Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

dndbeyond.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 249 posts

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#141

Post by hinkley »

pdonis wrote: post #123
hellcow wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was certainly their gamble... and it clearly didn't work. The problem for WotC is that Dungeon Masters (DMs) are the decision-makers for the playerbase. DMs are higher information consumers than players. They are the ones looking up obscure 3rd party homebrew fixes for issues inherent in 5e's design. They are the ones memorizing hundreds of pages of rules _for fun_. And if your DM says, "I'm going to switch us o…

> The problem for WotC is that Dungeon Masters (DMs) are the decision-makers for the playerbase. DMs are higher information consumers than players. I think this is a very important point to recognize. The proper market unit for a game like D&D is the play group, led by the DM, not the individual player.

I don't think a DM will go entirely against their players' wishes, but I could easily see a DM and 2 players deciding they can 'work on' the rest of the group. So you could lose 100% of your users by pissing off the wrong 33%. Or 50% for pissing off 1/6th of your users. Which still supports the road trip etiquette of "don't piss off the driver."

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#143

Post by Aeolun »

jofer wrote: post #83
boomboomsubban wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>WoTC releases the 30th aniversary edition for MTG, which is 60 random cards for 1000 $ which are officially marked as non-tournament legal. The MTG community is furious and for once people from all corners of the community come together to boycott this product. The rage is great and enduring. Yet somehow the product completely sold out in under an hour. I really don't understand the outrage on that decision, would y…

It's honestly not so much that set. It's the sheer amount of new supplemental sets that they're throwing out, many of which are cards that you basically _have_ to but to remain competitive. Formats like legacy and vintage are no longer things you can buy into and play a similar deck for a long period of time. Instead, they're things where you have to buy new cards once every two to four weeks to remain competitive. T…

> It's the sheer amount of new supplemental sets that they're throwing out, many of which are cards that you basically _have_ to but to remain competitive.

That’s literally been going since around Mirrodin. It’s why I gave up on the game.

Now I just have a massive set of only commons that everyone can build their decks with and I don’t have to deal with the insane power inflation.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#144

Post by cma »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #131
cma wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game rules/mechanics usually can't be copyrighted other than just the literal text of descriptions of them. Does this give anything you couldn't have by cloning the rules with different wording flair?

The thing is, compatibility with D&D wasn't necessarily about mechanics. Fundamentally TTRPG mechanics are really just about simulating probability distributions with dice. There's the broader question of how to use a given probability distribution where. What D&D editions do is develop a set of base mechanics, basic probability distributions, and then create a framework on how to apply them. This includes monsters,…

Ah thanks, I had thought the core thing was content agnostic.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#145

Post by Aeolun »

lbotos wrote: post #77
roenxi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also - why are people upset over a product (that doesn't affect the game) being sold to people others? I feel like important context is missing here over why anyone would be upset by this.

Imagine a game with 30 years of history, genre defining, that has die hard fans and then take some cards, make effectively "fake" versions (not tournament legal) and charge $1000 for 60 of them. They could have done a LOT more cooler things and passionate lovers of the game wish that they did.

Why not make them tournament legal? It’d cut down on some of the insane prices for these things (like house prices, sad for those who just bought at a huge premium, but ultimately good for the rest).

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#146

Post by hinkley »

freshhawk wrote: post #98
hellcow wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was certainly their gamble... and it clearly didn't work. The problem for WotC is that Dungeon Masters (DMs) are the decision-makers for the playerbase. DMs are higher information consumers than players. They are the ones looking up obscure 3rd party homebrew fixes for issues inherent in 5e's design. They are the ones memorizing hundreds of pages of rules _for fun_. And if your DM says, "I'm going to switch us o…

Why didn't it work? Paizo had a big jump in sales ... for Paizo, the numbers are a rounding error for WotC. Same with the DnDBeyond boycott drive, did that actually make a dent? To me there is basically no evidence for this supposed level of consumer power that the fandom is claiming they have. WotC's response was the most half-assed, who-gives-a-shit, PR statement I've ever seen. They did not treat it like a real PR…

The point is they tried to make a money grab from their most influential users. If those users go they take a lot of people with them.

CR started out on Pathfinder. Matt Mercer has been building his own world for 10 years as a full time job. If you convince CR to switch rulebooks a lot of people will follow. If you goad him into making his own rulebook, then you haven't just helped your competition, you just invented new competition.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#147

Post by wolverine876 »

jron wrote: post #53
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WOTC (Hasbro) was trying to revoke a license the authors intended to be irrevocable. WotC was the legal author, and gratuitous licenses are revocable at will, anyway.

The original author is on record stating that it was intended to be irrevocable. There was also a quote on the official WOTC website stating the license couldn't be revoked. IANAL but I wouldn't take that case to court.

The original author was an executive at WotC, with access to professional legal advice. If they wanted the license to be irrevocable, they would have put it in the license.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#148

Post by wolverine876 »

johnday wrote: post #23
tunesmith wrote: post #11

Is there actually not a catch here? I'm only somewhat familiar with the debate.

Yep - not only is there no catch right now , but they literally can never add one. The SRD is released under CC-BY-4.0. The only point of contention is what happens to their new product, One D&D, which will probably retain some nasty payment structure, and almost certainly not be OGL'd. That's fine though - if they build a walled garden around One D&D, they simply won't be able to compete against the open community o…

> not only is there no catch right now, but they literally can never add one. The SRD is released under CC-BY-4.0.

They can't change that particular SRD, but material not in the SRD can be changed as can new material. Also, as they leave the old OGL intact, it is a catch in itself: 1) It's generally restricts rights much more than grants them [0], and 2) WotC believes they can revoke it at any time.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#149

Post by Aeolun »

victorvosk wrote: post #50
SeanAnderson wrote: post #6

The community WOTC built over decades shouldn't have to give feedback that 85%+ identify with in order to achieve results that are desirable. If community sentiment is so lopsided then what was the rationale to make the decision in the first place and how was the communities' desire not implicitly understood? There is no doubt in my mind that WOTC (let's be real, Hasbro) has enough self-awareness to have realized the…

Real people have disagreements and work through them. Lets not be mad for the sake of being mad. It was completely within the rights of WOTC to do whatever they wanted. People complained and they decided not to do and guarantee they will never do it in the future. Be happy.

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#150

Post by Aeolun »

trynewideas wrote: post #108
hellcow wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was certainly their gamble... and it clearly didn't work. The problem for WotC is that Dungeon Masters (DMs) are the decision-makers for the playerbase. DMs are higher information consumers than players. They are the ones looking up obscure 3rd party homebrew fixes for issues inherent in 5e's design. They are the ones memorizing hundreds of pages of rules _for fun_. And if your DM says, "I'm going to switch us o…

There's still a lot to see about what D&D One actually is in terms of product and not system. But these moves really make me suspect that they're going to try to make it a walled garden of player-driven transactional rewards, and to minimize the DM role as much as possible. If their theoretical, non-existent One VTT does all the mechanical work for the DM and dresses up lots of cheap player customization options that…

I mean, if they want to tap a new market of casual DM’s, then that’s fine. But do thry really need to ruin the existing game over it?
Post reply on HN