The statement was made when 1.1 was all we had. When 2.0 drops, things might go differently. As burned as they are, 3PP won't abandon D&D yet if 2.0 is good enough.
I don't think you're correct.
They could maybe but they'd have to entirely concede on 1.0 and 1.0a. And also strip all parts of the new version that allows them to change it on a whim. And them cement these in stone in such a way that we all are certain they can't try to reng later. I'd imagine that would bring folks back. But I have zero expectation that's what wotc will do.
They've already responded and made no indication they see that as even an option, in fact their goal remains the diminished or nullified use of original ogls. Their goal hasn't changed they're trying to accomplish the same thing. Just with an extra coat of paint on it in the form of blatant lies and misdirection.
All they've done so far is rephrase their original goal in a vaguely patronizing tone, while gaslighting their community in an effort to pacify the outrage. It's been effective on some, not at all effective on others, and regardless of effectiveness its revealed their motivation to be exactly what we feared it was.
You are entirely correct.
Their response was incredibly lacklustre, and they should have just stayed silent rather than try that gaslighting nonsense.
They could maybe but they'd have to entirely concede on 1.0 and 1.0a. And also strip all parts of the new version that allows them to change it on a whim. And them cement these in stone in such a way that we all are certain they can't try to reng later. I'd imagine that would bring folks back. But I have zero expectation that's what wotc will do.
They've already responded and made no indication they see that as even an option, in fact their goal remains the diminished or nullified use of original ogls. Their goal hasn't changed they're trying to accomplish the same thing. Just with an extra coat of paint on it in the form of blatant lies and misdirection.
All they've done so far is rephrase their original goal in a vaguely patronizing tone, while gaslighting their community in an effort to pacify the outrage. It's been effective on some, not at all effective on others, and regardless of effectiveness its revealed their motivation to be exactly what we feared it was.
Of course they still want to deauthorize 1.0a. What possible reason would they have to leave it alone now, when all the people who care about that are busy making their own open licenses anyway?
EDIT: This forum can be annoying to work with sometimes... (referring to the quote boxes, not any posters)
They could maybe but they'd have to entirely concede on 1.0 and 1.0a. And also strip all parts of the new version that allows them to change it on a whim. And them cement these in stone in such a way that we all are certain they can't try to reng later. I'd imagine that would bring folks back. But I have zero expectation that's what wotc will do.
They've already responded and made no indication they see that as even an option, in fact their goal remains the diminished or nullified use of original ogls. Their goal hasn't changed they're trying to accomplish the same thing. Just with an extra coat of paint on it in the form of blatant lies and misdirection.
All they've done so far is rephrase their original goal in a vaguely patronizing tone, while gaslighting their community in an effort to pacify the outrage. It's been effective on some, not at all effective on others, and regardless of effectiveness its revealed their motivation to be exactly what we feared it was.
Of course they still want to deauthorize 1.0a. What possible reason would they have to leave it alone now, when all the people who care about that are busy making their own open licenses anyway?
EDIT: This forum can be annoying to work with sometimes...
Without being a lawyer, I still think that deauthorizing OGL 1.0a is not so easy. We will have to see what happens if someone takes them to court.
In fact, in the statement they already say that they are not going to touch anything that is already published under OGL 1.0a. That is ambiguous, since they do not clarify what exactly they refer to (Can it be reprinted? for example). But in any case I think they also realize that they don't have everything on their side to withdraw a license that is perpetual.
But as you say, if the movement towards new licenses (mainly ORC) is massive, it won't matter what they do with OGL1.0a either. What will be damaged there is the credibility of WoTC. Ethically and legally it is a very, very questionable move.
There is little doubt that defining what is objectionable and unacceptable is going to be a very slippery slope to ride. What triggers a few folks is often overlooked or ignored by many others and therein lies some of the issue. Someone somewhere can (and often does) draw a line, or outline THEIR perspective on something and have a RL parallel that isn't positive. With fantasy stuff, anyone with a good imagination can draw connections that don't really exist, or perceive some slight that wasn't the intent of the creator and suddenly a creator who had an innovative, new idea is the devil.
Some form of standing committee from outside needs to be in charge of determining if something is offensive (and we will all agree there is a LOT of things that we would NOT need a freakin' committee to decide on!) when it runs into these grey areas. Maybe they could form a group of the top 5 3pp who would have a say when WotC decides to outlaw something released due to objectionable content. Maybe have this group grow as more 3pp get bigger footholds. It would be a method of allowing the company and those holding the licenses deciding what they ALL want to be associated with. Critical Role, to name one of the most prominent, is associated with D&D at this time. They, as much as WotC do NOT want D&D to end up associated with a game that encourages slavery, or child exploitation as an example. Let those who have a stake in the pot help decide what is and isn't "appropriate"
Doubt we'd ever see a model like that, though, I think it might do too much good for the community.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Running your creative work through a commitee of people to judge whether or not it's objectionable or not is not keeping in the idea of 'open' in the way the OGL used that word (ie like open source software). The more honest thing would be to create a new license not in the spirit of an 'open' license with a new name (like they did with the GSL) or just ditch the whole thing altogether, call 5e a wash (as far as controlling all the IP withi it), and for 6e have any 3PP apply directly for a license with specific terms. Honesty isn't really Hasbro's strong suit though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Running your creative work through a commitee of people to judge whether or not it's objectionable or not is not keeping in the idea of 'open' in the way the OGL used that word (ie like open source software). The more honest thing would be to create a new license not in the spirit of an 'open' license with a new name (like they did with the GSL) or just ditch the whole thing altogether, call 5e a wash (as far as controlling all the IP withi it), and for 6e have any 3PP apply directly for a license with specific terms. Honesty isn't really Hasbro's strong suit though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's what was originally done. There was a separate license to allow the D20 logo on your work and THAT was where offensive material was weeded out. Sure, you could release something under the OGL without the D20 logo, but EVERYTHING WotC put out for D&D 3.0/3.5 HAD the D20 logo on it and by virtue of complying with the terms of the D20 license, your products could ,too. This immediately gave brand recognition and you knew that the D20 product was compliant with D&D. OGL released products could still be used with D&D in most instances, but without that D20 logo, not as many people would pick them up.
Then WotC in their great brilliance, threw out the D20 logo/license before the 4E release. So there you go.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Running your creative work through a commitee of people to judge whether or not it's objectionable or not is not keeping in the idea of 'open' in the way the OGL used that word (ie like open source software). The more honest thing would be to create a new license not in the spirit of an 'open' license with a new name (like they did with the GSL) or just ditch the whole thing altogether, call 5e a wash (as far as controlling all the IP withi it), and for 6e have any 3PP apply directly for a license with specific terms. Honesty isn't really Hasbro's strong suit though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's what was originally done. There was a separate license to allow the D20 logo on your work and THAT was where offensive material was weeded out. Sure, you could release something under the OGL without the D20 logo, but EVERYTHING WotC put out for D&D 3.0/3.5 HAD the D20 logo on it and by virtue of complying with the terms of the D20 license, your products could ,too. This immediately gave brand recognition and you knew that the D20 product was compliant with D&D. OGL released products could still be used with D&D in maost instances, but without that D20 logo, not as many people would pick them up.
Then WotC in their great brilliance, threw out the D20 logo/license before the 4E release. So there you go.
Right and the offender ended up switching to the OGL as did most other 3PP after that incident and the D20 System Trademark license basically went away unused. By the way if we're talking about the same thing (BoEF were the initals going to refrain on the full name for moderation reasons) that was a good 5 years (2003) before 4e rolled on in and if I recall plenty of 3pp OGL content without the D20 logo was made between then. They revived the spirit of the D20 System Trademark license with the DM's Guild although the benefits of the DM's Guild far out weigh a little stamp you can put on the back of your book.
FWIW, the D20 System Tradmark would also not be considered 'open' but it for sure wasn't trying to pretend to be.
Some form of standing committee from outside needs to be in charge of determining if something is offensive (and we will all agree there is a LOT of things that we would NOT need a freakin' committee to decide on!) when it runs into these grey areas... It would be a method of allowing the company and those holding the licenses deciding what they ALL want to be associated with.
No, thanks. Censorship is an all around terrible idea. Censorship by committee is even worse. And the whole idea that one gets to decide what they are "associated with" is completely laughable. Life doesn't work that way, and when you try and force it to, the net result is suffering.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Some form of standing committee from outside needs to be in charge of determining if something is offensive (and we will all agree there is a LOT of things that we would NOT need a freakin' committee to decide on!) when it runs into these grey areas... It would be a method of allowing the company and those holding the licenses deciding what they ALL want to be associated with.
No, thanks. Censorship is an all around terrible idea. Censorship by committee is even worse. And the whole idea that one gets to decide what they are "associated with" is completely laughable. Life doesn't work that way, and when you try and force it to, the net result is suffering.
In the world of IP and brand management this happens all the time. It happens on this very forum as it does on every social media platform no matter what anybody says. The idea of 'open' in the sense of 'open source' means that you wash your hands of both responsibility and control for how others use your work in an effor to make sure your work is proliferated as much as possible.
Not that this is inherently a good or a bad thing it's just about how much control a creator would like to have in order to achieve their business goals. Clearly what worked for Hasbro for 23 years will not work going forward which is why this change up. They're executing it like bumbling lying idiots but the heart of the matter is something businesses and content creators face all the time and for decades.
I didn't say anything remotely like that, I said people will produce stuff regardless of WOTC's approval. I was questioning whose moral values WOTC were going to use, those of a country currently rolling back women's rights and allowing fundamentalist religious views to censor school libraries may not be viewed as appropriate by people outside of that country. And let's not forget the burning of the Harry Potter books because certain elements thought they were a demonic influence. The best people to decide if content is appropriate are those who decide whether or not to buy it.
You're missing the point, of course people can produce whatever they want. But the 1.0a license itself includes WotC's name, which means WotC's name ends up in every single book (and non-book!) published using that license. They have a right to be able to choose which books contain their name and which don't. If someone doesn't like that, they don't need to use someone else's license - it's that simple.
Some form of standing committee from outside needs to be in charge of determining if something is offensive (and we will all agree there is a LOT of things that we would NOT need a freakin' committee to decide on!) when it runs into these grey areas... It would be a method of allowing the company and those holding the licenses deciding what they ALL want to be associated with.
No, thanks. Censorship is an all around terrible idea. Censorship by committee is even worse. And the whole idea that one gets to decide what they are "associated with" is completely laughable. Life doesn't work that way, and when you try and force it to, the net result is suffering.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
What's even more laughable is calling WotC the "owner" of the OGL 1.0a when EVERYTHING SAID MORE THAN TWNETY YEARS AGO was they were the caretaker who would keep it unchanged FOREVER.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
What's even more laughable is calling WotC the "owner" of the OGL 1.0a when EVERYTHING SAID MORE THAN TWNETY YEARS AGO was they were the caretaker who would keep it unchanged FOREVER.
Then those caretakers should have put "irrevocable" in the license while they were running the show.
A true AI DM would be stellar, at least for basic dungeon crawls / simple modules and the like.
Not in my opinion. 90% of D&D is being at a table with your friends and the creativity of the DM.
Such a thing would be DINO (D&D In Name Only), IMO. But if that's your gig, you are certainly welcome to it. Seems too much like WoW to me, but everybody does what they do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
A true AI DM would be stellar, at least for basic dungeon crawls / simple modules and the like.
Not in my opinion. 90% of D&D is being at a table with your friends and the creativity of the DM.
Such a thing would be DINO (D&D In Name Only), IMO. But if that's your gig, you are certainly welcome to it. Seems too much like WoW to me, but everybody does what they do.
Amen. Its always been what makes the game special, the memories and bonds it forms at the table are unbreakable.
You are entirely correct.
Their response was incredibly lacklustre, and they should have just stayed silent rather than try that gaslighting nonsense.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Of course they still want to deauthorize 1.0a. What possible reason would they have to leave it alone now, when all the people who care about that are busy making their own open licenses anyway?
EDIT: This forum can be annoying to work with sometimes... (referring to the quote boxes, not any posters)
Without being a lawyer, I still think that deauthorizing OGL 1.0a is not so easy. We will have to see what happens if someone takes them to court.
In fact, in the statement they already say that they are not going to touch anything that is already published under OGL 1.0a. That is ambiguous, since they do not clarify what exactly they refer to (Can it be reprinted? for example). But in any case I think they also realize that they don't have everything on their side to withdraw a license that is perpetual.
But as you say, if the movement towards new licenses (mainly ORC) is massive, it won't matter what they do with OGL1.0a either. What will be damaged there is the credibility of WoTC. Ethically and legally it is a very, very questionable move.
There is little doubt that defining what is objectionable and unacceptable is going to be a very slippery slope to ride. What triggers a few folks is often overlooked or ignored by many others and therein lies some of the issue. Someone somewhere can (and often does) draw a line, or outline THEIR perspective on something and have a RL parallel that isn't positive. With fantasy stuff, anyone with a good imagination can draw connections that don't really exist, or perceive some slight that wasn't the intent of the creator and suddenly a creator who had an innovative, new idea is the devil.
Some form of standing committee from outside needs to be in charge of determining if something is offensive (and we will all agree there is a LOT of things that we would NOT need a freakin' committee to decide on!) when it runs into these grey areas. Maybe they could form a group of the top 5 3pp who would have a say when WotC decides to outlaw something released due to objectionable content. Maybe have this group grow as more 3pp get bigger footholds. It would be a method of allowing the company and those holding the licenses deciding what they ALL want to be associated with. Critical Role, to name one of the most prominent, is associated with D&D at this time. They, as much as WotC do NOT want D&D to end up associated with a game that encourages slavery, or child exploitation as an example. Let those who have a stake in the pot help decide what is and isn't "appropriate"
Doubt we'd ever see a model like that, though, I think it might do too much good for the community.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Running your creative work through a commitee of people to judge whether or not it's objectionable or not is not keeping in the idea of 'open' in the way the OGL used that word (ie like open source software). The more honest thing would be to create a new license not in the spirit of an 'open' license with a new name (like they did with the GSL) or just ditch the whole thing altogether, call 5e a wash (as far as controlling all the IP withi it), and for 6e have any 3PP apply directly for a license with specific terms. Honesty isn't really Hasbro's strong suit though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's what was originally done. There was a separate license to allow the D20 logo on your work and THAT was where offensive material was weeded out. Sure, you could release something under the OGL without the D20 logo, but EVERYTHING WotC put out for D&D 3.0/3.5 HAD the D20 logo on it and by virtue of complying with the terms of the D20 license, your products could ,too. This immediately gave brand recognition and you knew that the D20 product was compliant with D&D. OGL released products could still be used with D&D in most instances, but without that D20 logo, not as many people would pick them up.
Then WotC in their great brilliance, threw out the D20 logo/license before the 4E release. So there you go.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Right and the offender ended up switching to the OGL as did most other 3PP after that incident and the D20 System Trademark license basically went away unused. By the way if we're talking about the same thing (BoEF were the initals going to refrain on the full name for moderation reasons) that was a good 5 years (2003) before 4e rolled on in and if I recall plenty of 3pp OGL content without the D20 logo was made between then. They revived the spirit of the D20 System Trademark license with the DM's Guild although the benefits of the DM's Guild far out weigh a little stamp you can put on the back of your book.
FWIW, the D20 System Tradmark would also not be considered 'open' but it for sure wasn't trying to pretend to be.
No, thanks. Censorship is an all around terrible idea. Censorship by committee is even worse. And the whole idea that one gets to decide what they are "associated with" is completely laughable. Life doesn't work that way, and when you try and force it to, the net result is suffering.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieIn the world of IP and brand management this happens all the time. It happens on this very forum as it does on every social media platform no matter what anybody says. The idea of 'open' in the sense of 'open source' means that you wash your hands of both responsibility and control for how others use your work in an effor to make sure your work is proliferated as much as possible.
Not that this is inherently a good or a bad thing it's just about how much control a creator would like to have in order to achieve their business goals. Clearly what worked for Hasbro for 23 years will not work going forward which is why this change up. They're executing it like bumbling lying idiots but the heart of the matter is something businesses and content creators face all the time and for decades.
You're missing the point, of course people can produce whatever they want. But the 1.0a license itself includes WotC's name, which means WotC's name ends up in every single book (and non-book!) published using that license. They have a right to be able to choose which books contain their name and which don't. If someone doesn't like that, they don't need to use someone else's license - it's that simple.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
What's even more laughable is calling WotC the "owner" of the OGL 1.0a when EVERYTHING SAID MORE THAN TWNETY YEARS AGO was they were the caretaker who would keep it unchanged FOREVER.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Then those caretakers should have put "irrevocable" in the license while they were running the show.
There is new evidence begining to surface that they want to replace DMs with AI and charge $30 per player.
That's called a computer RPG, and hey, they exist and have for decades, it's just that the "AI" is still pretty poor.
A true AI DM would be stellar, at least for basic dungeon crawls / simple modules and the like.
True it would work for adventure modules but would deffo suck at a proper open campaign.
No its not the same, it needs to improvise relentlessly within a framework, crpgs do not do that, they are mostly scripted.
Not in my opinion. 90% of D&D is being at a table with your friends and the creativity of the DM.
Such a thing would be DINO (D&D In Name Only), IMO. But if that's your gig, you are certainly welcome to it. Seems too much like WoW to me, but everybody does what they do.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Amen. Its always been what makes the game special, the memories and bonds it forms at the table are unbreakable.