• kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

        • Flushmaster@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

  • Glytch@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.)

  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Flushmaster@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Maybe if those games had more appealing rule systems, other publishers would make products using them.

  • UNY0N@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

  • Kroxx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Jeeve65@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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…

      • ...m...@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        …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)

        • Flushmaster@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • Flushmaster@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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…

  • ReCursing@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Now if only there were any chance it would be a good rules set and not the blandest thing on the menu

      • Kichae@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Is it really a replacement when you’re just republishing them in a slightly different font?

        • becausechemistry@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

    • skulbuny@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • 1 tripod in 3 trenchcoats@dice.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      @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)