I've now listened to three different lawyers go over the documents out presently... yes I have no life... Every, single, one, of whom said functionally the same thing, to summarize: "Not only is this deal awful, probalby illegal in some territories, but if you think it's bad, it's worse, and if you think it's fine you haven't read it. No lawyer would advise any business or individual to sign this." SO... Now we have an "informed and professional" position, oh people opining "Mm actually you don't know what you are talking about!"...
If those lawyers did not also say "but this is also a draft--and we do not know what stage of draft it is. Plus, let's be honest, we've all drafted utterly ridiculous things on behalf of our clients, including some we took to our clients and our own clients said 'are you crazy--this is ridiculously over the top'" they either have never drafted a contract in their life or left out a key piece of information that is pretty darn relevant to a conversation about drafts. Not that they acted with malice to increase their page views by relying on sensationalism, of course--I expect they assumed laypeople would not have such a lacking of common sense as to take a draft as sacrosanct. After all, assuming laypeople pay attention to the actually relevant data point is a mistake my fellow lawyers and I make all the time--we are consistently surprised at the seemingly glaringly obvious foundational things folks miss.
Sincerely, a fourth lawyer who is apparently the villain because none of you want to hear that you are relying on incomplete data which, lacking the basic context surrounding that iteration of the draft, cannot be used to extrapolate anything of value.
I've now listened to three different lawyers go over the documents out presently... yes I have no life... Every, single, one, of whom said functionally the same thing, to summarize: "Not only is this deal awful, probalby illegal in some territories, but if you think it's bad, it's worse, and if you think it's fine you haven't read it. No lawyer would advise any business or individual to sign this." SO... Now we have an "informed and professional" position, oh people opining "Mm actually you don't know what you are talking about!"...
If those lawyers did not also say "but this is also a draft--and we do not know what stage of draft it is. Plus, let's be honest, we've all drafted utterly ridiculous things on behalf of our clients, including some we took to our clients and our own clients said 'are you crazy--this is ridiculously over the top'" they either have never drafted a contract in their life or left out a key piece of information that is pretty darn relevant to a conversation about drafts. Not that they acted with malice to increase their page views by relying on sensationalism, of course--I expect they assumed laypeople would not have such a lacking of common sense as to take a draft as sacrosanct. After all, assuming laypeople pay attention to the actually relevant data point is a mistake my fellow lawyers and I make all the time--we are consistently surprised at the seemingly glaringly obvious foundational things folks miss.
Sincerely, a fourth lawyer who is apparently the villain because none of you want to hear that you are relying on incomplete data which, lacking the basic context surrounding that iteration of the draft, cannot be used to extrapolate anything of value.
Yes; most DID qualify that "this is a draft document"... But yes I get your drift: keep going until I find one that agrees with you. Noted.
I've now listened to three different lawyers go over the documents out presently... yes I have no life... Every, single, one, of whom said functionally the same thing, to summarize: "Not only is this deal awful, probalby illegal in some territories, but if you think it's bad, it's worse, and if you think it's fine you haven't read it. No lawyer would advise any business or individual to sign this." SO... Now we have an "informed and professional" position, oh people opining "Mm actually you don't know what you are talking about!"...
If those lawyers did not also say "but this is also a draft--and we do not know what stage of draft it is. Plus, let's be honest, we've all drafted utterly ridiculous things on behalf of our clients, including some we took to our clients and our own clients said 'are you crazy--this is ridiculously over the top'" they either have never drafted a contract in their life or left out a key piece of information that is pretty darn relevant to a conversation about drafts. Not that they acted with malice to increase their page views by relying on sensationalism, of course--I expect they assumed laypeople would not have such a lacking of common sense as to take a draft as sacrosanct. After all, assuming laypeople pay attention to the actually relevant data point is a mistake my fellow lawyers and I make all the time--we are consistently surprised at the seemingly glaringly obvious foundational things folks miss.
Sincerely, a fourth lawyer who is apparently the villain because none of you want to hear that you are relying on incomplete data which, lacking the basic context surrounding that iteration of the draft, cannot be used to extrapolate anything of value.
Yes; most DID qualify that "this is a draft document"... But yes I get your drift: keep going until I find one that agrees with you. Noted.
Unless they followed that up with "because this is a draft document and therefore you really should not give it much weight until we know what type of draft it was" they dropped the ball. They are, of course, professionally trained to determine just how probative something is--and any lawyer worth his, her, or their salt would recognize this is hardly a probative document without the necessary context of how this particular draft came into being.
Now, I do agree with their textual analysis--the language itself is not exactly great and there are going to be a lot of huge legal problems with it. You'll note I did not actually say anything contradicting their analysis of the text, merely the failure to clearly disclaim that the probative value of the text at this present time is non-existent. The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I am looking for a lawyer who "agrees with me" (and I am sure that, if those three thought about it, they would--the totality of my lawyer-D&D friends I have spoken with are of the same mind) proves my point. You are reading into my post something that was not there--the exact kind of bad analysis underlying this entire affair. Professionals--and, as I already said, I fall pray to this failing as well--need to spell things out clearly. Otherwise folks might only see the "this looks bad" and miss the glaringly obvious underlying assumption of "but we really do not know if it actually is bad because we do not actually know what this document is."
The D&D Beyond Terms of Service are breathtaking in their claims; but they do not include any capability to deny you any use of your own products - which is an important difference. Having said that, I would not use D&D Beyond for anything beyond a sight for generating digital character sheets for personal campaigns.
The D&D Beyond Terms of Service are breathtaking in their claims;
If you think they are “breathtaking” that is only because you have never read any internet terms of service before. The language everyone freaks out about is required under present law - if they did not have a license to what you write on Beyond they could not store things you write and create (including your above forum post) on their servers and could not beam that content out when people use the website (including sending it back to its creator). This exact type of language is found on every single website that allows user submissions - be it wikis, Reddit, other forums, etc. Wizards’ version on Beyond is actually more generous to the customer than most others - including more generous than Fandom’s version of Beyond - as it is narrowly tailored just to what is legally required for the website to function. Other versions, like Fandom’s, also allow giving away those rights to third parties, which is not fully necessary (even if not used).
This was all extensively discussed when Wizards took over Beyond; the fact folks are still freaking out about it speaks to how hard bad analysis is to remove from the collective consciousness once implanted.
Yurei, thanks for posting this. It was a good read. I may or may not like the new OGL (actually, I think it's pretty harsh), but now I can speak intelligently about it. Education is good!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
The issue, Glyndwr, is that you're trying to get people to ignore the leaked OGL 1.1 document as inconsequential because it may or may not be a 'real' draft intended by Wizards to be serious.
This is true. It's also largely irrelevant. Merely the threat of such a draconian and anti-community document is and should be enough to generate a fervor. Wizards' continued silence on the matter does not bode well for this being a pie-in-the-sky early lulz draft, either. They could've dismissed the whole thing early with a "this was an early draft that has since been amended and discarded", but they have not. There is reasonable evidence to support the view that this document or one very like it is what was intended by Wizards to be their next "Open Gaming License". Is it conclusive evidence? No, of course not. But Wizards could easily have abated the firestorm this whole situation is causing by now if it was not serious, ne? The wider community making their feelings known about the situation now, rather than when it's too late to do anything, is a better idea than waiting for conclusive proof in this instance, hm?
The issue, Glyndwr, is that you're trying to get people to ignore the leaked OGL 1.1 document as inconsequential because it may or may not be a 'real' draft intended by Wizards to be serious.
This is true. It's also largely irrelevant. Merely the threat of such a draconian and anti-community document is and should be enough to generate a fervor. Wizards' continued silence on the matter does not bode well for this being a pie-in-the-sky early lulz draft, either. They could've dismissed the whole thing early with a "this was an early draft that has since been amended and discarded", but they have not. There is reasonable evidence to support the view that this document or one very like it is what was intended by Wizards to be their next "Open Gaming License". Is it conclusive evidence? No, of course not. But Wizards could easily have abated the firestorm this whole situation is causing by now if it was not serious, ne? The wider community making their feelings known about the situation now, rather than when it's too late to do anything, is a better idea than waiting for conclusive proof in this instance, hm?
With the information presently available, we do not know if there is even a threat - this could be a serious offer, it could be a draft some lawyer at Wizards wrote that the PR team yelled at Legal over, it could be an initial offer that was sent to third parties in the “here’s our offer, we are not saying that we know it is crazy, but show it to your lawyers and have them call us so we can talk where things are not written down” kind of way that is an important part of negotiations.
Without that piece of information, the present data is without context and thus without much use. As I noted earlier, it is a Schrodinger's Cat situation - it very very easily could be an abject disaster for the game, or it could be absolutely nothing other than “oops, people looked behind the curtain at the regular contract drafting process and that process sometimes looks a bit messy and hyperbolic.” This is something I tell my clients all the time - initial offers (or worse, secondhand non-offers between the parties of “my lawyer said we can do this to you” that don’t even have the weight of a real offer) are often silly and do not accurately represent the other side’s true intent. I’ve had as much success calming down folks in the real world as I have here - which is to say very little but still feel it is important to repeat over and over again.
Without more information, I am disinclined to pass any judgment other than “let us look at the actual facts and wait until there is more information.”
Now, regarding Wizards’ response or lack thereof, absolutely, blame them for that. I do not think it is an admission of culpability per se - but it certainly is abject incompetence. I could reasonably see it taking until late Monday to respond to a Thursday article with the weekend making some things harder - but it is Wednesday now and they have had plenty of time to formulate an initial response.
We’ll have to see how they respond. It very easily could be that they are rapidly having conversations with the big players like Critical Role trying to reassure them while not making a public release (though I would have probably said something). After all, players are not going to listen to anything Wizards says - but if Matt Mercer comes out and says “this is not as bad as people think - we are having very productive conversations with Wizards” that would do more in sixteen words than a protracted PR campaign could do in months.
And, just to be clear again - I have a lot of issues with the terms themselves if they are the final terms. I am just not feeling those issues as manifest without the critical information surrounding this draft that is presently missing.
That's the issue, Caerwyn - if this is true, it is as you stated. An abject disaster for the game. You're asking people to calmly let Wizards do whatever it likes when doing so could lead to an abject disaster for D&D. In this case it is legitimately smarter to act as if the leaked document is a real and pressing threat, to treat it as the housefire it could very easily be, before terms are fixed in place and Wizards is no longer willing/able to set friendlier terms.
Is the OGL housefire making the forums a deeply unfun place to be right now? Very much so. But the uproar is necessary. Even if this was a wild pie-in-the-sky draft, Wizards not disclaiming it as such is worrying. An admission of culpability, no, but it's also not exculpatory either. This is a civil matter - somebody's lack of an answer is allowed to be as damning as any actual answer could be, and right now their lack-of-answer looks a whole lot like they were planning to move forward with this document and are having to reconsider due to the instant community uproar the leak provoked.
Let the uproar continue, if that's what it takes to get them to back off on a deeply coercive and hostile document nobody in their right mind would agree to.
Also not what I am saying - there should be a response, but there should be a productive response. What is happening now is decidedly not that - it is a disorganised mob that is focusing on the wrong pieces of information and which not working to provide solutions.
Vitriolic responses and rushes to judgment on bad information can produce results - they can also back the other side into a corner where they feel trapped and scared, and things grind to a halt as PR, Legal, and Corporate all are trying to pull a response in different directions (which, again, kind of on them—but also in part due to to the nature of what is arrayed against them).
A more measured approach - all but certainly would be more effective in this case. It would likely have hastened Wizards’ response time, since now they’re forced to do something much bigger than “hey, we know you are concerned - we are working with our partners and still negotiating terms, we promise we will get you something as soon as all the major players are satisfied.”
And, even if you disagree with that logic - the fact remains that players m have now overplayed their cards. This was the time for a measured response, holding the threat of abject rioting in reserve. Now there is little room for escalation for if there comes a time when an escalation might be warranted.
This is the Internet, Caerwyn. The Internet has exactly two responses to things - abject disinterest and R.I.O.T. A measured response was never in the cards and we're both intelligent enough to know it. Would a measured, directed response have been better? Yes. But it was never on the table, and frankly I'd rather have the riot than abject disinterest.
Hasn't the head of Kickstarter Games division pretty much confirmed the "draft" OGL is the real thing (while also confirming KS negotiated a smaller percentage cut for Hasbro/WOTC)?
It may have been a "draft" 4 weeks ago but it's apparently in use now, which means it's no longer a draft or subject of speculation.
Re: measured response. I vehemently disagree. Corporate greed is too strong and pervasive to be countered with a "measured response." I have no such optimism or benefit of the doubt to give the executive leadership at Hasbro (or any for-profit corporation).
After all, players are not going to listen to anything Wizards says - but if Matt Mercer comes out and says “this is not as bad as people think - we are having very productive conversations with Wizards” that would do more in sixteen words than a protracted PR campaign could do in months.
At this point I seriously doubt even something like this from The Mercer (TM) would help, because atm most of us do not trust WotC because of how they've handled it.
Even if some how this draft was not real, and/or wasn't final, the damage to WotC's reputation has been done. A message from Matt now in support of CGL 1.1 would likely not only be disbelieved, but it would call in to question Matt's integrity if months from now we find out it actually is as bad as we fear.
Caerwyn, despite our disagreements on these forums, I do understand your position. The only thing we can ever know for sure is that we might be wrong. In this case, however, WotC's silence, whether intentional or not, has made this situation almost intractable. IF they had come out with a statement last Friday or Monday morning telling everyone either that the leak was fake, or only a draft and they would let us know more later, SO MUCH of this firestorm would have been avoided, and an eventual message from The Mercer (TM) would carry more weight.
At this point, even if it's all circumstantial, the PR cat is out of the fiery bag, and nothing short of "We are NOT cancelling 1.0a" is going to suffice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
if wizards actually released adventures like they used to for various levels rather than campaign books, they wouldn't be losing out. they got lazy, tsr turned out loads in their heyday. i have said for ages that they should be doing an adventure every 2 weeks, not hard to do with the resources they have, now they are crying because other companies used their initiative and make money.
What Wizards of the Coast can’t do is revoke the license, yet continue to hold users to the restrictions in the OGL. If they revoke it, then the people who have relied on the license are no longer under an obligation to refrain from using “Product Identity” if they do so in ways that are fair use or otherwise permitted under copyright law. And unless they are using actually copyrighted material in a way that would infringe copyright, there may be little incentive to agree to such restrictions, let alone the new restrictions and potential royalty obligations of any new version of the OGL that comes along.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Hasn't the head of Kickstarter Games division pretty much confirmed the "draft" OGL is the real thing (while also confirming KS negotiated a smaller percentage cut for Hasbro/WOTC)
He hasn't confirmed this whatsoever. His Tweet talked about royalties and unspecified terms, but it didn't introduce anything that the article about the Open Game License hadn't previously discussed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
But it was never on the table, and frankly I'd rather have the riot than abject disinterest.
Depends on who's fanning the flames though, doesn't it?
I said this in another thread, but I'm starting to notice some disturbing parallels to Gamer Gate in what's happening here. Accounts that never post, or that are making their first post just to say they're boycotting/cancelling their sub -- sometimes on the very same day the account was created. Among the posters who actually, y'know, post, a not insignificant amount of overlap between the "the OGL is the devil" crowd and the "WOTC is too woke" crowd, and pointing to OSR alternatives now that D&D is apparently forever ruined by something that hasn't even happened yet
I'm not saying every member of the mob has bad intentions or is acting in bad faith, but then, a lot of people fell for the "Gamer Gate is just about ethics in game journalism" line too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This forum riot isn't even on Wizards' radar, Anton. They couldn't care less what DDB forum users have to say.
Creators and influencers abandoning the brand in job lots, many of them posting scathing commmentary viewed by thousands or even millions on why they're divorcing themselves from D&D now regardless of what the final OGL is? That hits them in the bottom line, and they're gonna be feeling it for quite some time. After all, the whole reason D&D is such a valuable property is its household-name level brand recognition driven in part by influencers and media personalities. If those start turning on the brand, distancing themselves from it and badmouthing it, that punches Hasbro where it hurts. That is the riot they're going to care about.
This forum riot isn't even on Wizards' radar, Anton. They couldn't care less what DDB forum users have to say.
Creators and influencers abandoning the brand in job lots, many of them posting scathing commmentary viewed by thousands or even millions on why they're divorcing themselves from D&D now regardless of what the final OGL is? That hits them in the bottom line, and they're gonna be feeling it for quite some time. After all, the whole reason D&D is such a valuable property is its household-name level brand recognition driven in part by influencers and media personalities. If those start turning on the brand, distancing themselves from it and badmouthing it, that punches Hasbro where it hurts. That is the riot they're going to care about.
I'm not exactly sure how this is a rebuttal to the theory. The GG playbook also involved inflammatory YouTube videos, social media "revolt" and like-minded members of the community vowing to create "alternatives" -- heck, that's how Candace Owens got her start
If you want to grab a torch and pitchfork and join in because you prefer burning it down to the status quo, no one's stopping you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If those lawyers did not also say "but this is also a draft--and we do not know what stage of draft it is. Plus, let's be honest, we've all drafted utterly ridiculous things on behalf of our clients, including some we took to our clients and our own clients said 'are you crazy--this is ridiculously over the top'" they either have never drafted a contract in their life or left out a key piece of information that is pretty darn relevant to a conversation about drafts. Not that they acted with malice to increase their page views by relying on sensationalism, of course--I expect they assumed laypeople would not have such a lacking of common sense as to take a draft as sacrosanct. After all, assuming laypeople pay attention to the actually relevant data point is a mistake my fellow lawyers and I make all the time--we are consistently surprised at the seemingly glaringly obvious foundational things folks miss.
Sincerely, a fourth lawyer who is apparently the villain because none of you want to hear that you are relying on incomplete data which, lacking the basic context surrounding that iteration of the draft, cannot be used to extrapolate anything of value.
Yes; most DID qualify that "this is a draft document"... But yes I get your drift: keep going until I find one that agrees with you. Noted.
Unless they followed that up with "because this is a draft document and therefore you really should not give it much weight until we know what type of draft it was" they dropped the ball. They are, of course, professionally trained to determine just how probative something is--and any lawyer worth his, her, or their salt would recognize this is hardly a probative document without the necessary context of how this particular draft came into being.
Now, I do agree with their textual analysis--the language itself is not exactly great and there are going to be a lot of huge legal problems with it. You'll note I did not actually say anything contradicting their analysis of the text, merely the failure to clearly disclaim that the probative value of the text at this present time is non-existent. The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I am looking for a lawyer who "agrees with me" (and I am sure that, if those three thought about it, they would--the totality of my lawyer-D&D friends I have spoken with are of the same mind) proves my point. You are reading into my post something that was not there--the exact kind of bad analysis underlying this entire affair. Professionals--and, as I already said, I fall pray to this failing as well--need to spell things out clearly. Otherwise folks might only see the "this looks bad" and miss the glaringly obvious underlying assumption of "but we really do not know if it actually is bad because we do not actually know what this document is."
The D&D Beyond Terms of Service are breathtaking in their claims; but they do not include any capability to deny you any use of your own products - which is an important difference. Having said that, I would not use D&D Beyond for anything beyond a sight for generating digital character sheets for personal campaigns.
If you think they are “breathtaking” that is only because you have never read any internet terms of service before. The language everyone freaks out about is required under present law - if they did not have a license to what you write on Beyond they could not store things you write and create (including your above forum post) on their servers and could not beam that content out when people use the website (including sending it back to its creator). This exact type of language is found on every single website that allows user submissions - be it wikis, Reddit, other forums, etc. Wizards’ version on Beyond is actually more generous to the customer than most others - including more generous than Fandom’s version of Beyond - as it is narrowly tailored just to what is legally required for the website to function. Other versions, like Fandom’s, also allow giving away those rights to third parties, which is not fully necessary (even if not used).
This was all extensively discussed when Wizards took over Beyond; the fact folks are still freaking out about it speaks to how hard bad analysis is to remove from the collective consciousness once implanted.
Yurei, thanks for posting this. It was a good read. I may or may not like the new OGL (actually, I think it's pretty harsh), but now I can speak intelligently about it. Education is good!
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
The issue, Glyndwr, is that you're trying to get people to ignore the leaked OGL 1.1 document as inconsequential because it may or may not be a 'real' draft intended by Wizards to be serious.
This is true. It's also largely irrelevant. Merely the threat of such a draconian and anti-community document is and should be enough to generate a fervor. Wizards' continued silence on the matter does not bode well for this being a pie-in-the-sky early lulz draft, either. They could've dismissed the whole thing early with a "this was an early draft that has since been amended and discarded", but they have not. There is reasonable evidence to support the view that this document or one very like it is what was intended by Wizards to be their next "Open Gaming License". Is it conclusive evidence? No, of course not. But Wizards could easily have abated the firestorm this whole situation is causing by now if it was not serious, ne? The wider community making their feelings known about the situation now, rather than when it's too late to do anything, is a better idea than waiting for conclusive proof in this instance, hm?
Please do not contact or message me.
With the information presently available, we do not know if there is even a threat - this could be a serious offer, it could be a draft some lawyer at Wizards wrote that the PR team yelled at Legal over, it could be an initial offer that was sent to third parties in the “here’s our offer, we are not saying that we know it is crazy, but show it to your lawyers and have them call us so we can talk where things are not written down” kind of way that is an important part of negotiations.
Without that piece of information, the present data is without context and thus without much use. As I noted earlier, it is a Schrodinger's Cat situation - it very very easily could be an abject disaster for the game, or it could be absolutely nothing other than “oops, people looked behind the curtain at the regular contract drafting process and that process sometimes looks a bit messy and hyperbolic.” This is something I tell my clients all the time - initial offers (or worse, secondhand non-offers between the parties of “my lawyer said we can do this to you” that don’t even have the weight of a real offer) are often silly and do not accurately represent the other side’s true intent. I’ve had as much success calming down folks in the real world as I have here - which is to say very little but still feel it is important to repeat over and over again.
Without more information, I am disinclined to pass any judgment other than “let us look at the actual facts and wait until there is more information.”
Now, regarding Wizards’ response or lack thereof, absolutely, blame them for that. I do not think it is an admission of culpability per se - but it certainly is abject incompetence. I could reasonably see it taking until late Monday to respond to a Thursday article with the weekend making some things harder - but it is Wednesday now and they have had plenty of time to formulate an initial response.
We’ll have to see how they respond. It very easily could be that they are rapidly having conversations with the big players like Critical Role trying to reassure them while not making a public release (though I would have probably said something). After all, players are not going to listen to anything Wizards says - but if Matt Mercer comes out and says “this is not as bad as people think - we are having very productive conversations with Wizards” that would do more in sixteen words than a protracted PR campaign could do in months.
And, just to be clear again - I have a lot of issues with the terms themselves if they are the final terms. I am just not feeling those issues as manifest without the critical information surrounding this draft that is presently missing.
That's the issue, Caerwyn - if this is true, it is as you stated. An abject disaster for the game. You're asking people to calmly let Wizards do whatever it likes when doing so could lead to an abject disaster for D&D. In this case it is legitimately smarter to act as if the leaked document is a real and pressing threat, to treat it as the housefire it could very easily be, before terms are fixed in place and Wizards is no longer willing/able to set friendlier terms.
Is the OGL housefire making the forums a deeply unfun place to be right now? Very much so. But the uproar is necessary. Even if this was a wild pie-in-the-sky draft, Wizards not disclaiming it as such is worrying. An admission of culpability, no, but it's also not exculpatory either. This is a civil matter - somebody's lack of an answer is allowed to be as damning as any actual answer could be, and right now their lack-of-answer looks a whole lot like they were planning to move forward with this document and are having to reconsider due to the instant community uproar the leak provoked.
Let the uproar continue, if that's what it takes to get them to back off on a deeply coercive and hostile document nobody in their right mind would agree to.
Please do not contact or message me.
Also not what I am saying - there should be a response, but there should be a productive response. What is happening now is decidedly not that - it is a disorganised mob that is focusing on the wrong pieces of information and which not working to provide solutions.
Vitriolic responses and rushes to judgment on bad information can produce results - they can also back the other side into a corner where they feel trapped and scared, and things grind to a halt as PR, Legal, and Corporate all are trying to pull a response in different directions (which, again, kind of on them—but also in part due to to the nature of what is arrayed against them).
A more measured approach - all but certainly would be more effective in this case. It would likely have hastened Wizards’ response time, since now they’re forced to do something much bigger than “hey, we know you are concerned - we are working with our partners and still negotiating terms, we promise we will get you something as soon as all the major players are satisfied.”
And, even if you disagree with that logic - the fact remains that players m have now overplayed their cards. This was the time for a measured response, holding the threat of abject rioting in reserve. Now there is little room for escalation for if there comes a time when an escalation might be warranted.
This is the Internet, Caerwyn. The Internet has exactly two responses to things - abject disinterest and R.I.O.T. A measured response was never in the cards and we're both intelligent enough to know it. Would a measured, directed response have been better? Yes. But it was never on the table, and frankly I'd rather have the riot than abject disinterest.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hasn't the head of Kickstarter Games division pretty much confirmed the "draft" OGL is the real thing (while also confirming KS negotiated a smaller percentage cut for Hasbro/WOTC)?
It may have been a "draft" 4 weeks ago but it's apparently in use now, which means it's no longer a draft or subject of speculation.
Re: measured response. I vehemently disagree. Corporate greed is too strong and pervasive to be countered with a "measured response." I have no such optimism or benefit of the doubt to give the executive leadership at Hasbro (or any for-profit corporation).
At this point I seriously doubt even something like this from The Mercer (TM) would help, because atm most of us do not trust WotC because of how they've handled it.
Even if some how this draft was not real, and/or wasn't final, the damage to WotC's reputation has been done. A message from Matt now in support of CGL 1.1 would likely not only be disbelieved, but it would call in to question Matt's integrity if months from now we find out it actually is as bad as we fear.
Caerwyn, despite our disagreements on these forums, I do understand your position. The only thing we can ever know for sure is that we might be wrong. In this case, however, WotC's silence, whether intentional or not, has made this situation almost intractable. IF they had come out with a statement last Friday or Monday morning telling everyone either that the leak was fake, or only a draft and they would let us know more later, SO MUCH of this firestorm would have been avoided, and an eventual message from The Mercer (TM) would carry more weight.
At this point, even if it's all circumstantial, the PR cat is out of the fiery bag, and nothing short of "We are NOT cancelling 1.0a" is going to suffice.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
if wizards actually released adventures like they used to for various levels rather than campaign books, they wouldn't be losing out. they got lazy, tsr turned out loads in their heyday. i have said for ages that they should be doing an adventure every 2 weeks, not hard to do with the resources they have, now they are crying because other companies used their initiative and make money.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has weighed in.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
EDIT: This is interesting.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
He hasn't confirmed this whatsoever. His Tweet talked about royalties and unspecified terms, but it didn't introduce anything that the article about the Open Game License hadn't previously discussed.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Everything about the leaked OGL 1.1 document screams altered and unprofessional.
Depends on who's fanning the flames though, doesn't it?
I said this in another thread, but I'm starting to notice some disturbing parallels to Gamer Gate in what's happening here. Accounts that never post, or that are making their first post just to say they're boycotting/cancelling their sub -- sometimes on the very same day the account was created. Among the posters who actually, y'know, post, a not insignificant amount of overlap between the "the OGL is the devil" crowd and the "WOTC is too woke" crowd, and pointing to OSR alternatives now that D&D is apparently forever ruined by something that hasn't even happened yet
I'm not saying every member of the mob has bad intentions or is acting in bad faith, but then, a lot of people fell for the "Gamer Gate is just about ethics in game journalism" line too
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This forum riot isn't even on Wizards' radar, Anton. They couldn't care less what DDB forum users have to say.
Creators and influencers abandoning the brand in job lots, many of them posting scathing commmentary viewed by thousands or even millions on why they're divorcing themselves from D&D now regardless of what the final OGL is? That hits them in the bottom line, and they're gonna be feeling it for quite some time. After all, the whole reason D&D is such a valuable property is its household-name level brand recognition driven in part by influencers and media personalities. If those start turning on the brand, distancing themselves from it and badmouthing it, that punches Hasbro where it hurts. That is the riot they're going to care about.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not exactly sure how this is a rebuttal to the theory. The GG playbook also involved inflammatory YouTube videos, social media "revolt" and like-minded members of the community vowing to create "alternatives" -- heck, that's how Candace Owens got her start
If you want to grab a torch and pitchfork and join in because you prefer burning it down to the status quo, no one's stopping you
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)