]

This thread here by Morrus neatly breaks it all down. The inital leaks and reports I was VERY skeptical of, simply because of how badly things were phrased, and I couldn't imagine WotC and Hasbro burning nearly an entire industry down. Now it looks like the large brush strokes of the leaks and reports might be true, and it's possibly worse than anyone could have thought.

The worrisome bit of this is that there are quite a few Open Source licenses that the OGL was based on (from 2000). And AFAIK the only one that has really gotten close to being tested in court is the GPL, back in 2007. They since have added "irrevocable" to the license. But a few haven't been updated. IF Hasbro attempts to "deauthorize" v1.0 & v1.0a with v1.1 (and as a software person, the changes are enough that it SHOULD be v2.0, it's not an expansion or clarification of the previous versions) it WILL get challenged in court. And if Hasbro wins, that precedent can be used in the tech industry to try and claw back other open licenses. That is something I'd be interested on hearing Doug and John's opinion on.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-ogl-just-whats-going-on.694193/

[sorvan76]

I really don't have a sophisticated insight into what is going on with the future of D&D. Suffice to say, I've invested ££££ in FG content from Steam and DMG and I've no intention on giving up on that investment. I have all the materials to have a great time playing D&D already, so why would I want to change it? I just hope the FG community continues to thrive in the wake of One D&D, etc. Which I won't be investing in.

I apologise if my insight into this is limited.

[Myrdin Potter]

Damned :

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/?sys=17&pub=-1&typ=-1&search=&sort=1

All of those use the OGL. All of the Pathfinder materials here uses the OGL.

The new 1.1 says VTT is forbidden under it and that the old one is null and void.

Seems that there is plenty of content here to worry about.

[damned]

Even if the OGL goes away and there is some new anti-competitive license that replaces it, it wont affect already published products.

[Myrdin Potter]

If the OGL is unauthorized, it is possible that no new sales will be allowed. Or maybe no new conversions of existing items will be allowed.

It certainly would not allow new material not already written as that needs to be under the OGL 1.1 and VTT is forbidden.

Now maybe Smiteworks has a special deal like Doug cut to get 5e (and 2e) and is all NDAed up and cannot discuss it, but it certainly is a threat and the majority of “D&D” material here (Pathfinder being D&D as well) is under the OGL.

[esmdev]

My thought is wait until it actually exists in non-leaked fashion. For all we know the current leak could be from months ago or it might be the final draft or it might be total fiction. Until there is a final release then we cannot say for certain what it says. We have to go on a document of unknown origin and date that is backed up by unnamed sources. By accounts the reporter that released the information is reputable so it probably is what it says but who knows what it will look like when released.

If it is the doomsday scrolls more than likely Paizo will file an instant legal attack on 1.1, they'll likely be joined in a class action by whomever is producing anything under the existing OGL, request an injunction against 1.1 and then go on life as usual while everyone slugs it out in court for the next ten years. In the interim publishers can decide to continue tying themselves to Hasbro or go out and make better games and materials of their own design.

[esmdev]

If the OGL is unauthorized, it is possible that no new sales will be allowed. Or maybe no new conversions of existing items will be allowed.

It certainly would not allow new material not already written as that needs to be under the OGL 1.1 and VTT is forbidden.

Now maybe Smiteworks has a special deal like Doug cut to get 5e (and 2e) and is all NDAed up and cannot discuss it, but it certainly is a threat and the majority of “D&D” material here (Pathfinder being D&D as well) is under the OGL.

The new OGL specifically limits the media that it limits but only if you are using the OGL as your path to publishing. There are plenty of publishers in the computer game industry that are specifically licensed directly between Hasbro and the publisher. SmiteWorks and Roll20 already have that sort of deal, that is how they can release products it takes weeks or months to convert on the same day. They are probably already paying the license fee and probably have been for years. Foundry, Owlbear, etc., probably not in the greatest of positions.

[damned]

If the OGL is unauthorized, it is possible that no new sales will be allowed. Or maybe no new conversions of existing items will be allowed.

It certainly would not allow new material not already written as that needs to be under the OGL 1.1 and VTT is forbidden.

Now maybe Smiteworks has a special deal like Doug cut to get 5e (and 2e) and is all NDAed up and cannot discuss it, but it certainly is a threat and the majority of “D&D” material here (Pathfinder being D&D as well) is under the OGL.

I havent read a single legal commentary on the topic that suggests that any existing materials would be affected.

[Myrdin Potter]

I havent read a single legal commentary on the topic that suggests that any existing materials would be affected.

I have seen plenty that have said no new materials at all under the existing OGL. And the new OGL stops VTT. Converting to VTT for sale may qualify as a new publishing and VTT is specifically not covered under the supposed new OGL.

[Seya]

The big thing is Wizards is developing their own VTT. So they can easily make all their content exclusive to it.

[LordEntrails]

So much speculation. We can worry and fret, but honestly, unless you are a publisher, their is no value in worrying about it. Game on, enjoy, and when it's published then we can read what it actually says.

[Pikup]

Not sure why folks are surprised. Once WotC went to Hasbro it has been a question of when not if they would try to do this. Honestly surprised it has taken them this long. Stop giving companies your money when they make it clear they do not respect your time or creativity. Heck how many people even play D&D rules as written.

My main worry is this does look they are lining up to stifle the VTT market. The leak was pretty clear anything for a VTT was outside of the OGL.

Pikup

[Dyark]

for those who wants to sign the OGL protest, it is here : https://www.opendnd.games/

[DeathMagnet]

So many things wrong with this change. Took up the fight to defend D&D from 'Concerned Christians' in the '80s, now it has to be defended from its own publisher - not sure it's worth the effort :cry:

[JohnD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAaRhnpXzPc

[damned]

So many things wrong with this change. Took up the fight to defend D&D from 'Concerned Christians' in the '80s, now it has to be defended from its own publisher - not sure it's worth the effort :cry:

The game - or many games - will go on.
What might be a short term bad for the rest of the industry will probably turn into a longer term plus.

[UltimateGM]

First, I am not a big D&D 5e player I play Pathfinder 2e but I have always respected Gary Gygax, TSR, and Wizards. I played D&D back when it was basic. It evolved into 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd and 3.5. When 4th edition came around count me out. I just couldn't do it the rules were so much different and it felt like I was playing WoW but on paper. I converted to Pathfinder. Then I tried 5th edition and it was great. Better then the 4th edition but I still chose to play Pathfinder 2nd edition.

The reason I am saying all this which was a bit off topic is because I care about Wizards of the Coast. Heck It was the game I grew up on just it went through different companies hands. I understand both sides. Wizard is tired of people making money off the back of its IP and I get that. But I dont see why they didn't just say 10 to 15 percent royalty and you can keep your intellectual property rights. Instead they say 20 to 25 but Kickstarter gets 5 percent off and whoever else they may have partnered up with. I do not see them just coming in and voiding 1.0 OGL and there's no way they could. There are lawyers right now who have already said that if they try this that they will be going to litigation. What is already written is already done and like someone else said what was created under OGL 1.0 is there to stay. You can't sign a contract and then back out of it unless you have a clause that says otherwise. So far from what I have read from the "leaked" document is that they are trying to introduce a new license that will cover OneD&D or 5.5 whatever you want to call it and any new ip's that come from it will have to pay royalty fees to use it. It also said that it would target 20 or so companies that have made well over 750,000.00 in revenue from it's use under the old license.

From what I see they cannot go back and gain money for products created under 1.0. But they can start collecting money under the new product 5.5 D&D and since that product is under the new license anyone using that would be required to pay those fees. There is so much jargon in the leaked documents which is the reason it's causing such a buzz. But I don't see them just coming in and getting away with canning the 1.0 OGL or replacing it since it specifically says it is perpetual.

Just my two cents on the matter but like others have said it will be interesting to see the actual document and I assume as they read through all the posts in various social media areas that they will either wait to roll out 1.1 OGL or revamp it.

[TMO]

I can't recall if Roll of Law has already been referenced in this thread but he did a long live stream today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO-Wyy0uYu0&t=5368s) and covered most of the relevant points from a lawyer's perspective of the full document. He is not nearly as confident that WotC cannot revoke the 1.0 OGL.

[UltimateGM]

I can't recall if Roll of Law has already been referenced in this thread but he did a long live stream today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO-Wyy0uYu0&t=5368s) and covered most of the relevant points from a lawyer's perspective of the full document. He is not nearly as confident that WotC cannot revoke the 1.0 OGL.

Thank's for sharing I had a laugh at a few things but they were serious. I definitely see where he is coming from and it is crazy how he said he was about to start a D&D stream but decided not too. A lot of people are yanking their products off the shelf and it's a shame. Sounds like corporate sabotage.

[TMO]

Thank's for sharing I had a laugh at a few things but they were serious. I definitely see where he is coming from and it is crazy how he said he was about to start a D&D stream but decided not too. A lot of people are yanking their products off the shelf and it's a shame. Sounds like corporate sabotage.

Sounds more like corporate suicide to me.

[esmdev]

Sounds more like corporate suicide to me.

The reality is for everyone that cares about it there are probably hundreds or thousands of people who don't follow the game enough to know much about it. They just don't care how it gets to the shelf they just buy it. Probably a lot of them never even know the difference between most of the game designers. Despite all the OGL drama Hasbro stock went up not down.

[Marquis_de_Taigeis]

hasbro even won commendations on being an ethical company in the US the other day https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-session_94410a91-3716-4731-8fd2-e46e1d934a41

[TMO]

The reality is for everyone that cares about it there are probably hundreds or thousands of people who don't follow the game enough to know much about it. They just don't care how it gets to the shelf they just buy it. Probably a lot of them never even know the difference between most of the game designers. Despite all the OGL drama Hasbro stock went up not down.

I would not expect their stock to be affected by this so early. Look at Disney. They've been in implosion mode for a while due to poor creative decisions. Only in the last 1 or 2 quarters is that being reflected in their stock value. Also, it will take time for decisions attributed to WotC to float its way to the corporate head.

[Nylanfs]

To which they replied "We can't have that!" :)

[hmatilainen]

My wild guess with this OGL thingy is that in the long term Hasbro/WotC will consolidate everything into DnDBeyond and their own VTT-platform. Anybody else who wants to create content for 5e/OneDnD will have to go through that if they want to monetize their homebrew (hence the registration requirement), or just publish it for free.

In the long run I can see it might very well affect the livelyhood of every other VTT who might not have the ability to get future content for D&D on their platforms. Sure, there are other game systems out there, but are they big enough to sustain many different VTTs? Many also rely on OGL1.0a and have to adapt to this new situation. If WotC really went for the kill, in the coming days it would also announce that their own VTT is just around the corner (or acquisition of an existing VTT company like Roll20 as it could relatively easily slot in with DnDBeyond because of superficially similar working environment) just right after the OGL1.1 is official.

Personally I'd hate that to happen. I've used Fantasy Grounds now for years and I have bought lots of content over the years and my players are familiar (well, mostly :D ) with the system. In the worst case the software would probably live on and the content I've got stays on, but there would not be anything new for it and all the users would lose.

[Nylanfs]

Well FG was around WAY before they had a license with WotC, and they will continue to be around for many, many years to come I'm sure.

And I don't think WotC can contractually disallow you for re-downloading items that you have paid for through Smiteworks.


Also note AFAIK, the only OGL materials that Smiteworks themselves would have to remove would be the base SRD's for 35e and Pathfinder. I believe everything else is seperately licensed. The items in the Forge are a different matter though.

[Marquis_de_Taigeis]

dmsguilds new linking with roll 20 makes this likely

[dyoung1978]

One hand I could careless about what happens to companies like Paizo since they basically abandoned the PF1 community. We all have our opinions on why that happened but that's another story for another day. On the other hand I will say if the open licensing WotC is trying to push will likely kill off a large part of the 3rd party content which has been amazing. What I wonder since 4th edition DND looked like it was going to be a virtual game(Or atleast offer features to enhance the game) is do they plan to come after VTT platforms... I assume their end goal is get a big slice of the pie here.

[Nylanfs]

In case anyone is interested Roll for Combat has a VERY good interview with Ryan Dancey. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg)

[slobooger]

Agreed. With this going on, I am looking for other options.

[Stargrove]

When the site comes back up! New irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License#26

[damned]

I imagine there will be about 30 of these within the year
Hopefully everyone can organise themselves and create one main one...

[Milke]

Paizo just slammed WotC in this latest post.

[Muagen]

From Paizo's release today:


We believe that any interpretation that the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a) were intended to be revocable or able to be deauthorized is incorrect, and with good reason.

We were there.

@damned - There are a lot of fine folks in this roster (also from Paizo's release). This might be the new banner.


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.

[dyoung1978]

Looking at Paizo statement I wish we could have gotten a little more detail how it would protect the PF1/PF2 and SF content and other 3rd party providers from the WOTC OGL. I am sure this is going to lead into a lawsuit which it did sound like Paizo is willing to take the brunt of.

[Nylanfs]

The respective copyright owners can choose to re-release their materials under a new license (ORC). Problem solved.

[Milke]

Looking at Paizo statement I wish we could have gotten a little more detail how it would protect the PF1/PF2 and SF content and other 3rd party providers from the WOTC OGL. I am sure this is going to lead into a lawsuit which it did sound like Paizo is willing to take the brunt of.

They covered it, not in great detail. But basically, Paizo was there when the original OGL was drafted. They were part of WotC, until they split. They used the OGL more than anyone. They know what it can and can't do. And they know for a fact it can't be revoked. So, it covers PF1 for sure. And PF2 and Starfinder don't need the OGL; they just print it for convenience.
All new stuff can be printed under the new license they're making. This is an uppercut if I ever saw one. I was floored when I read this. Kudos to Paizo.

[HywelPhillips]

This all seems like a catastrophic self-own by WotC. I hope they come to their senses.

In the meantime, could I just renew a bit of a clarion call of mine - I'd really like to see more systems appearing here on FGU.

I'm desperate to run Forbidden Lands, so much so that I'm even tempted to do it Foundry just because I can (with all the rules and modules). I'd MUCH MUCH rather run it on FGU because the GM/campaign management tools are so much better. That becomes all the more important with a sandbox-style campaign where pinning stories to maps and having stuff like parcels and encounters set up is a massive boon.

I'd love to run the latest iteration of RuneQuest (actually I'd REALLY like to run the old RQ2 with full system support on FGU but i know that's unrealistic). I know MadBeardMan has been working away at this - now would be a SUPER time to get it released. PEGinc just sold out of Savage Worlds rulebooks - they made their quarterly sales in a week and are having to frantically reprint. Thank goodness FGU is already exemplary in SWADE support (and I literally just started a Deadlands campaign last night for one of my groups). But other systems need some love.

All power to Paizo for taking the initiative in the industry, and I'd love to switch over to PF2. It's just that Pathfinder took the 3.5E D&D fork and ran with it, and it's too system heavy for my tastes (we did try a couple of months playing it on FGU and despite all the amazing automation, it's still not for us). I've nothing against OSR, actually one of my preferred playstyles, but there was a reason why we all invented skills systems and rules not rulings in the 80's so the DM didn't have to invent it all every time. And there are plenty of OSR options already on FGU from DCC, OSE and C&C to Classic D&D itself.

There are potentially going to be a lot of "homeless" TTRPG folks looking for a mid-crunch modern (non-OSR) fantasy game right now to replace 5E at what is clearly a sweet spot in terms of heavyweight-lightweight mechanics and lots of support.

It would be delightful if FGU could accelerate efforts to support some more of the front runners. Accelerate the revamp on Symbaroum, maybe get a few more of the amazing campaign/scenarios added. Forbidden Lands as I said. Warhammer Fantasy. Mork Borg. Ironsworn. Zweihander. Dungeon World, even. Coyote and Crow. Blades in the Dark. Worlds Without Number. The more options that are available, the bigger the chance of catching a ride on one that takes off.

For me at least a bare-bones character sheet rule system is enough to get started without 5E levels of automation at first ... IF the hard work of bringing in all the content has been done. My gaming time is too limited to do data entry. Get the main rules converted and whatever seems like the best couple of adventures for each system to get started.

The barrier to entry has to be low enough that I can run my first few sessions without excessive homebrew prep time or data entry- I've got enough work to do learning the new system and learning how to run it on FGU. Hold my hand and do as much of that work for me as you can - and that's a plea to the games companies to provider starter materials to onboard GM's and get them running what you feel is the best of your system and your adventures, as quickly and as easily as possible. Make me a bundle with the rules I need plus a starter scenario or two. Make it as obvious a choice as Icespire Peak or LMOP.

And for heaven's sakes improve your sales pitch on the FGU store pages. Make your game sound exciting! Spell out why I should try it! What does it do well? What does it do better than D&D? Where does it sit in terms of rules crunch? Make me a tutorial video to show how it runs (it can be really short, but make it really exciting!)

What WotC are doing seems pretty despicable, but it is a BIG opportunity for the rest of the TTRPG community and part of that is going to be having the tools, RIGHT NOW, to support people migrating from 5E. So please SmiteWorks, I know you have a lot on your plate, but if there's any chance of putting some resources towards getting promised rulesets and data like FL, Symbaroum revamp, RuneQuest etc. bumped up and ready sooner, it would be really appreciated!

Cheers, Hywel

[Zacchaeus]

There seems to be 5 pages of rulesets on the Forge :)

Creating a ruleset is an expensive business and needs to be financially viable. There's no use spending $20k development time for a few hundred dollars in sales. There is CoreRPG, MoreCore and damned's new XCore rulesets which can be used theoretically to create anything. Now, over the years I've looked at numerous systems and the main problem that I've had with a lot of them is that they don't produce adventures; there's plenty source books but very little other material. For me I have no use for a ruleset - no matter how good it is - if there's not a few adventures around that use it. I never had time in the past to create my own and now I can't really be bothered. So I'd need a host of adventures to choose from and in most cases I don't see that being available.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the effort to create a ruleset for a niche game just isn't viable I'd have thought. Happy to be proved wrong of course.

[LordEntrails]

I agree, I don't think having more rulesets on FG makes it more appealing for a larger group of folks. (And I say this while working on my own very first ruleset using the Ruleset Wizard.) I've already played (and quite happily) games using CoreRPG and imo there really is little need for fringe rulesets. And I also agree with MR Z's statement that its the adventures and content that interests me for the smaller rulesets. But then again, look at all the content available on FG for Traveller, yet I can only image how small the player base is there given the pre-pandemic numbers that used to be released regularly.

Whatever the OGL 1.1 holds for the future, SmiteWorks has a license to release D&D stuff. A broader license than everyone else. And yes, WotC may decide to end that license sometime in the future, but it seems to me the stronger the FG community is in terms of WotC sales, the less likely that is.i.e. the more WotC stuff we buy on FG, the more likely WotC will maintain the SmiteWorks license. And, to reiterate, the SmiteWorks - WotC contract has a specific clause that protects us (buyers) for anything that we purchase on FG, it will always be available to us even if new sales are withdrawn and if the license for new content is withdrawn.

[Maximus212]

OGL 2.0 has dropped... or leaked, as a very mild re-skinning of 1.1. Does not look any better. And the FAQ that wizards put out as a response to the controversy doesn't look good either. Does anyone know if Fantasy grounds has any official statement about all this? how it will affect the system going forward?

[hmatilainen]

There seems to be 5 pages of rulesets on the Forge :)

Creating a ruleset is an expensive business and needs to be financially viable. There's no use spending $20k development time for a few hundred dollars in sales. There is CoreRPG, MoreCore and damned's new XCore rulesets which can be used theoretically to create anything. Now, over the years I've looked at numerous systems and the main problem that I've had with a lot of them is that they don't produce adventures; there's plenty source books but very little other material. For me I have no use for a ruleset - no matter how good it is - if there's not a few adventures around that use it. I never had time in the past to create my own and now I can't really be bothered. So I'd need a host of adventures to choose from and in most cases I don't see that being available.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the effort to create a ruleset for a niche game just isn't viable I'd have thought. Happy to be proved wrong of course.

This is one of the reasons I'm personally bit afraid for the future of all the VTT's out there. If the new OGL tries to be the only authorized version out there, and VTT-content is deliberately not included in the license, that probably leaves only WotC's own VTT where to play DnD in the future.

In Fantasy Grounds the content we've bought will be there, but how does it affect the future of the company if DnDBeyond is the only game in town sometime in the future? And as described here, creating rulesets for marginal games might not be financially viable. Also agreeing to the new OGL and paying 20-25% royalties of revenue is not really financially viable option for any company, unless you're Apple or it's already somehow baked into the pricing from the get-go.

I'm not a content creator and I just mostly play & run games for my group, but personally I'd just hate to lose any VTTs as more options is better and some competition is good. At least as long as it's healthy. Only one fat VTT in town in the future will just make things stale in my opinion.

[LordEntrails]

See this just posted from SmiteWorks: SmiteWorks Official Statement about OGL 1.1 and Open Gaming Licenses (fantasygrounds.com) (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?76394-SmiteWorks-Official-Statement-about-OGL-1-1-and-Open-Gaming-Licenses&p=674003#post674003)

[HywelPhillips]

I see a ruleset as necessary but not sufficient. As I said, for me at bare minimum it needs to also include all the inputted data from the core rulebooks of whatever system and at least a couple of really good initial scenarios. The rulesets I was most specifically asking for are the ones that I know have been promised or are being actively worked on - stuff like Forbidden Lands, Symbaroum and RuneQuest.

The ruleset is IMO the necessary bare minimum to make it worth having adventures and campaigns converted to FGU - which I agree is what's really needed to support VTT play, since it is such a lot of work to do all the data entry. The bare minimum is to have the necessary data structures laid out for stuff like NPC stat blocks to facilitate the data entry, which requires a ruleset, doesn't it? Or am I misunderstanding what is possible under CoreRPG?

Cheers, Hywel

[Zacchaeus]

Agnostic rulesets like CoreRPG, MoreCore and XCore will allow you to input character sheets, NPCs, items etc etc. Such a ruleset contains the basics of a ruleset (rolling dice; combat tracker, targeting. movement etc etc), but doesn't contain specific rules which would be found in a ruleset built on top of it (such as 5e, Pathfinder and many others). There's more theatre of the mind required or manually calculating things if using a core ruleset. Of course you have full control of text and reference stuff - so you could input a rulebook or anything else using one of these rulesets; but you may not necessarily be able to emulate some of the rules and automation that a more focused ruleset allows.

Having said that Moon Wizard has been pushing more and more functionality into CoreRPG in recent times and I've no doubt he'll continue to do so.

[HywelPhillips]

Hi Zacchaeus that's what I thought, thanks.

The point for me was to get that data entry input work done by someone who has the time so I can pay them to buy it from the store :)

Money I have (at the scale we're talking about for purchasing a load of stuff from the store).

Time sadly I do not. :(

I greatly appreciate the work you and others have done in all the 5E conversions and I appreciate that it may not be cost-effective to do it for smaller games. But Chaosium and Free League are only small by comparison with WotC, they're established players in terms of TTRPG publishers. I see a window of opportunity for some of these fantasy-genre systems in particular in the next few months and it would be great to have them on FGU to give them a chance to fly here. I've seen a LOT of people on my Twitter feed suggesting Forbidden Lands as a good 5E alternative at the less crunchy end (with the crunchy end clearly sewn up by Pathfinder 2 already) I point people to it a lot too because I like it. But it's not on FGU yet. Vaesen and Alien are sister systems, and Valyar has mentioned wanting to do FL soon. RuneQuest is in progress already - MBM has been working on it on and off. So encouragement and support from SW in the next few months especially might be particularly beneficial to get them over the hump and onto the store.

Cheers, Hywel

[Maximus212]

Aaaand there's the walk-back. WotC has delayed the new OGL, I'm glad they saw the backlash and course corrected. Let's hope they decide to play it straight and fiar. But I expect they're going to try to re-flavour and re-insert many of the clauses instead of just dropping them. The CEOs want their pound of flesh

[Nylanfs]

Ryan wrote an essay. :) (https://rsdancey.medium.com/22-years-ago-i-saved-d-d-today-i-want-to-save-the-open-gaming-license-77e79eaddfb2)

[damned]

There seems to be 5 pages of rulesets on the Forge :)

Creating a ruleset is an expensive business and needs to be financially viable. There's no use spending $20k development time for a few hundred dollars in sales. There is CoreRPG, MoreCore and damned's new XCore rulesets which can be used theoretically to create anything. Now, over the years I've looked at numerous systems and the main problem that I've had with a lot of them is that they don't produce adventures; there's plenty source books but very little other material. For me I have no use for a ruleset - no matter how good it is - if there's not a few adventures around that use it. I never had time in the past to create my own and now I can't really be bothered. So I'd need a host of adventures to choose from and in most cases I don't see that being available.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the effort to create a ruleset for a niche game just isn't viable I'd have thought. Happy to be proved wrong of course.

Shadow of the Demon Lord has a good number of adventures released for it already and there are at least another 6 coming.

[damned]

I agree, I don't think having more rulesets on FG makes it more appealing for a larger group of folks. (And I say this while working on my own very first ruleset using the Ruleset Wizard.) I've already played (and quite happily) games using CoreRPG and imo there really is little need for fringe rulesets. And I also agree with MR Z's statement that its the adventures and content that interests me for the smaller rulesets. But then again, look at all the content available on FG for Traveller, yet I can only image how small the player base is there given the pre-pandemic numbers that used to be released regularly.

Whatever the OGL 1.1 holds for the future, SmiteWorks has a license to release D&D stuff. A broader license than everyone else. And yes, WotC may decide to end that license sometime in the future, but it seems to me the stronger the FG community is in terms of WotC sales, the less likely that is.i.e. the more WotC stuff we buy on FG, the more likely WotC will maintain the SmiteWorks license. And, to reiterate, the SmiteWorks - WotC contract has a specific clause that protects us (buyers) for anything that we purchase on FG, it will always be available to us even if new sales are withdrawn and if the license for new content is withdrawn.

My understanding is Traveller is actually doing quite well. better than most.

[DeathMagnet]

Aaaand there's the walk-back. WotC has delayed the new OGL, I'm glad they saw the backlash and course corrected. Let's hope they decide to play it straight and fiar. But I expect they're going to try to re-flavour and re-insert many of the clauses instead of just dropping them. The CEOs want their pound of flesh

I don't think it's all about the money. They are trying to control the content.

"...contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build..."

[Seya]

I don't think it's all about the money. They are trying to control the content.

"...contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build..."

That's the new move if you disagree with me you're racist. It's only about money and getting rid of their competitors

[DmHesh]

If you've kept up with the OGL 1.1 there was a email from a WOTC employee. They basically said it's all about the bottom line and access to our money. We are the ones standing in the way with all the complaints. They are looking at D&D Beyond as a metric. Once everyone found out that so many people unsubsribed it crashed the site. They have now officially canceled the Ogl 1.1. We will see what now happens from here...

[feomor]

Where does the money come from? The money comes from the content,if you control the content you control the money.

[Nylanfs]

Semi-related to the OneD&D and OGL news. I forsee a LOT of new players coming to FG. $30 / month for D&D Beyond, including the VVT?


$30pm is for the highest tier, and includes monthly content drops

https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615097747983695872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1615097747983695872%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

[Seya]

Semi-related to the OneD&D and OGL news. I forsee a LOT of new players coming to FG. $30 / month for D&D Beyond, including the VVT?



https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615097747983695872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1615097747983695872%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Fantasy grounds needs to advertise. More people are joining foundry and the other new ones. This is a golden opportunity. Pump out some ads partner with people. Or Maybe Wizards will just buy fantasy grounds.

[ddavison]

We just started a 50% off sale for FGU lifetime licenses. $20 for standard and $75 for Ultimate.

[LordEntrails]

We just started a 50% off sale for FGU lifetime licenses. $20 for standard and $75 for Ultimate.
Great news, hope you are supporting that with advertising!
:)

[Sulimo]

LegalEagle has a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZQJQYqhAgY) up about the recent events.

He does not go over a lot of the stuff that's been covered elsewhere, he instead goes over the distinction between Copyright and Trademark, and how the OGL interacts with both.

[hmatilainen]

Semi-related to the OneD&D and OGL news. I forsee a LOT of new players coming to FG. $30 / month for D&D Beyond, including the VVT?

https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615097747983695872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1615097747983695872%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

That pricing is totally nuts and the end goal there has to be to disallow D&D-content in any other platform than theirs, ending any ongoing licenses within a year after their own VTT is up & running. There's no way me & my group of five would ever be forking out $30/month/player, averaging $1800 / year / group or roughly $100 / game (since we're all adults and life gets in a way too much, and can't play as often as we'd like).

Playing with pen & paper would be my preference anyway, but since I live in a different country, on the other side of Europe than rest of my players, a VTT is a necessity. Fantasy Grounds has been an excellent tool for that.

And in any case this whole debacle made me read more about Pathfinder 2e and it made me wonder why haven't we been playing that game already. I'm going to steal many of the mechanics for my current campaign, and then try to wrap that up asap. After that we can then switch over to playing Pathfinder. I'd love to get the books too (since book as an interface is unbeatable for me, even if I like reading some books on a kindle / mobile device), but what I'm wondering if there's a package that would include the books, pdfs & VTT materials without forking everything separately.

[damned]

If they can get that AI GM thing going...
But that is a lot of money especially when its everyone playing!

[ddavison]

That pricing is totally nuts and the end goal there has to be to disallow D&D-content in any other platform than theirs, ending any ongoing licenses within a year after their own VTT is up & running. There's no way me & my group of five would ever be forking out $30/month/player, averaging $1800 / year / group or roughly $100 / game (since we're all adults and life gets in a way too much, and can't play as often as we'd like).

Playing with pen & paper would be my preference anyway, but since I live in a different country, on the other side of Europe than rest of my players, a VTT is a necessity. Fantasy Grounds has been an excellent tool for that.

And in any case this whole debacle made me read more about Pathfinder 2e and it made me wonder why haven't we been playing that game already. I'm going to steal many of the mechanics for my current campaign, and then try to wrap that up asap. After that we can then switch over to playing Pathfinder. I'd love to get the books too (since book as an interface is unbeatable for me, even if I like reading some books on a kindle / mobile device), but what I'm wondering if there's a package that would include the books, pdfs & VTT materials without forking everything separately.

A lot of the Pathfinder content will grant you a PDF for free at Paizo.com if you buy it here. It won't cover the physical book.

[Milke]

...but what I'm wondering if there's a package that would include the books, pdfs & VTT materials without forking everything separately.

On most of the Pathfinder stuff in the FG store, there's a button to click about buying them as part of a bundle.
And, as ddavison mentioned, on most of the Paizo products, buying the FG product yields a free download of the PDF from the Paizo website (make sure to link your accounts from the FG store).

[Gotrii]

The position I would take (if I was someone who had created IP under the current OGL) would be simple...

Hasbro, having bought the D&D IP with an existing limitation on that IP via the OGL currently in place does not have can right to revoke it. The wording of said OGL is clear it was intended to provide assurity to any parties using it in perpetuity.

[DmHesh]

So D&D Shorts just posted on YouTube whats going on inside Wizards, and the future with the OGL. It's worse than most people thought. This is coming from people inside WotC itself. The VP of WotC Digital Chris Cao is out to destroy D&D Beyond and all VTTs. He wants to get rid of them and corner the market for WotC. They are going to push everyone into their VTT and run every other one out of business. Hasbro/WotC is wanting to septuple their money and make D&D a billion dollar business with micro transactions and milking the community. They don't give two shits about us, and view us as obstacles. If you want the whole story it's a 17min video....This is just TSR all over again.

[ddavison]

That doesn’t really make sense to me. They own D&D Beyond and just paid $145M for it. Why on Earth would they want to destroy it?

[DmHesh]

They were in the process of creating their own version of D&D Beyond. Chris Cao was not happy that it was bought. He thought they were creating a better product, and even after purchasing was wanting to abandon it for their own product. Like I said go watch the video. It's pretty indepth and gives and incite into what's really going on inside WotC.

[Khoros]

A lot of the Pathfinder content will grant you a PDF for free at Paizo.com if you buy it here. It won't cover the physical book.

Yup, confirm. Just downloaded the pfrpg 2e core rulebook and Hellknight Hill module pdfs for free from paizo yesterday.

[LordEntrails]

So D&D Shorts just posted on YouTube whats going on inside Wizards, ...
Isn't D&D Shorts the guy who just retracted his last big bold statement last week? That he was proven wrong about the D&D surveys not being read by anyone inside WotC.

This guy is not reliable. And seems to be more interested in driving clicks and creating controversy than any type of reliable "journalism".

[Ram Tyr]

That doesn’t really make sense to me. They own D&D Beyond and just paid $145M for it. Why on Earth would they want to destroy it?

Companies do this because it makes cents, or even dollars. Here is a discussion in a different field, but the same logic applies. (Edit: In the sense that a company could do this. I don't know enough about wotc internally to know that they did do this.)
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/do-companies-buy-competitors-in-order-to-shut-them-down

[DmHesh]

He retracted it due to some people actually caring about input from the community. Those people are the ones coming out and giving inside info. They and the design team do actually care. The person who seems to be the problem of it all is the VP of Digital Products Chris Cao. He and the new CEO of WotC want to push WotC to billion dollar business. Hasbro is losing money. The guy actually would rather not be involved and making his fun content. It was hilarious content. When people inside Wizards are coming to him and giving him verified info he feels responsible to report it.

[LordEntrails]

He retracted his statement because he was WRONG. His "inside" information is just as reliable now as it was then. Just like WotC has lost my trust in their intentions, Shorts has lost his credibility as well. You believe him if you wish, but portraying him as a reliable source to others is misleading.

[DmHesh]

Wow guess you've never been WRONG. He was at least willing to come out and admit his mistake, and correct it. His info has been corroborated by Gizmodo and other sources. You can choose to ignore it that's your choice. I choose to at least hear it and others saying similar info and make my own opinion.

[esmdev]

Wow guess you've never been WRONG. He was at least willing to come out and admit his mistake, and correct it. His info has been corroborated by Gizmodo and other sources. You can choose to ignore it that's your choice. I choose to at least hear it and others saying similar info and make my own opinion.

If someone with real power inside the company wanted D&D Beyond to go down in flames, then they would not have been so reactive to the mass exodus of subscribers from the platform, they'd have just continued on business as usual with OGL 1.1. They did, however, react and retract in short order which says the opposite of what your sources are telling you. The sort of thing that's going on right now is the sort of thing that loses executives their jobs, so it is possible that a different sort of change is coming if they can't fix this, which is looking more and more gloomy for Wizards.

[DmHesh]

From what was reported they were involved in making a competitor to D&D Beyond before purchasing it. Now they are having to support it because it ties into all their future plans. Here is the link to the video with all the info. https://youtu.be/J4kGMsZSdbY

[LordEntrails]

From what was reported they were involved in making a competitor to D&D Beyond before purchasing it. Now they are having to support it because it ties into all their future plans. Here is the link to the video with all the info. https://youtu.be/J4kGMsZSdbY

Edit: So where are the statements from these people?
Ginny Di, Ted from Nerd Immersion, Treantmonk, and the lawyer Noah Downs have all had access to verify that this material is real
---
Is there a source other than Shorts? As said, he's not reliable and therefore imo not to be believed UNLESS corroborated by independent source(s).

[esmdev]

From what was reported they were involved in making a competitor to D&D Beyond before purchasing it. Now they are having to support it because it ties into all their future plans. Here is the link to the video with all the info. https://youtu.be/J4kGMsZSdbY

WotC is really great at saying they are designing software but historically bad at actually releasing it. They tried for decades and consistently fail hard. So while your source may have some possibly legitimate source that they wanted to, or were in progress building a D&D Beyond clone, that doesn't mean they'd ever finish or release it. Even if they did make it to the finish line they would have to convince the DDB subscribers to switch.

Since they were partnered with DDB since its inception I don't see why they would bother creating a competitive product that costs them money to produce. The.purchase of DDB was a natural choice if they wanted something. It was developed, had subscribers and did its job really well. I suppose some executive with an ego trip might not like DDB but I'm sure he likes his annual bonus more than unemployment.

That is the problem with leaks, they might be true, they might not be true. You or I have no way to know for certain. You can choose to believe whichever you like, same with me.

[DmHesh]

Yeah Linda Codega on Gizmodo is also involved with all this as well. She wrote a huge article about the OGL, and has more coming according to that video I posted the link to. The video has a large description under it as well telling more about it.

[DmHesh]

WotC is really great at saying they are designing software but historically bad at actually releasing it. They tried for decades and consistently fail hard. So while your source may have some possibly legitimate source that they wanted to, or were in progress building a D&D Beyond clone, that doesn't mean they'd ever finish or release it. Even if they did make it to the finish line they would have to convince the DDB subscribers to switch.

Since they were partnered with DDB since its inception I don't see why they would bother creating a competitive product that costs them money to produce. The.purchase of DDB was a natural choice if they wanted something. It was developed, had subscribers and did its job really well. I suppose some executive with an ego trip might not like DDB but I'm sure he likes his annual bonus more than unemployment.

That is the problem with leaks, they might be true, they might not be true. You or I have no way to know for certain. You can choose to believe whichever you like, same with me.

Yep, that what they hired Chris Coa to do. He came from developing games for computer and mobile. They also brought in recently multiple people from Microsoft to help with this as well. Their new VTT is coming and these are the people who are building it.

[LordEntrails]

That is the problem with leaks, they might be true, they might not be true. You or I have no way to know for certain. You can choose to believe whichever you like, same with me.
Not only that, but imo it's often more about opinion and perspective. Vary rarely in large corporations (and even small ones) does one person's viewpoint (and opinion) really represent a complete picture, or is it unbiased.

It's interesting info no doubt, but it's tainted by a lack of perfect knowledge and by personal agendas. i.e. often those who leak info are dissatisfied with what they think is happening. Maybe rightly so, but often times because they don't see a full picture or even care about larger issues.

Its very common that the folks are the creator/contributor level don't care about larger long term issues and hence anything that goes against their pure vision of what the product should be incite discontent. I've seen this repeatedly with things like product design ("We should make this blender more powerful!" Despite legal requirements. "Our car should be the fastest in the world!" Despite that without a product affordable to the masses, the company will not be profitable.)

[esmdev]

Yeah Linda Codega on Gizmodo is also involved with all this as well. She wrote a huge article about the OGL, and has more coming according to that video I posted the link to. The video has a large description under it as well telling more about it.

There is so much misinformation circulating with correct information that it is better to reference something released by multiple trusted sources than to hop onto the first monetized YouTube video that claims to know stuff. Has Linda Codega produced an actual article on this subject or is he just dropping the name?

It would be easy enough for me to say I know several people inside WotC that have said in confidence that the D&D virtual tabletop plans to sell virtual figures for $5 each and that you can only have as many figures of a type as you own, so if you want to put 20 orcs into a module you have to buy 20 identical orc figures (some sources say there will be several variations on figures to add diversity and drive monetization), and that they cannot be reused in the same dungeon. Figures will also have a scaling cost based on the size difference from medium, +3 per variation. So large and small would be $8 while Tiny and Huge would be $11, etc. Also of note is that WotC isn't planning to implement rules, they just provide the interface, keeping the experience as close to the tabletop as possible. Another of my sources says that this is actually the PR spin because the your software developers were so far behind schedule and over budget that it was the best they could release by next year

None of the above is true, but it sounds true. If I were an insider leaker with actual information I think I would probably leak to CNN over DnD Shorts.

[esmdev]

Yep, that what they hired Chris Coa to do. He came from developing games for computer and mobile. They also brought in recently multiple people from Microsoft to help with this as well. Their new VTT is coming and these are the people who are building it.

Yes, it is true they have said it is coming. That is not the same as it actually being released. The internet is filled with listings of cancelled products, some canceled just before release. The most recent news from Hasbro is that they cancelled 5 upcoming software projects that were in development. So until you actually see it, can buy or subscribe to it, it doesn't really exist.

Developers from Microsoft mean nothing, they aren't anymore super awesomeness than others, do you know them specifically? Do you know the quality of their individual work and accomplishments? For all we know they are developers who were laid off for being lazy? They might be top tier programmers that WotC is paying premium dollars for. We don't know...

As for Chris Coa, what does he matter in software development? He's a marketing guy not a software engineer? He know how to make you want something not how to actually make it exist.

[celestian]

He retracted his statement because he was WRONG. His "inside" information is just as reliable now as it was then. Just like WotC has lost my trust in their intentions, Shorts has lost his credibility as well. You believe him if you wish, but portraying him as a reliable source to others is misleading.

He wasn't so much wrong as he was reporting what the source told him. THAT source believed that the surveys were not being utilized. He's since had confirmation from various other people within WoTC that countered, or at least adjusted that perspective since.

You can dismiss him for this one issue or you can go watch his latest where he shows all the information from all his sources that have been confirmed with multiple other people.

His last request was that any sources send their information to the person that broke the story to begin with (the press person).

I find him much more reliable than WoTC at this stage. Almost every lawyer that has looked at the contracts have said it contains various backdoor and "tricky" wording to get what we were all complaining about to begin with. So, we know they are not above using slight of hand to con us into believing anything they say at this point. We KNOWN WoTC/Hasbro is not being honest based on that alone. Emphasizing a perspective given from a inside source by someone not in the press that is later cleared up? Not even comparable to what Hasbro/WoTC are pushing out. If you're dismissing him out of hand for that I expect you'll never have anything to do with Hasbro.

[slobooger]

As far as I am concerned, I will be migrating AWAY from WotC games and to other options that play just as well. Ive played DnD since 2nd edition.
Well, that experience can translate well to another game under ORC licensing so its no loss to me, mostly a loss to HASBRO for being greedy and wanting to REVOKE 1.0a.
We have read what they want, and many of us are saying NO.