Dungeons and Dragons, The OGL and Wizards of the Coast

[Kalidor]

Given that hardly anyone here seems to be very invested in keeping up with the TTRPG sphere it doesn't surprise me I haven't seen anything posted about the OGL and how WotC has basically burned the goodwill of the gaming industry to the ground.

This month has been an utter dumpster fire in how this mess has been handled but since I believe (and if I'm wrong please let me know) that the bulk of the people here are normies who aren't deeply entrenched into the industry side of things and how the actions of WotC of attempting to revoke the OGL 1.0a has truly harmed this industry and hundreds, of not thousands, of independent publishers.

Before I get too deep into things I'm curious who has followed this or maybe even who plays and knows about D&D but has not heard anything about this?

What are your thoughts on this?

There's a good chance if you have questions about any of this, I have answers.

 

[Daith]

I'm moderately aware of whats been going on. WotC seems intent on burning goodwill lately between the D&D OGL drama and milking M:tG players dry anyway they can. Kind of sucks with the OGL as I finally start gettinng in with a play group, not that it's that big of an effect on those not looking to publish anything themselves.

 

[ZakuConvoy]

I think there has been some discussion in the Dungeons and Dragon thread about it.

I'll admit, all I know about this situation is what I've seen casually from different places online.

This...is maybe a good video?

The biggest thing I've seen is that people are selling their own D&D campaigns for money...and it seemed like WOTC wanted a bigger part of the pie.

But...as the first video points out...you can't copyright the rules of a game. ANY game. And D&D is basically ALL about the rules. So...it seems like...Wizards...doesn't ACTUALLY own the D&D game, really? They own all the LORE associated with the game, like the monster names and locations. They even own how they PHRASE and LAYOUT their rules, but not the rules, themselves. So...if the people selling their games just re-word the rules of their games just a little bit, it seems like they're in the clear.

Am I in the wrong about this?

It does mean more work, when it didn't really NEED to happen. And there isn't that nice guarantee that Wizards WOULDN'T sue you and just throw money at the lawsuit until you go broke and HAVE to give in. And all this over PDFs, basically.

But, here's the thing. If someone in the community has the money, they MIGHT be able to go to court against Wizards...and get the court to STATE IN COURT that Hasbro doesn't actually OWN the rules to D&D. I can only imagine that would DESTROY Hasbro's stocks. Because, while they would still OWN D&D...all the headlines would probably say something like "Court rules Hasbro has NEVER OWNED D&D". And their stockholder probably aren't nerdy enough to really appreciate the finer difference. Hasbro probably has more to lose in something like this than they have to gain. Never mind all the bridges they burnt with the community at large.

I mean, I heard WOTC already backpedaled on this pretty hard, but it does raise some interesting questions.

What's to stop some random kind soul from just making their OWN OGL, that's worded slightly different than WOTC's rules and just let the wider gaming community use THAT for free? It seems like anyone SHOULD be able to make their own basic stat sheets and rules and just give them out for free.

And, if WOTC EVER uses someone else's idea from one of their versions of the game, do the original game creators have the legal right to SUE WOTC? Personally, I don't see any reason why any fan-creator should EVER let Hasbro use ANY of their ideas for free EVER again. There's the question of if these guys have the money to go after a bigger company like Hasbro...but the optics of Hasbro trying to "squash" the little guys is a terrible PR move.

And, if you just use a OLDER version of D&D, without upgrading to the current 5th Edition...can you still use the old OGL, anyway? If people choose to base their games around 3rd or 4th Edition, do these "new" rules still "count"? (There are probably a lot of finer reasons why people WOULDN'T do that, anyway, but I'm just curious.)

So...am I missing something? I'll admit, I just don't do tabletop gaming. The most I'm involved is reading some of the novels, sometimes.

 

[Kalidor]

That video gets much of it right but not everything.

You have a lot of great questions and I'll answer them for you soon.

There are several things in your post that needs clarification and I'll try to focus on each bit.

 

[Kalidor]

I'm moderately aware of whats been going on. WotC seems intent on burning goodwill lately between the D&D OGL drama and milking M:tG players dry anyway they can. Kind of sucks with the OGL as I finally start gettinng in with a play group, not that it's that big of an effect on those not looking to publish anything themselves.

That's actually not entirely true but I'll also explain why it really does affect everyone, even players

 

[ZakuConvoy]

I know I keep adding to this, but the ideas keep coming.

Okay, so from what I understand, the original idea behind the OGL was basically two things. One, to unite the community (which they've ruined). And two, to basically have the players come up with improvements and changes to the game that other players like. It was basically crowd-sourcing rules and stat changes. And fair enough, when everyone could use those rules fairly openly.

BUT, if WOTC wants to basically charge larger successes for using it's base rules...can we turn this around on them? Are the players who originally came up with the changes and tweaks to D&D's rules over the years actually owed some money? Because while WOTC may or may not be able to actually OWN the rules to D&D...they did PROFIT from "improvements" to the system, right? And they might not have actually compensated any of these creators for their work. Wizards might owe some old players a lot of money, in theory. Or they might not be allowed to use the 5th Edition rules anymore, in their official products.

It'd be a little like using fan-characters, right? Corporations can't actually use someone's fan-character to make money, even if it is a derivative work. It's just that it also works the other way around, as I understand it. The creator can't make any money off of the character, either. WOTC has been using "fan-rules" for YEARS now...probably. I'll admit, I don't know if they actually are. But if they are...they've actually been breaking the law...and they might owe some people a fair amount of money...on EVERY SINGLE rulebook they've sold with those original creator's rules in it.

It's why most companies don't allow people to send in unsolicited scripts for movies or the like, because there's the threat of someone claiming the company stole their idea without compensation.

I would think this would be a non-starter due to the original OGL...but the thing is Wizards wants the original OGL to be null and void. Are they acting in bad faith? Is this a breach of contract? Does the OGL constitute a "work for hire" contract, in some form? I swear, if there's someone with enough money in this fandom, things could get VERY interesting for WOTC.

TLDR? I wonder if the D&D community can find their own Ken Penders...but use him to fight for JUSTICE!? (For those who don't know...just google Ken Penders Sonic the Hedgehog Lawsuit, you'll get a million articles).

I guess that's a fair question, too. Is the D&D community mad enough to WANT to cripple the entire company? This is all just...an interesting thought-experiment for me.

 

[Caldwin]

I heard something about it. I'll be honest though, so much news about so many companies acting scummy have been coming out, I kinda had it as background noise.

A very simplified version of what I heard was that WotC always allowed third parties to use their system to make "home brews" (a term I think I know what it means but not sure about nuance). Now they aren't allowing it, or at least they're trying to charge exorbitant fees for it. The problem is that they're trying to apply this non-allowance retroactively.

Now here's the thing. Do they have a right to guard their intellectual properties? Sure...if they want to burn bridges with the home-brewers like that even though they probably get more money just by leaving it alone. But applying it retroactively...that's the scummy part.

And it probably hurts a lot of companies like Pathfinder, which is just straight up predatory.

Like I said, a way over-simplified version of what I was half listening to.

Is it feasible that the companies that this affects can "simply" make a new system all their own that WotC can't touch?

 

[Zamuel]

Given that hardly anyone here seems to be very invested in keeping up with the TTRPG sphere...

I've been paying attention but the RPG thread fell to the last page and the topic has already been brought up in the dedicated "D&D" thread. I planned on bumping the RPG thread but due to stuff I'm attempting locally, not the OGL fiasco. It seems like WOTC has managed to galvanize the rest of the RPG industry against them since there an initiative to make a new OGL and D&D Beyond has been rapidly losing subscribers. *shrug* So I'll sit over in my corner enjoying Pathfinder 2e.

 

[Caldwin]

My opinion, there may be some small name casualties along the way. But by the end of it, WotC is going to find out that even though D&D may be the biggest name in table-top gaming, it's far from the only one. This has some major potential to bite them hard in the ass and I doubt many people are going to be too sorry about it.

 

[MEDdMI]

I'm a casual fan of D&D and MtG, and I have heard about this. Just really disappointed in what they (tried) to do, and don't feel like giving them much money anymore. The sharp increase in MtG sets being released was bad enough, the recent D&D stuff is just bleeeeeeh.

 

[Kalidor]

Alright so here's a rough summary of the time line.

Around Jan 6th there was a verified leak of an OGL 1.1 document that was sent out to some of the bigger names out there with contracts to sign (and NDAs)

WotC was silent about this.

As more information of the leak came to light people started to learn of some of the worst possible outcomes. Much of this originated from Gizmodo

* The OGL 1.0a was to be revoked and rendered "unauthorized" and invalid. Meaning anyone who ever produced under that could no longer sell products using tha tlicense.

* A Royalty Scheme in which every creator who signed on to use the 1.1 license had to report all their income reports to WotC.

* Anyone who grossed 725K in a year would be required to pay a 25% royalty to WotC for any amount above that

* Anything created under the license agreed that whatever they created, they would retain "ownership" of it, however WotC was granted permission to use any or all of that content for whatever reasons they wanted with no credit or compensation to the creator

* There was a mortality clause that declared that anything that WotC deemed "offensive" at their sole discretion would result in immediate withdrawal of the license to the creator

* Also, for any reason whatsoever the license could be revoked at any time with a 30 day notice.



These are some of the key points because what happened is that WotC took a 900 word license (the 1.0a) and turned it into a 20 page 9000(!) word license packed full of doublespeak and the worst possible conditions that no sane person would ever agree to.


After a full week WotC remained silent on the issue, yet more and more information kept coming out. Sometimes leaked from within the ranks of WotC itself.


But what *is* the OGL? Well this is something that has been misunderstood since its inception in 2000. Especially to the casual player. But when it was created there are a few key points to remember:

* It was never meant to be revoked or discontinued. This was stated in plain language in the license itself but was also confirmed multiple times by one of the primary architects Ryan Dancey, who was also a VP at WotC at the time. (ore on him later)

* The license itself was a consice document that, when used with the proper conditions, allowed anyone to use the game mechanics and open game content found in they System Reference Document (SRD)

* Anything in the SRD was explicitly NOT "Dungeons and Dragons" content. It was simply a rules system that had generic interpretations of the various things that were already a part of many TTRPGs for over 25 years.

* The way Intellectual property was protected when the OGL was used was with "Product Identity" - When you created a game, as I did for example with my super hero game, anything you designated as Product Identity was NOT covered by the license nor allowed to be used by anyone else. This is how WotC protected their content and how any other creator could protect their IP. Anything not designated as Product Identity became Open Game content for anyone else to use as long as they cited the source as a copyright credit in the OGL in their book. So for example, I published my game under the OGL and I used Pathfinder's SRD as the source. So my super hero game uses the Pathfinder 1 rules.


* This is an important distinction because WotC has recently been combining the OGL and the SRD as "Dungeons and Dragons" - but that's not true at all. They are legitimately lying about this. If you want to use Dungeons and Dragons in relation to your OGL game you have to use a separate license - at Trademark License. This is what people did in 2000 when they made content that was EXPRESSLY for use with the D&D product. It was called the D20 license and had stricter rules about how it was used and nothing used in conjunction with that license was ever Open Game Content.


* People using the OGL 1.0a to create content... to create businesses was not a "loophole" or them "taking advantage" of WotC. That was literally what the license was made to do. This created an ecology in the gaming industry that was a benefit for independent creators and WotC.

* In any of the FAQs regarding the OGL that were up on their very website until they were silently removed at the end of 2021 answer a lot of these questions, including the support for creators to make whatever they wanted with the license as long as they weren't infringing on anyone else's content. This included apps, character generators or even full on video games if that's what they wanted to do. This was ALWAYS the intention of WotC.


Let's fast forward to 4th edition.

For whatever reasons at the time, WotC started getting a little nervous about the OGL. They decided that it was time to push a newer product that was so different from 3rd edition that the OGL wouldn't be compatible with it. Even at that time they knew the OGL couldn't be revoked. So they created a new license to go along with the new 4th edition rules. The GSL. This was something more in line with a trademark license and could only be used in limited ways by anyone who wanted to create 4E content. Unfortunately for them this was not the game people wanted. They wanted to continue playing the 3rd edition they've grown to love over the past 8 or so years. And so, Paizo, the company that was publishing the magazines Dragon and Dungeon took the OGL and SRD for 3.5 and reworked it a bit and Pathfinder was born.

What this also did was spawn even more companies and more games. There is debate on whether or not 4E was actually selling good numbers or not. But WotC saw the writing on the wall and started developing the D&D Next which would become 5E and 4E would be ended.


D&D 5th Edition

When this edition launched it was very well received. This was in 2014 - so only a few years ago. They went back to the OGL, added the 5E SRD and once again made it available for anyone to create compatible products. I want to stress once again that this does NOT mean they were making "home brew D&D games". They were simply using the legally and freely available system that was granted to anyone to use by the company that managed it. Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the expressions.

Between this new edition, and media appeal for things like Critical Role and Stranger Things, D&D became as popular as ever.

If people wanted to created specific D&D content, there was still away to do this. Through the Dungeon Master's Guild which once again was a specific Trademark License that had its own terms and conditions and had nothing to do with the OGL because "Dungeons and Dragons" and the "System Reference Document" are not the same thing.

So what's going on now?

Well, having learned nothing from their forbearers regarding the 4E fiasco the current crop of upper management at WotC, which all hail from positions in digital marketing, digital gaming and Microsoft of all places, has decided to not only repeat the mistakes that came with 4E but double down on it by trying to revoke the 1.0a license completely. Ryan Dancey has stated that this isn't even possible (The man who co-created it) along with many, many lawyers. Of course the ultimate resolution to this would be to decide this in court. But WotC is banking on the idea that if anyone tries they will just bury them in legal fees.

This act has caused massive, legitimate destabilization in TTRPG industry. WotC wanted to strongarm creators into doing it their way or the highway. The unexpected reaction was "Okay, it's the highway." and nearly every content creator out there has abandoned the OGL altogether, had to shut down projects in the works, fire people and in some cases may have to close their doors completely. This isn't just some case of "People are just mad because a company wants to make money"

After almost two weeks of silence WotC issues an "apology" that if you read it in Trump's voice you'd be convinced he's the one who gave it. It was full of nothing but lies and gaslighting which drove the wedge even further between WotC and the community. This is when the hemorrhaging of D&D Beyond accounts started happening. Which appears to have finally got WotC's attention.


So now there's a version 1.2 of their OGL out. They've removed some of the things. The royalty plans, the license back that lets them use your content, but it's mostly crumbs. All that did was bring to light the other things that make the license be a poison pill. Namely the destruction of any TTRPGs. They are still trying to gaslight the community by making stuff like "magic missile special effects" somehow have to do with NFTs.

They're PR people are really doubling down with the vague "morality clause" that allows them to still pull a license from a creator for ANYTHING they deem "offensive" which could literally be whatever they say it is. And this doesn't only apply to content, but what a person might do or say on Twitter, who they follow, etc. When this was first touched on a lot of obvious sock puppets on Twitter were being used to fan the division with the usual "Well only racists want the OGL to not have a tool to prevent them from making racist content!" arguments. Surprisingly even these attempts have petered out. But this tactic has been used from the start when the PBS hit piece article of the OSR came out conveniently the same day the 1.1 license was leaked (but that's a whole other issue)

So now we're up to the point where WotC has given the same PR run around to "Okay. Looks like we missed the mark. You guys aren't very happy about the virtual table top stuff and we understand" while actively avoiding the only issue anyone cares about - don't mess with the OGL 1.0a.

There's no compromise on this. They can make whatever license they want for 1.2 and that's fine. But 1.0a was never MEANT to go away since it was conceived.


But what does this mean for the TTRPG industry as a whole?

This might not be something WotC can really recover from, at least not as it is now. No one trusts them. No one. Over 1,500 creators have already signed on to collaborate on the ORC (Open RPG Creative) License. This has sparked a new renaissance in both the OSR and companies developing brand new systems. In a lot of ways, people no longer feel tethered to WotC or D&D at all and Paizo just went through 6 months worth of on hand stock in about a week.

People are trying new things and playing new games, and old style games like Castles and Crusades and Dungeon Crawl Classics.

The takeaway is WotC doesn't own anything but a trademark to "Dungeons and Dragons". The OGL isn't "needed" to create and sell games and neither is WotC. They want to present the illusion that all these wonderful companies and creators have been riding their coattails for over two decades, but in fact the opposite is true.

WotC wants to turn the idea of ttrpgs into an electronic phone game with subscriptions and lootboxes. This is because that's worked for video games, why not table top games? But the fact is they don't understand their own products or the people who buy them.

So at this point even if they said with certainty that the OGL 1.0a would remain intact and can never be withdrawn... nobody believes them. It would take a complete removal of the entire executive branch and the goodwill and trust has been burned so badly that still might not be enough for another 5-10 years. They literally ruined D&D.


You betrayed the Duke.
You stole his wife.
You took his castle.
Now no one trusts you.
You're not the one.
-Merlin

 

[Kalidor]

By the way, after 10 years of working on my super hero game I'm working on a brand new game with its own system and setting. It's very unique but I'm not far enough along to say more. I considered using the OGL again but now I'm glad I'm not.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

I welcome the age of ORC, and whatever system Kalidor is developing.

 

[ZakuConvoy]

Oh, people are already making their own version of the rules with ORC. That's good. Hopefully, that solves that problem.

They are still trying to gaslight the community by making stuff like "magic missile special effects" somehow have to do with NFTs.

WotC wants to turn the idea of ttrpgs into an electronic phone game with subscriptions and lootboxes.

I'm trying to imagine what that would even look like. I guess people would have to...have all their phones pointed at each other as they watch AR special effects? You'd have to make hand gestures to throw magic missiles? The app would...dress you up as your character, like those picture filters that give you a cat-face? I'm imagining something like Pokemon Go. I guess there's something to that, but it seems like it'd get old quick. I mean it'd be cheaper than LARPing...but LARPing is kind of a separate thing, really.

 

[Kalidor]

Well I figured Diablo did it and Magic Arena does it so it's hard to say. In reality it will probably just be a desktop service since the new VTT (that isn't D&D Beyond) is in the Unreal Engine

 

[Dekafox]

There's a few things that add some context to the above too.

First on the ORC: The law firm authoring it employs the same author who wrote the original OGL.. and a lot of Paizo staff were old WOTC employees at the time. Paizo also plans to hand it off to a non-profit once it's complete, like how the Creative Commons and Linux Foundation orgs work. This way no one, not even Paizo themselves, can try to do what WOTC is doing now.

Secondly, a bit of historical context on the OGL that makes the whole situation worse. Before WOTC bought them out, TSR was having problems with keeping afloat, and had started to sue EVERYONE that even looked remotely relevant to D&D, C&Ds to websites, etc. There was a running joke that TSR stood for "They Sue Relentelssly" or something close to that. Aside from the financial issues, that was doing a number on D&D's rep outside of rising stars like the World of Darkness. When WOTC bought TSR and started on 3rd, they created the OGL as a promise that they wouldn't become another TSR and start swinging their legal department like a barbarian with a waraxe.

Lastly, one thing you left out in current developments is that WOTC is offering the base rules(stuff they couldn't REALLY copyright anyways) as Creative Commons - but they leave out Items, Spells, Monsters, Classes, and Races. There's enough there that someone could still build their own system, but unlike Items Spells and Monsters where there's creation rules or examples in the proposed CC section, there's no examples or rules on how to make Classes or races, apart from the level up rules.

Also they've only covered the 5.1 SRD, and have not covered anything related to 3.5's SRD, which is where a lot of OSR rulesets, plus Pathfinder 1E and Starfinder come from. There was a comment recently from them that they're looking at doing a similar approach with older editions, though they didn't call out 3.5 by name. Like you said though, I don't trust them - the more they're forced to put into CC the better, as I doubt we'll get them sign onto ORC, but it's not enough. If they wanted to just do whatever for 6th, fine, we've been there before with 4th, but it's what they're trying to do to the older editions that really pisses me off.

On a side note, Kobold Press has announced they're doing a 5e compatible system under the name of the Black Flag project, and it'll be under ORC once it's finished.


As for the VTTs? They're not aimed at people sitting around a table. I wouldn't be surprised if WOTC slows or stops printing paper books entirely to force people into their digital ecosystem. There's a lot of groups that only meet online due to time constraints or physical ones. There's even a VTT that already does some of what they're trying to ban via addons - look up Foundry.

The microtransaction part will probably be partly cosmetics - like fancy icons and models for your character, or placeables for the DM to use when dungeon building. The other ties back to my speculation there - classes only released online, so you have to buy them through DDB or whatever online store replaces it and ties into the VTT. Stop subscribing and you lose access to your special class on top of that, I'd bet.

 

[Kalidor]

There's a few things that add some context to the above too.

First on the ORC: The law firm authoring it employs the same author who wrote the original OGL.. and a lot of Paizo staff were old WOTC employees at the time. Paizo also plans to hand it off to a non-profit once it's complete, like how the Creative Commons and Linux Foundation orgs work. This way no one, not even Paizo themselves, can try to do what WOTC is doing now.

Secondly, a bit of historical context on the OGL that makes the whole situation worse. Before WOTC bought them out, TSR was having problems with keeping afloat, and had started to sue EVERYONE that even looked remotely relevant to D&D, C&Ds to websites, etc. There was a running joke that TSR stood for "They Sue Relentelssly" or something close to that. Aside from the financial issues, that was doing a number on D&D's rep outside of rising stars like the World of Darkness. When WOTC bought TSR and started on 3rd, they created the OGL as a promise that they wouldn't become another TSR and start swinging their legal department like a barbarian with a waraxe.

Lastly, one thing you left out in current developments is that WOTC is offering the base rules(stuff they couldn't REALLY copyright anyways) as Creative Commons - but they leave out Items, Spells, Monsters, Classes, and Races. There's enough there that someone could still build their own system, but unlike Items Spells and Monsters where there's creation rules or examples in the proposed CC section, there's no examples or rules on how to make Classes or races, apart from the level up rules.

Also they've only covered the 5.1 SRD, and have not covered anything related to 3.5's SRD, which is where a lot of OSR rulesets, plus Pathfinder 1E and Starfinder come from. There was a comment recently from them that they're looking at doing a similar approach with older editions, though they didn't call out 3.5 by name. Like you said though, I don't trust them - the more they're forced to put into CC the better, as I doubt we'll get them sign onto ORC, but it's not enough. If they wanted to just do whatever for 6th, fine, we've been there before with 4th, but it's what they're trying to do to the older editions that really pisses me off.

On a side note, Kobold Press has announced they're doing a 5e compatible system under the name of the Black Flag project, and it'll be under ORC once it's finished.


As for the VTTs? They're not aimed at people sitting around a table. I wouldn't be surprised if WOTC slows or stops printing paper books entirely to force people into their digital ecosystem. There's a lot of groups that only meet online due to time constraints or physical ones. There's even a VTT that already does some of what they're trying to ban via addons - look up Foundry.

The microtransaction part will probably be partly cosmetics - like fancy icons and models for your character, or placeables for the DM to use when dungeon building. The other ties back to my speculation there - classes only released online, so you have to buy them through DDB or whatever online store replaces it and ties into the VTT. Stop subscribing and you lose access to your special class on top of that, I'd bet.

Good points. All are correct.

 

[Kalidor]

I'm not completely sold on the ORC. Not because I think it won't be well crafted, I believe it will, I just feel it goes back to the original mindset of the fact is that nobody really *needs* a license to publish a game. My assumption is that it's going to cover a variety of different rules but I worry that some systems will be very broken and may not be something anyone would want to use. Then we just end up with a bunch of Wii games shovelware.

People didn't always use the OGL to the fullest. But taking mechanics from other games and using it in theirs. They say WotC took a bunch of C&C stuff and used it in 5e. I don't know if that's true but if it was Open Game mechanics they could have. Anyone could! That's what the license was for, to promote growth.

Most people used the OGL for two main reasons - one, it was easier than trying to reinvent the wheel when you could take a perfectly fine wheel and upgrade it or mod it how you saw fit. And two, it was being secure in the promise that they would never come after anyone for using it and gave a sense of relief that everybody would be protected. By making the wrong choice by trying to remove it (and I'm still not convinced they can, and neither is Dancey or anyone at Paizo).

But like I said above, they burned much more than that. No one wants to have anything to do with them anymore. Even places like Hero Forge are using the "Champion" name instead of "Paladin" because that's what Paizo uses. People are actively distancing themselves from the company and the brand.

That's why when normies say "Well it doesn't affect players" they seem to forget that if there is ZERO supporting content it will most certainly affect anyone who insists on brand loyalty. WotC is already making less than stellar content than other producers out there. But now, unlike before, people are going to get introduced to it. This is the 4e situation x1000

 

[Dekafox]

And to give people who aren't aware of what WOTC's book quality has been like as of late... the Spelljammer setting book? Which is basically D&D on ships in fantasy space? It has NO actual rules for ship vs ship combat(or ships in general, I believe?). In a setting where if you're not doing anything with ships, you might as well be playing in any other setting. It'd be like if there was a book intended for Planescape that had nothing at all about Sigil in it. Or Dragonlance without dragonlances and dragon riding.

 

[Kalidor]

Radiant Citadel wasn't a picnic either.