Hey Horace (and other D&D folks)
-
This guy is amusing:
Link to video@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
-
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
OH YEAH. That was definitely not lost on me, either. And what's amazing to me is that they think the community works like they do: a few "loud voices" at the top forcing everyone else to follow suit. Like, they don't understand any other kind of communication structure.
At the start of all this madness, most of the prominent voices in the community have said they didn't want to cover this shit. Then a lot of misinformation got thrown around, which they tried to stamp out at which point they just said fuck it and started making videos. A lot of this has started from the bottom going up.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-oglWhen we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
-
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-oglWhen we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-oglWhen we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
I like how they hit the "we must protect woke values from bigots" a couple times. Then this last part where they really want to let everybody know that they didn't lose. Jesus that is so on the nose. Idiots.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-oglWhen we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
I like how they hit the "we must protect woke values from bigots" a couple times. Then this last part where they really want to let everybody know that they didn't lose. Jesus that is so on the nose. Idiots.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
This guy is amusing:
Link to videoI watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.
And now this one.
This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.
I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.
More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-oglWhen we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
I like how they hit the "we must protect woke values from bigots" a couple times. Then this last part where they really want to let everybody know that they didn't lose. Jesus that is so on the nose. Idiots.
Hilariously, it was only by bowing to the fans that they made those changes in the first place. Their fans have always been the source of woke ideology creeping in, and their fans know that. This revisionist history is sure going to piss off a lot of people.
-
Supposed to have a game with my group today, and I think I'll show up but I'm bowing the fuck out. I'd much rather we play a different system but I doubt everyone else even cares all that much.
Which I get. Everyone's got a different threshold for scumminess in the shit they buy and use, and those lines are informed more by personal preferences, utility, the number viable alternatives and a bunch of other things that have to do with ethics but I don't care I'm fucking done.
-
Supposed to have a game with my group today, and I think I'll show up but I'm bowing the fuck out. I'd much rather we play a different system but I doubt everyone else even cares all that much.
Which I get. Everyone's got a different threshold for scumminess in the shit they buy and use, and those lines are informed more by personal preferences, utility, the number viable alternatives and a bunch of other things that have to do with ethics but I don't care I'm fucking done.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Supposed to have a game with my group today, and I think I'll show up but I'm bowing the fuck out. I'd much rather we play a different system but I doubt everyone else even cares all that much.
Which I get. Everyone's got a different threshold for scumminess in the shit they buy and use, and those lines are informed more by personal preferences, utility, the number viable alternatives and a bunch of other things that have to do with ethics but I don't care I'm fucking done.
I admire your principled stand. I hope the group isn’t too disappointed.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Supposed to have a game with my group today, and I think I'll show up but I'm bowing the fuck out. I'd much rather we play a different system but I doubt everyone else even cares all that much.
Which I get. Everyone's got a different threshold for scumminess in the shit they buy and use, and those lines are informed more by personal preferences, utility, the number viable alternatives and a bunch of other things that have to do with ethics but I don't care I'm fucking done.
I admire your principled stand. I hope the group isn’t too disappointed.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Supposed to have a game with my group today, and I think I'll show up but I'm bowing the fuck out. I'd much rather we play a different system but I doubt everyone else even cares all that much.
Which I get. Everyone's got a different threshold for scumminess in the shit they buy and use, and those lines are informed more by personal preferences, utility, the number viable alternatives and a bunch of other things that have to do with ethics but I don't care I'm fucking done.
I admire your principled stand. I hope the group isn’t too disappointed.
I wish I could say it was that, but really it just killed the fun for me. I hate looking at the books.
Fortunately, we decided to fumble our way through Pathfinder 2e.
-
Hell no. Absolutely no fucking way.
-
Hell no. Absolutely no fucking way.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Hell no. Absolutely no fucking way.
If we can give AIs social security numbers, we could give them jobs and incomes. Then they could have hobbies. They could play D&D with other AIs, and they would buy each new source book as it came out. Which would also be written by AIs.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Hell no. Absolutely no fucking way.
If we can give AIs social security numbers, we could give them jobs and incomes. Then they could have hobbies. They could play D&D with other AIs, and they would buy each new source book as it came out. Which would also be written by AIs.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Hell no. Absolutely no fucking way.
If we can give AIs social security numbers, we could give them jobs and incomes. Then they could have hobbies. They could play D&D with other AIs, and they would buy each new source book as it came out. Which would also be written by AIs.
If you want to make D&D into WoW then just fucking do it already, Wizards.
These details will be released Tues night/Wed, apparently.
I'm not so much into the drama for its own sake as I'm already pretty much over the system. But the important takeaway here—which I'm sure will be completely ignored—is where we're headed more generally. I'm interested to see the audience reaction to gauge how many others out there value human relationships and how many are pining for a Wall-E hellscape.
-
A better, human response today:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
They've managed to slap back the shadowy figure with the entangled ego from any indirect presence in this message. Good move.
-
A better, human response today:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
They've managed to slap back the shadowy figure with the entangled ego from any indirect presence in this message. Good move.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
A better, human response today:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
They've managed to slap back the shadowy figure with the entangled ego from any indirect presence in this message. Good move.
Fucking Kyle Brink has been working there for about 3 months now. He's been put there as a total patsy. Poor bastard.
-
WE FUCKING DID IT!
Suck a bag of smoky tiefling balls, Chris Cao, you walking disappointment with more dick in your personality than your pants.
Choke on sweaty orc scrotum, Cynthia Williams, you fucking eight-dollar haircut of a human being.
Fuck you both right off!
Link to video
-
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
I hope you can rejoin your game now Aqua.
We already switched, so, fuck 'em!
-
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Link to video
DND Shorts got han solo. Good for him.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Link to video
DND Shorts got han solo. Good for him.
@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):
Link to video
DND Shorts got han solo. Good for him.
Totally tracks, too. He was very reluctant to get involved, but WotC folks reached out to him (probably because he was well-known but no one had any ties to him so they couldn't track the source of the leaks). And he posted some questionable things here and there, but ultimately, yeah, he was a good guy.
