Too little too late tbh
Yeah I’m not buying shit from wotc/hasbro
I wish there was a decent alternative to MtG. D&D has about a million (better) competitors, but MtG doesn’t have anything that I’m aware of.
I’ve honestly toyed with the idea of making my own CCG/TCG just to jump ship.
The best card game out there right now is the Digimon tcg. The games are fast and they simply do not do box chaff. And of all the current tcgs, it’s got the biggest actual playerbase outside of Yu-Gi-Oh.
Alternatively, the Pokemon card game is fully owned by Nintendo now. They aren’t doing a great job with it IMHO, but a lot of people do collect the cards.
There’s a digital TCG which is almost identical to MTG called Eternal. It’s free on Steam and mobile. Recommend you check it out and see if you like it. I personally think it makes much better use of the digital medium than MTG arena, which often felt clunky due to the way the rules had to be ported from tabletop.
Shadowverse: evolve is pretty fun though no one plays it and good luck finding cards.
I already have my rule book. I don’t plan on updating it.
If it’s under a CC license you can literally publish it yourself with a few things tacked on. That’s what creative commons does. It’s basically public domain at that point.
Exactly
Yeah, but if you make homebrew they don’t like, they’ll send the Pinkertons after you.
(I know that was about an MTG set. I’m just making a joke about how little faith I have in WOTC.)
This includes all class features, monsters, rules expressions and anything that isn’t trademarked as intellectual property. Essentially, you get mechanics for cover but not Beholders, martial archetypes but not the city and denizens of Baldur’s Gate.
Is this even necessary? Isn’t all of that stuff already non-copyrightable?
You are correct. They do this because corporations in the past have sued over even though rules, etc. are fair use. When they first started the OGL they gained a lot of goodwill from the community.
Short answer, no. There is a lot of nitpicky fine print and “nuance” involved but while you cannot copyright rolling a twenty sided die you can copyright a bunch of distinct and organized thoughts and specific groups thereof, such as the collection of rules that make up a class or subclass. If that class, subclass, spell, made up monster with a specific name and abilities, etc is published in some work that is sold for profit then legal action can occur.
Anything under creative commons effectively becomes public domain. If it appears in a WotC book, digital content, etc and is not specifically under CC, like say spells and subclasses from any supplement not included in that (such as Xanathar or Tasha), it is copyrighted and WotC can and will sue you if you republish it.
Just finish dying already. I’m sick and tired of this drama. Everybody and their grandma has a better product and their shit keeps getting free exposure.
It’s been so frustrating seeing people on YouTube and wherever who have spent the past 18 months “spotlighting” and “advocating for playing” other systems climb all over each other to praise this move. A move that does nothing but tell 3rd party publishers that they can safely go back to ignoring Shadowrun, Pathfinder, and OSR games.
Maybe if those games had more appealing rule systems, other publishers would make products using them.
It’s good news for sure. But I still don’t trust WotC.
And Pathfinder 2e is just plain better. In four decades of playing TTRPGs I’ve never played a ruleset so tactical, so clean, so enjoyable. It’s a thing of beauty. So I could care less what happens with D&D.
I’m playing Pathfinder for the first time after never having played D&D (aside from bg3 I guess) and man… Maybe it’s because I’m new to it, using roll20, the DM/group, or the campaign is just confusing but I can’t fathom thinking it’s clean.
I’m finding a lot of it very complicated and confusing. Everything seems to have some underlying system that requires different rolls and numbers and every time I try to look up an answer instead of asking, I wind up with more questions…
Please don’t take that as an insult to the game - I AM having fun 15+ sessions in…I’m just surprised to see you describe it that way. The group is all veteran players who are willing to help me out but it feels like they’re so much stuff that you have to memorize to do anything. So many caveats I wouldn’t know if one guy wasn’t a rules lawyer (that’s a compliment)
Pathfinder 2e is definitely more complicated than DND 5e, but in return you get a much more interesting, expressive game, in my opinion. When people say it’s cleanly designed they are normally comparing it to pathfinder 1e, which is a labyrinth of bizarre rules, pointless edge cases and overly crunchy rolls.
I’m playing my first PathFinder 2e game right now, and while I do prefer it over 5e, I definitely think there’s a lot of opportunity to streamline.
Also I can’t remember what exactly it was, but there was something I needed to do when leveling up my wizard that was hidden in the text of some paragraph in the class description, which was less than ideal, lol.
Pretty much my only use of AI is asking it what page to look at for the rule I need.
It’s probably better to just search the Archives of Nethys. That should have links to most of the buried rules sitting beneath whatever you’re looking for.
I assume you are playing 2e.
I definitely get that. Pathfinder (like D&D and other rules-heavy TTRPGs) has a learning curve, and things can get confusing for newer players.
Imho any game is either rules-heavy, and as such closer to reality with more defined rules for various situations, or it is rules-light, where GM-Interpretation is other needed to determine what to role. (Or somewhere in between)
Any rules-heavy game is going to take time to learn, and sometimes it will be unclear what is correct. But I find that the PF2e rules are actually very clear, you just have to pay close attention to the wording.
For example, if you get an attack of opportunity(AoO), can you grapple instead of attacking? Can you trip?
The answer is in the descriptions of those actions. An attack of opportunity allows for a strike action. A grapple is a standard action. A trip is a strike action. So a trip is allowed, a grapple isn’t.
The entire game is built like this. Can a barbarian use this action while raging? Well, does it have the rage trait? If not, then no. Spells no longer have levels, they have ranks, so that no one confuses them with character level. It’s all in the wording.
But again, I’m approaching this as a TTRPG veteran who has GMed systems like shadowrun and world of darkness, that are basically the poster-children for needlessly complicated and/or conflicting rules. I totally understand that any rules-heavy game can be confusing.
Imho any game is either rules-heavy, and as such closer to reality with more defined rules for various situations, or it is rules-light, where GM-Interpretation is other needed to determine what to role. (Or somewhere in between)
I don’t think more rules necessarily mean more like reality. You can have a bunch of rules for grappling, and create a system that anyone who actually does hand-to-hand stuff would say is nonsense.
That said, I think a lot of people would enjoy lighter systems than d20. Maybe not the people who get a kick out of the “lonely fun” of reading about builds online, but the people who just show up to play and the people who are there for a story? They’d probably be happier in Fate.
I do agree. The most fun I’ve ever had with a TTRPG is as a player in a Monster of the Week game, which is super rules-light. And we do get a very good representation of real life using these mechanics, but that’s because thw GM is really good at making decisions about how mechanics work for a particular PC abilities, and then sticking to it.
(My inexperience is showing - I thought Pathfinder and 2e were synonymous like…pathfinder is based on the d&d version 2e ruleset. But yes, we are playing 2e!)
I appreciate the response, you do make some good points. After I posted that I was trying to think of examples and I think my biggest complaints might all be related to confusion using roll20 itself… Like where I’m supposed to add numbers. It wasn’t until I replaced my bow that I learned I had my first one entered totally wrong (GM noticed it when helping me input the new one) and I was doing less damage than I should have been. Obviously I can’t expect the site to have every spell and item in the game ready to add with 1 click…but it WOULD be nice if feats that modify a stat did so automationally or something. Do you know of any good guides on using roll20 specifically for 2e?
I think the thing I wish was “better” about pathfinder is the streamlining for new players. I love dense video games so I’m not scared of that, I just wish I didn’t have to consult the rules lawyer every time something new happened. It definitely feels like a game you need to study in your off time to grasp the complexities. I think that’s my only “complaint” about the game itself.
Pathfinder 1st Edition was a branch of DnD 3.5, it is occasionally called 3.5.5 or 3.75. It is pretty much a 3rd party patch for 3.5 but uses the same core systems. That, 3.5 and PF1e, is kind of a mess.
I’m not surprised you find PF2e confusing, but from a design standpoint I would call it clean, considering everything that is going on. It is deep, but well organized. As opposed to DnD 5e, which is relatively shallow, which can make it easier to jump into, but not as well organized. The messiest part of 5e is the “natural language” philosophy they went with, which can leave a lot of rules ambiguous. It was supposed to make it easier to intuitively pick up and play, but it also makes it much easier to have misconceptions and anything that is slightly unintuitive can easily be accidentally used the wrong way for ages. PF2e might have a lot of interconnected rules depth, but it also has a less ambiguous guide for dealing with it, which is what enfranchised players will generally mean by “clean.”
My PF2e GM has been using roll20 for years, I’ll talk to him and DM you some tips if he has anything. (I’ve only played in person so far)
This is Liebnitzian thinking.
If improving the simulation always means more difficulty, then that means the rulesets are all perfectly efficient.
However, if the rulesets are not perfectly efficient, then some of them could be made easier to learn, while still being as good or better at simulation and distinctions.
Thanks for the knowledge dump.
I was just describing a general relationship between complexity and realism that I have experienced, it’s certainly not a perfect correlation.
Agreed so much praise for pathfinder but honestly I don’t see it.
The group I’m with can’t stand d&d and I didn’t want to play with strangers so I’m “stuck” with it. It’s not bad, just a lot to take in
It feels too tight for me. I dislike Wizards but 5e offers the right level of crunch and juicy mixed. Too much crunch becomes a war tactics simulator I’m not about.
I prefer systems like Straight to VHS that really let creativity fly. I don’t need a feat to tell me what makes me special
The system is clean. The books?.. They could explain the system a little more clearly in some places.
I would love to play a Baby’s First Pathfinder Campaign that introduced the systems one by one. Though maybe that’s just a d&d campaign…
The Beginner Box does this
Is it a shorter campaign? I’d be willing to join a group of strangers if it’s only a couple sessions, I just couldn’t commit to a long one
Yeah it’s maybe 3 or 4 sessions at most. It’s analogous to the first act of LMOP in 5e terms. Literally just a single small dungeon. Two floors, like 6 rooms on each floor. Rooms gradually introduce new mechanics like the first room is just a basic fight. Then there’s a room that teaches the most basic of skill checks. Then one that teaches about conditions, one that teaches about damage over time, one that teaches about traps, etc.
That seems like what I should have started with, then.
It’s at least partly because you’re using roll20. Switch to Foundry. It does all the math and automation for you. You don’t have to memorize how all those noodly mechanics work.
Does Trip target fortitude or reflex? Idk, the Trip action macro does it for me.
Might be a hard sell to the group but I’ll see what they say. I just replied to the OC saying this but in retrospect, a lot of my issues are definitely with roll20 and not 2e. Feels like when I have to enter things in 5 different places sometimes!
Yeah I’ve only used roll20 briefly but my experience with it left me wondering why it’s the defacto recommendation for 5e players. Foundry works a lot better for crunchy systems like PF2E, and at a certain point it’s easier with a non-crunchy system like 5e to just use something minimal like Owlbear Rodeo or Tabletop Sim
I’m sure it also didn’t help that I only had a day or two to put together a level 7 character. Having to manually enter everything for a game I’ve never played was a lot
Oh my God, you were playing a level 7 for your first time‽ Yeah that would ruin anyone’s experience. PF2E isn’t like 5e where higher levels just make your character more badass. The game genuinely gets more complex as you level up. That’s why you’re supposed to start the game at level 1.
Yeah, I joined their campaign when someone had to drop out. We’re up to 14 now and I deeply regret the decisions I’ve made along the way but it’s too hard to backtrack now lol
When we’re done with this one we’re gonna do the GM’s homebrew and I’ll be putting more thought into what I want to play. I’m sure you’ll be seeing my post requesting input in the coming weeks…the possibilities are very daunting.
WOTC could offer to come suck me off and still wouldn’t give them a fuckin dime. Fuck you Hasbro, you lazy sacks of shit wanted to have intellectual rights to work you didn’t create just because it’s in a rule system you have some IP in. You forever burned the bridge for me.
2024 ruleset? Is that a 6e? A 5.5?
No, it is the 2024 version of the 5th edition rules. Supposedly fully compatible with existing adventures, and not breaking existing characters.
I expect people will refer to it as 5.5, or 5.2, or anything except ‘2024’. But we’lll see…
…it’s as substantive a revision from fifth edition as the second edition was from AD+D: id est yeah, sixth edition, but the new SRD will be labelled 5.2…
(marketing calls it D+D 50; marketing called fifth edition dungeons & dragons, no version number)
Is this the one where they tried to remove “racism” from a make-believe world with fantasy races?
Among other things, yes. Some things I have seen do strike me as logical tweaks and fixes much like 3.5 was to 3e, but some are clearly attempts at “fixing” PR problems by people who don’t understand why they’re having those problems in the first place. And at least in some cases I expect are personally responsible for said PR problems. It’s kind and like a Three Stooges skit about corporate mismanagement, but they honestly think they’re doing a good job.
I haven’t played that variation, but I didn’t like what I read about it. For one, I like that the races are different. World of Warcraft homogenized the races and later the classes, and it took so much character away from the game. There was no longer a reason to build a diverse party, anything would work. It makes sense for the D&D races to be different and have different benefits and drawbacks, they’re from massively different backgrounds and environments. It makes sense for people to be wary of Loth Sworn Drow, when they’re pledged to an evil spider queen that demands dominion over everyone else. They’re literally evil. Trying to insert real world political concerns into a fantasy game is really annoying to me, especially when I retreat into that game to get away from the real world and all of its concerns.
Yeah, and my personal opinion of the Drow is that you can still have matriarchal spider themed villains and not be “problematic” if you just st officially decannonize all of the weird-ass kinky fetish stuff that Ed Greenwood wrote into their original description. And the same can be said of most “problematic” things in Forgotten Realms, which is the source of a lot of the stuff that many consider to be “generic D&D.”
Seriously, go through the deep lore of FR and you will find a bunch of stuff that reads like it was written by a horny thirteen year old that wants to be edgy and kinky but clearly doesn’t know how fetishes or anything occult actually work beyond involving leather, whips, and bloody sacrifice rituals at orgy parties like a midwestern church granny will tell you happen every time anybody plays Dungeons and Dragons. I wonder where they got that impression from…
Now if only there were any chance it would be a good rules set and not the blandest thing on the menu
This is in reference to the 5e rules. You know, the line they are ready to replace?
Yes I know. 5e is the blandest rpg system going
Is it really a replacement when you’re just republishing them in a slightly different font?
Have… have you read any of the playtest material? Like, I think they’re a bunch of dinguses too. But there are some substantial modifications in there that everyone will feel when playing.
They’ve already lost me to Kobold Press 5e materials as well as games like Wanderhome and Kids On Bikes 2
put everything under the orc license and we can talk.
Until the next time they try to revoke the license, you mean?
@wahming @HubertManne There’s no revoking a Creative Commons.
There’s no revoking the OGL either. That didn’t stop them from trying.
the writing of the ogl was a little loose with that which allowed them to try. orc was made to fix that.
Source? That was not my understanding of the OGL. It guaranteed a perpetual license to users, and there is no legal precedence for such a revocation. That didn’t stop them from trying to bully everybody into submission. What reason is there to think any other license would make a difference? It’s not about the chances of them winning, it’s about the legal trouble and bills they can cause. I’m not sure why anybody would trust hasbro / wotc after that fuckup, regardless of their promises.
The text of OGL 1.0a does not say that its irrevocable, and that was the big problem. It does say perpetual, but not irrevocable, and that was where the supposed crux of the argument came in. That said, during the OGL debacle, i saw it pointed out that the legal licensing definition of “irrevocable” was decided in court years after the ogl was written. I know the original writers of it had come out and said that they had intended it to be irrevocable, though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License
Linda Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0. Codega explained that while the original OGL granted a “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” it also included language around authorized versions of the license and “according to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL”.
basically their lawyers combed through and thought they found a way around it. ORC was cleaned and and to make it clear that is not possible has this:
b. Modifications. This ORC License may not be amended, superseded, modified, updated, repealed, revoked, or deauthorized. Neither You nor Licensor may modify the terms of this ORC License; however, You may enter into a separate agreement of Your own making provided such agreement does not seek to modify the terms hereof. This ORC License does not, and shall not be interpreted to reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this ORC License.
Big team of lawyers beats moral high ground every time. The law is pay to win.
@wahming @HubertManne
The ogl and orc use unintelligible language, and have little legal precedent for rulings.CC licences have neither problem.
I don’t see how this https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode.en has less intelligible language than this https://paizo.com/orclicense
They don’t control the ORC. They can’t even LARP revoking it, unlike the OGL.
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license is so much more permissive and liberal than the ORC license. More people benefit from more rights because of it being in CC-BY 4.0 instead of the ORC.
well yeah as its on the most permissive ends of the creative commons licenses and if they were to use it they likely would user closer to the other end of the spectrum. these are companies though that are selling products but just want to allow folks to make their own derivations based around the ruleset without worrying about it and allowing folks to use the ruleset without buying it but not allow people to sell copies of their specific work.
And now we start waiting for the other shoe to drop.
This means that i can make a game with this rules and dont havent to pay?
@loboaureo @copacetic yeah. Until they decide to argue to revoke the license for reasons.
(Also you have to watch out what part is covered under the license, some stuff is gonna be product identity)
(Actually, the beneficial part of this is mostly that you can use their own expression of the rules to make games. Rules as such are not copyrightable, but if you are expressing the rules too similar to their own texts they still could sue you. Using such a license is supposed to take care of that)
